4.5 Review

Forgotten rhythms? Revisiting the first evidence for rhythms in cognition

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 55, Issue 11-12, Pages 3266-3276

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ejn.15450

Keywords

alpha rhythms; good scientific practice; Hans Berger; history of neuroscience; photic driving

Categories

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB 889]
  2. Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) [CS018-021]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This passage discusses the history of human brain rhythms recorded by Hans Berger in the 1920s, and the continued investigation and importance of these alpha rhythms. It also mentions the early experiments and findings in EEG research, as well as the lessons they provide for contemporary neuroscientists.
Practically every neuroscientist knows that human brain rhythms were first recorded in the 1920s by Hans Berger, who coined the term 'alpha waves' for the regular activity of around 10 cycles per second that was clearly visible in many of his recordings. Almost 100 years later, alpha rhythms are still the subject of active investigation and continue to intrigue researchers. What we have perhaps forgotten though, is the clever experimentation that was carried out during the first decades of electroencephalogram (EEG) research, often using sophisticated, custom-made analysis and stimulation devices. Here, I review selected findings from the early EEG literature regarding the character, origin, and meaning of human brain rhythms, beginning with Berger's publications and then focusing on the use of regular visual stimulation as a tool to understand intrinsic brain rhythms. It is clear that many of these findings are still relevant to open questions about the role of rhythmic brain activity. In addition, they also contain some general lessons for contemporary neuroscientists, meaning that there is great value in looking back at these forgotten publications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available