Marr and Reductionism

David Marr's three-level method for completely understanding a cognitive system and the importance he attaches to the computational level are so familiar as to scarcely need repeating. Fewer seem to recognize that Marr defends his famous method by criticizing the “reductionistic approach.” This sets up a more interesting relationship between Marr and reductionism than is usually acknowledged. I argue that Marr was correct in his criticism of the reductionists of his time—they were only describing (cellular activity), not explaining (cognitive functions). But a careful metascientific account of reductionistic neuroscience over the past two decades reveals that Marr's criticisms no longer have force. Contemporary neuroscience now explains cognition directly, although in a fashion—causal-mechanistically—quite different than Marr recommended. So while Marr was correct to reject the reductionism of his day and offer an alternative method for genuinely explaining cognition, contemporary cognitive scientists now owe us a new defense of Marr's famous method and the advantages of its explanations over the type now pursued successfully in current reductionist neuroscience. There are familiar reasons for thinking that this debt will not be paid easily.     

经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压术的快速康复外科护理

目的 探讨快速康复外科 （FTS）理念在经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压术围术期患者护理中的应用效果。方法 选择2018年1月~2019年1月我院收治并行经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压患者100例，随机分成观察组和对照组，每组50例。对照组应用常规方法进行围术期护理，观察组应用FTS理念进行围术期护理。比较两组焦虑情况、术后并发症发生率、平均住院日及平均住院费用。结果 观察组轻度焦虑多于对照组，中、重度焦虑少于对照组（P＜0.05）；观察组术后并发症发生率低于对照组[恶心呕吐（4.00% vs 16.00%）、尿路感染（4.00% vs 18.00%）、颅内感染（0 vs 8.00%）、颅内血肿（2.00% vs 14.00%）和术后应激性疼痛（16.00% vs 34.00%）]，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；观察组平均住院日和平均住院费用均低于对照组[（9.13±1.14）d vs（12.44±0.89）d]；[（2.15±0.66）万元 vs （3.05±0.61）万元]，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 应用FTS理念能缓解经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压术患者术前紧张恐惧的心理，减少术后并发症，缩短患者住院日，降低住院费用，护理效果较好。     

Are hand biomechanics affected following radial forearm flap harvest? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Donor site morbidity following radial forearm flap (RFF) harvest remains a controversial issue. The aim of this meta-analysis was to answer the question “Are the range of wrist movements (range of motion, ROM) and hand strength affected after RFF harvesting?” The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched (to December 2019). Self-controlled studies evaluating hand biomechanics after RFF harvest were included. Weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model. The outcome variables were ROM, forearm movements, grip, and pinch strengths. Thirteen studies involving a total of 335 patients were included. With the exception of grip strength and supination, which showed statistically significant reductions of about 2.40 kg and 2.86° (P < 0.05), all other ROM, forearm movements, and pinch strengths showed an insignificant difference when the operated hand was compared to the non-operated hand (P > 0.05). Regression analysis showed that the method of donor site closure and size of the donor site defect had an insignificant impact on hand biomechanics. This study confirms the lack of discernible biomechanical morbidity after RFF transfer. The minimal reduction in hand biomechanics after RFF is considered to be clinically negligible.