"When a person glimpses the face of a famous actor, sniffs a favourite food or hears the voice of a friend, recognition is instant. Within a fraction of a second after the eyes, nose, ears, tongue or skin is stimulated, one knows the object is familiar and whether it is desirable or dangerous. How does such recognition, which psychologists call preattentive perception, happen so accurately and quickly, even when the stimuli are complex and the context in which they arise varies?
Much is known about the way the cerebral cortex, the outer rind of the brain, initially analyses sensory messages. Yet investigations are only now beginning to suggest how the brain moves beyond the mere extraction of features-how it combines sensory messages with past experience and with expectation to identify both the stimulus and its particular meaning to the individual.
My own group's studies, carried out over more than 30 years at the University of California at Berkeley, suggest that perception cannot be understood solely by examining properties of individual neurons, a microscopic approach that currently dominates neuroscience research.
We have found that perception depends on the simultaneous, cooperative activity of millions of neurons spread throughout expanses of the cortex. Such global activity can be identified, measured and explained only if one adopts a macroscopic view alongside the microscopic one.
There is an analogy to this approach in music. To grasp the beauty in a choral piece, it is not enough to listen to the individual singers sequentially. One must hear the performers together, as they modulate their voices and timing in response to one another.
Our studies have led us as well to the discovery in the brain of chaos- complex behaviour that seems random but actually has some hidden order. The chaos is evident in the tendency of...
Plagiarized!!!
The biggest offset should be that A college senior wrote this paper but in the paper it is a person who has conducted studies for 30 years now and has collegues. Then there are passages that do not make any sense refering to music. This was about perception (sight) whihc later turns into olfactory (smell). The final thing is the copyright. Quoting william blake is one thing but using Walter Freemans work and citing it as your own is an outrage. I have his book. How can any professor that has graded this possibly missed these obivous attempts at cheating. How did this person get a 95%. I think this was copied from the WHfreeman internet site and pasted here and the person is using this as his own. People like you make it terrible for those that want to cite this paper as a resource.
3 out of 3 people found this comment useful.