The field of neuroscience is experiencing a period of unprecedented growth. The range of ap- proaches used to investigate the fundamental mechanisms underlying different aspects of somatosen- sory perception has expanded substantially since the last International Symposium on Informa- tion Processing in the Somatosensory System. Diversity of approach has become the hallmark of somatosensory research, and I believe that the impact of this diversity continues to be positive. of this symposium with previous symposia will show that researchers are employing Comparison an array of new methods and technologies and that they are offering new insights into old ques- tions. The techniques range from studies of ionic channels, single unit recordings, functional brain imaging to psychophysics. A careful reading ofthe chapters reveals subtle and, on occasion, also obvious differences of opinion about experimental outcomes, approaches, and views. These differences are healthy signs of venture into new and uncharted territories.It is my hope that read- ers will appreciate both the diversity of the research addressing somesthesis, and the personal commitment, enthusiasm, and scientific rigor of the participants who made this symposium and volume meaningful for all involved. We all look forward to tracking the progress of somatosensory research at our next Symposium at the turn of the century. OveFranzen November 1995 xv List of Contributors David T. Blake Harold Burton Krieger MindlBrain Institute Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology Department of Neuroscience Washington University The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, MD 21218, USA St.

The field of neuroscience is experiencing a period of unprecedented growth. The range of ap- proaches used to investigate the fundamental mechanisms underlying different aspects of somatosen- sory perception has expanded substantially since the last International Symposium on Informa- tion Processing in the Somatosensory System. Diversity of approach has become the hallmark of somatosensory research, and I believe that the impact of this diversity continues to be positive. of this symposium with previous symposia will show that researchers are employing Comparison an array of new methods and technologies and that they are offering new insights into old ques- tions. The techniques range from studies of ionic channels, single unit recordings, functional brain imaging to psychophysics. A careful reading ofthe chapters reveals subtle and, on occasion, also obvious differences of opinion about experimental outcomes, approaches, and views. These differences are healthy signs of venture into new and uncharted territories.It is my hope that read- ers will appreciate both the diversity of the research addressing somesthesis, and the personal commitment, enthusiasm, and scientific rigor of the participants who made this symposium and volume meaningful for all involved. We all look forward to tracking the progress of somatosensory research at our next Symposium at the turn of the century. OveFranzen November 1995 xv List of Contributors David T. Blake Harold Burton Krieger MindlBrain Institute Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology Department of Neuroscience Washington University The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, MD 21218, USA St.

The field of neuroscience is experiencing a period of unprecedented growth. The range of ap- proaches used to investigate the fundamental mechanisms underlying different aspects of somatosen- sory perception has expanded substantially since the last International Symposium on Informa- tion Processing in the Somatosensory System. Diversity of approach has become the hallmark of somatosensory research, and I believe that the impact of this diversity continues to be positive. of this symposium with previous symposia will show that researchers are employing Comparison an array of new methods and technologies and that they are offering new insights into old ques- tions. The techniques range from studies of ionic channels, single unit recordings, functional brain imaging to psychophysics. A careful reading ofthe chapters reveals subtle and, on occasion, also obvious differences of opinion about experimental outcomes, approaches, and views. These differences are healthy signs of venture into new and uncharted territories.It is my hope that read- ers will appreciate both the diversity of the research addressing somesthesis, and the personal commitment, enthusiasm, and scientific rigor of the participants who made this symposium and volume meaningful for all involved. We all look forward to tracking the progress of somatosensory research at our next Symposium at the turn of the century. OveFranzen November 1995 xv List of Contributors David T. Blake Harold Burton Krieger MindlBrain Institute Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology Department of Neuroscience Washington University The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, MD 21218, USA St.