Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!boulder!bill
From: bill@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Re: What has NN research taught us about the brain?
Message-ID: <15045@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 89 21:46:59 GMT
References: <9096@cs.yale.edu>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: bill@synapse.Colorado.EDU ()
Distribution: comp.ai.neural-nets
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 24

In article <9096@cs.yale.edu> zador-anthony@CS.YALE.EDU (anthony zador) writes:
>
>  [. . . I'd] be interested in hearing if anyone has 
>any ideas. Note that since the audience consisted of experimental scientists,
>the goal was to find a paper that presented a *testable* (or better, tested) 
>hypothesis or theory, and one that they couldnt have come up with themselves.
>
>Any ideas???
>
  What spring immediately to mind are David Marr's three papers on the
cerebellum (1969), cerebral cortex (1970), and hippocampus (1971).  
Although each is out of date in some respects, they contain dozens of
specific predictions, some of which have been confirmed, and are
necessary reading for any neuroscientists working on these structures.

Refs:

A theory of cerebellar cortex, D Marr, J Physiol 202, pp 437-470, (1969).

A theory for cerebral cortex, D Marr, Proc Roy Soc Lond B 176,
	pp 161-234, (1970).

Simple Memory:  a theory for archicortex, D Marr, Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond 262,
	pp 23-81, (1971).