Submited on: 25 Mar 2012 11:14:56 PM GMT
Published on: 26 Mar 2012 12:36:34 PM GMT
 
Claustrum - The Conundrum
Posted by Dr. Sanjoy Sanyal on 16 Jul 2012 10:57:10 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This paper claims a new hypothesis (AND gate) involving Claustral-Cortical-Claustral connections, which unifies sensory-consciousness 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    There are no results or evidence to support the claims


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No protocol has been provided. 


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No experimental methodology has been described. Therefore the question of them being reproduced does not arise.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    This work needs to validated by animal and / or human subject studies.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Not an outstanding paper. In its present form it cannot be presented in any seminar. I would not use it in my university lecture till it is restructured considerably.


  • Other Comments:

    1. This is basically a review of literature on the possible mechanisms of claustral functioning. Therefore it should be presented as such.
    2. Only a theoretical hypothesis has been proposed, based on previous studies. This requires to be validated by appropriate experients, results and conclusions
    3. The size of this paper needs to be reduced to about one-third its present size. Ten PDF pages can be condensed to about 3 pages.
    4. Too many quotations from previous studies are scattered everywhere. It should be more structured, with precise headings, as in a review of literature.
    5. The occasional spelling or typographical error should be corrected; e.g. model instead of module, retinotopic instead of retinotropic

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    I have performed extensive dissections on cadaver human brains. See the following URL: http://www.webmedcentral.com/View_video/244 and http://www.webmedcentral.com/View_video/245

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Sanyal S .Claustrum - The Conundrum[Review of the article 'The Functional Anatomy of the Claustrum: The Net That Binds. ' by Ramachandran V].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002095
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This paper represents a significant step forwards in our understanding of such an important, yet little understood, structure shedding new light on how the brain integrates sensory inputs. I believe this is a key paper on the subject of the claustrum.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The hypothesised mechanisms of claustral activity and how it interacts with higher cortical centres although has been suggested previously has not been explained in such a logical and detailed manner previously.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Although the paper does not stem evidence from an experiment devised to elucidate tthe functional connectivities and underlying mechanisms within the claustrum, it provides a very logical argument to support the proposed hypotheses stemming from other key works within the field.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Unable to comment


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Unable to comment 


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Unable to comment.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    As noted previously and conceded to by the authors themselves the hypotheses proposed remain to be verified or otherwise refuted by direct experimentation.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    This paper Perot my knowledge provides the most detailed and logical explanation of how the claustrum functions.


  • Other Comments:

    It is my humble opinion that the cortico-claustro-cortical connections represent spirals rather than cycles. There is evidence of these spirals existing elsewhere in the CNS such as seen in the cortical connections with thepascal ganglia. This would allow for an integrating area to receive input from the sensory modalities as well as from the claustrum carrying the temporal binding signature.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    MSc Cinical Neuroscience

  • How to cite:  Almasri O .The Functional Anatomy of the Claustrum: The Net That Binds.[Review of the article 'The Functional Anatomy of the Claustrum: The Net That Binds. ' by Ramachandran V].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Thank you for your kind remarks about our hypothesis. We would be most interested to learn more about the spirals you mention.
Responded by Dr. John Smythies on 04 Jul 2012 09:41:54 PM