Get help from the best in academic writing.

The Split Brain In Man Essay Research grad school essay help History Other

The Split Brain In Man Essay, Research Paper

The Split Brain in Man

The effects of a split-brain operation are most dramatic when centripetal information is limited to a individual hemisphere because when the principal callosum is cut, the encephalon is divided into two separate hemispheres, the right and the left. R.Sperry and M.Gazzaniga show the dramatic effects in assorted experiments conducted. In one such experiment, visible radiations were flashed on the left ocular field of a split-brain individual ; the individual reported that they had non seen any visible radiations. This is due to the right hemisphere & # 8217 ; s disjunction with the address centres of the encephalon, which is located in the left hemisphere. However, the patient could indicate to the way where the visible radiations were flashed as pointing does non affect the address part of the encephalon. Another illustration that shows the dramatic manner centripetal information is interpreted by a individual hemisphere is when the word bosom was flashed holding the he to the left and the art to the right. When the patient was asked what they had seen flashed on the screen they would reply art as the left hemisphere is responsible for address. However when asked to indicate to a card holding the word art or he on it the patient would indicate with their right manus to he hence demoing that when the right hemisphere could show itself it would. From the illustrations above it is clearly seen that with split-brain patients when making normal undertakings utilizing both sides they can go on all right but when the undertakings are specific to one side of the encephalon they lack the information needed from both sides.

The effects of segmenting the ocular decussation causes the information from the left oculus to be dispatched to the left-brain and the information from the right oculus merely being dispatched to the right encephalon. When the ocular decussation is cut, an animate being could react usually and larn to execute a undertaking, when that oculus was covered the animate being would hold no acknowledgment to the same job and would hold to larn it over once more. ( Gazzaniga, The Split Brain in Man ) . An illustration of this in patients with split-brain is when they are tested visually. In the trial where the word bosom was flashed holding he on the on the left and art on the right the patient could sa

Y they saw the word art as address is on the left hemisphere. When asked to indicate to what they had seen the patient would indicate to the word he demoing that the information is being sent to the right hemisphere but can non be expressed verbally. This experiment shows the consequence of segmenting the ocular decussation in worlds and the consequence it plays on ocular readings.

The ipsilateral motor control can be determined utilizing a split-brain topic by giving an object in the individual s right manus, from which centripetal information is sent to the left hemisphere, and the patient is able to call and depict the object. When held in the left manus the patient could non depict the object verbally but was able to place it in a non-verbal trial such as fiting it in a aggregation of things. Trials of ipsilateral motor control in these split-brain patients revealed that the left hemisphere of the encephalon exercised normal control over the right manus but had less than full control of the left manus. Similarly, the right hemisphere does the antonym. When the two hemispheres were in struggle, the hemisphere on the side opposite the manus took control and overruled the side of the encephalon with weaker control. Each hemisphere non merely received input from the opposite side but besides from the same side.

The phenomenon of one-sided emotions is that in certain mental processes the left and right hemispheres were about indistinguishable. In trials done by Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga one-sided emotions were observed. One trial was showing the split-brain patients with ordinary images and so all of a sudden a image of a bare adult female an diverted reaction was seen on both sides of the hemispheres when tested independently. When presented to the left hemisphere the female patient laughed and identified what she had seen as the left hemisphere contains address. On the other manus, when the bare image of the adult female was presented to the right hemisphere the patient said she did non see anything but so instantly after a sly smile spread over here face and she began to chortle. The two hemispheres both showed an emotional response and this showed that in a spilt-brain state of affairs they were truly covering with two encephalons able to hold separate emotions.

Construct and Analyze a Game Tree 6 Running Head: CONSTRUCT AND ANALYZE

Construct and Analyze a Game Tree 6

Running Head: CONSTRUCT AND ANALYZE A GAME TREE 1

Construct and Analyze a Game Tree

Kim Adams

Rasmussen College

Author Note

This paper is being submitted on May 2, 2018, for Benjamin Feinberg’s MAT3172CBE, The Mathematics of Games course.

Email to Coworker.

To: AndrewChen@gmail.com

From: KimAdams@gmail.com

Subject: Telecom Company; Payoff Matrix vs. Game Tree

I write this email to explain the reason why payoff matrix is not suitable to analyze the project for the upgrade of the services of the Telecom Company. The payoff matrix just provides a general rule of logic but it does not provide a winning strategy in this situation.

In addition I would like to recommend that you exclude the cell don’t buy Upgrade. This is because it is not a logical move for the Telecom Company to upgrade its systems when the customers decide Don’t Buy strategy.

Construction of game tree model

Considering that this is not a simultaneous game, the payoff matrix is not the best way to obtain an analysis of the scaled values of the customers. This is because the decisions that the customers make will influence the decision made by the Telecom Company. The payoff matrix below can be represented using game tree.

 

Telecom Company

 

Upgrade

Don’t Upgrade

Customers

Buy

(2, 2)

(0, 3)

Don’t Buy

(1, 0)

(1, 1)

The cell Don’t Buy Upgrade should be excluded. This is because it will be considered a loss if the company upgrades its services when the customers do not buy their services. The game tree can be represented as shown below.

Customers

Telecom Co.

Don’t Buy

Buy

Upgrade

Don’t Upgrade

Telecom Co.

(1,1)

(2,2)

(0,3)

The customers are the first players and the Telecom Company the second players. The decision the customers make influences the decision the company makes. Consider a scenario 1 where the customers decide to purchase the services offered by the company. The decision that will provide the highest pay off to the company is Don’t Upgrade. This can be represented by snipping off the Buy Upgrade option in the game tree as shown below.

Customer

Don’t Buy

Buy

Don’t Upgrade

Telecom Co.

Telecom Co.

(0,3)

(2,2)

Upgrade

(1,1)

The result of this move is shown in the game tree below.

Customer

Don’t Buy

Buy

Telecom Co.

Don’t Upgrade

Telecom Co.

Don’t Upgrade

(1,1)

(0,3)

In order to obtain Nash equilibrium, the decision chosen must not provide an incentive to the customers or the Telecom Company when they decide to change from their chosen strategy considering the choice of the opponent (Dixit, Avinash, & Susan, 2015). When the customers make a decision to buy the services of the telecom Company, they are going to get a payoff of 0. On the other hand if customers decide Don’t Buy, they will get a payoff of 1. Customers will decide the Don’t Buy Don’t Upgrade option. Therefore the Nash equilibrium is given by the Don’t Buy Don’t Upgrade option. The Buy Don’t Upgrade option is snipped off.

Customers

Don’t Buy

Buy

Telecom Co.

Telecom Co.

Don’t Upgrade

Don’t Upgrade

(1,1)

(0,3)

However in order to obtain an optimum strategy, a backward induction is done. Both the customers and the Telecom Company are considered to have perfect knowledge of the payoff that the other player is going to obtain (Mesbahi&Egerstedt, 2015). If the company considers Buy Don’t upgrade option, it is going to obtain a payoff of 3. However customers are not likely to consider this option because they make a payoff of 0.

Considering the previous option of Buy Upgrade, customers are going to get a payoff of 2. The company is also going to obtain a payoff of 2. This option is likely to encourage more customers to choose Buy Upgrade option. This is therefore the best strategy that will bring a perfect equilibrium for both the customers and the telecom Company. This can be represented in the game tree below.

Customers

Don’t Buy

Telecom Co.

Buy

Don’t Upgrade

Telecom Co.

(0,3)

(1,1)

(2,2)

Upgrade

References

Dixit, A. K., &Skeath, S. (2015). Games of Strategy: Fourth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company.

Mesbahi, M., &Egerstedt, M. (2015).Graphs for Modeling Networked Interactions. Encyclopedia of Systems and Control, 510-514.

Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service




Rating: