Mostrando postagens com marcador The human brain. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador The human brain. Mostrar todas as postagens

sábado, 24 de outubro de 2015

Active body, active mind: The secret to a younger brain may lie in exercising your body

 

 

Stroop-interference-related cortical activation patterns.

Credit: Image courtesy of University of Tsukuba

It is widely recognised that our physical fitness is reflected in our mental fitness, especially as we get older. How does being physically fit affect our aging brains? Neuroimaging studies, in which the activity of different parts of the brain can be visualised, have provided some clues. Until now, however, no study has directly linked brain activation with both mental and physical performance.

As reported in the latest volume of the journal NeuroImage, an exciting new study led by Dr Hideaki Soya from the University of Tsukuba in Japan and his colleagues show, for the first time, the direct relationship between brain activity, brain function and physical fitness in a group of older Japanese men. They found that the fitter men performed better mentally than the less fit men, by using parts of their brains in the same way as in their youth.

As we age, we use different parts of our brain compared to our younger selves. For example, when young, we mainly use the left side of our prefrontal cortex (PFC) for mental tasks involving short term memory, understanding the meaning of words and the ability to recognize previously encountered events, objects, or people. When older, we tend to use the equivalent parts of our PFC on the right side of the brain for these tasks. The PFC is located in the very front of the brain, just behind the forehead. It has roles in executive function, memory, intelligence, language and vision.

With tasks involving the temporary storage and manipulation of memory, long term memories and inhibitory control, young adults favor the right side of the PFC, while older adults engage both the right and left PFC. In fact, with aging, we tend to use both sides of the PFC during mental tasks, rather than just one. This phenomenon has been coined HAROLD (hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults) and reflects the reorganisation of the brain as compensation for reduced brain capacity and efficiency due to age-related structural and physiological decline.

In the NeuroImage study, 60 older men (aged 64-75 years) underwent an exercise test to measure their aerobic fitness. The men, whose physical fitness was found to vary widely, then performed a test to measure their selective attention, executive function and reaction time. This well-known 'color-word matching Stroop test' involved showing the men words meaning color, such as blue, green, red, but asking them to name the color of the letters rather than read the word itself. This is harder than it sounds. When the color of the letters does not match the word -- blue, red, green -- it takes the brain longer to react. This reaction time is used as a measurement of brain function. Activity in the PFC region of the mens' brains was measured throughout the test using a unique neuroimaging technique called functional near infrared spectroscopy or fNIRS. This technique provides a measure of blood oxygen concentration in surface blood vessels, indicative of activity in the brain's outer layers, using a set of wearable probes in a cap that is placed on the head. Active brain cells require fresh oxygenated blood which dislodges the deoxygenated blood from that region. fNIRS measures the changes in color between oxygenated red blood and blue deoxygenated blood and thus indirectly measures brain activity.

The results from these tests were combined and extensively statistically analysed to explore the associations between aerobic fitness, Stroop reaction time and brain activity during the Stroop test. As predicted for older adults, during the Stroop test both sides of the PFC are active, with no difference between right and left, verifying the HAROLD phenomenon amongst this group of men. Previous studies have shown that young adults favour the left side of the PFC for this task.

Analysis of the relationship between brain activity and Stroop reaction time revealed that those men that favored the left side of the PFC while performing the Stroop test had faster reaction times. This indicates that older adults who use the more youth-like, task-related side of the brain perform better in this test.

Next, the association between aerobic fitness and Stroop reaction time was analysed. Fitter men had shorter reaction times.

Based on these findings, the researchers correctly predicted that higher aerobic fitness would be associated with higher left-PFC activity. In other words, fitter men tend to use the more youth-like side of their brains, at least while performing the Stroop test.

Previous studies have not examined the interaction between the three factors under investigation in this study -- aerobic fitness, mental performance and brain activation. Using clever statistical tests called mediation analyses to look at these interactions, the researchers found that aerobically fitter older men can perform better mentally than less fit older men by using the more important brain regions when needed. In fact, the fitter older men are using parts of their brains in the same way as when they were younger.

How do they do this? Professor Soya says "one possible explanation suggested by the research is that the volume and integrity of the white matter in the part of brain that links the two sides declines with age. There is some evidence to support the theory that fitter adults are able to better maintain this white matter than less fit adults, but further study is needed to confirm this theory."

If you are an aging woman, you will be wondering if these results can be applied to your female brain. Both aging sexes might also wonder whether increasing aerobic fitness later in life can increase mental fitness. The results aren't in, but I'm heading off for a brisk walk just in case.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151023084456.htm

quarta-feira, 14 de outubro de 2015

A New Way to Fight Aging in the Brain

 

 

For the first time, scientists can take skin cells from people of various ages and transform them into brain cells reflecting the ages of their donors.

By Faye Flam on October 9, 2015

Why It Matters

Aging is the number-one risk factor for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Studying how living human brain cells age could speed the development of treatments for disease and cognitive decline.

Scientists created these aging human brain cells not from old brains but from the skin cells of older people.

Our brain cells change with age: various genes become more or less active, the membrane that holds the nucleus together starts to degenerate, and molecules that in young cells are neatly compartmentalized become scattered and disorganized.

Now scientists have found a way to transform ordinary skin cells into living cultures of aging human neurons—test beds for ways we might reverse these effects of time. In the past, scientists have created neurons in a dish using stem-cell technology, but those efforts produced the equivalent of embryonic neurons. Jerome Mertens of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and his colleagues took skin cells from donors of different ages and transformed them into neurons that retained the effects of aging. This technique opens up new avenues for studying aging, age-associated diseases, and the possibility that drugs might stave off what was once inevitable.

“These results are obviously going to have an impact,” says John Gearhart, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not part of the study. The results will not only advance research into aging, he says, but could aid in the continued quest to create new cells to repair or replace damaged organs.

Gearhart says that the new findings address a major problem in his field. There are several ways to force cells to switch from one type to another, but scientists haven’t been sure how the neurons made from a skin cell differ from the neurons that develop normally in people’s brains.

The earliest method for reprogramming cells set the aging clock back to zero, he says, because the skin cells first had to be turned into a type of stem cell similar to those in early embryos. Mertens and his colleagues tried a newer technique, first developed at Stanford University, in which a series of biochemical tweaks switched skin cells directly into brain cells.

What nobody knew, says Mertens, was how the cells created by this more direct route differed from the ones that had been first returned to an embryonic state. Were they making baby neurons or ones that reflected the ages of the donors? To find out, he and his colleagues collected skin cells from 19 people of different ages from infancy to 89, turned them directly into brain cells, and compared them with cells obtained from autopsies of people at different ages. They found that the transformed neurons carried certain telltale signs of aging in proportion to the age of the donors. Indeed, he says, they found that skin cells from older people could be turned into the equivalent of neurons from older people. They published their results in the latest issue of the journal Cell Stem Cell.

The older neurons show different patterns of gene activation, says Martens. Age also disrupts what’s called compartmentalization—the ordered way in which some proteins stay confined to the nucleus of cells and others to the surrounding cytoplasm.

Martens says the membrane separating the nucleus from the rest of the cell starts to fail, so as our cells age, more proteins end up in the wrong place. He’s eager to understand how this process affects the way our brains age and our susceptibility to diseases such as ALS and Alzheimer’s. The cell-transforming technique might also be expanded to produce three-dimensional structures called organoids, he says, which can be used as models of human organs.

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542336/a-new-way-to-fight-aging-in-the-brain/

quinta-feira, 1 de outubro de 2015

Can we build a complete wiring diagram of the human brain?

 

 

A

A "connectome," or map of neural pathways and wires, of a human brain (Credit: Human Connectome Project)

Our brains are wondrous, incredible machines. They're slower than the earliest personal computers in terms of raw processing power, yet capable of leaps of intuition and able to store a lifetime of memories that are cross-referenced and instantly-accessible at the slightest prompting. We know so very little about how they do these things, however. But imagine for a moment if we could build a complete wiring diagram of a human brain – to map in detail every one of the hundred trillion or so synapses and roughly hundred billion neurons together with all the tiniest supporting mechanisms. What might that mean, and would it even be possibl

That cylinder in the middle of the image is the tiny, cubic millimeter-sized chunk of mouse ...A super-close-up reconstructed view of the synapses on a dendrite, with the synaptic vesicles (little white ...Reconstructed mouse neurons (the large blotches) with their dendrite branches

Keep thinking about that. We'll come back to it in a bit. First let's cover some more background. The functioning of a healthy brain relies on its network of neuronal connections. Multiple layers of connections and pathways, like the wires of an old mainframe computer, all add up to a single entity.

This network of connections has been called the "connectome" by scientists. To map it is essentially to build the brain's wiring diagram. The human brain connectome has not yet been fully mapped at the cellular or the macro (high-level structural and functional) scale, though efforts to do the latter are much further along than the former – which has only just even become possible (more on that later).

Both avenues of connectome study promise all sorts of insights about how the brain works. The Human Connectome Project, which is an international effort to map the connectomes of 1,000 people on a macro scale – mostly just the white matter, or active myelinated (insulated) nerve cell bundles – using magnetic resonance imaging, this week announced its finding that brain wiring patterns correlate with behavioral and demographic traits.

An fMRI-generated connectome of the human brain that shows active connections between neurons

The study found that in a sample of 460 people aged between 22 and 35, people with more education, better physical endurance, above-average memory, and other "positive" traits seem to have more strongly-connected brains than people with "negative" traits such as smoking, aggressive behavior, or a history of drug use. The results don't indicate whether one causes the other, but they do show that connectivity patterns could one day help predict traits or offer broad indicators of the effect of drugs on the brain.

 

It's all connected

Jeff Lichtman is a professor at Harvard University. He's one of the world's leading researchers in neurobiology, which looks at the brain and nervous system of animals and humans in terms of its anatomy and physiology (i.e., its cells and tissues, and the way they function and are organized). And he runs Harvard'sLichtman Lab. His journey in the field started when he was taking a course on histology – the study of tissues of the body – in medical school.

During the clinical component of the course – which delves into pathology, or the study of disorders/diseases in bodily tissues – he was struck by how there's no physical sign of what's wrong in autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other maladies of the nervous system. "This was very different from all the other organ systems where when you look at the tissue there's something to see that is the physical equivalent or correlate of the disease," Lichtman tells us. There's always a physical abnormality like an inflammation or discoloration. But not so for most diseases and disorders that affect the brain.

"After a while I realized that the reason there aren't abnormalities is not that there really aren't any, but because no one's ever actually looked at the brain at the level of resolution they'd have to look to see these abnormalities," Lichtman continues.

The brain is vastly more complicated than any other organ, however, so it's not just a matter of zooming in further – although that's a big part of it. "People will take a single section through a piece of brain and show a synapse," Lichtman explains. "But the brain works by virtue of these connections that allow one nerve cell to talk to many other nerve cells, sort of like a Twitter account, and each nerve cell is also the recipient of a network of information from thousands of other nerve cells."

As a graduate student, Lichtman studied the peripheral nervous system of human babies and other mammalian babies. He noted dramatic rewiring of the nervous system as the babies developed, then developed a technique to map it out using colors. But there aren't enough colors to show all of the wires in the cerebral cortex. He needed another method.

Lichtman's Brainbow technique was used here to color code the wires in a mouse's (a) ear muscle, (b) brainstem axon tract, and (c) hippocampal dentate gyrus, as part of a 2008 study

Size matters

Only one animal's full connectome has been constructed thus far: the roundworm C. elegans, which has a mere 302 neurons and serves as the model for research and data sharing in the field. But researchers are also putting considerable effort into mapping the mouse connectome, since mice are easily accessible in the lab and they serve as animal models for many kinds of medical studies.

It's in the mouse connectome that Lichtman and 20 of his colleagues in a joint Harvard and Boston University-led study chose to show off the latest new imaging technology earlier this year. They essentially figured out a way to adapt electron microscopy, which goes down to nanoscale resolutions, for brain imaging. And they tested the technology on a tiny slice of an adult mouse's neocortex, gaining new insights into the complex relationship between axons (nerve fibers) and dendrites (branches on neurons that act kind of like electric input sockets).

Lichtman believes this technology may help with many clinical studies, such as one his lab is working on that explores the difference in brains of healthy mice and those that have an equivalent of a human autism gene for the rare neurodevelopmental disorder Rett syndrome.

A key part of science is coming up not only with hypotheses to test but also with questions to ask. And nanoscale imaging of the brain promises to open up a brave new world of questions about brain function and structure on a cellular and subcellular level.

Principle to the quest to map the human connectome is the question of how memories are stored. "You have all these experiences of your life that are basically in there forever," Lichtman says. "You're never going to get rid of them. You may have trouble recalling things, but once you're reminded they just pop back into consciousness, which means that they're sitting in your brain in some form. Almost certainly in the form of which particular nerve cells are connected together in little networks. But no one knows how that information is encoded."

Mapping the wires of the brain might just provide the answer – which Lichtman expects will be some sort of learning algorithm that takes faces, shapes, objects, textures, sounds, names, or whatever else and converts them into wires and electrical signals.

Lichtman is also excited to see whether wiring diagrams might show why and how the brain changes as we get old. He suspects that old brains may have simpler wiring diagrams than younger ones, but connectome mapping – particularly at the finer resolutions – could hold the answer.

A super-close-up reconstructed view of the synapses on a dendrite, with the synaptic vesicles (little white dots that store neurotransmitters) also visible

 

Big data

If nothing else, this wiring diagram of the brain will provide a lot of data. What you might call big data. You need to look at every cubic millimeter of brain to see every synapse, which is necessary to map the brain's connectome in full. "In a cubic millimeter of brain there is about two terabytes of image data," Lichtman says. "I think the original Google Maps was on the range of several terabytes – that was for the whole planet." As of August 2012, it was around 20 petabytes, or 20,500 terabytes, for satellite, aerial, and street imagery combined.

A human brain has something on the order of a million cubic millimeters, which means you'd need around two million terabytes to store a map of its wires. Two million terabytes is around two thousand petabytes, or two exabytes. "That's a big number," Lichtman notes. "Even today. Even for Google."

It's so big, even, that most people cannot fathom it. Even that 302-neuron C. elegans worm connectome is too much for most people, and it's more on the order of 12 terabytes. "You couldn't ask for a smaller [connectome] dataset than that, and it's impossibly complicated," Lichtman says. "You can't just look at it and say, 'Oh now I understand how the worm swims and why it makes a sinusoidal movement when the worm moves around in the soil or why it backs up when something noxious bumps into its nose.' It's in there, but you can't look at it and say, 'I see it.'"

If you grew up in a world where a megabyte is a big dataset, you probably have no hope of understanding the scale of a human connectome dataset. If you came of age this millennium, you'll likely have a somewhat easier time of it, because your brain is wired differently, but Lichtman cautions that we may be crossing an important threshold in human development – not just in neuroscience or science more broadly, but in everything from politics to economics to religion.

"The biggest casualty of big data is big ideas, in the sense that there are no big ideas that encompass the data any more," he says. "The data is more complicated than the thoughts of most people." There are too many variables and complex interactions for us to hold in our heads, basically.

With the death of big ideas could come a fundamental change in the human experience, wherein we don't understand and believe so much as steer the analyses and follow the data. What we're looking at with big data is a division between understanding and analysis. We can simulate, model, and analyze with computers, but we can no longer be confident about understanding the results in their entirety.

Reconstructed mouse neurons (the large blotches) with their dendrite branches

 

Man or machine?

That's not the only potential change Lichtman sees on the horizon. As the newly-discovered behavioral links allude to, mapping the brain could radically transform how we treat people. As we demystify the brain with these wiring diagrams, he warns, "virtually all behavior can begin to be judged on the machine that's causing that behavior. Criminality becomes just an expected behavior given the starting condition of that particular brain."

Conceptions of free will could evaporate, and deep-rooted philosophical and religious beliefs may be challenged to their core. That's no reason to abandon the research, because the payoffs – the secret workings of our minds – are so great, but it's cause for concern, and a possible challenge for what Lichtman concedes is a very expensive field of study that advances incredibly slowly.

What we know now about the brain is infinitesimally small relative to the full picture. Lichtman says that mouse neocortex test study for nanoscale brain imaging looked at a mere three billionths or so of the brain's volume.

That scale makes it a somewhat controversial point in science, because it seems like an impossible feat to map an entire human brain at the cellular level. But Lichtman says that this kind of work in general is controversial for a more fundamental reason.

 

Seeking description

Science is traditionally experimental, whereas connectome mapping is descriptive. Experiments test ideas and manipulate things. Descriptive projects like this one or the Hubble space telescope, or the whole field of archeology, on the other hand, merely look. They are tools of ponderance: what's out there?

To many people that sounds perfectly reasonable, but Lichtman says, "A lot of people in the biomedical sciences think that we are in some way beyond description." Instead, we should be manipulating things – knocking out genes, adding chemicals, activating nerve cells. Not wondering what uncharted, unheard of mysteries remain in the depths of the brain.

That cylinder in the middle of the image is the tiny, cubic millimeter-sized chunk of mouse neocortex studied as a test case for nanoscale brain imaging technology

Lichtman likens neuroscience on the whole to a staircase with a million stairs. At the top is a complete one-to-one mapping of the human brain. "We maybe have gone one step," he says, "but that's the goal – to turn this field into something productive enough that it is able to generate enough data that one can begin to approach these deep mysteries about the brain."

In truth we probably know more about the universe beyond our Earth than about that which lies between our ears. And that is precisely why Lichtman and his connectome-mapping colleagues will persevere. "As long as we're seeing things we've never seen before, as long as we're discovering things that look different from what we expected, we should keep doing it," he says. "Obviously, because it's adding insight to things that were mysterious."

"Once you understand something well enough that there's nothing to learn and everything is the same, then yeah, maybe it's time to stop. But we're far, far from there."

  • Color-coded (by direction) white matter fiber architecture from the Human Connectome Project
  • Color-coded (by direction) white matter fiber architecture from the Human Connectome Project
  • An fMRI-generated connectome of the human brain that shows active connections between neurons
  • Lichtman's Brainbow technique was used here to color code the wires in a mouse's (a) ear muscle, (b) brainstem axon tract, and (c) hippocampal dentate gyrus, as part of a 2008 study

http://www.gizmag.com/connectome-wiring-diagram-human-brain/39659

sexta-feira, 25 de setembro de 2015

New strategies address one of science's greatest mysteries

 


36 NSF-funded research teams work to help reveal how neurons team up to produce thoughts and actions

Neurons of a mouse brain

In 2014, NSF awarded a total of $10.8 million to 36 brain research projects.

September 23, 2015

Your brain is the boss of you.

It controls vital physiological functions--such as breathing--as well as thoughts, memories and learning. Yet our understanding of the brain is downright rudimentary compared to our understanding of other organs.

As part of The BRAIN Initiative, the National Science Foundation is working to change that through projects that study the brain's circuitry in action. The six videos accompanying this story explain some of these creative, futuristic projects.

The secrets of circuits

Our brain cells, called neurons, work together to produce every memory, thought, behavior and sensation. The human brain has 80 to 100 billion neurons--each of which transmits and receives signals to and from thousands of other neurons.

To fully understand how the brain functions, scientists research how these neural circuits work.

The circuits are quite complex--they can connect neurons in distant regions of the brain and operate at different temporal and spatial scales. Because of this complexity, scientists still have a lot to learn about circuits' structure and function. How do circuits manage to operate at the speed of thought? Which circuits control specific brain functions, and where are they located in the brain? How are circuits organized? How do a circuit's neurons coordinate their activities? How do circuits develop as an organism matures after birth?

Bold research projects

NSF's BRAIN Initiative efforts are working to answer those questions.

In 2014, NSF awarded a total of $10.8 million to 36 brain research projects. These awards, which each provide $300,000 over two years, are called Early Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER). They are part of NSF's broader efforts to understand the healthy brain.

Each BRAIN EAGER supports a bold, promising--but untested--approach to develop groundbreaking technologies or concepts that advance our understanding of neural circuits. The 36 awards collectively fund 76 researchers who are applying their expertise across almost all scientific and engineering fields. Three EAGER teams are international.

Lords of the fruit flies: What goes into fruit fly courtship? It might seem like an odd question, but understanding its neural underpinnings--and studying the male-female interactions at the milliscale level--could help us better understand the complexities of social behavior. A Princeton University team--neuroscientist Mala Murthy and physicists William Bialek and Joshua Shaevitz--will stimulate individual neurons as the fruit flies (Drosophila) conduct complex courtship behaviors. They will also develop mathematical models that predict the dynamics of interactive behavior.

Seeing the brain in a whole new light: Researchers all over the world use technology called optogenetics that allows them to turn neurons on and off in living laboratory organisms by exposing them to certain types of light. Stephen Boppart of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign wants to expand optogenetics even further. His project involves developing new physics-based techniques to improve control over those beams of light. This would enable researchers to activate circuits of neurons with greater resolution and spatial specificity than ever before, laying the foundation for new types of brain research on how circuits produce behavior and cognition.

New ways to scope the brain: Compare a boxy 1980s television to the sleek, high-definition TVs of today: That's a significant difference. Spencer Smith's wants to make an even bigger jump with microscope technology, though--a 100-fold difference over the instruments used today. Smith, of the University of North Carolina's School of Medicine, and his team developed the new microscope, which can simultaneously view individual neurons firing in two or more brain regions of a moving laboratory animal. The microscope will enable researchers to see how different areas of the brain work together to process information.

As the worm turns: The tiny roundworm (C. elegans) is a great animal for brain research. It is transparent, so its neurons can be seen through a microscope. And its simple nervous system consists of just 302 neurons. Plus, it matures from an egg to an egg-laying adult in two days. Harvard University's Aravinthan Samuel will exploit all these benefits to document, for the first time, all behaviors and neural activities simultaneously demonstrated by an individual animal by studying a roundworm as it matures from birth to adulthood. This project will shed light on the parallel development of brain circuits and behavior.

Spying on synapses: Signaling across synapses--the tiny gaps between neurons, over a thousand times thinner than a sheet of paper--requires multiple molecules to work together. To learn how neurons communicate, and ensure they pass across the synapses at the right pace and time, Nancy Xu of Old Dominion University and her team are developing new imaging tools and nanotechnology. These tools provide enhanced resolution and may lead to new insights about the role of abnormal signaling involved in brain diseases, injuries and drug addiction.

Measuring the brain's chemical cocktails: Dopamine is a special chemical, neurologically speaking. The neurotransmitter is crucial for decision-making, learning, movement and more. Scientists know that varying dopamine levels affect neurons, but they don't yet have a method to measure exactly how. Michael Heien and Stephen Cowen from the University of Arizona are developing a tool that will simultaneously measure dopamine release and the activity of groups of neurons. The technology will help provide a real-time picture of how dopamine affects abilities such as motor control and learning.

--
Lily Whiteman, National Science Foundation (703) 292-8070lwhitema@nsf.gov

--
Jessica Arriens, National Science Foundation (703) 292-2243
jarriens@nsf.gov

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=135837&WT.mc_id=USNSF_1

quarta-feira, 29 de julho de 2015

Slowness as organization principle in the brain

 

 

Prof Laurenz Wiskott investigates slowness as organisation principle for the brain.

Credit: © RUBIN, photo: Gorczany

The brain is so complex that its structure cannot be completely determined by genetics. Neuroscientists at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB) attempt to figure out which mechanisms nerve cells use to organize themselves. They have suggested that slowness may be the decisive factor. The Ruhr-Universität's science magazine RUBIN reports: http://rubin.rub.de/en/slowness-rather-genetics

Cells extract features that vary slowly

Prof Dr Laurenz Wiskott from the RUB Neural Computation Institute has been continuously developing the slowness principle since 1998. It states that the brain extracts features from the input signals that change only slowly in the course of time. Based on those slowly varying features, the organization structures of the nerve cells form. Laurenz Wiskott has created an algorithm, with which he can test the slowness principle in computer simulations. It is called Slow Feature Analysis.

Slowness principle can, for example, explain the formation of place cells

The input fed into the algorithm consists of video sequences. It searches for functions that extract features from the images which change as slowly as possible. After the simulation is completed, the analysis renders a set of different functions. Each corresponds with one cell with specific features. Thus, the Slow Feature Analysis generates nerve cells that have been described in numerous experiments. The researchers can thus, for example, explain the formation of place cells, i.e. nerve cells that fire only if an individual is in a certain location within a setting. They were found in experiments in the hippocampus of rats, a brain structure that, among other things, is responsible for spatial navigation. With the Slow Feature Analysis, RUB PhD student Fabian Schönfeld has recently reproduced the results of six additional physiological experiments.

Facial recognition through Slow Feature Analysis

Wiskott's team is researching into other areas as well, where the slowness principle could prove useful. The researchers have trained their algorithm to estimate, for example, the age of individuals based on a photo, with a precision of plus/minus 3.7 years.


Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Ruhr-Universitaet-Bochum. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


 

sexta-feira, 10 de julho de 2015

New atlas of the brain opens up alternative means for studying brain disorders

 

 


In red are two views of the same region in the new atlas.

Credit: BioCruces

The brain is a highly complex, dynamic system. It is made up of grey and white matter. The grey matter contains the neurons which are responsible for processing the information received from the sensory area and other parts of the brain. The white matter makes use of fibres and is responsible for connecting the various regions of grey matter of the brain so that they can communicate with each other efficiently and collaborate in complex, cognitive tasks (this map of fibres is like the brain's highways). The functional interaction between the various regions of the brain is essential for it to function properly: it is reckoned that 20% of the energy consumed by a person is used by the brain to establish and maintain these connections.

Many studies have been carried out until now to understand how the brain functions and how it is organised structurally, but we still have much more to learn.

A new study, led by Jesús M. Cortés, an Ikerbasque lecturer at the Biocruces Institute for Healthcare Research and an academic collaborator in the Department of Cell Biology and Histology of the UPV/EHU-University of the Basque Country, has shed some light on this problem. The work has been published in the journal Scientific Reports and its lead author is Ibai Díez, a telecommunications engineer also attached to Biocruces. In actual fact, the study combines techniques at the cutting edge of three disciplines: neuroscience, image processing and network theory. In particular, the brain's structural (fibres) and functional data (the brain's functional activity) have been merged on a large scale to analyse how the brain is organised. This analysis has resulted in the "partitioning" of the brain into an atlas that follows a common functional and structural pattern. This is the first time that a brain atlas has been produced by combining structural and functional data; until now, the atlases used were purely structural ones (anatomical ones) or purely functional ones.

Thanks to this new partition of the brain, the heavy dependence that exists between structural connectivity and the functional connectivity networks has been revealed for the first time. The atlas is robust and consistent across different individuals (it has been validated using data from other subjects and in different magnetic resonance imaging equipment).

Many neurological disorders affect the central nervous system. A considerable number are of a structural origin, such as head injuries or neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzhiemer's or Parkinson's (which originate as a result of a significant loss of fibres). Others may have a functional origin, such as a simple headache, a migraine or even an epileptic fit. Structural damage is known to lead to a functional alteration (the loss of fibres in Alzheimer's causes memory loss, etc.) or the other way round (there are people who display neuronal loss in specific zones after numerous epileptic fits). So the structure-function relationship is closely related as alterations in one of them affect the other.

The new atlas has been produced using data from healthy subjects Right now, alterations in each of these regions caused by aging or a moderate to severe head injury are being studied. So the study of the alterations in the different regions of the atlas may henceforth open up alternative avenues for understanding a range of disorders.

The study has been led by the Computational Neuroimaging Group and the Platform for Quantitative Biomedicine of the Biocruces Institute for Healthcare Research and has had the collaboration of the universities of the Basque Country, Granada, Bari (Italy) and Tel Aviv (Israel).


Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of the Basque Country. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Ibai Diez, Paolo Bonifazi, Iñaki Escudero, Beatriz Mateos, Miguel A. Muñoz, Sebastiano Stramaglia, Jesus M. Cortes. A novel brain partition highlights the modular skeleton shared by structure and function. Scientific Reports, 2015; 5: 10532 DOI: 10.1038/srep10532

segunda-feira, 6 de outubro de 2014

2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: Cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain

 

October 6, 2014

Nobel Foundation

The 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to John O´Keefe, May-Britt Moser and Edvard I. Moser for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain. The discoveries have solved a problem that has occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries -- how does the brain create a map of the space surrounding us and how can we navigate our way through a complex environment?


Grid cells, together with other cells in the entorhinal cortex that recognize the direction of the head of the animal and the border of the room, form networks with the place cells in the hippocampus. This circuitry constitutes a comprehensive positioning system, an inner GPS, in the brain. The positioning system in the human brain appears to have similar components as those of the rat brain.

The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to award The 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with one half to John O´Keefe and the other half jointly to May-Britt Moser and Edvard I. Moser for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain

How do we know where we are? How can we find the way from one place to another? And how can we store this information in such a way that we can immediately find the way the next time we trace the same path? This year´s Nobel Laureates have discovered a positioning system, an "inner GPS" in the brain that makes it possible to orient ourselves in space, demonstrating a cellular basis for higher cognitive function.

In 1971, John O´Keefe discovered the first component of this positioning system. He found that a type of nerve cell in an area of the brain called the hippocampus that was always activated when a rat was at a certain place in a room. Other nerve cells were activated when the rat was at other places. O´Keefe concluded that these "place cells" formed a map of the room.

More than three decades later, in 2005, May-Britt and Edvard Moser discovered another key component of the brain's positioning system. They identified another type of nerve cell, which they called "grid cells," that generate a coordinate system and allow for precise positioning and pathfinding. Their subsequent research showed how place and grid cells make it possible to determine position and to navigate.

The discoveries of John O´Keefe, May-Britt Moser and Edvard Moser have solved a problem that has occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries -- how does the brain create a map of the space surrounding us and how can we navigate our way through a complex environment?

How do we experience our environment?

The sense of place and the ability to navigate are fundamental to our existence. The sense of place gives a perception of position in the environment. During navigation, it is interlinked with a sense of distance that is based on motion and knowledge of previous positions.

Questions about place and navigation have engaged philosophers and scientists for a long time. More than 200 years ago, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that some mental abilities exist as a priori knowledge, independent of experience. He considered the concept of space as an inbuilt principle of the mind, one through which the world is and must be perceived. With the advent of behavioural psychology in the mid-20th century, these questions could be addressed experimentally. When Edward Tolman examined rats moving through labyrinths, he found that they could learn how to navigate, and proposed that a "cognitive map" formed in the brain allowed them to find their way. But questions still lingered -- how would such a map be represented in the brain?

John O´Keefe and the place in space

John O´Keefe was fascinated by the problem of how the brain controls behaviour and decided, in the late 1960s, to attack this question with neurophysiological methods. When recording signals from individual nerve cells in a part of the brain called the hippocampus, in rats moving freely in a room, O'Keefe discovered that certain nerve cells were activated when the animal assumed a particular place in the environment. He could demonstrate that these "place cells" were not merely registering visual input, but were building up an inner map of the environment. O'Keefe concluded that the hippocampus generates numerous maps, represented by the collective activity of place cells that are activated in different environments. Therefore, the memory of an environment can be stored as a specific combination of place cell activities in the hippocampus.

May-Britt and Edvard Moser find the coordinates

May-Britt and Edvard Moser were mapping the connections to the hippocampus in rats moving in a room when they discovered an astonishing pattern of activity in a nearby part of the brain called the entorhinal cortex. Here, certain cells were activated when the rat passed multiple locations arranged in a hexagonal grid. Each of these cells was activated in a unique spatial pattern and collectively these "grid cells" constitute a coordinate system that allows for spatial navigation. Together with other cells of the entorhinal cortex that recognize the direction of the head and the border of the room, they form circuits with the place cells in the hippocampus. This circuitry constitutes a comprehensive positioning system, an inner GPS, in the brain.

A place for maps in the human brain

Recent investigations with brain imaging techniques, as well as studies of patients undergoing neurosurgery, have provided evidence that place and grid cells exist also in humans. In patients with Alzheimer´s disease, the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex are frequently affected at an early stage, and these individuals often lose their way and cannot recognize the environment. Knowledge about the brain´s positioning system may, therefore, help us understand the mechanism underpinning the devastating spatial memory loss that affects people with this disease.

The discovery of the brain's positioning system represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of how ensembles of specialized cells work together to execute higher cognitive functions. It has opened new avenues for understanding other cognitive processes, such as memory, thinking and planning.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Nobel Foundation. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


 

quinta-feira, 11 de setembro de 2014

Impact of violent media on the brain: Depends on each individual's brain circuitry, study finds

 


With the longstanding debate over whether violent movies cause real world violence as a backstop, a study published in PLOS One found that each person's reaction to violent images depends on that individual's brain circuitry, and on how aggressive they were to begin with.

The study, which was led by researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the NIH Intramural Program, featured brain scans which revealed that both watching and not watching violent images caused different brain activity in people with different aggression levels. The findings may have implications for intervention programs that seek to reduce aggressive behavior starting in childhood.

"Our aim was to investigate what is going on in the brains of people when they watch violent movies," said lead investigator Nelly Alia-Klein, PhD, Associate Professor of Neuroscience and Psychiatry at the Friedman Brain Institute and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. "We hypothesized that if people have aggressive traits to begin with, they will process violent media in a very different way as compared to non-aggressive people, a theory supported by these findings."

After answering a questionnaire, a group of 54 men were split by the research team into two groups -- one with individuals possessing aggressive traits, including a history of physical assault, and a second group without these tendencies. The participants' brains were then scanned as they watched a succession of violent scenes (shootings and street fights) on day one, emotional, but non-violent scenes (people interacting during a natural disaster) on day two, and nothing on day three.

The scans measured the subjects' brain metabolic activity, a marker of brain function. Participants also had their blood pressure taken every 5 minutes, and were asked how they were feeling at 15 minute intervals.

Investigators discovered that during mind wandering, when no movies were presented, the participants with aggressive traits had unusually high brain activity in a network of regions that are known to be active when not doing anything in particular. This suggests that participants with aggressive traits have a different brain function map than non-aggressive participants, researchers said.

Interestingly, while watching scenes from violent movies, the aggressive group had less brain activity than the non-aggressive group in the orbitofrontal cortex, a brain region associated by past studies with emotion-related decision making and self-control. The aggressive subjects described feeling more inspired and determined and less upset or nervous than non-aggressive participants when watching violent (day 1) versus just emotional (day 2) media. In line with these responses, while watching the violent media, aggressive participants' blood pressure went down progressively with time while the non-aggressive participants experienced a rise in blood pressure.

"How an individual responds to their environment depends on the brain of the beholder," said Dr. Alia-Klein. "Aggression is a trait that develops together with the nervous system over time starting from childhood; patterns of behavior become solidified and the nervous system prepares to continue the behavior patterns into adulthood when they become increasingly coached in personality. This could be at the root of the differences in people who are aggressive and not aggressive, and how media motivates them to do certain things. Hopefully these results will give educators an opportunity to identify children with aggressive traits and teach them to be more aware of how aggressive material activates them specifically."


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Mount Sinai Medical Center. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Nelly Alia-Klein, Gene-Jack Wang, Rebecca N. Preston-Campbell, Scott J. Moeller, Muhammad A. Parvaz, Wei Zhu, Millard C. Jayne, Chris Wong, Dardo Tomasi, Rita Z. Goldstein, Joanna S. Fowler, Nora D. Volkow. Reactions to Media Violence: It’s in the Brain of the Beholder. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9 (9): e107260 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107260

Neuroscientists decode brain maps to discover how we take aim

 


Boy swinging tennis racket (stock image). A recent study shows that different regions of the brain help to visually locate objects relative to one's own body and those relative to external visual landmarks.

Serena Williams won her third consecutive US Open title a few days ago, thanks to reasons including obvious ones like physical strength and endurance. But how much did her brain and its egocentric and allocentric functions help the American tennis star retain the cup?

Quite significantly, according to York University neuroscience researchers whose recent study shows that different regions of the brain help to visually locate objects relative to one's own body (self-centred or egocentric) and those relative to external visual landmarks (world-centred or allocentric).

"The current study shows how the brain encodes allocentric and egocentric space in different ways during activities that involve manual aiming," explains Distinguished Research Professor Doug Crawford, in the Department of Psychology. "Take tennis for example. Allocentric brain areas could help aim the ball toward the opponent's weak side of play, whereas the egocentric areas would make sure your muscles return the serve in the right direction."

The study finding will help healthcare providers to develop therapeutic treatment for patients with brain damage in these two areas, according to the neuroscientists at York Centre for Vision Research. "As a neurologist, I am excited by the finding because it provides clues for doctors and therapists how they might design different therapeutic approaches," says Ying Chen, lead researcher and PhD candidate in the School of Kinesiology and Health Science.

The study, "Allocentric versus Egocentric Representation of Remembered Reach Targets in Human Cortex," published in the Journal of Neuroscience, was conducted using the state-of-the-art fMRI scanner at York U's Sherman Health Science Research Centre. A dozen participants were tested using the scanner, which Chen modified to distinguish brain areas relating to these two functions.

The participants were given three different tasks to complete when viewing remembered visual targets: egocentric reach (remembering absolute target location), allocentric reach (remembering target location relative to a visual landmark) and a nonspatial control, colour report (reporting color of target).

participants remembered egocentric targets' locations, areas in the upper occipital lobe (at the back of the brain) encoded visual direction. In contrast, lower areas of the occipital and temporal lobes encoded object direction relative to other visual landmarks. In both cases, the parietal and frontal cortex (near the top of the brain) coded reach direction during the movement.When


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by York University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Ying Chen et al. Allocentric versus Egocentric Representation of Remembered Reach Targets in Human Cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, September 2014 DOI: 10.%u200B1523/%u200BJNEUROSCI.%u200B1445-14

Prying Open the Black Box of the Brain


NSF-funded workshop addresses brain structure and function

Graphic illustration showing a human head, light and waves

How does the brain record, process, use, store and retrieve vast quantities of information?
Credit and Larger Version

The human brain is the most complex biological structure on Earth. It has about 100 billion neurons--each of which has thousands of connections to other neurons.

Moreover, brains change with time for a variety of reasons. For example, as we age, our brains lose nerve cells (neurons). In addition, the wiring of our brains is continually altered as we learn, socialize, undergo stress and encounter varied environmental conditions. That's right: Our brains are anatomically and physiologically changed by normal intellectual and physical experiences.

So each of us--continually subjected to new and different brain-changing experiences--has a unique brain. In fact, even the brains of identical twins differ from one another. What's more, brain injuries may trigger various types of changes in the anatomy and physiology of the brain to compensate for lost function and/or maximize remaining functions.

Largely because the brain is so complex and dynamic, it is still akin to a locked black box--3 pounds of mystery lodged between our ears. Indeed, our understanding of the brain remains downright rudimentary compared to our understanding of other organs.

Desperately seeking a theory

Despite major technological advances in brain research during recent decades, scientists have yet to describe all of the various types of cells that comprise the brain and determine their functions. Complicating matters further, the brain is more than the sum of its parts. That is, the various components of the brain do not operate in isolation from one another; they must communicate with one another and work together to process information and produce memories, thoughts and behaviors.

But scientists still don't understand how information is processed in any organism, whether it be a lowly worm whose nervous system is comprised of only a few hundred neurons or a complex vertebrate. We simply do not know what happens in the brain when an organism thinks, maneuvers through the world, takes in sensory information or sleeps.

In other words, scientists lack a basic, overarching theory about healthy brain function that would explain how memories, thoughts and behaviors emerge from dynamic activities in the brain--any brain.

This theoretical vacuum has persisted even though molecular, cellular and neuronal activities in the brains of many species have been well studied, as has behavior in many species, including humans. Nevertheless, the relationships between these two types of phenomena and the sequence of events that translates one to the other remain mysterious.

By providing a framework for predicting how micro events in the brain produce behaviors, and vice-versa, a theory of healthy brain function would contribute as much to neuroscience as the theory of evolution contributes to the tree of life, the theory of plate tectonics contributes to geology and the theory of relativity contributes to cosmology.

But still unable to explain how a normal brain functions, scientists cannot yet explain how traumatic injuries and brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, autism and epilepsy, impair function. Nor can they determine how brain injuries and diseases should be treated. By comparison, imagine a mechanic trying to fix a car's engine without a parts list and/or understanding how it runs!

It is even difficult for scientists to so much as agree on which neurological variables should be studied. Such disagreement, however, would probably be reduced by a viable theory of healthy brain function because it would likely reveal particularly promising areas of future research. It could do so by, for example, helping scientists identify important neuronal nodes that warrant more attention than do thickets of rank-and-file neurons.

The new BRAIN Initiative

Responding to the need for a comprehensive understanding of the brain, President Barack Obama launched the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative on April 2, 2013. Led by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), BRAIN is a bold new research effort.

Extending beyond mere mapping of the brain, the BRAIN Initiative is aimed at producing an array of tools that are needed to establish an integrated theory of how a healthy brain functions over an organism's life. This theory will provide a fundamental framework for interpreting new information on brain science and will change existing paradigms for explaining "who we are."

"When scientists do ultimately figure out how the brain works--however long it takes, this accomplishment will probably be considered the greatest scientific achievement in all of human history," said John Wingfield, NSF's assistant director for the Biological Sciences Directorate.

NSF'S role in BRAIN

Brain processes are multidisciplinary phenomena, incorporating the principles of biology, chemistry, physics, engineering and mathematics. Therefore, efforts to understand these processes under BRAIN require multidisciplinary approaches. "The kinds of challenges we are facing in the study of neuroscience require contributions from a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines," said Denise Caldwell, NSF's division director for Physics.

Needed basic research: Examples of the types of multidisciplinary advancements that are needed to advance BRAIN include:

  • Basic studies conducted by biologists, in collaboration with physicists, chemists, mathematicians and engineers, on the healthy functioning of the nervous systems of many types of species, from those with simple nervous systems to complex vertebrates--not just on humans and organisms that have traditionally served as model organisms in brain studies. Such studies would be based on a species comparative approach.
  • Theoretical and computational models created by physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists that will help reveal and predict complex neural activities in the healthy brain that drive thoughts and behavior.
  • New materials developed by materials scientists and engineers that are needed to create innovative types of brain probes that can be used to monitor and manipulate the brain.
  • Optical and electrical tools developed by physicists and engineers to better image the brain and brain activity.

NSF's key contributions: NSF is uniquely positioned to foster these and other types of needed innovations because the agency supports basic research across the scientific and engineering disciplines. What's more, NSF has already helped lay the groundwork for BRAIN by supporting many game-changing innovations in brain research, including the development of the following:

  • Optogenetics: A bioengeering technique that enables scientists to selectively turn on and off particular neurons and neuronal circuits in living organisms so that resulting behavioral changes can be observed in real time.
    Optogenetics is currently being used to help identify the functions of neurons and neuronal circuits and to help identify appropriate targets for drugs or technologies that address brain dysfunction. (See
    an NSF article about the contributions of optogenetics to research on Parkinson's disease and an NSF article on its contributions to research on anxiety.)
    A crucial prerequisite to the development of optogenetics was a discovery that was produced by research on a seemingly unrelated topic: algae. Specifically, this research identified the presence and molecular structure of light-sensitive proteins in algae. Turned on by light, these proteins help them find light that is needed by the algae to produce energy through photosynthesis.
    After the light-sensitive algae proteins were discovered, brain researchers found that they could impart the brain neurons and neuronal circuits of various species with light sensitivity by inserting into them the light-sensitive algae proteins. Once made light sensitive, the neurons and circuits could be turned on merely by shining a light on them, and turned off by other types of simple light manipulations.
    The basics of optogenetics were thus developed. This pivotal application of algae research to neuroscience underscores the importance to BRAIN of NSF-funded basic research--including basic research in seemingly far-flung disciplines.
  • CLARITY: A new brain imaging technology, announced on April 10, 2013, that can be used to generate detailed, 3-D images of intact brains that highlight specific neuronal networks. These images can be produced without slicing the brain and disrupting its biochemistry, as previously required.

Potential applications of NSF-funded BRAIN research

By supporting additional multidisciplinary research under BRAIN, NSF will help produce a deep foundation of fundamental information of healthy brain function. This foundation will help reveal "how the car is designed, rather than just how it might be fixed." It may thereby open up entirely new avenues for NIH's research on brain diseases and DARPA's research on traumatic brain injuries.

This foundation may also offer applications to important issues that are unrelated to health. For example, this research may help explain differences in individual learning styles, reveal the origins of cultural mores, and provide insight into what makes people "tick" as individuals. It may also inspire the development of new "smart" technologies that mimic the information processing capabilities of the human brain.

NSF-funded BRAIN research may also help improve resource management. For example, this research may help scientists identify environmental conditions that promote the development of the nervous systems and metabolic systems of animals, such as fish and livestock. Resulting insight may help resource managers design aquaculture and livestock facilities to maximize the growth and productivity of their animals.

Brain studies may also help scientists figure out why many species of endangered vertebrates do not reproduce well in captivity--and explain why some species easily adapt to climate change, while other, closely related species cannot do so.

"We think that these [and other] phenomena are related to how an organism perceives its environment, which, in turn, is related to its brain function," said Wingfield. "Therefore, advancements in our basic understanding of the brain may have important implications for conservation and--by extension--our quality of life."

The kick-off of BRAIN: A meeting of the minds

NSF set the stage for producing such advancements by sponsoring the first BRAIN event: A workshop called "Physical and Mathematical Principles of Brain Structure and Function," which was held in Arlington, Va., on May 6 and 7, 2013.

The workshop drew 150 leading researchers from varied disciplines including physics, mathematics and neurobiology. These researchers represented more than 60 institutions including NIH, DARPA, and other federal agencies, research institutions, academic journals and the private sector.

Good timing: Physical and Mathematical Principles of Brain Structure and Function was fortuitously timed to tap into the sense of possibility generated by the coincidental release of CLARITY just weeks before the conference began, and by the recent development of optogenetics and various other new technologies for creating high-resolution images of brains with electron microscopes and for recording electrical impulses from brains.

"This conference was particularly timely because the community has realized that technologies for brain research have advanced to the point where we can now make a real leap in knowledge," said Caldwell.

Discussions about salient past and future multidisciplinary contributions to neuroscience also helped to generate an air of excitement, esprit de corps and sense of purpose at the workshop.

Developing research priorities: Various workshop activities, including presentations, break-out sessions and an invitation to participants to submit white papers, were designed to solicit their input on technical topics. These topics included important challenges in brain research, the types of computational approaches and tools that are most needed for advancing brain research, best practices for integrating data to produce knowledge, and methods for incentivizing multidisciplinary brain research.

The workshop culminated with the development of consensus by participants on the following priorities for future neuroscience research:

  • Identifying signatures in neural activity that can be used to predict complex behaviors. These signatures may be identified through studies involving large-scale recordings from representative sets of neurons in multiple species and through high-resolution studies of neuro-anatomy in many species.
  • Developing theoretical and computational models that can be used to understand and analyze data produced by large-scale neural recordings.
  • Promoting unprecedented levels of international sharing of data on brain research and education. Doing so will involve developing standardized cyber tools and standards for data collection, analysis and integration--tasks that require solving complex "Big Data" problems.

"This initial set of over-arching priorities will set the stage for future detailed quantitative research," said Caldwell. "Results from this future research will drive advances in theoretical understanding that will, over the coming years, bring scientists closer to achieving the ultimate goal of understanding how the brain works and using this understanding to benefit human health."

For more information: To learn more about the goals of the workshop and potential follow-up activities, view the two video interviews with NSF and NIH executives that accompany this article. And to access various resources produced by the BRAIN workshop, including white papers, videos of conference presentations and the conference agenda, visit the workshop's website.

For more information on NSF-funded research on BRAIN-related topics, go to:

--
Lily Whiteman, National Science Foundation (703) 292-8310 lwhitema@nsf.gov

--
Abby Deift, National Science Foundation (703) 292-4934 adeift@nsf.gov

Related Websites
Mapping and Engineering the Brain: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6615987
UA Study: Your Brain Sees Things You Don't: http://uanews.org/story/ua-study-your-brain-sees-things-you-don-t
NSF Workshop on Integrating Approaches to Computational Cognition: http://matt.colorado.edu/compcogworkshop/supplement.pdf
Phylogenetic Principles of Brain Structure and Function: Brain Maps Across Phylogeny: http://www.understandingthebrain.org/
Report from the NSF Workshop on Integrating Approaches to Computational Cognition: http://matt.colorado.edu/compcogworkshop/report.pdf
Report from the NSF Workshop on Linking Language and Cognition to Neuroscience via Computation: http://www.psych.nyu.edu/clash/dp_papers/NSF-Workshop-report.pdf
Report of the Physical and Mathematical Principles of Brain Structure and Function Workshop: http://physicsoflivingsystems.org/brainstructureandfunction/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/10/Report-on-NSF-Kavli-BRAIN-Mtg-1.pdf

Snap 2014-09-11 at 11.06.18

quinta-feira, 13 de março de 2014

Understanding the brain: the National Science Foundation and the BRAIN Initiative



Illustration of a head

A comprehensive understanding of the brain remains unknown.

September 3, 2013

Researchers, Dear Colleague Letter: BRAIN EAGERs to Enable Innovative Neurotechnologies to Reveal the Functional and Emergent Properties of Neural Circuits Underlying Behavior and Cognition posted March 7, 2014. Please find more information on NSF's role in the BRAIN Initiative here.​

On April 2, 2013, the White House announced an initiative called Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN), which includes the participation of the National Science Foundation (NSF). You may wonder what this means.

Part of what it means is an opportunity to continue a national conversation about an important topic: the brain. To help with the dialogue, here are short answers to some basic questions.

What is the BRAIN Initiative?

The BRAIN Initiative is an effort by federal agencies and private partners to support and coordinate research to understand how the human brain works.

Why do we need to understand the brain?

Understanding the brain means knowing the fundamental principles underlying brain structure and function. The research required to do so will accelerate scientific discovery and innovation, promote advances in technology and bolster U.S. economic competitiveness.

New neuroscience discoveries will enable us to foster brain health; engineer solutions that enhance, replace or compensate for lost function; improve the effectiveness of formal and informal educational approaches; promote learning across the lifespan and build brain-inspired smarter technologies for improved quality of life.

What is NSF's role in brain research?

NSF has a long history of support for brain science that has produced breakthroughs in
brain imaging, neurotechnologies, modeling and genomics, and is uniquely positioned to lead an innovative, multi-disciplinary effort by scientists and engineers to advance a comprehensive understanding of brain structure and function.

NSF invests in high-risk, high-reward exploratory and transformational scientific and engineering research with emphasis on integration across scales and disciplines.

Why now?

While our knowledge of brain anatomy and how brain cells use chemical and electrical signals to communicate with one another has grown considerably, we are only beginning to understand how those signals interact to give rise to thoughts, processes and behaviors.

Now is the time for a comprehensive approach that combines new discoveries from a variety of fields, including brain anatomy, imaging and function as well as cyberinfrastructure. Understanding the brain has been identified as one of five longstanding and fundamental questions, or "grand challenges," for future research.

What do we need to do this?

  • Continued cooperation among different fields of research: biology, engineering, chemistry, physics, math, computer science, social and behavioral science, and medicine. To integrate findings across scales of space and time, from molecular, physical, physiological and genetic to cognitive and behavioral.
  • Discoveries born out of curiosity-driven science that will ultimately help maintain a healthy brain.
  • Tools that can detect, measure and record all the connections and activity in a single brain of 100 billion neurons (today's technology is limited to a few thousand neurons).
  • Improved data management and storage for the large amounts of information that will be produced.
  • Time. This is a long-term investment.

How will the BRAIN Initiative affect programs at NSF?

NSF invests tens of millions of dollars in neuroscience and cognitive science research across many disciplines. NSF will continue to make major investments in fundamental science across disciplines and in innovative technologies to accelerate discovery that will revolutionize our understanding of the brain.

When can the scientific community expect to learn more about NSF's research goals for the BRAIN Initiative?

Information will be added to NSF.gov in coming months. Follow our social media accounts for #brain updates.

Have more questions? Email us at understandingthebrain@nsf.gov.

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Understanding the brain_ the National Science Foundation and the BRAIN Initiative - US National Science Foundation (NSF) - Mozilla Firefox 2014-03-13 10.42.27