<html><head></head><body><div><span data-mailaddress="foozler83@gmail.com" data-contactname="William Flynn Wallace" class="clickable"><span title="foozler83@gmail.com">William Flynn Wallace</span><span class="detail"> <foozler83@gmail.com></span></span> , 14/9/2014 6:40 PM:</div><blockquote class="mori" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-color: blue; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="mcntgmail_default" style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; font-size: small;">Before 1950 studies were done where rats learned to run a maze, then had some brains removed. Turned out that it did not matter what part they removed, only how much (bet they didn't remove the hippocampus, though.) </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You are probably thinking of Lashley's old experiments where he was looking for the engram. </div><div>http://psych.stanford.edu/~jlm/pdfs/Lashley50Engram.pdf</div><div>http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/lashleys_research.html</div><div>Of course, the problem here was that maze running is polymodal and I do think the hippcampus was never touched. But it demonstrated that the cortex is pretty resilient and has redundancy, and provided the original claim for the "We only use 10% of our brain" factoid. </div><br><blockquote class="mori" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-color: blue; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="mcntgmail_default" style="font-family: 'comic sans ms', sans-serif; font-size: small;"></div></blockquote><br>Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University</body></html>