The Activity Of Frontal Motor Regions ( Primary Motor And Premotor Cortices )

Creating the world's first Z-Bomb, would have to be the most dangerous thing that could happen to humans. Turning them into Zombies, it would entirely change the characteristics of a human being and its brain. Although both living, Zombies have drastic defects towards certain aspects of the body. This Z-bomb won’t necessarily turn humans into zombies, but rather give humans zombie-ish characteristics.

Imagine a football player is tackled and hits the back of his head. As a result, his brain has hit the back of the cranium, then the front.

According to Chapter 8, it mentions how, "the posterior parietal cortex plays an important role in integrating two kinds of information such as; in directing behavior by providing spatial information and in directing attention" (Chapter 8, pg. 191). Chapter 8, also mentions how "electrical stimulation to the inferior portions of the posterior parietal cortex, the patients experienced an intention to perform a certain activity and felt they actually performed it but in reality no action really occurred" (Chapter 8, pg. 192). In regards to TMS case studies in humans, it mentions how "that the posterior parietal cortex contains a mosaic of small areas that specializes certain movements such as; eyes,

For SP patients, strong selective attentional bias was displayed. SP patients took longer to name the ink color of speech related words compared to the control group. However, there was no difference in time for GAD related, neutral, and positive words between SP and control patients. SP patients showed the same pattern as GAD patients: they were slower in naming ink color for speech related words than GAD related, neutral, and positive words. Therefore, the schema congruency hypothesis or specificity was

Figure 2.12 illustrates the relations of the schema, gaze, visual, a from nd motor systems during the performance of a visually controlled action. (Adapted Land 2009:51-62).

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is suggested to use in this experiment. The cognitive subtraction (Grabowski, & Damasio, 2000) is a method to point out the differences between fMRI Images of control group and experimental group. The procedure is the result of experimental group subtracts the result of control group. The fMRI would record the participant’s brain activity during participant is recognizing negative Chinese words. Comparing the brain area activity of control group and experimental group, it would point out which area is mainly functioning during recognizing negative Chinese words.

Mason and Just in 2007 used an event related fMRI paradigm to study the reading of lexically ambiguous sentences. They investigated the time course and amplitude of brain activity when the lexically ambiguous word is encountered (Mason & Just, 2007). The results of this study indicated that there is an increase in brain activity when the ambiguous sentence is processed in comparison to a non-ambiguous control condition (Mason & Just, 2007). The authors suggest that when reading this ambiguity multiple meanings are constructed and processed by both hemispheres of the brain (Mason & Just, 2007). This study lends support to the Parallel Processing Hypothesis when processing ambiguity.

Bilingualism in the United States has risen steadily over the past several decades. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2011, 21% of the population reported speaking a language other than English. The expanding multiculturalism in this country has been compared to a “salad bowl” that blends “ingredients” into a cohesive but distinctive integration. Likewise, the organization of the brain can be thought of comparatively in that localized parts of the brain have different functions but integrate when mediating behaviors of the mind. However, speaking two or more languages impacts the way language and behavior is processed. Research has been conducted to explore dual language representation and its impact on neural organization after injury. Such research has revealed neurophysiological differences and recovery patterns in bilinguals with aphasia. The purpose of this paper is to explain the two main theoretical constructs that explain dual language representation and the clinical implications to those who are bilingual and have aphasia.

1. In-depth knowledge in one or more of the following areas: Sensorimotor and Neurophysiological Basis of Human Movement, Motor Learning and/or Adaptation, Neuromechanics, or Biomechanics.

Embodied cognition is a field of study that posits motor experience can relate to gains in conceptual knowledge (Wellsby & Pexman, 2014). The theory shares its roots with early Piaget type of ideas—specifically relating to the sensorimotor stage of development. This stage focuses on the physical interactions an infant has with the world and how the infant understands the world through those interactions (REF). A Piagetian perspective does not answer every question regarding embodied cognition. However, it does start a line of questions surrounding how influential motor experience is on other systems, including the use of language. There is a range of perspectives in embodied cognition, ranging from cognitive skills always stemming from an embodied experience, to the two systems being dichotomous. There is not a lot of support on either end of the spectrum defining the extremes of embodiment, so a middle ground has been proposed (Meteyard, Cuadrado, Bahrami, & Vigliocco, 2012).

When attempting to understand neuroscience literature, one may find themselves getting lost in the statistical data that comprises it. This type of entrapment, can cause casual readers, and professionals alike to draw conclusions that are illusory. A bracket of Functional magnetic resonance imaging(fMRI) studies that dealt with emotion, personality, and social cognition, are a prime example of how cluttered information can lead to illusory beliefs. This begs the question; How does one determine what information can be trusted, and what are red flags while dissecting this type of literature?

No matter where you are in the world, you are taught about language. Whether it’s in your home learning your language or in school trying to learn a foreign language. Although while learning language the notion is never really thought about or brought up that the language and way we speak can influence the way we think and interact. Phycologist and neuroscientist alike have spent years, with multiple different tests to see if there is a connection between the various languages that are spoken and the way people not only think but also how they go about their daily lives. She writes to not only her colleagues and neuroscientists but also to anyone in the general public that is genuinely interested in the connection between

Referential Failures and Affective Reactivity of Language in Schizophrenia and Unipolar Depression by Alex Rubino, Luciana D’Agostino, Luca Sarchiola, Domenico Romeo, Alberto Siracusano, and Nancy M. Docherty Department of Neuroscience, University of Rome—Tor Vergata, Via Nomentana 1352, Rome 00141, Italy; Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44240

Using multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA), they found that the neural representations of face and objects can be discriminated not only by activation patterns within the specific cortical regions that maximally respond to one category, but can also be identified according to the patterns of nonmaximal responses (Haxby et al., 2001), which provided us with novel insights into the neural mechanism underlying the decoding of semantic categories.

For example, several studies have examined the behavioral effects of morphological frequency across Dutch (Schrueder & Baayen 1997; de Jong, et al., 2000; Bertram, et al., 2000), English (Feldman and Pastizzo, 2003; Baayen et al., 2007), Hebrew (Moscoso del Prado Mart´ın et al. 2005), and Finnish (Moscoso del Prado Mart´ın et al. 2004). Similar types of analyses exist regarding morphological decomposition (e.g., early vs. late morphological processing, form-then-meaning vs. semantically driven morphological processing) in English (e.g., Rastle & Davis 2003; 2000; Feldman & Soltano, 1999; Feldman et al., 2009; Gold & Rastle 2007), Dutch (e.g., Dienpendaele et al., 2005), Russian (Kazanina, 2011), Serbian (Feldman et al., 2012), French (Logntin et al., 2003), and Spanish (Dunabetia et al., 2011; Dunabetia et al., 2007). Turning to the neurocognitive and neurobiological impacts of language structure on morphological processing, there are also examinations of processing across languages such as English (Gold and Rastle, 2007; Vannest and York, 2005; Vannest et al., 2010), Hebrew (Bick et al., 2008; Bick, Goelman, and Frost, 2011), and Chinese (Zou et al, 2015).