The homeostatic psyche: Freudian theory and somatic markers.

After years of reciprocal lack of interest, if not opposition, neuroscience and psychoanalysis are poised for a renewed dialogue. This article discusses some aspects of the Freudian metapsychology and its link with specific biological mechanisms. It highlights in particular how the physiological concept of homeostasis resonates with certain fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis. Similarly, the authors underline how the Freud and Damasio theories of brain functioning display remarkable complementarities, especially through their common reference to Meynert and James. Furthermore, the Freudian theory of drives is discussed in the light of current neurobiological evidences of neural plasticity and trace formation and of their relationships with the processes of homeostasis. The ensuing dynamics between traces and homeostasis opens novel avenues to consider inner life in reference to the establishment of fantasies unique to each subject. The lack of determinism, within a context of determinism, implied by plasticity and reconsolidation participates in the emergence of singularity, the creation of uniqueness and the unpredictable future of the subject. There is a gap in determinism inherent to biology itself. Uniqueness and discontinuity: this should today be the focus of the questions raised in neuroscience. Neuroscience needs to establish the new bases of a "discontinuous" biology. Psychoanalysis can offer to neuroscience the possibility to think of discontinuity. Neuroscience and psychoanalysis meet thus in an unexpected way with regard to discontinuity and this is a new point of convergence between them.

The Implied Book and the Narrative Text. On a Blind Spot in Narratological Theory - from a Media Studies Perspective

The article is concerned with the formal definition of a largely unnoticed factor in narrative structure. Based on the assumptions that (1) the semantics of a written text depend, among other factors, directly on its visual alignment in space, that (2) the formal structure of a text has to meet that of its spatial presentation and that (3) these assumptions hold true also for narrative texts (which, however, in modern times typically conceal their spatial dimensions by a low-key linear layout), it is argued that, how ever low-key, the expected material shape of a given narrative determines the configuration of its plot by its author. The ,implied book' thus denotes an author's historically assumable, not necessarily conscious idea of how his text, which is still in the process of creation, will be dimensionally presented and under these circumstances visually absorbed. Assuming that an author's knowledge of this later (potentially) substantiated material form influences the composition, the implied book is to be understood as a text-genetically determined, structuring moment of the text. Historically reconstructed, it thus serves the methodical analysis of structural characteristics of a completed text.

Debating the centre : the theory of principal qualificand (mukhyavisesya) in classical Indian philosophy

The theory of language has occupied a special place in the history of Indian thought. Indian philosophers give particular attention to the analysis of the cognition obtained from language, known under the generic name of śābdabodha. This term is used to denote, among other things, the cognition episode of the hearer, the content of which is described in the form of a paraphrase of a sentence represented as a hierarchical structure. Philosophers submit the meaning of the component items of a sentence and their relationship to a thorough examination, and represent the content of the resulting cognition as a paraphrase centred on a meaning element, that is taken as principal qualificand (mukhyaviśesya) which is qualified by the other meaning elements. This analysis is the object of continuous debate over a period of more than a thousand years between the philosophers of the schools of Mimāmsā, Nyāya (mainly in its Navya form) and Vyākarana. While these philosophers are in complete agreement on the idea that the cognition of sentence meaning has a hierarchical structure and share the concept of a single principal qualificand (qualified by other meaning elements), they strongly disagree on the question which meaning element has this role and by which morphological item it is expressed. This disagreement is the central point of their debate and gives rise to competing versions of this theory. The Mïmāmsakas argue that the principal qualificand is what they call bhāvanā ̒bringing into being̒, ̒efficient force̒ or ̒productive operation̒, expressed by the verbal affix, and distinct from the specific procedures signified by the verbal root; the Naiyāyikas generally take it to be the meaning of the word with the first case ending, while the Vaiyākaranas take it to be the operation expressed by the verbal root. All the participants rely on the Pāninian grammar, insofar as the Mimāmsakas and Naiyāyikas do not compose a new grammar of Sanskrit, but use different interpretive strategies in order to justify their views, that are often in overt contradiction with the interpretation of the Pāninian rules accepted by the Vaiyākaranas. In each of the three positions, weakness in one area is compensated by strength in another, and the cumulative force of the total argumentation shows that no position can be declared as correct or overall superior to the others. This book is an attempt to understand this debate, and to show that, to make full sense of the irreconcilable positions of the three schools, one must go beyond linguistic factors and consider the very beginnings of each school's concern with the issue under scrutiny. The texts, and particularly the late texts of each school present very complex versions of the theory, yet the key to understanding why these positions remain irreconcilable seems to lie elsewhere, this in spite of extensive argumentation involving a great deal of linguistic and logical technicalities. Historically, this theory arises in Mimāmsā (with Sabara and Kumārila), then in Nyāya (with Udayana), in a doctrinal and theological context, as a byproduct of the debate over Vedic authority. The Navya-Vaiyākaranas enter this debate last (with Bhattoji Dïksita and Kaunda Bhatta), with the declared aim of refuting the arguments of the Mïmāmsakas and Naiyāyikas by bringing to light the shortcomings in their understanding of Pāninian grammar. The central argument has focused on the capacity of the initial contexts, with the network of issues to which the principal qualificand theory is connected, to render intelligible the presuppositions and aims behind the complex linguistic justification of the classical and late stages of this debate. Reading the debate in this light not only reveals the rationality and internal coherence of each position beyond the linguistic arguments, but makes it possible to understand why the thinkers of the three schools have continued to hold on to three mutually exclusive positions. They are defending not only their version of the principal qualificand theory, but (though not openly acknowledged) the entire network of arguments, linguistic and/or extra-linguistic, to which this theory is connected, as well as the presuppositions and aims underlying these arguments.

Estimating parameters for generalized mass action models using constraint propagation.

As modern molecular biology moves towards the analysis of biological systems as opposed to their individual components, the need for appropriate mathematical and computational techniques for understanding the dynamics and structure of such systems is becoming more pressing. For example, the modeling of biochemical systems using ordinary differential equations (ODEs) based on high-throughput, time-dense profiles is becoming more common-place, which is necessitating the development of improved techniques to estimate model parameters from such data. Due to the high dimensionality of this estimation problem, straight-forward optimization strategies rarely produce correct parameter values, and hence current methods tend to utilize genetic/evolutionary algorithms to perform non-linear parameter fitting. Here, we describe a completely deterministic approach, which is based on interval analysis. This allows us to examine entire sets of parameters, and thus to exhaust the global search within a finite number of steps. In particular, we show how our method may be applied to a generic class of ODEs used for modeling biochemical systems called Generalized Mass Action Models (GMAs). In addition, we show that for GMAs our method is amenable to the technique in interval arithmetic called constraint propagation, which allows great improvement of its efficiency. To illustrate the applicability of our method we apply it to some networks of biochemical reactions appearing in the literature, showing in particular that, in addition to estimating system parameters in the absence of noise, our method may also be used to recover the topology of these networks.

Commentary on "The Cognitive-Emotional Brain: From Interactions to Integration" by Luiz Pessoa - "On theory integration: Toward developing affective components within cognitive architectures"

In The Cognitive-Emotional Brain, Pessoa (2013) suggests that cognition and emotion should not be considered separately. We agree with this and argue that cognitive architectures can provide steady ground for this kind of theory integration and for investigating interactions among underlying cognitive processes. We briefly explore how affective components can be implemented and how neuroimaging measures can help validate models and influence theory development.

Single acquisition electrical property mapping based on relative coil sensitivities: A proof-of-concept demonstration.

PURPOSE: All methods presented to date to map both conductivity and permittivity rely on multiple acquisitions to compute quantitatively the magnitude of radiofrequency transmit fields, B1+. In this work, we propose a method to compute both conductivity and permittivity based solely on relative receive coil sensitivities ( B1-) that can be obtained in one single measurement without the need to neither explicitly perform transmit/receive phase separation nor make assumptions regarding those phases. THEORY AND METHODS: To demonstrate the validity and the noise sensitivity of our method we used electromagnetic finite differences simulations of a 16-channel transceiver array. To experimentally validate our methodology at 7 Tesla, multi compartment phantom data was acquired using a standard 32-channel receive coil system and two-dimensional (2D) and 3D gradient echo acquisition. The reconstructed electric properties were correlated to those measured using dielectric probes. RESULTS: The method was demonstrated both in simulations and in phantom data with correlations to both the modeled and bench measurements being close to identity. The noise properties were modeled and understood. CONCLUSION: The proposed methodology allows to quantitatively determine the electrical properties of a sample using any MR contrast, with the only constraint being the need to have 4 or more receive coils and high SNR. Magn Reson Med, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.