neurodudes

But it seems to have been close. The players claim that the program was quite challenging.

nytimes article

The website of the lab that wrote Polaris, with detailed blogs of the games.

Apparently, when not busy blowing our minds, bees occupy themselves by…

…brainwashing their youth

• Vergoz et al, 2007, Science
• commentary

…and/or mysteriously disappearing from the face of the earth

• Colony Collapse Disorder

Keeping an eye on species poised to take over the world,
Davie

The game of checkers has been solved.

(more…)

Recently, I was pointed to this article in the WSJ (”A Pentagon Agency Is Looking at Brains — And Raising Eyebrows“) by Sharon Begley. It touches on some noninvasive recording techniques for assessing affective state and cognitive enhancers like ampakine CX717 (previously mentioned on Neurodudes here and here).

It was the very last paragraph that caught my eye:

Ever since the atomic bomb, physicists have known that their work has potential military uses, and have spoken up about it. But on the morality of sending orders directly to the brain (of a soldier, employee, child, prisoner …), or of devices that read thoughts and intentions from afar, neuroscientists have been strangely silent. The time to speak up is before the genie is out of the bottle.

Whoa! To me, the physicists who spoke out early on against nuclear proliferation seemed (and still seem) both very courageous and prescient in their ideas. Are we neuroscientists dropping the ball? I would love to start a discussion on this subject and to hear your responses (both from neuro people and others) in the comments below.

I’ll start: I personally don’t think the arena of neural enhancement/intrusion (mind reading, mind control, cognitive enhancement, etc.) is comparable to the sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons. I do see in the near future the unfortunate potential for abuse of neurotechnology and violation of personal freedoms, but the threat does not seem as horrifying or deadly. Still, if neurotechnology allows governments greater control over their citizens, it seems reasonable that scientists who enable such technologies should intervene. Perhaps it is time for a neural bill of rights, which, similar to the freedoms granted by the US Bill of Rights, will clearly state what aspects of a person’s mental state or capacity cannot be infringed upon without permission from that person. Thoughts?

Andrew Arensburger presents a neat idea: use the metaphor of the lock-and-key hypothesis for enzymes to route data in genetic programming.

(more…)

The common ancestor of Bilateria ( ~= bilaterally symmetric animals ~= “most animals including vertebrates, arthropods, molluscs, etc” - - tolweb) is thought to have had a nervous system. Question: did it have a centralized nervous system? Or did centralization in the nervous system evolve separately in chordates and in other bilaterally symmetric animals?

(more…)

(more…)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/magazine/08sociability-t.html

(more…)

There’s a nice NRN review on the many recent papers on therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Is there a future for therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation?

The past year has seen the publication of a remarkable number of papers about the potential therapeutic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in conditions ranging from cocaine addiction to stroke and depression. Are we witnessing the discovery of a miraculous cure-all or will this bubble burst like the magnetotherapies of the Victorian era1? We argue below that there is good evidence that rTMS can produce after-effects on the brain, and that these translate into effects on simple behaviours. However, the rationale for applying the same methods to treat disease is in many cases unclear.

This study provides fMRI evidence that, after forgetting some memories, the brain has to work less hard.

(more…)