Difference between revisions of "Cognitive Regime Shift II - When/why/how the Brain Breaks/SusanFitzpatrick"
(Created page with "{{Attendee note |Reference material notes=Borsboom et al. 2019 challenges the idea that reductionist approaches are appropriate for studying complex human neurological disorde...") |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Attendee note | {{Attendee note | ||
+ | |Post-meeting summary=I VERY MUCH LIKE THE idea of taking one disorder -- say Parkinsons and see if we can 1) describe what is meant by Parkinsons at multiple levels of analysis 2) accumulate observations that indicate individual variability - again at multiple levels - especially those with more rapid or slower disease progression and 3) account for differences among models of the disease and the actual disease and 4) develop a dynamic understanding of disease progression. | ||
|Reference material notes=Borsboom et al. 2019 challenges the idea that reductionist approaches are appropriate for studying complex human neurological disorders and suggests that network approaches might offer alternative conceptualizations explaining dysfunction. Do network approaches offer novel ways to both explain and intervene on “broken” brains? | |Reference material notes=Borsboom et al. 2019 challenges the idea that reductionist approaches are appropriate for studying complex human neurological disorders and suggests that network approaches might offer alternative conceptualizations explaining dysfunction. Do network approaches offer novel ways to both explain and intervene on “broken” brains? | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 18:44, November 12, 2019
Notes by user Susan Fitzpatrick (JSMF) for Cognitive Regime Shift II - When/why/how the Brain Breaks
Post-meeting Reflection
1+ paragraphs on any combination of the following:
- Presentation highlights
- Open questions that came up
- How your perspective changed
- Impact on your own work
- e.g. the discussion on [A] that we are having reminds me of [B] conference/[C] initiative/[D] funding call-for-proposal/[E] research group
I VERY MUCH LIKE THE idea of taking one disorder -- say Parkinsons and see if we can 1) describe what is meant by Parkinsons at multiple levels of analysis 2) accumulate observations that indicate individual variability - again at multiple levels - especially those with more rapid or slower disease progression and 3) account for differences among models of the disease and the actual disease and 4) develop a dynamic understanding of disease progression.
Reference material notes
Some examples:
- Here is [A] database on [B] that I pull data from to do [C] analysis that might be of interest to this group (insert link).
- Here is a free tool for calculating [ABC] (insert link)
- This painting/sculpture/forms of artwork is emblematic to our discussion on [X]!
- Schwartz et al. 2017 offers a review on [ABC] migration as relate to climatic factors (add the reference as well).
Borsboom et al. 2019 challenges the idea that reductionist approaches are appropriate for studying complex human neurological disorders and suggests that network approaches might offer alternative conceptualizations explaining dysfunction. Do network approaches offer novel ways to both explain and intervene on “broken” brains?
Reference Materials
Title | Author name | Source name | Year | Citation count From Scopus. Refreshed every 5 days. | Page views | Related file |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brain disorders? Not really: Why network structures block reductionism in psychopathology research | Denny Borsboom, Angélique O.J. Cramer, Annemarie Kalis | Behavioral and Brain Sciences | 2019 | 0 | 0 | Download (Encrypted) |
Searching for rewards like a child means less generalization and more directed exploration | Eric Schulz, Charley M. Wu, Azzurra Ruggeri, Björn Meder | bioRxiv | 2018 | 0 | 11 | |
The Effects of APOE and ABCA7 on Cognitive Function and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk in African Americans: A Focused Mini Review | Chelsie N. Berg, Neha Sinha, Mark A. Gluck | Front. Hum. Neurosci. | 2019 | 0 | 1 | Download (Encrypted) |