Take the 2-minute tour ×
Cognitive Sciences Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for practitioners, researchers, and students in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there a good tutorial or simplified overview of the paper, 'Logical calculus for nervous activity' (McCullough & Pitts, 1943)?

Reference
McCullough, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5(4), 115–133. Retrieved from http://cns-classes.bu.edu/cn550/Readings/mcculloch-pitts-43.pdf.

share|improve this question
1  
You have at least three seperate accounts: 1, 2, 3. All of them are unregistered, if you register an account then we can merge all of them together which will allow you to more fully participate in this StackExchange. –  Artem Kaznatcheev Mar 5 at 22:49
    
I created an account, but not sure how to link the older questions to it. Sorry about the unintentional spam, I was being lazy about creating an account. –  Zeph Mar 6 at 0:19
1  
I will look into having your previous accounts merged into this one. Thank you for registering. –  Artem Kaznatcheev Mar 6 at 1:06

1 Answer 1

It seems there is! Check out Marsalli's module from The Mind Project's curriculum and let me know if it works for you. It seems McCullough and Pitts' paper was important enough to be cited very many times, so there are probably several other options out there for you.

Reference
Marsalli, M. McCulloch-Pitts neurons. The Mind Project: Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/modOverview.php?modGUI=212.

share|improve this answer
2  
Their paper is cited by many as the first introduction of deterministic finite state automata into computer science (although in my opinion some work in idustrial engineering preceeds this). Thus it is very important for the history of CS; I don't think it is nearly as important for neuroscience, unfortunately :(. –  Artem Kaznatcheev Mar 5 at 22:44
    
Unfortunately in the sense that neuroscience has overlooked McCullough and Pitts (1943), or in the sense that it makes this a rather off-topic question? –  Nick Stauner Mar 5 at 22:56
1  
I did see it cited in this cognitive neuroscience tutorial paper - ccn.psych.purdue.edu/papers/ccn_in_press.pdf @Nick That is a good point. I'd be curious to understand the same. –  Zeph Mar 6 at 2:40

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.