-
P.O. Bishop in Australia, at the time, was the counterpoint or alternative to Hubel. And Hubel and Wiesel were very intuitive about what they were doing – they were not very quantitative about what they were doing – and they not only didn’t like computers or use them at that time, they made fun of them. And they [computers] were easy to make fun of at that time because they were such awful things. At Wisconsin, at that time, we had one of the first biological computers – they also had one at Duke, they were lucky enough to get them. You could get an NSF grant for them, and they gave out only a few. Anyway, the first ones used for neuroscience, and what they allowed you to do was count, sum, all these kind of things, but not very easily. They were about this big, and you programmed it with toggle switches – up is one, down is zero – and them you just entered them, and they were just awful. Everyone in the Woolsey lab, when I was there, was encouraged to learn how to program this thing – I thought I wouldn’t live long enough to do this [laughter] – I was glad I didn’t waste my time on it. But we used it, and it had an important result. The result was you started to average the evoked potentials that were used to map – you could see that you could record anywhere on the brain and flash a light, or give a sound, and you could record it. Because what prevented that from happening - the volume conduction of the brain was there with a lot of noise if you just put electricity on the brain – things are bouncing around. So you have to have something that appears above that. And that was good for mapping, so when we could average one hundred trials, you could see a little blip anywhere for any stimulus because if you could record from your finger and get something, you could record from the brain and get something consistent. Woolsey, he had a hard time with that – so that is one of the reasons we abandoned the evoked potential.But P. O. Bishop had elegant laboratories and quantitative measurements and had quantitative information about neurons in visual cortex of cats – one of his prize students was Jack Pettigrew, who, if I remember correctly, had disparity information - about how neurons would respond to disparity information that could be used in binocular vision to get depth information. He came to the United States, was at MIT, and went back to Australia eventually.