β Scribed by E.R. John
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
I much appreciate the feedback providing appraisals of my two papers which appear in this issue of Consciousness and Cognition. I thank my colleagues for their thoughtful and painstakingly thorough evaluation of the experimental findings, data, and theoretical model. I also express my gratitude to the Editors who have kindly arranged these commentaries and permitted me to respond. In order to provide an overview of this collection of critiques, I have addressed each commentator individually, summarized their comments, and given my replies, interspersed after each point where it seemed appropriate.
[1] Baars points out that the decrease in gamma but the increase in other bands is consistent with other data from sleep. Conscious state requires massive information processing, while unconscious states lower free flow of information in the brain.
Reply. Yes, but one should be cautious about extending too far the parallel between sleep and anesthesia. The sleeping person can readily be awakened by environmental input while the anesthetized patient (hopefully!) cannot.
[2] Baars comments that anteriorization of hypersynchrony has important implications for perceptual and pain processing, WM, high-level organization, voluntary control, and executive functions which will deteriorate with frontal dysfunction.
[3] Baars views uncoupling of major quadrants of cortex as decomposition of integrative processes normally presumed as essential for information transmission.
[4] Baars summarizes our findings of anesthetic actions as (a) inhibition of midbrain reticular formation, which (b) disinhibits nucleus reticularis, which (c) hyperpolarizes thalamocortical neurons, blocking thalamic interactions with cortex.
Reply. Dr. Baars does not mention here the uncoupling of brain regions from one another at LOC in the gamma domain, which abruptly reverses at ROC. It seems noteworthy that while such uncoupling at LOC occurs in all frequencies with every anesthetic, the reversibility seen in gamma is unique.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract We reply to the commentaries on the lead papers by Neale et al. [1994a] and Duffy and Martin [1994]. Topics covered include power calculations, crossβsectional measurement vs. lifetime reports, the appropriateness of the direction of causation (DOC) model, extensions to study causation