Friday, October 17, 2003
Monkey See, Robot Do
A couple days ago, researchers from Duke University made quite a splash in the new online journal, Public Library of Science showing that monkeys could consciously control robot arms with brain implants. (Click here to get the full text of the article in pdf for free. As always Science Daily's got a really good summary.)
Here's a very nice illustration of the experiment by the New York Times.
The experiment was directed by Miguel Nicolelis and was carried out as follows: Two female monkeys were implanted with electrodes in their post parietal and frontal cortex. Each was placed in front of a screen and trained to preform three types of tasks. The tasks required the monkeys to move a circular cursor over quickly disappering dots of light and "pick them up" by closing the circle. The monkeys were first trained to control the cursor by moving and applying pressure to a very sensitive pole or "joystick" for rewards.
While they mastered this task, the electrodes measured the activity of their neurons and decoded a pattern that the computer was able to recognize when the monkeys were hooked up to the robot arm somewhat more directly.
The monkeys, could not see the robot arm and in some instances were not even in the same area as it. They relied entirely on the screen to provide them with feedback. At first, the monkeys experienced a severe drop in performance
since they to learn how to control the dynamics and motion of the arm which had 6 degrees of freedom. But over a period of days improved to previous levels.
There's several really interesting implications of this experiment. The most obvious and important being the possibility for similar technology to be used with humans and "ensure" , in the words of Nicolelis, not only "proficienct operation of the neuroprosthesis, but it will also confer to the subjects the perception that such an apparatus has become an integral part of their own bodies." In the short term however, its likely that we can learn not only the extent to which motor circuits are plastic, but more importantly learn how these circuits adapt and thus a better understanding of how they are connected in the first place. It could be possible for example, for future experiments to alter the properties of the "brain-machine interface" (BMI) and test the circuit.
The inverse dynamics problem, how the brain chooses the "right" path of movement for the limbs and joints it controls from an infinite set to preform any operation, might also be understood at least a little better. And any such understanding would be greatly desired by those in the field of AI research.
Here's a very nice illustration of the experiment by the New York Times.
The experiment was directed by Miguel Nicolelis and was carried out as follows: Two female monkeys were implanted with electrodes in their post parietal and frontal cortex. Each was placed in front of a screen and trained to preform three types of tasks. The tasks required the monkeys to move a circular cursor over quickly disappering dots of light and "pick them up" by closing the circle. The monkeys were first trained to control the cursor by moving and applying pressure to a very sensitive pole or "joystick" for rewards.
While they mastered this task, the electrodes measured the activity of their neurons and decoded a pattern that the computer was able to recognize when the monkeys were hooked up to the robot arm somewhat more directly.
The monkeys, could not see the robot arm and in some instances were not even in the same area as it. They relied entirely on the screen to provide them with feedback. At first, the monkeys experienced a severe drop in performance
since they to learn how to control the dynamics and motion of the arm which had 6 degrees of freedom. But over a period of days improved to previous levels.
There's several really interesting implications of this experiment. The most obvious and important being the possibility for similar technology to be used with humans and "ensure" , in the words of Nicolelis, not only "proficienct operation of the neuroprosthesis, but it will also confer to the subjects the perception that such an apparatus has become an integral part of their own bodies." In the short term however, its likely that we can learn not only the extent to which motor circuits are plastic, but more importantly learn how these circuits adapt and thus a better understanding of how they are connected in the first place. It could be possible for example, for future experiments to alter the properties of the "brain-machine interface" (BMI) and test the circuit.
The inverse dynamics problem, how the brain chooses the "right" path of movement for the limbs and joints it controls from an infinite set to preform any operation, might also be understood at least a little better. And any such understanding would be greatly desired by those in the field of AI research.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
A Brave New Tomorrow
The Economist reviews Tomorrow's People, a speculative look at the future. Here's what really troubles the author. No really.. ."We will be able to have sex virtually with anyone..."....
Well no, not really...
Susan Greenfield worries about a "Brave New World" sort of future, where inividuals spend their entire lives in pleasure gratifying virtual realities being continously drugged, with no real will of their own. Greenfield--no quack futurologist--is a well known neuroscientist, so it should be interesting to read what she has to say. Though if pressed to comment, I must say that it seems she overestimates the progress of nanotechnology in believing we will live without cancer, baldness or obesity, all of which arise due to complex interactions between environmental factors and the expression of error riddled genomes. (Though she is not alone in this view.) Even if all these advances were made, she still underestimates the profound and stubborn conservatism of human beings.
more from the Telegraph:"All these traditional ways we have of defining individuals, such as the stage you are in your life, your reproductive status, your separation from people in terms of ideas, or separation from silicon, may be challenged in the future," Lady Greenfield said. "We could be perhaps the last generation who have a choice about being unique and over what that uniqueness means."
I don't know, humans seem to have an innate knack for separating each other based on ideas. And no group of humans no matter how isolated and edenic their environment has ever achieved the blissful, passionless, consequence free hedonism ascribed to Samoans and other groups by anthropologists like Margaret Mead. (No offense to Margaret Mead fans) Besides wouldn't it not be possible for humans not to get used to newer sources of pleasure? Work done especially by economic psychologists like Daniel Gilbert shows that people tend to adjust to situations from the euphoric to the depressing. One wonders how far you could drug people into happiness assuming people someday even choose this lifestyle.
Of course, remembering Francis Fukuyama's, "Our Posthuman Future", it's not completely unbelievable to imagine that inappropriate uses of biotechnology (especially genetic engineering of Man) might have more than slightly deleterous on society, not to mention individual rights.
Well no, not really...
Susan Greenfield worries about a "Brave New World" sort of future, where inividuals spend their entire lives in pleasure gratifying virtual realities being continously drugged, with no real will of their own. Greenfield--no quack futurologist--is a well known neuroscientist, so it should be interesting to read what she has to say. Though if pressed to comment, I must say that it seems she overestimates the progress of nanotechnology in believing we will live without cancer, baldness or obesity, all of which arise due to complex interactions between environmental factors and the expression of error riddled genomes. (Though she is not alone in this view.) Even if all these advances were made, she still underestimates the profound and stubborn conservatism of human beings.
more from the Telegraph:"All these traditional ways we have of defining individuals, such as the stage you are in your life, your reproductive status, your separation from people in terms of ideas, or separation from silicon, may be challenged in the future," Lady Greenfield said. "We could be perhaps the last generation who have a choice about being unique and over what that uniqueness means."
I don't know, humans seem to have an innate knack for separating each other based on ideas. And no group of humans no matter how isolated and edenic their environment has ever achieved the blissful, passionless, consequence free hedonism ascribed to Samoans and other groups by anthropologists like Margaret Mead. (No offense to Margaret Mead fans) Besides wouldn't it not be possible for humans not to get used to newer sources of pleasure? Work done especially by economic psychologists like Daniel Gilbert shows that people tend to adjust to situations from the euphoric to the depressing. One wonders how far you could drug people into happiness assuming people someday even choose this lifestyle.
Of course, remembering Francis Fukuyama's, "Our Posthuman Future", it's not completely unbelievable to imagine that inappropriate uses of biotechnology (especially genetic engineering of Man) might have more than slightly deleterous on society, not to mention individual rights.
Friday, October 10, 2003
Updates!
Hey readers! Sorry about the wait. Check out the new bloggers on our links!
In particular, check out Carl Zimmer, former senior editor for Discover Magazine. There (along with eerily aesthetic pictures of sheep brains) Carl's got all his old articles up. They're great reads try 'em out!
His blog, The Loom, has a nice post up about research done on the role of prefrontal areas in thought supression and decision making.
In particular, check out Carl Zimmer, former senior editor for Discover Magazine. There (along with eerily aesthetic pictures of sheep brains) Carl's got all his old articles up. They're great reads try 'em out!
His blog, The Loom, has a nice post up about research done on the role of prefrontal areas in thought supression and decision making.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Daily Stupid: Oh Baby, Oh Baby, You Light Up My Cingulate Gyrus!
(More on Tuesday's post soon!) CNN's had a link up all day to a story about what "brain science" can teach us about male thinking. It's not terribly informative I'm afraid and doesn't help readers to understand the featured author very much. Michael Gurian's books we're told are to help "mine the field of brain science to help improve relations between couples".
Here's a quote:
"Such are the advances in technology and understanding that PET radioactive-imaging and MRI magnetic-imaging scans can now show whether a man and a woman are truly in love by measuring the amount of activity in the cingulate gyrus, an emotion center in the brain, Gurian says."
One shouldn't judge before reading an author's work, but this doesn't inspire too much confidence...
Here's a quote:
"Such are the advances in technology and understanding that PET radioactive-imaging and MRI magnetic-imaging scans can now show whether a man and a woman are truly in love by measuring the amount of activity in the cingulate gyrus, an emotion center in the brain, Gurian says."
One shouldn't judge before reading an author's work, but this doesn't inspire too much confidence...
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
A Nativist Hypothesis For Suicide Bombing?
I'm afraid it was inevitable Brainiacs, Brain Blogger's given into temptation. This post and the next couple will be devoted to that infamous bugbear of science, Evolutionary Psychology.
And while it's generally agreed that it's a fool who talks of either religion or politics, I'm going to go ahead and discuss about an article that does both, in terms of evolutionary psych, no less.
If that doesn't have you shaking your heads, read on.
The latest issue of Discover Magazine, has an interview by Scott Atran an anthropologist whose interest is, you guessed it religion. And it covers mostly questions about his new article in the journal, Science about the causes of suicide boming. His basic idea is that suicide attackers are not as convention holds, psychopaths, rather sane individuals who sacrifice for themselves according to an ideology that manipulates natural, innate feelings.
Here's some quotes from the interview:
(Discover Magazine) What's the typical profile of a suicide terrorist?
A: Generally, it's not someone who is off the wall. They can't be effective killers. Usually it is someone who is smart, who shows a willingness to give up something, who is patient, who is quiet. Competent people who don't draw attention to themselves, and who are perfectly willing and able to meld into society.
(Discover Magazine) How on earth does anyone sane work up the gumption to blow himself up, together with what is often hundreds of bystanders?
A: Exactly the same way that you get soldiers on the front line of an army to sacrifice themselves for their buddies. What these cells do is very similar to what our military, or any modern military, does. They form small groups of intimately involved "brothers" who literally sacrifice themselves for one another, the way a mother would do for her child. They do it by manipulating universal heartfelt human sentiments that I think are probably innate and part of biological evolution. In fact, I think most culture is a manipulation of innate desires. It's the same way that our fast-food industry manipulates our desires for sugars and fats, or the way the pornography industry manipulates people to get all hot about pixels on a screen or on wood pulp.
(Discover Magazine) You seem to be suggesting that natural selection may be playing a role in generating the feelings that enable people to become suicide terrorists, but blowing yourself up is hardly a good strategy for propelling your genes into the next generation.
A: Natural selection gives us all sorts of dispositions and desires that were adaptive in ancestral environments. Now, our cultural milieu picks certain of these adaptations or their by-products and is able to trigger them to produce behaviors that have nothing to do with what they originally evolved for. Kin altruism (the theory that individuals are willing to sacrifice their lives to save closely related kin) evolved through natural selection. If you listen to most political and religious discourse in societies, it's always done for a brotherhood--brothers and sisters. So you create a fictive family. How else are you going to get people to die for one another when they're non-kin-related? You've got to trick them into believing they are kin-related somehow.
Do people really have an innate tendency to want to blow themselves up for the group? I'll post more on the arguments of Atran's article (in Science) later.
And while it's generally agreed that it's a fool who talks of either religion or politics, I'm going to go ahead and discuss about an article that does both, in terms of evolutionary psych, no less.
If that doesn't have you shaking your heads, read on.
The latest issue of Discover Magazine, has an interview by Scott Atran an anthropologist whose interest is, you guessed it religion. And it covers mostly questions about his new article in the journal, Science about the causes of suicide boming. His basic idea is that suicide attackers are not as convention holds, psychopaths, rather sane individuals who sacrifice for themselves according to an ideology that manipulates natural, innate feelings.
Here's some quotes from the interview:
(Discover Magazine) What's the typical profile of a suicide terrorist?
A: Generally, it's not someone who is off the wall. They can't be effective killers. Usually it is someone who is smart, who shows a willingness to give up something, who is patient, who is quiet. Competent people who don't draw attention to themselves, and who are perfectly willing and able to meld into society.
(Discover Magazine) How on earth does anyone sane work up the gumption to blow himself up, together with what is often hundreds of bystanders?
A: Exactly the same way that you get soldiers on the front line of an army to sacrifice themselves for their buddies. What these cells do is very similar to what our military, or any modern military, does. They form small groups of intimately involved "brothers" who literally sacrifice themselves for one another, the way a mother would do for her child. They do it by manipulating universal heartfelt human sentiments that I think are probably innate and part of biological evolution. In fact, I think most culture is a manipulation of innate desires. It's the same way that our fast-food industry manipulates our desires for sugars and fats, or the way the pornography industry manipulates people to get all hot about pixels on a screen or on wood pulp.
(Discover Magazine) You seem to be suggesting that natural selection may be playing a role in generating the feelings that enable people to become suicide terrorists, but blowing yourself up is hardly a good strategy for propelling your genes into the next generation.
A: Natural selection gives us all sorts of dispositions and desires that were adaptive in ancestral environments. Now, our cultural milieu picks certain of these adaptations or their by-products and is able to trigger them to produce behaviors that have nothing to do with what they originally evolved for. Kin altruism (the theory that individuals are willing to sacrifice their lives to save closely related kin) evolved through natural selection. If you listen to most political and religious discourse in societies, it's always done for a brotherhood--brothers and sisters. So you create a fictive family. How else are you going to get people to die for one another when they're non-kin-related? You've got to trick them into believing they are kin-related somehow.
Do people really have an innate tendency to want to blow themselves up for the group? I'll post more on the arguments of Atran's article (in Science) later.
Saturday, September 27, 2003
Don't Call Jughead Dumb!
It might sound a little fishy, but researchers from the University of South Hampton (in the UK) claim to have shown that large cranium size in elderly adults correlates with less cognitive decline. Christopher Martyn and Catherine Gale, in the October edition of Brain: Journal for Neurology, contend that 60 to 70 year olds in the top distribution of head size over a 3 and a half year time span have better preformance on IQ tests and memory recall. However, head circumference at birth is not correlated with less cognitive decline.
Gale and Martyn believe that this discrepancy shows that brain development during infancy and early childhood (during which the brain achieves 93% of its adult size) is most important to fetal growth in preserving mental ability later in life.
Here's the link to Brain, for those of you with subscriptions.
Gale and Martyn believe that this discrepancy shows that brain development during infancy and early childhood (during which the brain achieves 93% of its adult size) is most important to fetal growth in preserving mental ability later in life.
Here's the link to Brain, for those of you with subscriptions.
Thursday, September 25, 2003
The Brain Blog Forum
Hey Brainiacs! Now you can participate in discussions with your fellow readers in what we are tentatively calling "The Brain Blog Forum", a new interactive feature of Brainscripts! Your loyal Brain Blogger (that's me) will be posting selected comments and letters here as well as responses and more in-depth coverage on the issues.
We want to know what you think! Send those comments in!
We want to know what you think! Send those comments in!
