Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind.

MAPPING MULTISENSORY REPRESENTATIONS OF PERIPERSONAL SPACE

Ruey-Song Huang

Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, Institute for Neural Computation, and Department of Cognitive Science

http://sccn.ucsd.edu/~rshuang/

This talk will present our recent progress in mapping multisensory representations of peripersonal space using fMRI, with topics covering both technical developments and scientific findings. Recently, we have developed wearable techniques for high-density and/or wide-range tactile stimulation in the MRI scanner. Sixty-four channels (expandable to 128) of computer-controlled air puffs can be delivered via plastic tubes/nozzles embedded in the air suit, including the face mask, turtleneck, gloves, and pants. The wearable techniques open the possibilities of presenting more complex tactile stimuli with programmable spatial-temporal patterns on the body surface, e.g. 2-D tactile display or tactile apparent motion.

Multiple two-condition block-design scans revealed a high-level somatotopic homunculus consisting of the parietal face, lip, finger, and shoulder areas in the superior parietal lobe. Retinotopic mapping using phase-encoded design and wide-field visual stimuli (masked videos or looming objects) further revealed aligned visual-tactile maps in the same areas. Tactile mapping revealed a high-level homunculus consisting of the parietal face, lip, finger, and shoulder areas in superior parietal lobule. Visual mapping revealed an aligned visual homunculus in the same areas. A region of lower visual field representation in the post-central sulcus partially overlaps with the parietal finger area, which is anterior and lateral to the parietal face/lip areas. Another region of lower visual field representation, superior and medial to the parietal face area, partially overlaps with the parietal shoulder area. However, regions of upper visual field representation were restricted to the parietal face area. We suggest that aligned multisensory homunculi may play important roles in combining visual and tactile information to facilitate movements in the peripersonal space (e.g., eating involves hand-to-mouth coordination in the lower visual field).

(1) when rats are sleep-deprived, small populations of rat brain neurons can fall asleep while the rest of the rat is awake, and
(2) this may correspond to performance degradation

summary:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/if-you-only-feel-half-awake-you-probably-are.ars

article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7344/full/nature10009.html

i haven’t read the actual article yet…

A few days later, Henry Markram, leader of the Blue Brain Project at EPFL, sent off an e-mail to IBM CTO Bernard Meyerson harshly criticizing the IBM press release, and cc’ed several reporters. This brought a spate of shock media into the usually placid arena of computational neuroscience reporting, with headlines such as “IBM’s cat-brain sim a ‘scam,’ says Swiss boffin: Neuroscientist hairs on end”, and “Meow! IBM cat brain simulation dissed as ‘hoax’ by rival scientist”.  One reporter chose to highlight the rivalry as cat versus rat, using the different animal model choice of the two researchers as a theme.  Since then, additional criticisms from Markram have appeared online.

Find out more after the jump.

In the aftermath, IBM has stood behind the announcement, citing for Network World their team’s involvement with “Stanford University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Cornell University, Columbia University Medical Center, University of California-Merced and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory” as defense.  Who are the researchers they are standing behind?  According to Modha’s blog, they are:

• Stanford University: Brian A. Wandell (Prof of Psychology, Electrical Engineering), H.-S. Philip Wong (Prof of Electrical Engineering)
• Cornell University: Rajit Manohar (Prof of Electrical Engineering)
• Columbia University Medical Center: Stefano Fusi (Prof of Theoretical Neuroscience)
• University of Wisconsin-Madison: Giulio Tononi (Prof of Psychiatry)
• University of California-Merced: Christopher Kello (Prof of Cognitive Science)

For this neurodude, it is interesting how this disagreement may be symbolic of the gap that still remains between neuroscience and AI.  Markram is a neuroscientist turned technologist, while Modha is a computer engineer who wants to derive technological insight from biological  systems.  They are approaching the ideal of reverse engineering the brain from very different perspectives, and its only natural that they value different milestones.  The IBM team, even with the additional professors on their team, still lacks mainstream neuroscientists to help validate their claims.  That being said, the public realization of this could be a positive thing for both fields.  Although some frustration has resulted from this, this could be a great opportunity for the breakdown of walls between these fields.

In the end though, it does seem like Markram has a point.  The IBM press release clearly went too far.  Whether the angry public e-mail was the best strategic way to make the point remains to be seen.  It will be interesting to see what the next move from the IBM team will look like.

Watch it online at the TED website.

From the News and Views, I was intrigued to learn that previous transcriptome analyses of adult human brains found very little difference in gene expression between brain areas:

[...] this suggests that it is the gene expression during development that largely determines higher brain functions by specifying the complexity of neural connections. Numerically, the most important genes relating to cognitive differences between species may be genes that specify how the machinery is put together. In support of this hypothesis, many of the identified differentially expressed genes in this study are related to processes involved in connection formation, such as axonal guidance and cell adhesion.

An impressive 76% of all human genes are expressed in the developing fetal brain. Of those, 33% are differentially expressed over brain regions (13 regions were examined) and 28% are alternatively spliced. The differentially expressed genes are also ones that seem to have evolved the most recently. Even in these early (midgestation) stages, left-right asymmetry was seen, such as the localization of the language-associated FOXP2 genes to Broca’s area.

Of interest to computational folks, they find that gene expression follows power-law scaling (as many other naturally occurring “small-worlds” networks do) with certain hub genes connected to many others and certain spoke genes with relatively few connections. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering is used in this analysis.

I think he might be right that we can simulate the brain before we understand it, however.

The subcellular organization of neocortical excitatory connections : Article : Nature.

They used ChR2 (with TTX and 4-AP to block action potentials) to find where on the dendritic tree particular inputs synapsed onto L3 and L5 cells and to measure the strength of those inputs. ChR2 depolarizes the input axon locally (60um spot diameter) at points of (potential) axodendritic contact. If you’ve heard the term “potential synapse” before, then think of this technique as a way of checking potential synapses and seeing if there really is an actual synapse there.

The technique allowed them to map on a L3 barrel cortex pyramidal cell where different thalamic inputs (VPm, POm) and cortical inputs (M1, barrel L2/3, barrel L4):

sCRACM stands for subcellular ChR2-assisted circuit mapping.

The article’s conclusion should be posted as a caveat under every political speech of those seeking office. And it should serve as the epitaph for the Bush administration: “People who lack the knowledge or wisdom to perform well are often unaware of this fact. That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else’s.”

Slate had a story (“Why is every neuropundit such a raging liberal?“) about how neuroscience and neuromarketing are changing political consulting (also here’s a link to a similar story in NYT last week):

According to a study of political psychology published last Thursday in Science, conservatives tend to be the jumpier lot.

The researchers called 46 political partisans into their laboratory at the University of Nebraska, affixed electrodes to their fingertips and eyelids, and measured sweat output and eye blinks in response to a series of startling stimuli. (Subjects were forced to endure images of bloody faces and maggot-infested wounds, as well as sudden blasts of white noise.) The results: Social conservatives—those who supported the death penalty, the Patriot Act, prayer in school, and the like—sweated more, and blinked more intensely, than the liberals.

The Slate and NYT articles in particular suggest something that I have long believed to be true. The Republican “story” is, from a neuroscience perspective, simply better because it tends to view the world in clear-cut terms with no middle ground and, thus, is more effective at rallying emotional processing areas of the brain (eg. limbic system). It is well-known in neuroscience that emotionally salient events that activate these limbic structures are better remembered than less charged memories. The Democratic “story” tends to be more complicated with shades of gray and therefore requires higher-level processing (eg. cortical areas involved in conflict resolution). Clearly, I’m oversimplifying things here a bit (see, I’m designing this post to appeal to your limbic system!) but I think that this hypothesis might have some legs.

Of course, if it’s true, why doesn’t everyone vote Republican if that story is the neurally more rewarding one? Or perhaps the more relevant question: Is it even possible for the Democrats to tap into the similar evolutionarily older limbic structures that seem to dominate the Republican story?

Also, although I prefer Neurodudes to stick with the science over any partisan politics, I must say I found this statistic interesting (from the Slate article):

in 2002, Daniel Klein and Andrew Western tallied the political affiliations of professors at Berkeley and Stanford and found that even in the hard sciences, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a factor of almost 8 to 1. Among professors of neurology and neuroscience, Klein and Western counted 68 registered Democrats against just six Republicans.

An extremely interesting trend in neuroscience has been to use the language of Control Theory to explain brain function. A recent paper by Shadmehr and Krakauer does a very nice job of summarizing this trend and assembling a comprehensive theory of how the brain controls the body. Using control theory, they put forward a mathematically precise description of their theory. Because their theory uses blocks that are direct analogues of specific brain regions like the basal ganglia, motor cortex, and cerebellum, they can use brain lesion studies to undergird their ideas about these components. From the paper:

The theory explains that in order to make a movement, our brain needs to solve three kinds of problems: we need to be able to accurately predict the sensory consequences of our motor commands (this is called system identification), we need to combine these predictions with actual sensory feedback to form a belief about the state of our body and the world (called state estimation), and then given this belief about the state of our body and the world, we have to adjust the gains of the sensorimotor feedback loops so that our movements maximize some measure of performance (called optimal control).

At the heart of the approach is the idea that we make movements to achieve a rewarding state. This crucial description of why we are making a movement, i.e., the rewards we expect to get and the costs we expect to pay, determines how quickly we move, what trajectory we choose to execute, and how we will respond to sensory feedback.

This approach of describing brain lesion studies in the context of a well-thought out theory ought to be further encouraged.