- not every person has arms of precisely the same length,
Oh, I see! That's kindda like not everyone's arm has to end at the hand.
One really has to try to be as obtuse and annoyingly silly as you are on a regular basis.
My understanding is the natural speech center (wernicks'e area)
Your understanding, as is the norm, is that of a child.
"Natural speech area"? More fabricated concepts/terminology to substitute for your clear ignorance of the subject - so special. Wernicke's is NOT 'the speech area.' It is referred to as the general interpretive area.
Golly - even your
Wernicke's wiki link that you provided to try to rescue your exposed ignorance yet again cuts your legs out from under you:
" It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language). "
Do you EVER get tired of making a fool of yourself?
does have the same "borders" from one individual to the next (and it is at least partially bifurcated).
LOL!
Amazing - the lengths you will go to to try to rescue your erroneous notions. Again, YOUR OWN link:
Neuroimaging
suggests the functions earlier attributed to Wernicke's area occur more broadly in the
temporal lobe and indeed happen also in Broca's area.
“ There are some suggestions that middle and inferior temporal gyri and basal temporal cortex reflect lexical processing ... there is consensus that the STG from rostral to caudal fields and the
STS constitute the neural tissue in which many of the critical computations for speech recognition are executed ... aspects of Broca’s area (Brodmann areas 44 and 45) are also regularly implicated in speech processing.
... the range of areas implicated in speech processing go well beyond the classical language areas typically mentioned for speech; the vast majority of textbooks still state that this aspect of perception and language processing occurs in Wernicke’s area (the posterior third of the STG).
[12]”
Support for a broad range of speech processing areas was furthered by a recent study caried out at the
University of Rochester in which
American Sign Language native speakers were subject to
MRI while interpreting sentences that identified a relationship using either syntax (relationship is determined by the word order) or inflection (relationship is determined by physical motion of "moving hands through space or signing on one side of the body"). Distinct areas of the brain were activated with the frontal cortex (associated with ability to put information into sequences) being more active in the syntax condition and the temporal lobes (associated with dividing information into its constituent parts) being more active in the inflection condition. However, these areas are not mutually exclusive and show a large amount of overlap. These findings imply that while speech processing is a very complex process, the brain may be using fairly basic, preexisting computational methods.
[13]
Curious - do you ever read the entirety of ANYTHING you link to in your own "support"? Given that such is a rarity (you trying to provide external support for your false and dopey claims), I should think that you should have plenty of time to do so.
Bifurcate:
bi·fur·cate
verb
past tense:
bifurcated; past participle:
bifurcated
/ˈbīfərˌkāt/
- divide into two branches or forks.
"just below Cairo the river bifurcates"
So, I will not hold my breath waiting for you to provide evidence that Wernicke's is now "is at least partially bifurcated" as opposed to your previous most-certain and frequently asserted (with no support, of course) position that there is a (unnamed) bifurcated speech center in the' middle of the brain'.
Because Wernicke's is also not in the middle of the brain.
Keep in mind that when I say your biology claims are like those of a child I am not being dismissive or insulting - I am drawing conclusions. The level of knowledge you exhibit on these issues - the incorrect spellings, the off-the-wall depictions and descriptions of location and function, the certainty with which you present totally incorrect claims, your refusal to admit error, etc. - reminds of the way a child acts.
There's more than one way to skin a cat and there are an "infinite" number of perspectives and ways to process what is known.
Maybe - but at some point these different ways of processing should converge on the same 'truths' to be considered valid and useful. Your way seems to rely on farcical and fantastical notions that run counter to even basic information, all pointing to a counterfactual and indefensible position.
We are just in the habit of seeing things in about the same way as we learned about them. We used reductionism to see bits and pieces of reality so now we look at the bits and pieces instead of all of it at once.
And if you are implying that your way is to look at something all at once, I submit that you may want to reassess the reliability and utility of that child-like antic.
Despite the fact we know the brain isn't a clockwork we use a clockwork science to investigate a clockwork reality.
Your way tells us things that your own Wiki links debunk. I think you should try a new, valid way of looking at things.
We use an analog language to try to understand a digital reality. We use an analog language in a digital brain.
Mebbe we should think of the broca's area area as the place where the stripped gears meet.
Or maybe we should be humble in areas that our sole source of knowledge in are only a few misinterpreted Wiki pages and a vivid imagination, and go with what hundreds of educated, experienced, and dedicated researchers in the specific fields in question have discovered after decades of work? As opposed to the lofty, made-up, foundationless and counterfactual notions of someone that has claimed that behavior via bottlenecks drives evolution, and done so for years, and upon being asked to provide evidence for this, then denies he even suggested such a thing such a thing, and upon having mutliple examples of his suggestions and claims of exactly that presented, just ignores it all (IOW, either a liar or someone with memory and cognitive issues)...?
And even more indicative of an adult-thinking person with some humility and legitimate zeal for true knowledge, would be NOT simply omitting all reality-bombs in posts we reply to, regardless of the mental anguish it may cause - like you did in this response, the only part you replied to in black, what you omitted in red:
cladking:Why do I keep reading this same sort of thing in the literature and you keep gainsaying it?
" Further, because of considerable variability across brains in terms of shape, size, and position relative to sulcal and gyral structure, a resulting localization precision is limited.[6]"
Because as a self-taught layman, you are over-interpreting it. Cool wiki page, though.
It is in the region of the inferior frontal gyrus. It is not in the EXACT SAME IDENTICAL AREA in all people - which is to say the exact borders are not identical in all people. Just as not all people have the same color of hair on our scalp, yet we have hair on our scalp - not every person has arms of precisely the same length, but we all have arms in the same location, so too do we all have a Broca's area on the inf. frontal gyrus, just not with the exact same 'borders.' Not that hard to grasp, if one actually tries.
Again, I get it - you cannot handle the fact that you are wrong on these things and are desperate to find a way to save fave.
But you just look... desperate. Why is it so hard for you to admit error?
Weird that in your link, you failed to see or understand this:
"Broca’s area is now typically defined in terms of the pars opercularis and pars triangularis of the inferior frontal gyrus, represented in Brodmann’s cytoarchitectonic map as areas 44 and 45.[1]"
Whats that? Your link says I AM RIGHT????
Huh...
And it goes into more detail:
Broca's area is often identified by visual inspection of the topography of the brain either by macrostructural landmarks such as sulci or by the specification of coordinates in a particular reference space. The currently used Talairach and Tournoux atlas projects Brodmann's cytoarchitectonic map on to a template brain. Because Brodmann's parcelation was based on subjective visual inspection of cytoarchitectonic borders and also Brodmann analyzed only one hemisphere of one brain, the result is imprecise. Further, because of considerable variability across brains in terms of shape, size, and position relative to sulcal and gyral structure, a resulting localization precision is limited.[3]
Nevertheless, Broca’s area in the left hemisphere and its homologue in the right hemisphere are designations usually used to refer to pars triangularis (PTr) and pars opercularis (POp) of the inferior frontal gyrus. The PTr and POp are defined by structural landmarks that only probabilistically divide the inferior frontal gyrus into anterior and posterior cytoarchitectonic areas of 45 and 44, respectively, by Brodmann’s classification scheme.[4]
Double-huh. Context, Johnny "broccas area"... context...
I guess you just missed that.... or felt justified in ignoring it because you found the word "variability", which, I suppose, to you means it can be found willy-nilly any old place in the brain.
Which is dumb.
