O: Half of the lecture contents was repetition of the physiology course which was a positive factor. It was easier to grasp the newly
introduced concepts, such as the different receptors and their more detailed functionalities.
I also asked a question on the stream on the neuronal differences between physiological and physical adaptation. In a practical sense they seem to differ quite a bit, however, in a neurological sense, the changes between the two are pretty much non-existent. A follow-up question to this would be: How does signal power increase through physical or physiological adaptation?
J: The world of synapses and neurotransmitters is an important one when it comes to understanding neural circuits. As synaptic connectivity is not a new concept for me, I’d like to learn more about the higher-level connectivity in the brain. I would like to learn more about the different neuronal circuits and what role do the synapses and neurotransmitters play in them. The link between the functionality in the brain and human behaviour and its disorders are of special interest to me. The concepts covered are getting increasingly interesting as we approach higher levels of complexities.
In my opinion, the most interesting things were covered during the final moments of the lecture, as I already read about all that was covered in the first three-quarters of the lecture from the book. This brings to mind a small pet peeve I have with the structuring of the course. Why do we have a task to read and learn the chapter beforehand from the book, if most of the lecture is spent on covering the exact same topics? I would love to spend the lecture on learning more advanced things related to the topics from the book or use it more as a discussion forum of the things covered.