4.7 Review

Cortical gamma oscillations: the functional key is activation, not cognition

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 401-417

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.013

关键词

Activation; Binding by synchrony; Codes and coding; Gamma oscillations; Neuronal gain; Neuronal infrastructure; Neuronal synchrony; Normalization; Phase precession; Spike timing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cortical oscillatory synchrony in the gamma range has been attracting increasing attention in cognitive neuroscience ever since being proposed as a solution to the so-called binding problem. This growing literature is critically reviewed in both its basic neuroscience and cognitive aspects. A physiological default assumption regarding these oscillations is introduced, according to which they signal a state of physiological activation of cortical tissue, and the associated need to balance excitation with inhibition in particular. As such these oscillations would belong among a variety of generic neural control operations that enable neural tissue to perform its systems level functions, without implementing those functions themselves. Regional control of cerebral blood flow provides an analogy in this regard, and gamma oscillations are tightly correlated with this even more elementary control operation. As correlates of neural activation they will also covary with cognitive activity, and this typically suffices to account for the covariation between gamma activity and cognitive task variables. A number of specific cases of gamma synchrony are examined in this light, including the original impetus for attributing cognitive significance to gamma activity, namely the experiments interpreted as evidence for binding by synchrony. This examination finds no compelling reasons to assign functional roles to oscillatory synchrony in the gamma range beyond its generic functions at the level of infrastructural neural control. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据