The Myth of Mirror Neurons – The Real Neuroscience of Communication and Cognition Hardcover – Illustrated, 12 Sept. 2014

Very interesting and well written scientific essay on an intriguing and actual theme. Highly convincing

A++

Excellent

This was a fine read. Hickok is one of the sharpest language researchers and he clearly has a message (actually three). Combined with a forceful and convincing writing style, this provides one of the best nonfiction books I've read in recent years. A lot of food for thought and a clear challenge for the mirror neuron proponents. It reminds us once again that the most dangerous theories in science are the popular ones, because not only authors but also reviewers and editors lower their guard and risk to be carried away. We too found data that could be seen as evidence for the motor theory of speech perception, but after reading this book it is clear we have to think harder about the alternative explanations.

I begin with an unconventional suggestion: Read Appendix A, "A Primer on Brain Organization," first; then proceed through Gregory Hickok's lively and eloquent as well as insightful narrative. I wish I had when I first read this book.* * *In the Preface, Hickok quotes this passage from V.S. Razmachandran's conversation (in 2000) with John Brockman, featured by Edge.org: "I predict that mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology: they will provide the unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious and inaccessible to experiments." Fourteen years later, in this book Hickok share revelations from recent research in neuroscience that can help almost anyone think and communicate much more effectively. Several of these breakthroughs occurred during research on pigtail macaque monkeys. Hickok suggests that the behavior of mirror neurons is modest, at least in the context of the human abilities they are claimed to enable...Mirror neurons are no longer the rock stars of neuroscience and psychology that they once were and, in my view, a more complex and interesting story is gaining favor regarding the neuroscience of communication and cognition"In other words, the real neuroscience of communication and cognition repudiates and invalidates the myth of mirror neurons.I very much admire the energy of his analysis and circumspection of his perspective. These are among the subjects of greatest interest to me that Hickok discusses with rigor and, when appropriate, restraint:o Assuming that humans have mirror neurons, what are their primary functions and limitations? What differentiates them from mirror neurons of a macaque monkey?o For example, to what extent do they "unlock the secrets of language, mind reading, empathy, and autism"?o What is the Parma Theory and why is it significant?o What are the most significant anomalies in the search for mirror neurons in humans?o What does each of these anomalies suggest? So what?o What are the defining characteristics and primary functions of a "talking brain"?o What is an embodied brain"? What is its relevance to "the real neuroscience of communication and cognition"?o What are the core principles of a neural base of action understanding?o Why and how is imitation "at the core, the very foundation of what it means to be human both culturally and socially"?o Why do humans "ape better than apes ape"?o To what extent (if any) is there a causal link between autism? Between autism and sociopathic behavior?o In a robotic arm situation, what is the significance of the fact that that the brain "models or predicts the current and future state of the limb internally using motor commands themselves rather than sensory feedback alone"?o To what extent will mirror neurons have a role to play in our models of the neural basis of communication and cognition"?Although to the extent possible, Hickok presents the material in language that non-scientists such as I can understand, this was by no means an "easy read" and I plan to re-read it again in a few weeks, first re-reading the two appendices: "A Primer on Brain Organization" and "Cognitive Neuroscience Toolbox." (I wish I had done so the first time around.) Brilliantly, they frame the issues and ambiguities that are discussed with consummate skill.I agree with Gregory Hickok: "Placed in the context of a more balanced and complex structure, mirror neurons will no doubt have a role to play in our models of the neural basis of communication and cognition." So much more research in neuroscience remains to be conducted and evaluated. I am grateful to anyone who increases my understanding of "mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious and inaccessible to experiments." In other words, I am grateful for whatever helps me to gain a better understanding of myself.

Un libro bastante accesible para especialistas en neurociencias, pero también para los legos que compartan el interés por las neuronas espejo. La obra de Hickok es la más completa en cuanto a carácter crítico y argumentativo en contra de la simplicidad de explicaciones basadas en neuronas espejo, popularizadas por Giacomo Rizzolatti y su equipo de la Universidad de Parma. Hickok va progresivamente adentrando al lector en cada uno de los capítulos a las capacidades asociadas con las neuronas espejo: el lenguaje, la empatía, la imitación, etcétera., esto permite al lector una mejor comprensión de las tesis y argumentos que propone, sin duda, esta es la mayor ventaja del libro. Es ampliamente recomendable para el que desee adentrarse en el estudio crítico de las neuronas espejo, pero también para quien desee elaborar argumentos más finos a favor o en contra de esta clase de teorías.

Hickok makes a convincing argument that the wildly popular mirror neuron theories are wrong. This is a hardcore scientific book that discusses and references the original peer-reviewed literature, not some popular-science easy-reading stuff. An absolute must-read for professionals who have been captured by the mirror neuron meme, and a recommended read for everyone who is seriously interested in how the brain works.

When I first saw the title of this book, I was taken aback. I had read various books written by science writers and researchers on various topics from consciousness, the sense of self, autism and even psychopathy and all of them had treated mirror neurons as firm established scientific fact. These authors then used mirror neurons to explain aspects of their subjects. Then I see this book entitled; "The Myth of Mirror Neurons", and figured it was written by a type of anti-scientific crank and was curious. Now that I have read the book, I know that the author is far from an anti-science crank dismissing a firm scientific fact. The author is a professor of cognitive science and has written a very scientific and understandable book. This book teaches you about the origins of the idea of mirror neurons at first. Then in a very coherent and well argued style the book reveals that mirror neurons have been taken up by many researchers as an explanation of brain functions for which there is little real evidence that the mirror neurons are the true basis. Indeed, the mirror neurons may not actually exist, but such functions may be parts of other areas in the brain. The book relentlessly undermines the claims of mirror neuron believers with well done experiments which always refer to the original findings of the first discoverers of mirror neurons. Essentially, you realize that mirror neurons have lost touch with reality and have been taken up as a magic bullet which explain things way beyond its explanatory basis. This book is all good science and the way things should work. Science must always self correct and not run off in unfounded directions. This not the work of a crank at all but it is a great example of the scientific method at its best. Good science must always think about the foundations of its facts otherwise the facts become beliefs.

This is a fascinating read. Hickok has some really good arguments against the mirror neuron theory. I am lovin it.

The book is well written and thorough from where I stand: well outside the field of neuro-science.For me its greatest value lies in that it is exceptionally as a critique. It points to mirror neurons strengths as well as weaknesses throughout the book, and the way to the conclusion underplays nothing as far as this lay-reader can see.