Showing papers by "Academy of Finland published in 1994"

Event-Related Desynchronization evoked by auditory stimuli

Abstract: Event-Related Desynchronization (ERD) and Synchronization (ERS) of several EEG alpha frequencies was studied in 19 subjects during the presentation of linguistic and/or melodic auditory stimuli. The stimulus length was 1300 msec (+/−100 msec) and the interstimulus interval was 2000 msec. A significant ERD was found during auditory stimulation in the 8–10 Hz and 10–12 Hz alpha frequency bands, and there were also significant differences in the spatiotemporal pattern of the ERD between these frequency bands. Significant ERD was elicited also in the 10–11 and 11–12 Hz frequency bands by auditory stimulation. There were no significant differences between these one-hertz frequency bands. The subjects were assigned to two analysis groups according to their individual alpha peak frequency (10–11 or 11–12 Hz) at rest. The ERD in these groups reached statistical significance and there were significant differences between the groups. The ERD of the two groups differed significantly also when their EEG data was studied in the 10–12 Hz frequency band. The results from this study show that ERD is not modality-specific, i.e., it can be elicited also by auditory stimuli. Moreover, they indicate that it is important to control over interindividual variation in the EEG when studying the ERD phenomenon.

Visual Experience and Access to Spatial Knowledge

Abstract: Persons who were congenitally blind, late blind, and blindfold sighted learned an object-array by being guided within it in cardinal directions towards walls. Subjects then judged the near, far, le...

Methodology might matter, but Weintraub's meta-Methodology shouldn't

Abstract: The paper questions Weintraub's thesis that ‘Methodology doesn't matter’. It is argued that the thesis is unclear, and when clarified on the basis of textual evidence from Weintraub himself, it is false (or else trivially true). It is also pointed out that Weintraub's argument for the thesis is based on what he denounces, namely ‘Methodology’ (of a second degree); it turns out to be a ‘Methodological’ argument against ‘Methodology’. The thesis also gives a distorted picture of what many methodologists of economics actually are doing. On the other hand, Weintraub's arguments for why the history of economic thought might matter also apply to much of economic methodology. It is concluded that methodology might matter.

Are we longing for the golden era lost or for the one to come

Abstract: Glginzel and Schoepflin's paper raises many important issues. They identify a crisis in the field of biblio-, sciento-, infor-, and technometrics and attempt to analyse its causes and possible remedies. The kind of discussion is most welcome and has largely been lacking among scholars in this field of study in recent years. Among the many interesting topics the authors raise, I will touch upon the issue of a lack of consensus in theoretical and methodological issues in the field and discuss its reasons. I would like first to draw attention to the interchangeable use by Gliinzel and Schoepflin of the terms biblio-, infor-, sciento-, and technometrics to describe a research field. The lack of consensus and unity they lament is in the first instance related to the fact that we are not talking of a single research field. These terms denote quantitative studies in general. For example, bibliometric studies examine many types of phenomena in science which appear in written communication; I have no clear definition for scientometrics or informetrics, but they have, to my mind, a slightly different emphasis, in particular, a stronger orientation toward quantitative description and a closer relation to the library sciences, whereas technometrics largely deals with matters other than written communication even though the source material of such studies is usually recorded in a written form. For instance, technometric studies examine documents which guarantee legal rights (patents) and transfer of technology and know how via licences and goods. It is true that studies of patent references also deal with written communication, Lut the context and meaning of such communication is different from that of references in scientific texts. The theoretical explanations of the phenomena the quantitative studies examine cannot be separated from those of their substance matter. If we study diverse