It’s real, but cobbled together from multiple sources. For instance we haven’t referred to the “reticular activating system” since maybe the 1980s? They call it the “reticular arousal system” which is either a neologism or maybe a reactivation of the term in the literature. I haven’t been active in the area in over a decade.
I’ll note that this broadly accurate on a macro level, but the details really matter. There are different cortical layers for instance and cell types and the nature of the signal processing differs by layer. So saying “X connects to Y” is useful in some sense, but provides much less information than you might imagine.
This feels just as likely to be the ramblings of a crazy person as an actual map of the human brain.
It’s real, but cobbled together from multiple sources. For instance we haven’t referred to the “reticular activating system” since maybe the 1980s? They call it the “reticular arousal system” which is either a neologism or maybe a reactivation of the term in the literature. I haven’t been active in the area in over a decade.
I’ll note that this broadly accurate on a macro level, but the details really matter. There are different cortical layers for instance and cell types and the nature of the signal processing differs by layer. So saying “X connects to Y” is useful in some sense, but provides much less information than you might imagine.