Objective To investigate dynamic changes in neural activity between the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT) and the seizure onset zone (SOZ) in patients with drug‐resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) based on anatomic location, seizure subtype, and state of vigilance (SOV). Methods Eleven patients undergoing stereoelectroencephalography for seizure localization were recruited prospectively for local field potential (LFP) recording directly from the ANT. The SOZ was identified using line length and epileptogenicity index. Changes in power spectral density (PSD) were compared between the two anatomic sites as seizures (N = 53) transitioned from interictal baseline to the posttermination stage. Results At baseline, the thalamic LFPs were significantly lower and distinct from the SOZ with the presence of higher power in the fast ripple band (P < 0.001). Temporal changes in ictal power of neural activity within ANT mimic those of the SOZ, are increased significantly at seizure onset (P < 0.05), and are distinct for seizures that impaired awareness or that secondarily generalized (P < 0.05). The onset of seizure was preceded by a decrease in the mean power spectral density (PSD) in ANT and SOZ (P < 0.05). Neural activity correlated with different states of vigilance at seizure onset within the ANT but not in the SOZ (P = 0.005). Interpretation The ANT can be recruited at the onset of mesial temporal lobe seizures, and the recruitment pattern differs with seizure subtypes. Furthermore, changes in neural dynamics precede seizure onset and are widespread to involve temporo‐thalamic regions, thereby providing an opportunity to intervene early with closed‐loop DBS.
We examine how embodiment in biological activity is different from conceptual embodiment as reflected in classic, modern, and postmodern perspectives on tacit knowledge. The central theme of the essay is how understanding is embodied conceptually and biofunctionally. We focus (a) on how biofunctional understanding (BU) is different from conceptual understanding (CU) and (b) on how the overall differences between these two types of embodied understanding are complementary. We show here from a conceptual perspective that embodiment theories have diverged on the meaning of embodiment; but convergence may be more likely across future perspectives if we first redefine the construct of tacit knowledge as tacit understanding and then define (explicit) CU as being directly grounded in tacit understanding, for the purpose of comparison with BU defined as being grounded in biological activity. We illustrate the complementary differences between conceptual and biofunctional embodiment of understanding first in the absence of language and then using a particular statement format and the implicit analogy of biofunctional embodiment in other bodily systems. We conclude with a suggestion about the directly uncovered but highly related embodiment of language in a section on future research.
tHe roCKy PatH oF SImPlIFyInG ContrIBUtIonS By InteGratIonDoes mindfulness (M) enhance critical thinking (CT)? Asks the target article (TA) and dives into physical science's methodology for systematic observation, its binary process of if-then hypothesis testing aimed at confirming or rejecting the null hypothesis that M enhances CT, and its cause-effect offspring variously known as factual, declarative, or "knowthat" knowledge. This commentary illustrates, with the apt example of the TA, why the methodology does not apply, as readily as it is commonly employed, to life sciences like education and psychology. Binary if-then questions are, as a set, an indispensable tool for simplifying complexity by isolating sources of contribution to make those sources more observable, a tool less rewarding for the unobservable biofunctional systems that populate life sciences. To solve their systematic observation problems, biofunctional life scientists must embrace the rocky path of getting well acquainted with another set of questions and learn to use it corequisitely with the first, and we may be quick to add, both conceptually and biofunctionally (Iran-Nejad and Irannejad, 2017). The second question set contrasts dramatically with the first in that it simplifies complexity in science by integration of multiple diverse sources-a process we use here synonymously with understanding. Specifically, the second set of questions has to do with the all too familiar "how, " mainly, but also "why" and similar forms of question.It is straightforward to show how the two sets of questions and their answers can be corequisites and as such a challenge to the TA. Consider the declarative conceptual understanding statement, CU1 I know that I am mindful to think critically. CU1 is an almost contributor-to-contributor match to the subtitle of the TA in three sources of contribution, namely, the active "I" or the executive function (EF), M, and CT. However, CU1, but not the subtitle, presupposes a fourth source of
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.