Showing posts with label neuroscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neuroscience. Show all posts

Friday, February 25, 2011

COSYNE Day 1

I'm at a conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. The conference is called Computational and Systems Neuroscience (COSYNE).

What have I learned so far?

That there are many MANY monkeys and mice out there with electrical probes in their brains. The majority of talks so far talk about measurements of neural activity in various regions of the brain, and the subsequent data analysis that tries to make sense of it all in light of the stimulus that caused the activity in the first place.

The first talk was amazing! E.J. Chichilnisky described a project in which they put a piece of a retina on an electrical array (that picks up electrical activity), and shone various configurations of light on the retina. Correlating the input image with the output electrical activity, he was able to isolate the activities of individual cone photoreceptors, as well as how the cones pool their activity for individual retinal ganglion cells - the long, thin neurons that are bundled to form the optic nerve. Basically, elucidating the wiring diagram of the retina, and what image processing gets done in the back of your eyeball. Cool.

I also learned that the visitors' centre of the Mormon Temple (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) is open from 9am to 9pm. The "sisters" that I spoke to were very friendly. I'm really curious to check it out, and find out what makes these people tick. I think I'll spend an hour or so tomorrow looking around and asking questions.


One more thing. I got a kick out of Chichilnisky's talk when he said that his "focus was on the retina".

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

SkeptiCamp Toronto

On Oct. 23, 2010, I attended SkeptiCamp in Toronto, hosted by CFI Ontario. It was a great opportunity to meet like-minded people, and hear some enriching talks.

I gave a talk (not to suggest that MY talk was enriching). Well, you can judge for yourself. The projector bulb blew, so I didn't have my slides for my talk. So, I've taken the liberty of recording it and putting it on YouTube.

It's entitled "Being Right is Not Enough", and it's about why we can't trust our experiences, emotions, or the popularity of a belief in our pursuit of truth.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Moving things with your mind: Neuroprosthetics

Miguel A. L. Nicolelis
Holy cow, what an amazing talk I just went to. I'm at a conference in Buenos Aires, called "Engineering in Medicine and Biology". It features many scientific and engineering advances in fields like medical imaging, bioinformatics, and neuroscience. I make it a habit to attend the plenary talks because they're meant for a general audience, and they're often a good way to see a nice overview of a field of research.

This afternoon, I attended a plenary keynote lecture called "Towards a Whole-Body Neuroprosthetic", by Miguel A. L. Nicolelis of Duke University. What an eye-opener!

The theme behind his research -- implantable arrays that can read electrical activity from thousands of neurons. This activity is used to derive numerical models of behaviour. For example, a monkey is trained to play a little computer game in which it has to move a cursor into a circular region on the screen by manipulating a joystick. While this is going on, an implanted probe in the monkey's motor cortex reads off the neural activity associated with the movements. Later on, the experimenters remove the joystick, and instead derive the INTENDED motions directly from the monkey's neural activity. And it works beautifully! The monkey is able to control the cursor with its mind (similar to classical EEG-based attempts, but no training is needed; the device reads your intentions from your brain's natural internal language).

This technology could be used in corporeal augmentation for the paralyzed (artificial limbs and other actuators could be controlled directly by the brain). That's the first application that comes to mind (no pun intended). But there are other applications, such as remote manipulation... controlling a limb over the internet.

In the talk, he also described experiments where they fed electrical activity INTO the brain. This could be thought of as an aditional form of sensory input. The example he gave was a mouse that lives in a cage with a complex magnetic field. The mouse has a magnetic field sensor that sends information into its brain. It will be interesting to see how the mouse's brain incorporates the new input. Presumably, the mouse will have a completely independent perception of where it is in its cage, so that if you gouged out its eyes and plugged up its ears, it would still be able to navigate in its cage without hesitation.  Sounds strange, but you've already got something similar. Most people don't realize that they have more than 5 senses; your inner ear houses your equilibrium, your sense of which way is down. Close your eyes, and stand on one foot. You can still stay upright because of your sense of equilibrium.  The mouse's magnetic sense is sorta like that.

Using these neuroprosthetic input and output devices, Prof. Nicolelis' goal is to have a quadraplegic walk onto the field to open the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil (Nicolelis' native country). The person will be strapped into an exoskeleton robot, and implants in their brain will give the robot the complex instructions for walking.

Finally, Prof. Nicolelis urged us to loosen our grip on the idea that cognitive functions are localized in the brain. He said that this division of the brain is a model that we like because its easy to understand; he offered the rather paradoxical quip "our brains don't think the way we think". He also emphasized that the brain is a general-purpose statistical inference machine. No matter what input you feed it, it will start to build the structure of the input into its model of the world. I like the way Nicolelis thinks.

Friday, May 21, 2010

It's my tenure-versary

One year ago today, I walked to work with dress-pants, a dress-shirt, and a tie, ready to face the tribunal at my tenure hearing. In case you haven't read ALL my blog posts, you can find out more about the big day in my first post. As I walk to work today, I'm remembering the motivational messages that Trish and Fiona wrote on the sidewalk with chalk.


What an amazing feeling to have such support (not unlike the feeling of being thrown a surprise 40th birthday party).

Over the past year, I've allowed myself to grow in a number of directions (happily, none of those refer to my waistline... quite the opposite, in fact). I started my blog the day after I got tenure, and also embarked on a new major research project in computational neuroscience. A week from now, my grad student and I will be submitting a paper to NIPS (Neural Information Processing Systems conference). The research has produced some interesting results that might help to unveil the algorithm that the brain uses to learn.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

On Being Certain: A book review


The book: "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert A. Burton, M.D.

This book shook the foundation of my epistemological world. The crux is that the sense of knowing something is a feeling like anger or pride. Thus, the fact that you "know" something does not mean it's true.

He gives an example. Right after the Challenger exploded on take-off (back in 1986), a psychology researcher collected statements from a number of people about what they were doing when they heard the news. A few years later, he asked them again. They all remembered vividly. Except, their memories didn't necessarily match what they'd written. When shown their statements, some continued to insist that the statement was wrong, but their memory was right. It's a vivid demonstration of how utterly convincing the feeling of certainty is. But, it's just a feeling.

He goes further. We don't even have any way of knowing what unconscious mental processes went into a belief or conclusion. So introspection is of little use for determining which beliefs are true and which are false.

He gives examples involving medical doctors. One proclaims, "I believe in the necessity of research, but I know that personal experience is the 'proof of the pudding.' " Like many doctors, this one leans heavily on his own personal judgement based on experience. But how do we know that the judgement is tied tightly to reality?

Science is the best bet.
... we should know when we are basing our decisions on science and when they are based upon unsubstantiated experience, hunches, and gut feelings. But, as we've seen, we aren't reliable assessors of such arbitrary distinctions.

His suggestion is that we modulate the conviction of our beliefs by attempting to consider the probability that each is correct, and reflect that uncertainty when we express our beliefs to others.

Toward the end of the book, Dr. Burton seems to suggest that our brains are equipped with a sensory system for perceiving a representation of brain state. This is nothing short of a theory of consciousness, and nothing short of fascinating. Just like we have a sensory cortex for processing tactile and visual information, we might also have a sensory cortex for processing mental information. He doesn't say it point-blank, but launches the notion for the reader. It blew my mind. I'm not sure I agree with it, but then again, this book makes it abundantly clear that we should not let the feeling of believing fool us.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Poor kitty, but nice neurons

My graduate student and I are working on a neural network model of the visual system. We've been learning a lot about neuroscience, and I'm loving it. I'm also sitting in on PSYCH 261 (Physiological Psychology), and this week we covered the visual system. The prof. showed us this short YouTube video:


It shows Hubel and Wiesel in the 1960s measuring how certain neurons react to different light stimuli. They clamped a cat's head down and stuck an electrode into its brain (OK, the sad part is over). They found that certain neurons reacted to particular patterns of light, not just brightness. It's those patterns that we're trying to get our computerized visual system to spontaneously generate, thereby positing a theory for how the visual system achieves this organization. We're getting there.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Q2C - Day 6

Big day. I attended two different Q2C events.

The first one was a talk from 4:00-5:00, entitled "Sense from Chaos: Controlling the Dynamic Networks of the Brain" by Larry Abbott of Columbia University. The talk was excellent. Once again, I asked a question; what's the function of sleep? His answer... "We have no idea". I don't think that's quite true, but I was happy to hear that there is so much yet to be discovered in cognitive neuroscience.



The second event I went to was the Science in the Pub panel discussion "Who Am I?" They talked about memory, consciousness, identity, illusions, and all sorts of interesting neurological phenomena. I was especially pleased when Prof. Abbott referred to my earlier question about sleep; the panel discussed sleep and dreaming for quite some time.



(download mp3)