Skip to main content Skip to navigation


I have detected some errors that were somehow missed in the revising/proofing process. So far these are:

(1) Contents page x: the title of chapter 13 reads 'Successful informatics practice' (whatever that is), it should read 'Sequences and series'.

(2) Author's acknowledgments (page xxix), Friederike Schlaghecken's name is mis-spelt 'Friedericke' (an error drawn to my attention by Dr F. Schlaghecken).

(3) Page 22, section 1.2.9: penultimate line of he text above Figure 1.11 states that "the lower the level, the more the valve plunger is pressed down". It should, of course, read "the lower the level, the less the valve plunger is pressed down" (obvious when you look at Figure 1.1).

(3) Pages 68-69: I have glibly and without comment equated primary motor cortex with M1. The two aren't really exactly the same, so some comment is clearly called for.

(4) Figure 2.32: middle transverse section on the right side of the figure is missing a label. The red patch is, of course, the substantia nigra.

(5) Figure 2.57: bottom diagram of panel B. This hasn't come out right: the 'A' should be a 'V' and the angled dashed line should be moved down by about 5 mm so that it crosses through the centre of the light grey disc.

(6) Figure 3.13: the afferent fibre is labelled as an axon in the figure, but it is actually the dendrite of a bipolar sensory neuron (since the cell body is not shown, and so presumably the fibre shown in the figure is on the peripheral side of the cell body).

(7) Figure 3.26: bottom block in panel B contains the word 'lumber', it should be 'lumbar', of course (error pointed out by a first year student at Warwick).

(8) Page175:at the bottom of the page (last 3 lines) condition (3) is incorrectly described and so the conclusion is not correct. It should state that cutaneous receptors do not contribute any information additional to that provided by muscle spindles.

(9) Page 256 (last sentence of first paragraph and Figure 4.61): it is stated that constant vergence loci are the same as Veith-Muller circles. This is not quite true - it would be true if the centres of rotation of the eyes concided with their nodal points; these differ slightly so the isovergence loci are not exactly the same as Veith-Muller circles.

(10) Figure 7.57B (p. 418): the solid dark green bar of the histogram is labelled 'muscles, vision' but should be labelled 'muscles, ankles, feet'. The pale pink bar is labelled 'muscles, ankles, feet', but should be labelled 'muscles, vision' (in short, the labels of the dark green and pale pink bars should be interchanged).

(11) Figure 7.64B (p. 428): the + signs (indicating the positively charged electrode or anode) on the right of the figure are on the wrong side of the head, they should be on the right side (not the left as shown in the figure). If they were as shown then sway would always be to the left (the right side of the figure simply reproduces the left side, but with the head orientation in the reverse order).

(12) Figure 10.11: the lead and lag elements should be in series with the gain element not in parallel with it.

(13) Figure 12.21 caption: the pointer is blue and the target is red (not the other way around as stated)

(14) Equation 12.4 on page 650: there is something wrong with this equation (the error is repeated in the two subsequent versions of it - Eqs. 12.5 and 12.6). Can you see what it is?

(15) Figure 14.23 (p. 770) the second eyelid position trace in the training part of the diagram (4th 'row' from top) is labelled 'CR' it should be labelled 'CR + UR'.

I can't believe there aren't more. If I find any more, I'll add them to the list above. If anyone else finds any please let me know and I'll add them to the list (with an acknowledgement).