Report on Steven Lehar's "Harmonic Resonance Theory" manuscript submitted to the Journal of Integrative Neuroscience.

The problem with the use of "theory" and "Gestalt" in the title is that harmonic resonance is not a theory and Gestalian psychology is archaic. As it stands this manuscript is unacceptable for publication in JIN.

Major points

On p. 3 the author states: " I propose not a theory of detailed neurophysiological function, but a paradigm in the form of a novel principle of computation and representation." This statement alone pushes the manuscript outside the scope of JIN. However, on p. 11 the author states:" to develop a neurophysiologically plausible Gestalt theory of neurocomputation." This is contradictory to the statement made on p.3, and moreover it represents muddled thinking.

The premise of this entire manuscript is "buried" at the foot of p.19. It can be understood that "standing waves" imply spatial receptive fields. This is nonsense if no physiological explanation is ascribed. The flaw in the argument is that that "neuron doctrine" should not be abandoned but rather complemented with VT. This would have been a more plausible argument, at least in terms of physiology, to introduce harmonic resonance. Indeed all material on pp. 10-19 is irrelevant to the neuroscience community; perhaps of use to philosophers who enlist in metaphors. Unfortunately, Lehar cuts his own foot on p.32 by stating:" resonance does not simply diffuse between adjacent points in the system, but is influenced by the entire configuration of the system as a whole.." How is this done physiologically? VT does indeed diffuse in the neuropil, and with the above statement the author has disallowed this important form of transmission to be used in his "theory." Instead, Lehar tells us that harmonic resonance exhibits Gestalt-like nature beyond quantitative understanding. The author moves away from neuroscience towards holism and metaphysics and for this reason the manuscript should be rejected.

Minor points

p.2 It would suffice to have harmonic resonance as a cortical paradigm and not retinal.

p.9 Can you suggest a plausible physiological mechanism for "bi-directional functional connections"? For example, gap-junctions mentioned briefly on p.20.

p.11 Paul Bach-y-Rita's and Theodore Bullock's work covers a range of concepts discussed here. There is no need for the holistic explanation.

p.13 Why static standing waves as opposed to dynamic waves encode spatial patterns in the environment? Again VT is highly dynamic form of transmission in the neuropil.

p.31 The author states:" The harmonic resonance theory is not a fully specified theory of neurocomputation, but a paradigm." So why call it a theory?

p.31 The author states:" every paradigmatic hypothesis deserves at the very least to be exposed to the larger community." Yes, but JIN is not a philosophical journal; it strives to analyze paradigms based on neurophysiological grounding and not metaphysical arguments.