Links for Keyword: Brain imaging

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our mailing list, to receive news updates. Learn more.


Links 21 - 40 of 449

Quirin Schiermeier & Alison Abbott The ability to study brain processes in real time is one of the goals of the Human Brain Project's newly-released computing tools. Europe’s major brain-research project has unveiled a set of prototype computing tools and called on the global neuroscience community to start using them. The move marks the end of the 30-month ramp-up phase of the Human Brain Project (HBP), and the start of its operational phase. The release of the computing platforms — which include brain-simulation tools, visualization software and a pair of remotely accessible supercomputers to study brain processes in real time — could help to allay concerns about the €1-billion (US$1.1-billion) project’s benefits to the wider scientific community. “The new platforms open countless new possibilities to analyse the human brain,” said Katrin Amunts, a neuroscientist at the Jülich Research Centre in Germany and a member of the project’s board of directors, at a press conference on 30 March. “We are proud to offer the global brain community a chance to participate.” But it is not clear how the platforms — some freely accessible, others available only on the success of a peer-reviewed application — will resonate with brain researchers outside the project. “At this point, no one can say whether or not the research platforms will be a success,” says Andreas Herz, chair of computational neuroscience at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany. © 2016 Nature Publishing Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 22061 - Posted: 04.01.2016

By Matthew Hutson Earlier this month, a computer program called AlphaGo defeated a (human) world champion of the board game Go, years before most experts expected computers to rival the best flesh-and-bone players. But then last week, Microsoft was forced to silence its millennial-imitating chatbot Tay for blithely parroting Nazi propaganda and misogynistic attacks after just one day online, her failure a testimony to the often underestimated role of human sensibility in intelligent behavior. Why are we so compelled to pit human against machine, and why are we so bad at predicting the outcome? As the number of jobs susceptible to automation rises, and as Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates warn that artificial intelligence poses an existential threat to humanity, it’s natural to wonder how humans measure up to our future robot overlords. But even those tracking technology’s progress in taking on human skills have a hard time setting an accurate date for the uprising. That’s in part because one prediction strategy popular among both scientists and journalists—benchmarking the human brain with digital metrics such as bits, hertz, and million instructions per section, or MIPS—is severely misguided. And doing so could warp our expectations of what technology can do for us and to us. Since their development, digital computers have become a standard metaphor for the mind and brain. The comparison makes sense, in that brains and computers both transform input into output. Most human brains, like computers, can also manipulate abstract symbols. (Think arithmetic or language processing.) But like any metaphor, this one has limitations.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior; Chapter 7: Life-Span Development of the Brain and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System; Chapter 13: Memory, Learning, and Development
Link ID: 22052 - Posted: 03.31.2016

By Emily Underwood This tangle of wiry filaments is not a bird’s nest or a root system. Instead, it’s the largest map to date of the connections between brain cells—in this case, about 200 from a mouse’s visual cortex. To map the roughly 1300 connections, or synapses, between the cells, researchers used an electron microscope to take millions of nanoscopic pictures from a speck of tissue not much bigger than a dust mite, carved into nearly 3700 slices. Then, teams of “annotators” traced the spindly projections of the synapses, digitally stitching stacked slices together to form the 3D map. The completed map reveals some interesting clues about how the mouse brain is wired: Neurons that respond to similar visual stimuli, such as vertical or horizontal bars, are more likely to be connected to one another than to neurons that carry out different functions, the scientists report online today in Nature. (In the image above, some neurons are color-coded according to their sensitivity to various line orientations.) Ultimately, by speeding up and automating the process of mapping such networks in both mouse and human brain tissue, researchers hope to learn how the brain’s structure enables us to sense, remember, think, and feel. © 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 22041 - Posted: 03.29.2016

Mo Costandi Researchers in the United States have developed a new method for controlling the brain circuits associated with complex animal behaviours, using genetic engineering to create a magnetised protein that activates specific groups of nerve cells from a distance. Understanding how the brain generates behaviour is one of the ultimate goals of neuroscience – and one of its most difficult questions. In recent years, researchers have developed a number of methods that enable them to remotely control specified groups of neurons and to probe the workings of neuronal circuits. The most powerful of these is a method called optogenetics, which enables researchers to switch populations of related neurons on or off on a millisecond-by-millisecond timescale with pulses of laser light. Another recently developed method, called chemogenetics, uses engineered proteins that are activated by designer drugs and can be targeted to specific cell types. Although powerful, both of these methods have drawbacks. Optogenetics is invasive, requiring insertion of optical fibres that deliver the light pulses into the brain and, furthermore, the extent to which the light penetrates the dense brain tissue is severely limited. Chemogenetic approaches overcome both of these limitations, but typically induce biochemical reactions that take several seconds to activate nerve cells. The new technique, developed in Ali Güler’s lab at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, and described in an advance online publication in the journal Nature Neuroscience, is not only non-invasive, but can also activate neurons rapidly and reversibly. © 2016 Guardian News and Media Limited

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Link ID: 22034 - Posted: 03.26.2016

By Simon Makin Brain implants have been around for decades—stimulating motor areas to alleviate Parkinson's disease symptoms, for example—but until now they have all suffered from the same limitation: because brains move slightly during physical activity and as we breathe and our heart beats, rigid implants rub and damage tissue. This means that eventually, because of both movement and scar-tissue formation, they lose contact with the cells they were monitoring. Now a group of researchers, led by chemist Charles Lieber of Harvard University, has overcome these problems using a fine, flexible mesh. In 2012 the team showed that cells could be grown around such a mesh, but that left the problem of how to get one inside a living brain. The solution the scientists devised was to draw the mesh—measuring a few millimeters wide—into a syringe, so it would roll up like a scroll inside the 100-micron-wide needle, and inject it through a hole in the skull. In a study published in Nature Nanotechnology last year, the team injected meshes studded with 16 electrodes into two brain regions in mice. The mesh is composed of extremely thin, nanoscale polymer threads, sparsely distributed so that 95 percent of it is empty space. It has a level of flexibility similar to brain tissue. “You're starting to make this nonliving system look like the biological system you're trying to probe,” Lieber explains. “That's been the goal of my group's work, to blur the distinction between electronics as we know it and the computer inside our heads.” © 2016 Scientific American

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior; Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System; Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Link ID: 21950 - Posted: 03.03.2016

Laura Sanders In a multivirus competition, a newcomer came out on top for its ability to transport genetic cargo to a mouse’s brain cells. The engineered virus AAV-PHP.B was best at delivering a gene that instructed Purkinje cells, the dots in the micrograph above, to take on a whitish glow. Unaffected surrounding cells in the mouse cerebellum look blue. Cargo carried by viruses like AAV-PHP.B could one day replace faulty genes in the brains of people. AAV-PHP.B beat out other viruses including a similar one called AAV9, which is already used to get genes into the brains of mice. Genes delivered by AAV-PHP.B also showed up in the spinal cord, retina and elsewhere in the body, Benjamin Deverman of Caltech and colleagues report in the February Nature Biotechnology. Similar competitions could uncover viruses with the ability to deliver genes to specific types of cells, the researchers write. Selective viruses that can also get into the brain would enable deeper studies of the brain and might improve gene therapy techniques in people. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2016

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior; Chapter 7: Life-Span Development of the Brain and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System; Chapter 13: Memory, Learning, and Development
Link ID: 21923 - Posted: 02.23.2016

By Neuroskeptic We’ve learned this week that computers can play Go. But at least there’s one human activity they will never master: neuroscience. A computer will never be a neuroscientist. Except… hang on. A new paper just out in Neuroimage describes something called The Automatic Neuroscientist. Oh. So what is this new neuro-robot? According to its inventors, Romy Lorenz and colleagues of Imperial College London, it’s a framework for using “real-time fMRI in combination with modern machine-learning techniques to automatically design the optimal experiment to evoke a desired target brain state.” It works like this. You put someone in an MRI scanner and start an fMRI sequence to record their brain activity. The Automatic Neuroscientist (TAN) shows them a series of different stimuli (e.g. images or sounds) and measures the neural responses. It then learns which stimuli activate different parts of the brain, and works out the best stimuli in order to elicit a particular target pattern of brain activity (which is specified at the outset.) This is not an entirely new idea as Lorenz et al. acknowledge, but they say that theirs is the first general framework. Lorenz et al. conducted a proof-of-concept study in which they asked TAN to maximize the difference in brain activity between the lateral occipital cortex (LOC) and superior temporal cortex, by presenting visual and auditory stimuli of varying levels of complexity.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 21841 - Posted: 02.01.2016

By Simon Makin Multi-color image of whole brain for brain imaging research. This image was created using a computer image processing program (called SUMA), which is used to make sense of data generated by functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health Understanding how brains work is one of the greatest scientific challenges of our times, but despite the impression sometimes given in the popular press, researchers are still a long way from some basic levels of understanding. A project recently funded by the Obama administration's BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) initiative is one of several approaches promising to deliver novel insights by developing new tools that involves a marriage of nanotechnology and optics. There are close to 100 billion neurons in the human brain. Researchers know a lot about how these individual cells behave, primarily through “electrophysiology,” which involves sticking fine electrodes into cells to record their electrical activity. We also know a fair amount about the gross organization of the brain into partially specialized anatomical regions, thanks to whole-brain imaging technologies like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which measure how blood oxygen levels change as regions that work harder demand more oxygen to fuel metabolism. We know little, however, about how the brain is organized into distributed “circuits” that underlie faculties like, memory or perception. And we know even less about how, or even if, cells are arranged into “local processors” that might act as components in such networks. © 2016 Scientific American

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 21840 - Posted: 02.01.2016

Tash Reith-Banks I discovered Rob Newman’s comedy when I was 16. His shows were relentless: packed full of quotes, arguments, anger, history, philosophy and, above all, bladder-ruining laughs. Oil, urban angst, war, climate change and capitalism – Newman tore into all of these subject and more with verve, wit, and what must have been a well-used library card. Twenty years on his latest piece, The Brain Show, finds Newman on good form. He’s less angry young man, more genial, worried uncle. The laughs are still very much there, perhaps a shade gentler. One thing is still guaranteed: you’ll leave with a brain significantly fuller than before and a long reading list. The show itself majors on a sceptical look at neuroscience, especially what Newman sees as attempts to reduce the human brain to the status of a “wet computer”. He pours particular scorn on two experiments aimed at portioning the brain into neat, discrete emotional zones; he feels similarly about geneticists who think they can identify a homelessness gene, or one for low-voter turnout. Brian Cox gets a special mention for being a figurehead for lazily generalised science, with a wicked impression of Cox walking an audience through the growing and evolving human brain. Robert Newman: The Brain Show review – chewy neuro-comedy Dissing bad science, capitalists and Brian Cox, Robert Newman’s low-octane cabinet of neuroscientific curiosities has nonconformist bite As Newman later pointed out to me, citing Stephen Jay Gould: “the world we make, makes us. Cro-Magnon had the same brain as us, possibly slightly larger. Everything we’ve done since then has been the product of evolution on a brain of unvarying capacity.” © 2016 Guardian News and Media Limited

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior; Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System; Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 21819 - Posted: 01.25.2016

Finding out what’s going on in an injured brain can involve several rounds of surgery, exposed wounds and a mess of wires. Perhaps not for much longer. A device the size of a grain of rice can monitor the brain’s temperature and pressure before dissolving without a trace. “This fully degradable sensor is definitely an impressive feat of engineering,” says Frederik Claeyssens, a biomaterials scientist at the University of Sheffield, UK. The device is the latest creation from John Rogers’s lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. They came up with the idea of a miniature dissolvable brain monitor after speaking to neurosurgeons about the difficulties of monitoring brain temperature and pressure in people with traumatic injuries. Unwieldy wires These vital signs are currently measured via an implanted sensor connected to an external monitor. “It works, but the wires coming out of the head limit physical movement and provide a nidus for infection. You can cause additional damage when you pull them out,” says Rogers. It would be better to use a wireless device that doesn’t need to be extracted, he says. So Rogers’s team developed an electronic monitor about a tenth of a millimetre wide and a millimetre long made of silicon and a polymer. These materials, used in tiny amounts, are eventually broken down by the body, and don’t trigger any harmful effects, says Rogers. “The materials individually are safe. The total amount is very small. It’s about 1000 times less than what you’d have in a vitamin tablet.” © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior; Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System; Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Link ID: 21799 - Posted: 01.19.2016

Sara Reardon Manipulating brain circuits with light and drugs can cause ripple effects that could muddy experimental results. In the tightly woven networks of the brain, tugging one neuronal thread can unravel numerous circuits. Because of that, the authors of a paper1 published in Nature on 9 December caution that techniques such as optogenetics — activating neurons with light to control brain circuits — and manipulation with drugs could lead researchers to jump to unwarranted conclusions. In work with rats and zebra finches, neuroscientist Bence Ölveczky of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his team found that stimulating one part of the brain to induce certain behaviours might cause other, unrelated parts to fire simultaneously, and so make it seem as if these circuits are also involved in the behaviour. According to Ölveczky, the experiments suggest that although techniques such as optogenetics may show that a circuit can perform a function, they do not necessarily show that it normally performs that function. “I don’t want to say other studies have been wrong, but there is a danger to overinterpreting,” he says. Ölveczky and his colleagues discovered these discrepancies by chance while studying rats that they had trained to press a lever in a certain pattern. They injected a drug called muscimol, which temporarilty shuts off neurons, into a part of the motor cortex that is involved in paw movement. The animals were no longer able to perform the task, which might be taken as evidence that neurons in this brain region were necessary to its performance. © 2015 Nature Publishing Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals; Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals; Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 21690 - Posted: 12.10.2015

By Seth Fletcher To solve the mysteries of the brain, scientists need to delicately, precisely monitor neurons in living subjects. Brain probes, however, have generally been brute-force instruments. A team at Harvard University led by chemist Charles Lieber hopes that silky soft polymer mesh implants will change this situation. So far the researchers have tested the mesh, which is embedded with electronic sensors, in living mice. Once it has been proved safe, it could be used in people to study how cognition arises from the action of individual neurons and to treat diseases such as Parkinson's. © 2015 Scientific American

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Link ID: 21645 - Posted: 11.20.2015

Jon Hamilton Patterns of gene expression in human and mouse brains suggest that cells known as glial cells may have helped us evolve brains that can acquire language and solve complex problems. Scientists have been dissecting human brains for centuries. But nobody can explain precisely what allows people to use language, solve problems or tell jokes, says Ed Lein, an investigator at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle. "Clearly we have a much bigger behavioral repertoire and cognitive abilities that are not seen in other animals," he says. "But it's really not clear what elements of the brain are responsible for these differences." Research by Lein and others provides a hint though. The difference may involve brain cells known as glial cells, once dismissed as mere support cells for neurons, which send and receive electrical signals in the brain. Lein and a team of researchers made that finding after studying which genes are expressed, or switched on, in different areas of the brain. The effort analyzed the expression of 20,000 genes in 132 structures in brains from six typical people. Usually this sort of study is asking whether there are genetic differences among brains, Lein says. "And we sort of flipped this question on its head and we asked instead, 'What's really common across all individuals and what elements of this seem to be unique to the human brain?' " he says. It turned out the six brains had a lot in common. © 2015

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior; Chapter 6: Evolution of the Brain and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 21639 - Posted: 11.17.2015

For the first time, the barrier that protects the brain has been opened without damaging it, to deliver chemotherapy drugs to a tumour. The breakthrough could be used to treat pernicious brain diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, by allowing drugs to pass into the brain. The blood-brain barrier keeps toxins in the bloodstream away from the brain. It consists of a tightly packed layer of endothelial cells that wrap around every blood vessel throughout the brain. It prevents the passage of viruses, bacteria and other toxins, while ushering in vital molecules such as glucose via specialised transport mechanisms. The downside of this is that the blood-brain barrier also blocks the vast majority of drugs. There are a few exceptions, but those drugs that are able to sneak through can also penetrate every cell in the body, which makes for major side effects. Now researchers at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Canada, say they have successfully used ultrasound to temporarily open the blood-brain barrier, with the ultimate aim of treating a brain tumour. The procedure took place on 4 November. Ultrasound prises open brain's protective barrier for first time The team, led by neurosurgeon Todd Mainprize and physicist Kullervo Hynynen, injected the chemotherapy drug doxorubicin along with tiny gas-filled microbubbles, into the blood of a patient with a brain tumour. The microbubbles and the drug spread throughout their body, including into the blood vessels that serve the brain. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 21625 - Posted: 11.11.2015

By Simon Makin Optogenetics is probably the biggest buzzword in neuroscience today. It refers to techniques that use genetic modification of cells so they can be manipulated with light. The net result is a switch that can turn brain cells off and on like a bedside lamp. The technique has enabled neuroscientists to achieve previously unimagined feats and two of its inventors—Karl Deisseroth of Stanford University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Ed Boyden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology—received a Breakthrough Prize in the life sciences on November 8 in recognition of their efforts. The technology is able to remotely control motor circuits—one example is having an animal run in circles at the flick of a switch. It can even label and alter memories that form as a mouse explores different environments. These types of studies allow researchers to firmly establish a cause-and-effect relationship between electrical activity in specific neural circuits and various aspects of behavior and cognition, making optogenetics one of the most widely used methods in neuroscience today. As its popularity soars, new tricks are continually added to the optogenetic arsenal. The latest breakthroughs, promise to deliver the biggest step forward for the technology since its inception. Researchers have devised ways of broadening optogenetics to enter into a dynamic dialogue with the signals moving about inside functioning brains. © 2015 Scientific American

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals; Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals; Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 21621 - Posted: 11.10.2015

Laura Sanders Blood tells a story about the body it inhabits. As it pumps through vessels, delivering nutrients and oxygen, the ruby red liquid picks up information. Hormones carried by blood can hint at how hungry a person is, or how scared, or how sleepy. Other messages in the blood can warn of heart disease or announce a pregnancy. When it comes to the brain, blood also seems to be more than a traveling storyteller. In some cases, the blood may be writing the script. A well-fed brain is crucial to survival. Blood ebbs and flows within the brain, moving into active areas in response to the brain’s demands for fuel. Now scientists have found clues that blood may have an even more direct and powerful influence. Early experiments suggest that, instead of being at the beck and call of nerve cells, blood can actually control them. This role reversal hints at an underappreciated layer of complexity — a layer that may turn out to be vital to how the brain works. The give-and-take between brain and blood appears to change with age and with illness, researchers are finding. Just as babies aren’t born walking, their developing brain cells have to learn how to call for blood. And a range of age-related disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, have been linked to dropped calls between blood and brain, a silence that may leave patches of brain unable to do their jobs. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2015

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 21604 - Posted: 11.05.2015

Alison Abbott Europe’s troubled Human Brain Project (HBP) has secured guarantees of European Commission financing until at least 2019 — but some scientists are still not sure that they want to take part in the mega-project, which has been fraught with controversy since its launch two years ago. On 30 October, the commission signed an agreement formally committing to fund the HBP past April 2016, when its preliminary 30-month ‘ramp-up’ phase ends. The deal also starts a process to change the project’s legal status so as to spread responsibility across many participating institutions. The commission hopes that this agreement will restore lost confidence in the HBP, which aims to better understand the brain using information and computing technologies, primarily through simulation. Last year, hundreds of scientists signed a petition claiming that the project was being mismanaged and was running off its scientific course; they pledged to boycott it if their concerns were ignored. Since then, the HBP has been substantially reformed along lines recommended by a mediation committee. It has dissolved its three-person executive board, which had assumed most of the management power. And it has committed to including studies on cognitive neuroscience (which the triumvirate had wanted to eliminate). It also opened up for general competition some €8.9 million ($US10 million) of cash previously allocated only to project insiders, and in September selected four major projects in systems and cognitive neuroscience proposed by different groups around Europe. © 2015 Nature Publishing Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 21596 - Posted: 11.03.2015

Rachel Ehrenberg Patterns of neural circuitry in the brain's frontal and parietal lobes can be used to distinguish individuals on the basis of their brain scans. Our brains are wired in such distinctive ways that an individual can be identified on the basis of brain-scan images alone, neuroscientists report. In a study published in Nature Neuroscience1 on 12 October, researchers studied scans of brain activity in 126 adults who had been asked to perform various cognitive tasks, such as memory and language tests. The data were gathered by the Human Connectome Project, a US$40-million international effort that aims to map out the highways of neural brain activity in 1200 people. To study connectivity patterns, researchers divided the brain scans into 268 regions or nodes (each about two centimetres cubed and comprising hundreds of millions of neurons). They looked at areas that showed synchronized activity, rather like discerning which instruments are playing together in a 268-piece orchestra, says Emily Finn, a co-author of the study and a neuroscience PhD student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. In some regions of the brain — such as those that involve networks controlling basic vision and motor skills — most people’s neural circuitry connects up in similar ways, the team found. But patterns of connectivity in other brain regions, such as the frontal lobes, seem to differ between individuals. The researchers were able to match the scan of a given individual's brain activity during one imaging session to the same person’s brain scan taken at another time — even when that person was engaged in a different task in each session. © 2015 Nature Publishing Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 21506 - Posted: 10.13.2015

Fragment of rat brain simulated in supercomputer Moheb Costandi A controversial European neuroscience project that aims to simulate the human brain in a supercomputer has published its first major result: a digital imitation of circuitry in a sandgrain-sized chunk of rat brain. The work models some 31,000 virtual brain cells connected by roughly 37 million synapses. The goal of the Blue Brain Project, which launched in 2005 and is led by neurobiologist Henry Markram of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), is to build a biologically-detailed computer simulation of the brain based on experimental data about neurons' 3D shapes, their electrical properties, and the ion channels and other proteins that different cell types typically produce (see ‘Brain in a box’). Such a simulation would provide deep insights into the way the brain works, says Markram. But other neuroscientists have argued that it will reveal no more about the brain’s workings than do simpler, more abstract simulations of neural circuitry — while sucking up a great deal of computing power and resources. The initiative has links with the Human Brain Project, a €1-billion (US$1.1-billion), decade-long initiative which Markram helped persuade the European Commission to fund, and which also aims to advance supercomputer brain simulation. It launched in 2013, with Markram as co-leader, although this March its leadership was switched and its scientific programme altered, after criticism of the way it was being managed. © 2015 Nature Publishing Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior; Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System; Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Link ID: 21494 - Posted: 10.09.2015

By Emily Underwood WASHINGTON, D.C.—As part of President Barack Obama’s high-profile initiative to study the brain, the Kavli Foundation and several university partners today announced $100 million in new funding for neuroscience research, including three new institutes at universities in Maryland, New York, and California. Each of the institutes will receive a $20 million endowment, provided equally by their universities and the foundation, along with start-up funding to pursue projects in areas such as brain plasticity and tool development. The new funding, geared at providing stable support for high-risk, interdisciplinary research, exceeds the original commitment of $40 million that the Kavli Foundation made to the national Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, when it was first launched by President Obama in 2013. The funds are also unrestricted, allowing each institute to determine which projects to pursue. “That’s the most precious money any scientist can have,” Robert Conn, president and CEO of The Kavli Foundation, noted at a meeting today on Capitol Hill. Neuroscientist Loren Frank, who will serve as co-director at the new institute at the University of California, San Francisco, says the funds will allow his lab to explore fundamental questions such as how the brain can maintain its function despite constant change, and to form interdisciplinary partnerships with labs such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The other two sites creating new institutes are Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and Rockefeller University in New York City. In addition, Kavli announced a $40 million boost for four of its existing neuroscience institutes, located at Yale University, UC San Diego, Columbia University, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 2: Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 2: Cells and Structures: The Anatomy of the Nervous System
Link ID: 21471 - Posted: 10.03.2015