MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2127604685 · doi:10.1353/bhm.2006.0005

Brain and Visual Perception: The Story of a Twenty-Five-Year Collaboration (review)

2006· article· en· W2127604685 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cornelius Borck

Notice bibliographique

RevueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistory of Science and Medicine
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPerceptionHistoriographyArt historyPsychologyArtVisual artsLibrary scienceHistoryCognitive sciencePsychoanalysisNeuroscienceComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Brain and Visual Perception: The Story of a 25-Year Collaboration Cornelius Borck David H. Hubel and Torsten N. Wiesel . Brain and Visual Perception: The Story of a 25-Year Collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. viii + 729 pp. Ill. $49.50 (0-19-517618-9). David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, who engaged in a remarkably long-lasting and extremely productive collaboration crowned by a shared Nobel Prize in 1981, shaped our current understanding of visual perception. A detailed account of their collaboration would have been another noteworthy achievement, this time in the historiography of twentieth-century neuroscience. The title of their book, however, is slightly misleading: following two brief biographical sketches describing their respective entries into the world of science, and four short chapters on the scientific background and specifics of their collaboration, the volume is made up of twenty-six reprints of their papers, starting with the first coauthored one [End Page 195] from 1959 and ending with their Nobel Lectures. Reminiscent of nineteenth-century editions of the literary output of famous scientists, the collection offers, above all, immediate and comprehensive access to their major research papers. These are arranged in three thematic sections: the laborious mapping studies of the visual pathways; the famous deprivation experiments; and finally, the summarizing review papers. To be fair, this is more than a mere collection of reprints: the introduction, biographical chapters, comments, and afterthoughts make up almost a fifth of the book. The authors' ostensible motivation was "to restore some of the juices" that were usually "sucked out" (p. 2) of dry scientific writings, and perhaps the biggest surprise is the apparent difficulty that two exceptional individuals experienced in trying to do so. This cannot (or can only partially) be ascribed to the unadventurous lives that they almost apologetically admit to having led. Rather, it seems to reflect an inability to transcend the scientific style of writing, with its focus on factual reporting. Hubel and Wiesel seem to have acquired such a mastery of this idiom that, despite being aware of the epistemological richness of their undertaking, they limit their comments to reporting circumstantial data. This may explain why, for example, a most perceptive description of science-in-the-making is to be found, not among their reflections, but in the introduction, where they note that "much of our time has been spent tinkering, playing with forms, colors, and rates of movement in an effort to learn what our cells need, in the way of stimuli, to make them react" (p. 3). This observation alludes to aspects of experimental practice that go well beyond that which is generally included in scientific papers. Unfortunately, the authors devote only a few reflections to further investigating this material context of experimental research, leaving the reprinted papers, in this respect, as undeciphered marvels. Indeed, the papers expose an extraordinary learning curve, demonstrating how Hubel and Wiesel used imaginative tricks to master brain cells and gain unforeseen insights into visual perception—and how these same cells dragged them into complex investigative pathways. Furthermore, the volume documents an apparently bygone era in which observations were reported only once, after a year-long series of experiments and in monograph-long journal articles. Theirs was an extraordinary, exclusive, and extravagantly high-class output. Measured by contemporary "publish-or-perish" standards, however, they wrote remarkably little: thirty-seven joint papers during twenty-five years; even when we count their individual papers as well, Hubel and Wiesel published only about two papers a year. This volume is thus an extremely valuable source book for an important chapter of neuroscientific research in the twentieth century (though bibliographies for both authors remain desiderata). The story—and the history—of the twenty-five-year collaboration, however, still remains unwritten. Cornelius Borck McGill University Copyright © 2006 The Johns Hopkins University Press

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,390
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,004
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,231
Écart entre enseignants0,215 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBulletin of the history of medicineMême sujetHistory of Science and MedicineTravaux en français237 207