

  All Discussions  |  

  Welcome Post  |  

  SIG's Charter  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)

Wow

Andrew

It seems to me that neuroplasticity is a synonym for learning. As a musician I have often learned new skills by knowing what I am going for (I watch others or youtube, or even sheet music and working it out, or even just by listening) and then practicing sufficiently well and often that it becomes second nature. After this point one may be said to have acquired the new skill or learned it. This involves the reprogramming or just plain old programming of the brain. In a way it does involve the fact that some neurons have been damaged by the stroke, but more importantly there are neurons which brought into play and are then involved with the new or the renewed skill. In a very real sense neuroplasicity is not magical but is the norm, for we are intelligent people and are able to learn. For stroke patients, and for some old skills, there are questions about what to practice. That’s where a community of stroke-thrivers is very important in that they supply experience and ideas.

Simon

Andrew

I think neuroplasticity is used in some contexts to suggest the acquisition of capability by neurones in a physical area of the brain not normally associated with that activity.

In the book Make It Stick by Brown et Al there is a lot of discussion of what it takes to learn. It is not mindless repetition It is purposeful re-encountering.
In a presentation by Nick Ward of Queen Square a couple of years ago he described neuroplasticity as the building of habitual behaviours where his description was such that the use it or lose it component was a demonstration of plasticity building a undesired compensation into your life going forwards (and as an aside I’ve asked him - this morning- to join SIG).

So I think it’s a case of words get overloaded with definition that such that meaning becomes diffuse and concepts we need to talk about often lacking definitive description so we have conversations in fog about fog

I read the article (incompletely) to say that “We can boost learning with this drug”

I think that neuroplasticity in one of its usages also implies the acquisition of capability into either the autonomic or the subconscious mind perhaps the source of thing that is described as muscle memory in some contexts and would translate to the PNS rather than the CNS peripheral as opposed to central nervous system?

⅓¢

Andrew

Simon I agree totally with what you have said. I have been in the business of teaching maths to engineers and have been very used to simplifying things down to their basics and by using relatively simple language. What I wrote, when unpacked more, also says much of what you said! All that I have said is that the neuronal origin of the acquisition of a new or renewed skill (i.e. depending on whether this is a novel or, courtesy of the stroke, relearned skill) is to a large extent independent of where the neurone is. In a very real sense this is just not important. Rather, we are concerned with it happening, and how it is to happen.

Yes, agreed, it has to be intentional. See the example of the musician! It is very intentional. Learning/neuroplasticy is intentional, although one can be surprised by some extra effects occasionally. For example, my walking has increased quite a bit in speed is the last month. I am not sure why. Yes, I have been walking for quite a few months, but as to why this has happened, I really don’t know, but it is celebrated. I possibly wouldn’t have noticed, but I did since I always use a GPS-enabled watch with a timer and a distance recorder. I thought I was simply getting fitter and this was the primary aim.

My overall aim here were to create an accurate soundbite, and to encourage others!

Andrew

An important implication of the article is that suitable drugs can assist the learning process. This isn’t the Joe 90 of the 70s, since it doesn’t becomes permanent when Joe 90 takes off the glasses! However, can a drug make it easier to learn? Possibly. It may remove some inhibitions? Who knows? I suspect that the authors need to be questioned about his.

In the maths world, Andrew Weill proved the four-colour theorem at least in part by using a difficult but known result in what seemed like an unrelated field. It took him seven years, so it wasn’t easy being utterly secretive about this in a harsh academic environment where one is expected to produce novel stuff at least yearly. He even went public eventually with a mistake first! But is this the same sort of thing? Learning in monkeys (in a research paper) and neuroplasticity in humans (in our experience)? Should these be drawn together in some way?

Nige

I thought I read that we only learn by mistakes.
We can acquire skills via copying but actual learning needs an initial error, work out what that was and develop a solution.
3rd time lucky presumably has some basis in fact ?

EmeraldEyes

Nige This is not actually a brand new technique invented. You will have done this yourself over the course of your life, you just wouldn’t have noticed it, or realised it’s a good technique for learning. It’s just someone has realised it as a “technique” for learning and choose to exploit it by putting a label on it and marketing it for profit. Errorless learning.

Lorraine

Andrew

I would imagine that you are right, but I am also aware that there is a school of music teaching called “errorless learning”. In this one practices correctly from the outset and avoids the making of mistakes. But I am very dubious with that, and it will depend on the quality of the teaching and the quality of the learner too. One can take care and be as intelligent as possible in one’s approach, even when very doubtful about the perfect application of the methods used. Are you (the general person, rather than the chap called Nige!) an intelligent learner, how much time are you prepared to set aside for the purpose, are you generally a quick or a slow learner? In my musical experience (classical, and at a high amateur level) some things are learnt immediately, while others can be very tricky.

Andrew

I guess that error-less learning has been around as an idea for decades. Even knowledge of its existence induces a better and more efficient sort of mindset.

Simon

Andrew
Hmmm

My own model of expertise could be summarised as “the ability to recognise early warnings of a future misstep”

This is born of a leaning to philosophical schools of Empiricism (Hume / Locke) or Pragmatism (Sanders/James/ Dewey). I particularly Like pragmatism inclusion of Fallibilism.

Therefore it seems to me that making mistakes is a material part of gaining expertise. The humorous aphorism “learn from other people’s mistakes; there isn’t time to make them all yourself” would seem to apply too.

Ciao
Simon

Ps the phrase "right first time” is another one that jarrs my mental thought processes. By defining the first time has something other than the actual first time. For example by splitting something into thousands of components refining each one and assembling the components declaring that first time. Philip Crosby - quality is free- I think explain the reality and I think he’s largely responsible for misunderstanding. To my dismay there is a health service group focused on stroke called GRIFT which is get it right first time. I really do want to meet one of their principals to see whether or not they have actually understood what they have encapsulated in their title and a much better title would be something like Get It Right Every Time In Live Service Delivery

Andrew

Simon My personal view is that “error-less learning” is good as an aim but almost impossible in practice. There are quite a few who think about these matters and we do learn from our mistakes, but it also requires us to think about what we did and how it can be improved. So the making of mistakes can be very useful. I agree with both Simon and Nige. So while it is possible on occasions to GRIFT, it is not possible in general, but we can celebrate a bit more on those few occasions when we get it right first time, but we must not be scared of getting it wrong! Getting it wrong happens all the time with stroke - we push the boundaries and how else do we progress?

Yep, I too learn from the mistakes of others! Surely it is the wise and more efficient way to go?

Nige

I thought we only learned by copying or by making mistakes?
3rd time lucky is after 2 mistakes, you get it right on the 3rd attempt as you have developed enough knowledge from 2 previous mistakes.
As long as you learn from them, mistakes should be welcome….

Simon

Andrew My personal view is that “error-less learning” is good as an aim but almost impossible in practice

I wonder if this is an artefact or legacy from your lifelong involvement in mathematics where it is possible to have a definitively justifiable single correct and provably correct answer

Andrew So while it is possible on occasions to GRIFT, it is

And here we have lost the benefits of learning from the mistakes so maybe take a false confidence forwards where we have the potential to fail more catastrophically ?

I have long been a fan of David Kolbs circle of Concrete Experience -> Reflective Observation -> Abstract Conceptualization followed by Active Experimentation

Andrew too learn from the mistakes of others! Surely it is the wise and more efficient way to go?

Yes very wise 🙂 something I aspire to but I do find that one gets a more visceral understanding when it is your own pain 🙂

4¼¢

Andrew

Simon Often maths gives an unassailably correct answer. I agree, but this isn’t my world.

Then one gets into nonlinear equations, such as for gravitation, and a numerical scheme is in order. But these have error estimates, so what is produced can be accurate but not exact. The topic of error estimates is huge and people even devote their whole careers to it.

Then we have things like weather-forecasting. We are now entering the realm of 3D in space, unsteady, three velocity components, temperature, humidity, air density changes, possible relatively local effects due to clouds and/or cloud cover and possibly precipitation. And is the precipitation water, hail or snow? And the whole system is chaotic, meaning that two very slightly different initial conditions (as interpolated from weather stations, more errors) can yield very different results two days from now. It is a complete nightmare here in the UK. It certainly requires extremely powerful computers. So sometimes the weather is far less chaotic (hence forecasters pronounce confidently what will happen a week from now) and other times much more chaotic (hence forecasters hedge their bets even for tomorrow). Technically, it is down to size of the Lyapunov exponent, and this can be estimated by running the model loads of times with slightly perturbed initial conditions and see how divergent they are. One can tell by the confidence of the forecaster that this has been done. Yes, maths, but chaos makes things nonunique, partly because of the system itself being unstable and partly because we don’t know everything. Maths is only exact in school!

Scroll-Me :)\<-&->


  All Discussions  |  

  Welcome Post  |  

  SIG's Charter  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)