(2631) Overlapping prediction errors in dorsal striatum during instrumental learning with juice and money reward in the human brain. Valentin VV and O'Doherty JP. 2009. Journal of Neurophysiology, volume 102, pages 3384-3391.
(2632) Computer-mouse tracking reveals TMS disruptions of prefrontal function during semantic retrieval. Hindy NC, Hamilton R, Houghtling AS, Coslett HB and Thompson-Schill SL. 2009. Journal of Neurophysiology, volume 102, pages 3405-3413.
(2633) The role of temporal synchrony as a binding cue for visual persistence in early visual areas: an fMRI study. Wong YJ, Aldcroft AJ, Large ME, Culham JC and Vilis T. 2009. Journal of Neurophysiology, volume 102, pages 3461-3468.
(2634) Androgen receptor gene sequence and basal cortisol concentrations predict men's hormonal responses to potential mates. Roney JR, Simmons ZL and Lukaszewski AW. 2010. Proceedings. Biological Sciences / The Royal Society, volume 277, pages 57-63.
(2635) Decreased number of parvalbumin and cholinergic interneurons in the striatum of individuals with Tourette syndrome. Kataoka Y, Kalanithi PS, Grantz H, Schwartz ML, Saper C, Leckman JF and Vaccarino FM. 2010. Journal of Comparative Neurology, volume 518, pages 277-291.
(2636) Selective long-term reorganization of the corticospinal projection from the supplementary motor cortex following recovery from lateral motor cortex injury. McNeal DW, Darling WG, Ge J, Stilwell-Morecraft KS, Solon KM, Hynes SM, Pizzimenti MA, Rotella DL, Vanadurongvan T and Morecraft RJ. 2010. Journal of Comparative Neurology, volume 518, pages 586-621.
(2637) Evolutionary convergence of higher brain centers spanning the protostome-deuterostome boundary. Farris SM. 2008. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, volume 72, pages 106-122.
With reference to figures of speech, the use of the metaphor "mushroom bodies" to describe collections of brain cells is followed inexorably by "mushroom body-like structures", "mushroom body-like neuropils", and the "looming question"..."why do some species have mushroom bodies whereas others do not?", to which a looming answer is that, to a degree, mushroom bodies are in the eye of the beholder, such apperceptions being more likely when language is loose, metaphorical, and, in this case, conditional upon the beholder's experience of mushrooms, than when language is precise, literal, and, in this case, anatomical, as in corpora pedunculata (Wikipedia, 20/03/10).
With reference to page 119: "The ability to perform all of these behaviors might have driven the evolution of large mushroom bodies in cockroaches, or alternately, some of these behaviors may have emerged as a result of the acqusition of large mushroom bodies due to other forces."
With reference to the title and the content of an article, the "protostome-deuterostome boundary" of the title is not explored in the article, which is really about the boundary between invertebrates and vertebrates, as confirmed in the preface to the article, on page 89.
(2638) Face scanning in chimpanzees and humans: continuity and discontinuity. Kano F and Tomonaga M. 2010. Animal Behaviour, volume 79, pages 227-235.
(2639) Responses of human medial temporal lobe neurons are modulated by stimulus repetition. Pedreira C, Mormann F, Kraskov A, Cerf M, Fried I, Koch C and Quiroga RQ. 2010. Journal of Neurophysiology, volume 103, pages 97-107.
(2640) Neurons in both pallidal segments change their firing properties similarly prior to closure of the eyes. Adler A, Joshua M, Rivlin-Etzion M, Mitelman R, Marmor O, Prut Y and Bergman H. 2010. Journal of Neurophysiology, volume 103, pages 346-359. With reference to repeated measures, Table 2 shows means and standard deviations for "Eyes Open" and "Eyes Closed" in discharge rates of three sets of cells; a paired t-test produced p<0.001 for each set. Neither the author for correspondence, Avital Adler nor the journal editor, David Linden, responded to requests for clarification. At best, the paired t-test should have been performed on the difference between paired "Eyes Open" and "Eyes Closed" scores, with calculation of the mean difference between paired scores for each cell set, and the comparison of that mean difference with 0. The standard deviations should have been calculated from the squares of the differences between paired scores.