半半球的文化差异:批判。

J A Zook, J H Dwyer
{"title":"半半球的文化差异:批判。","authors":"J A Zook,&nbsp;J H Dwyer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A series of four articles on the \"other side\" of the brain has been published in this journal by Dr. Joseph Bogen and his colleagues (1, 2, 3, 4). The first three of these are rapidly becoming minor classics for those of us interested in hemispheric specialization. However, the fourth article reports a combination of sociologic and neurologic observations which, in our opinion, are misinterpreted. This misinterpretation stems primarily from the use of inappropriate statistical procedures and the misleading characteristics of a variable which is comprised of a ratio of two other variables (i.e. the A/P ratio). In short, we argue that the sociologic data presented (4) are not consistent with the constant sum model of hemisphericity discussed in that paper. An alternative model is discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":75651,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Los Angeles neurological societies","volume":"41 3","pages":"87-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1976-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultural differences in hemisphericity: a critique.\",\"authors\":\"J A Zook,&nbsp;J H Dwyer\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A series of four articles on the \\\"other side\\\" of the brain has been published in this journal by Dr. Joseph Bogen and his colleagues (1, 2, 3, 4). The first three of these are rapidly becoming minor classics for those of us interested in hemispheric specialization. However, the fourth article reports a combination of sociologic and neurologic observations which, in our opinion, are misinterpreted. This misinterpretation stems primarily from the use of inappropriate statistical procedures and the misleading characteristics of a variable which is comprised of a ratio of two other variables (i.e. the A/P ratio). In short, we argue that the sociologic data presented (4) are not consistent with the constant sum model of hemisphericity discussed in that paper. An alternative model is discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the Los Angeles neurological societies\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"87-90\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1976-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the Los Angeles neurological societies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Los Angeles neurological societies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

约瑟夫·伯根博士和他的同事在这本杂志上发表了关于大脑“另一边”的四篇系列文章(1,2,3,4)。对于我们这些对半球专门化感兴趣的人来说,前三篇文章很快就成为了次要的经典。然而,第四篇文章报告了社会学和神经学观察的结合,在我们看来,这是被误解的。这种误解主要源于使用不适当的统计程序和由两个其他变量的比率组成的变量的误导性特征(即资产负债率)。简而言之,我们认为提出的社会学数据(4)与文中讨论的半球的常数和模型不一致。讨论了另一种模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cultural differences in hemisphericity: a critique.

A series of four articles on the "other side" of the brain has been published in this journal by Dr. Joseph Bogen and his colleagues (1, 2, 3, 4). The first three of these are rapidly becoming minor classics for those of us interested in hemispheric specialization. However, the fourth article reports a combination of sociologic and neurologic observations which, in our opinion, are misinterpreted. This misinterpretation stems primarily from the use of inappropriate statistical procedures and the misleading characteristics of a variable which is comprised of a ratio of two other variables (i.e. the A/P ratio). In short, we argue that the sociologic data presented (4) are not consistent with the constant sum model of hemisphericity discussed in that paper. An alternative model is discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evoked potential instrumentation, methodology and theory. Brain generators of evoked potentials: the late (endogenous) components. Endogenous event-related potentials: prospective applications in neuropsychology and behavioral neurology. Clinical applications of visual evoked potentials in neurology. Somatosensory evoked potentials: applications in clinical neurology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1