Hi all

I was wondering how clinical topics in OCNS can play a greater role,
and whether this is something that is seen as an interesting
strategy to follow.

When I saw the new group "Neurotransmitters in Schizophrenia and
Intellectual Disabilities" founded by Maria Dauvermann, I thought,
I have to raise this question now also here, because there are so many
interesting links to clinical issues.

As you might know, I organized the OCNS workshop "Modeling Migraine".
I think, the event was placed in the right community, but I also I have
to admit that beside the people I knew of and invited (about 40)
not that many more came in addition from the CNS*09 main meeting to
this workshop.

On the other hand, there are many links: for example, Hugh Wilson, one
of the pioneers in this field who developed a neural field theory with
Jack Cowan back in the 70ties, talked about migraine modeling. Others
like Wytse Wadmann and Ernie Baretto attended the main meeting, and
again others like Henry Tuckwell were invited to other workshops, so
they had to decline my offer, or had to cancel like Steve Schiff.
Despite all these links, my feeling is, there is some framework missing
to foster such activities.

I would like to get your feedback on how (and if at all) clinical
topics can further be organized in this network. I know, I could just
make yet another group. But before that, I hope to get some feedback.

Best
Markus

Views: 111

Replies to This Discussion

Markus,

It is a privilege to be able to communicate withe people, who like me, are fascinated with neuroscience. I am not an expert on anything, and I have only a bachelor's degee, but, I have an idea to share with you. I wonder if people can share information about mathematical, satistical and computer models of information processing in the vertebrate retina. Visual information processing has fascinated me, at least, since the time when I studied the visual pathways in Physiological Psychology, which was my favorite course.

Roland Josefek
Hi Markus,

in my opinion it is difficult to join computational neuroscience (cns) with clinical applications since both domains involve, at a first glance, distinct level of descriptions. Most computational neuroscience studies deal with rather small neural elements, like synapses, neurons, or even neural networks, whereas clinical phenomena are more global, involve many different neural structures in a so-called network of network and may not only involve neural networks, but also non-neural elements. E. g. the cardio-vascular system affects the neural activity and the patients metabolism plays an important role. I guess, migraine research has to take into account all these elements, too.

Hence, the classical cns and clinical research are rather distinct, and so it is difficult to make the bridge. However, it is possible to build this bridge, as the research of the peoplle you mentioned shows. I myself started working on general anaesthesia several years ago and realized that I also have the problem to cope with many disciplines, such as pharmacology, neurobiology, cns, data analysis, and medical practice during surgery. In some cases, even clinical
work has to be taken into account.

Concerning your question, I would say it may not help to create another group, since most clinical applications are very different from each other and their connection to cns may be unique. It may be better to find a meeting point of people,
you share specific common research interests, e.g. relation of neural populations to EEG or the functionality of the brain-blood barrier, or the effects of the cardio-vascular system on neural activity.

Best

Axel

RSS

© 2014   Created by Springer.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service