1,720,979 research outputs found

    Revisiting the concept of drive from affective neuroscience (Panksepp) to neuropsychoanalysis (Solms): A comment on Mark Solms’ paper|La rivisitazione del concetto di pulsione dalle neuroscienze affettive (Panksepp) alla neuropsicoanalisi (Solms): commento all’articolo di Mark Solms

    No full text
    Mark Solms' revision of the concept of drive represents the latest in a series of his indepth reviews of the most fundamental Freudian concepts. The movement of neuropsychoanalysis begun in 2000 with the first Congress focused precisely on a neuroscientific definition of affects and emotions. In 2013, Solms proposed a substantial and profound modification of Freud's structural model, motivating his theses which argue that the instinctual id can only be conscious. In the current paper, Solms (2021a) reaffirms and re-evaluates the centrality of drive theory in psychoanalysis and neuroscience as a starting point for understanding conscious and unconscious phenomena, in normality as well in pathology

    Infant directed speech and frontal lobe

    No full text
    Saito et al.1 showed, by means of a two channel NIRS, a differential response of the neonatal brain to maternal Infant Directed Speech (IDS), in comparison to Adult Directed Speech (ADS). Their study is very interesting. They hypothesize that a newborn is able to distinguish between different emotional communications in the first days of life. These results reignite the discussion on early predisposition for newborns’ recognition of their mothers, and on how early relational skills in newborns correlate with fetal learning abilities in the intrauterine environment

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore