Neuroscience

Articles and news from the latest research reports.

Posts tagged brain research

90 notes

Funding for better understanding of neural stem cells


A team of scientists led by a researcher from Plymouth University has received funding of more than £400,000 from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) to investigate how neural stem cells differ from each other. The study’s findings could hold the key to the future use of neural stem cells in treatments to eradicate neurological conditions such as dementia and brain tumours.
The research project is a collaborative effort between scientists from Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Biomedical and Healthcare Sciences, the University of Cambridge and the Scripps Research Institute, California USA.
The study will focus on identifying molecular differences between types of neural stem cells. 
Increasing evidence shows that the brain harbours different kinds of neural stem cells. This adds a level of complexity to research investigating the underlying mechanisms and therapies for conditions of the brain and nervous system at a cellular level. 
Neural stem cells are vital to the production of new brain cells, upon which the development and function of the brain depend. Their production is important throughout our adult lives, because tasks such as learning and memory rely on the performance of newly generated adult neurons. In addition, deregulated neural stem cells can turn into cells that initiate brain tumours. 
Worldwide there is an increase in incidences of long-term brain disorders, ranging from dementia to severe depression and cancers of the brain. Such conditions are life devastating and costly, and because the majority of existing therapies treat the symptoms and not the causes of conditions, it is imperative that new and more effective treatments are discovered.
By obtaining a better understanding of how neural stem cells differ from each other and behave, the outcome of this study could provide key information to unlock future potential neural stem-based therapies as a way of supplying well-functioning brain cells, eliminating malfunctioning cells and/or replacing lost cells, offering new hope to patients with neurological conditions.  
The research team will identify and characterise properties specific to different neural stem cells in the living brain, a complicated task given that each kind of stem cell acts in different ways over time and depending on their brain location. To achieve this, the team will work at the outset with neural stem cells from the fruit fly Drosophila, which remarkably shares more than 75 per cent of disease genes with humans. Using this knowledge the team will then take the study forward to mammalian brain models.
The scientist leading the project is Dr. Claudia Barros, lecturer in neuroscience at Plymouth University Peninsula School of Medicine. She said: 

“It is hoped that our work will make a significant contribution to clarify types and number of neural stem cells in the brain and how they operate. By doing so we can better understand the mechanisms they use and look at ways to manipulate those mechanisms. This is very exciting because it can open routes for the future development of superior and targeted neural stem cell-based treatments that could potentially eradicate or reverse diverse neurological conditions. We are very grateful to the BBSRC for its support on this timely and exciting international collaboration”.

Funding for better understanding of neural stem cells

A team of scientists led by a researcher from Plymouth University has received funding of more than £400,000 from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) to investigate how neural stem cells differ from each other. The study’s findings could hold the key to the future use of neural stem cells in treatments to eradicate neurological conditions such as dementia and brain tumours.

The research project is a collaborative effort between scientists from Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Biomedical and Healthcare Sciences, the University of Cambridge and the Scripps Research Institute, California USA.

The study will focus on identifying molecular differences between types of neural stem cells. 

Increasing evidence shows that the brain harbours different kinds of neural stem cells. This adds a level of complexity to research investigating the underlying mechanisms and therapies for conditions of the brain and nervous system at a cellular level. 

Neural stem cells are vital to the production of new brain cells, upon which the development and function of the brain depend. Their production is important throughout our adult lives, because tasks such as learning and memory rely on the performance of newly generated adult neurons. In addition, deregulated neural stem cells can turn into cells that initiate brain tumours. 

Worldwide there is an increase in incidences of long-term brain disorders, ranging from dementia to severe depression and cancers of the brain. Such conditions are life devastating and costly, and because the majority of existing therapies treat the symptoms and not the causes of conditions, it is imperative that new and more effective treatments are discovered.

By obtaining a better understanding of how neural stem cells differ from each other and behave, the outcome of this study could provide key information to unlock future potential neural stem-based therapies as a way of supplying well-functioning brain cells, eliminating malfunctioning cells and/or replacing lost cells, offering new hope to patients with neurological conditions.  

The research team will identify and characterise properties specific to different neural stem cells in the living brain, a complicated task given that each kind of stem cell acts in different ways over time and depending on their brain location. To achieve this, the team will work at the outset with neural stem cells from the fruit fly Drosophila, which remarkably shares more than 75 per cent of disease genes with humans. Using this knowledge the team will then take the study forward to mammalian brain models.

The scientist leading the project is Dr. Claudia Barros, lecturer in neuroscience at Plymouth University Peninsula School of Medicine. She said: 

“It is hoped that our work will make a significant contribution to clarify types and number of neural stem cells in the brain and how they operate. By doing so we can better understand the mechanisms they use and look at ways to manipulate those mechanisms. This is very exciting because it can open routes for the future development of superior and targeted neural stem cell-based treatments that could potentially eradicate or reverse diverse neurological conditions. We are very grateful to the BBSRC for its support on this timely and exciting international collaboration”.

Filed under stem cells brain research brain disorders neuroscience science

121 notes

Neuroscience: Where is the brain in the Human Brain Project?
Launched in October 2013, the Human Brain Project (HBP) was sold by charismatic neurobiologist Henry Markram as a bold new path towards understanding the brain, treating neurological diseases and building information technology. It is one of two ‘flagship’ proposals funded by the European Commission’s Future and Emerging Technologies programme (see go.nature.com/icotmi). Selected after a multiyear competition, the project seemed like an exciting opportunity to bring together neuroscience and IT to generate practical applications for health and medicine (see go.nature.com/2eocv8).
Contrary to public assumptions that the HBP would generate knowledge about how the brain works, the project is turning into an expensive database-management project with a hunt for new computing architectures. In recent months, the HBP executive board revealed plans to drastically reduce its experimental and cognitive neuroscience arm, provoking wrath in the European neuroscience community.
The crisis culminated with an open letter from neuroscientists (including one of us, G.L.) to the European Commission on 7 July 2014 (see www.neurofuture.eu), which has now gathered more than 750 signatures. Many signatories are scientists in experimental and theoretical fields, and the list includes former HBP participants. The letter incorporates a pledge of non-participation in a planned call for ‘partnering projects’ that must raise about half of the HBP’s total funding. This pledge could seriously lower the quality of the project’s final output and leave the planned databases empty.
With the initial funding, or ‘ramp-up’, phase now in full swing, the European Commission is currently evaluating the HBP directors’ plan for the larger second part of the project. This offers an opportunity to introduce reforms and reconciliation. Here, we offer our analysis of how the HBP project strayed off course and how it might be steered back.
Read more

Neuroscience: Where is the brain in the Human Brain Project?

Launched in October 2013, the Human Brain Project (HBP) was sold by charismatic neurobiologist Henry Markram as a bold new path towards understanding the brain, treating neurological diseases and building information technology. It is one of two ‘flagship’ proposals funded by the European Commission’s Future and Emerging Technologies programme (see go.nature.com/icotmi). Selected after a multiyear competition, the project seemed like an exciting opportunity to bring together neuroscience and IT to generate practical applications for health and medicine (see go.nature.com/2eocv8).

Contrary to public assumptions that the HBP would generate knowledge about how the brain works, the project is turning into an expensive database-management project with a hunt for new computing architectures. In recent months, the HBP executive board revealed plans to drastically reduce its experimental and cognitive neuroscience arm, provoking wrath in the European neuroscience community.

The crisis culminated with an open letter from neuroscientists (including one of us, G.L.) to the European Commission on 7 July 2014 (see www.neurofuture.eu), which has now gathered more than 750 signatures. Many signatories are scientists in experimental and theoretical fields, and the list includes former HBP participants. The letter incorporates a pledge of non-participation in a planned call for ‘partnering projects’ that must raise about half of the HBP’s total funding. This pledge could seriously lower the quality of the project’s final output and leave the planned databases empty.

With the initial funding, or ‘ramp-up’, phase now in full swing, the European Commission is currently evaluating the HBP directors’ plan for the larger second part of the project. This offers an opportunity to introduce reforms and reconciliation. Here, we offer our analysis of how the HBP project strayed off course and how it might be steered back.

Read more

Filed under Human Brain Project brain research neuroscience science

166 notes

US experts urge focus on ethics in brain research
Ethics must be considered early and often as the field of modern neuroscience forges ahead, to avoid repeating a dark period in history when lobotomies were common, experts said on Wednesday.
President Barack Obama sought the recommendations of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, as part of his $100 million Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative announced last year.
It is “absolutely critical… to integrate ethics from the get-go into neuroscience research,” and not “for the first time after something has gone wrong,” said Amy Gutmann, Bioethics Commission Chair.
Read more

US experts urge focus on ethics in brain research

Ethics must be considered early and often as the field of modern neuroscience forges ahead, to avoid repeating a dark period in history when lobotomies were common, experts said on Wednesday.

President Barack Obama sought the recommendations of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, as part of his $100 million Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative announced last year.

It is “absolutely critical… to integrate ethics from the get-go into neuroscience research,” and not “for the first time after something has gone wrong,” said Amy Gutmann, Bioethics Commission Chair.

Read more

Filed under brain research ethics neuroscience science

80 notes

…treating neurological diseases and computers that see!

Some 165 million Europeans are likely to experience some form of brain-related disease during their life. As the population ages, Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative or age-related mental disorders are affecting more people and contributing to higher health costs. Finding better ways of preventing and treating brain diseases is therefore becoming urgent, and understanding how our brains work is important to keep our economies at the forefront of new information technologies and services. EU-funded research is answering these challenges.

image

As mentioned in the first part of this article, this May the European Commission announced EUR 150 million of funding for 20 new ICT research projects expected to deliver new insights and innovations relating to traumatic brain injury, mental disorders, pain, epilepsy and paediatric conduct disorders.

The European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn has said, ”Treating those affected (by brain-related disease) is already costing us EUR 1.5 million every minute […] Brain research could help alleviate the suffering of millions of patients and those that care for them. Unlocking the secrets of how the brain works could also open up a whole new universe of services and products for our economies.”

Treating neurological diseases

Stroke is the most common neurological disease to afflict people, causing cognitive problems - such as difficulties with attention, memory or language - or severe physical disability. The incidence increases with age, making it the most frequent cause of life-long impairment in adulthood.

These effects tend to increase patients” dependence on other people, and this lost autonomy can then lead to depression. The CONTRAST project seeks to bridge the gap between institutional rehabilitation and monitoring of the patient at home.

The project is developing an adaptive ”human-computer interface” (HCI) to improve cognitive functioning, offering training modules that improve the recovery of attention and memory. Patients will be able to go through an individually tailored rehabilitation process at home at the computer, while their doctor provides home-based training and monitors their progress from the clinic.

A third of stroke patients will experience long-term physiological or cognitive disabilities - preventing them from maintaining independent lives. COGWATCH aims to enhance the rehabilitation of stroke patients with symptoms of ”apraxia and action disorganisation syndrome” (AADS). Such patients retain their motor capabilities but commit cognitive errors during every-day goal-oriented tasks.

The project is developing intelligent tools and objects, portable and wearable devices, and ambient systems to provide personalised cognitive rehabilitation at home for stroke patients with AADS symptoms. By providing persistent feedback, the system will help to re-train patients on how to carry out the everyday activities they need to be independent.

Parkinson’s disease is another neurodegenerative disorder that is growing in incidence as our population ages - it particularly affects areas of the brain that are involved in movement control. The CUPID project aims to develop innovative, personalised rehabilitation at home for people with Parkinson”s disease, based on the patient”s needs.

The CUPID service will employ wearable sensors, audio biofeedback, virtual reality and external cueing to provide intensive motivating training that is suited to the patient and monitored remotely - decreasing the need for travel to a rehabilitation centre.

By the end of its first year, in December 2012, the project had designed the rehabilitation exercises and developed prototype virtual games for these exercises, as well as the telemedicine infrastructure needed for remote supervision.

Epilepsy is another common neurological disorder that, despite progress in treatment, is still incurable. Nowadays, pharmaceutical treatment can reduce or remove the symptoms, but this needs life-long continuous adjustment in order to be effective. The condition therefore requires monitoring of multiple parameters for accurate diagnosis, prediction, alerting and prevention, as well as treatment follow-up and presurgical evaluation.

The ARMOR project is designing a more holistic, personalised, medically efficient and economical monitoring system to analyse brain and body data from epilepsy patients. This portable system will provide more accurate diagnosis for individual patients, and allow better understanding and prediction of the time and type of their seizures - helping to give a warning and ensure the availability of medical assistance and advice if necessary.

Amputation of a limb is not just a traumatic physical experience. It can also lead to sensations - usually accompanied by pain - that seem to come from the missing body part, called a ”phantom limb”. The TIME project is developing an alternative treatment for phantom limb pain based on a new ”human-machine interface” (HMI) and selective, electrical stimulation of the peripheral nerves.

Using an implantable electrode placed inside the nerve, and electrical stimulators placed outside the body, the system will provide electrical micro stimulation to help reduce painful sensations - and may even have applications such as enabling amputees to sense virtual environments by touch.

Seeing things

The potential of such techniques doesn’t stop at monitoring, diagnosis and managing chronic conditions. The OPTONEURO project could ultimately help return functional sight to blind people.

”Optogenetics” is an exciting new gene therapy technique that makes nerve cells sensitive to particular colours of light. Simple pulses of intense light cause these photosensitised nerve cells to fire ”action potentials”, the carriers of information in the nervous system. To activate the nerve cells, however, the new therapy depends on high illumination densities - bright light shining on very small areas.

The OPTONEURO project therefore aims to develop the complementary optoelectronics needed to stimulate these photosensitised neurons. The system would be scalable for applications both in basic neuroscience research and in ”neuroprosthesis”. In particular, the optoelectronics should be used in a future optogenetic-optoelectronic retinal prosthesis - an artificial eye - for those blinded by the ”retinitis pigmentosa” disease.

The project requires a team of specialists in photonics, micro-optics and neurobiology to develop an array of ultra-bright electronically controlled micro-LEDs, which could also provide a new research tool for the neuroscience and neurotechnology community.

The SEEBETTER project is also looking to develop artificial vision prosthetics for the blind. Conventional image sensors have severe limitations, but ”silicon retina” vision sensors aim to mimic the biological retina”s information processing - computing both spatial and temporal aspects of the visual input. To date, these silicon retinas suffer from low quantum efficiency - meaning low light sensitivity - and an inability to combine both spatial and temporal processing on the same chip.

SEEBETTER’s team of experts - from biology and biophysics, as well as biomedical, electrical and semiconductor engineering - aim to use genetic and physiological techniques to understand better the function of the retina and model the retina’s vision processing. They will then design and build the first high-performance silicon retina, implemented on a single silicon wafer, specialised for both spatial and temporal visual processing.

Understand the neurobiological principles of seeing - beyond the functioning of the retina alone - may help us to replicate the success of human vision for computers and robots. The RENVISION project aims to achieve a comprehensive understanding of how the retina encodes visual information through the different cellular layers and to use such insights to develop a retina-inspired computational approach to computer vision.

Using high-resolution 3D microscopy will allow the researchers to make images of the inner retinal layers at near-cellular resolution. This new knowledge on retinal processing will help develop advanced pattern recognition and machine-learning technologies. The project could therefore solve some of the most difficult tasks in computer vision - such as automated scene categorisation and human action recognition - so that robots and computers can see and perceive what is happening in the images they receive.

These are just some of the EU-funded ICT projects using electronics and computing technologies to understand, augment and improve the human brain and its functioning. The results have the potential to reduce the impact of disability and disease, and improve our computing power, IT infrastructure and economy.

Filed under neurological diseases cognitive functioning brain research optogenetics neuroscience science

255 notes

Reliability of neuroscience research questioned

New research has questioned the reliability of neuroscience studies, saying that conclusions could be misleading due to small sample sizes.

image

A team led by academics from the University of Bristol reviewed 48 articles on neuroscience meta-analysis which were published in 2011 and concluded that most had an average power of around 20 per cent – a finding which means the chance of the average study discovering the effect being investigated is only one in five.

The paper, being published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, reveals that small, low-powered studies are ‘endemic’ in neuroscience, producing unreliable research which is inefficient and wasteful.

It focuses on how low statistical power – caused by low sample size of studies, small effects being investigated, or both – can be misleading and produce more false scientific claims than high-powered studies.

It also illustrates how low power reduces a study’s ability to detect any effects and shows that when discoveries are claimed, they are more likely to be false or misleading.

The paper claims there is substantial evidence that a large proportion of research published in scientific literature may be unreliable as a consequence.

Another consequence is that the findings are overestimated because smaller studies consistently give more positive results than larger studies. This was found to be the case for studies using a diverse range of methods, including brain imaging, genetics and animal studies.

Kate Button, from the School of Social and Community Medicine, and Marcus Munafò, from the School of Experimental Psychology, led a team of researchers from Stanford University, the University of Virginia and the University of Oxford.

She said: “There’s a lot of interest at the moment in improving the reliability of science. We looked at neuroscience literature and found that, on average, studies had only around a 20 per cent chance of detecting the effects they were investigating, even if the effects are real. This has two important implications - many studies lack the ability to give definitive answers to the questions they are testing, and many claimed findings are likely to be incorrect or unreliable.”

The study concludes that improving the standard of results in neuroscience, and enabling them to be more easily reproduced, is a key priority and requires attention to well-established methodological principles.

It recommends that existing scientific practices can be improved with small changes or additions to methodologies, such as acknowledging any limitations in the interpretation of results; disclosing methods and findings transparently; and working collaboratively to increase the total sample size and power.

(Source: bristol.ac.uk)

Filed under brain research reliability neuroscience literature brain imaging genetics animal studies neuroscience science

397 notes

Today the White House announced its goal to fund Brain Research, in hopes of furthering understanding of brain disorders and degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

Two years ago Scientific American magazine sent me to the University of Texas at Austin to borrow a human brain. They needed me to photograph a normal, adult, non-dissected brain that the university had obtained by trading a syphilitic lung with another institution. The specimen was waiting for me, but before I left they asked if I’d like to see their collection.

I walked into a storage closet filled with approximately one-hundred human brains, none of them normal, taken from patients at the Texas State Mental Hospital. The brains sat in large jars of fluid, each labeled with a date of death or autopsy, a brief description in Latin, and a case number. These case numbers corresponded to micro film held by the State Hospital detailing medical histories. But somehow, regardless of how amazing and fascinating this collection was, it had been largely untouched, and unstudied for nearly three decades.

Driving back to my studio with a brain snugly belted into the passenger seat, I quickly became obsessed with the idea of photographing the collection, preserving the already decaying brains, and corresponding the images to their medical histories. I met with my friend Alex Hannaford, a features journalist, to help me find the collection’s history dating back to the 1950s.

Over the past year while working this idea into a book, we’ve learned how heavily storied the collection is. That it was originally intended to be displayed and studied, but without funding it instead stagnated. And that the microfilm histories of each brain had been destroyed years ago.

My original vision of a photo book accompanied by medical data and a comprehensive essay turned into a story of loss and neglect. But Alex continued to pursue some scientific hope for the collection. After discussions with various neuroscientists we learned that through MRI technology and special techniques in DNA scanning there is still hope. And with the new possibilities of federal brain research funding, this collection’s secrets may yet be unlocked.

As we begin the hunt for someone to publish my 230 images accompanied by Alex’s 14,000 word essay, the University has found new interest in the collection. They currently are planning to make MRI scans of the brains.

Malformed – A Collection of Human Brains from the Texas State Mental Hospital by Adam Voorhes

Filed under brain brain research mental illness neuroimaging Adam Voorhes photography neuroscience science

377 notes

Meet London’s Babylab, where scientists experiment on babies’ brains
In the laboratories of the Henry Wellcome Building at Birkbeck, University of London, children’s squeaky toys lie scattered on the floor. Brightly coloured posters of animals are pasted on the walls and picture books are stacked on the low tables. This is the Babylab — a research centre that  experiments on children aged one month to three years, to understand how they learn, develop and think. “The way babies’ brains change is an amazing and mysterious process,” says the lab director, psychologist Mark Johnson. “The brain increases in size by three- to four-fold between birth and teenage years, but we don’t understand how that relates to its function.”
The Birkbeck neuroscientists are interested in finding out how babies recognise faces, how they learn to pay attention to some things and not others, how they perceive emotion and how their language develops. Studies published by the lab have shown that babies prefer to look at faces over objects. They have also found that differences in the dopamine-producing gene can affect babies’ attention span and that at six to eight months of age, there are detectable differences in the brain patterns of babies who were later  diagnosed with autism. 
The biggest obstacle is designing the right kinds of experiment. “There aren’t many methods for getting inside the mind of an infant or a toddler,” Johnson explains. Graduate students at the Babylab have teamed up with technology companies, using a €1.9 million (£1.7 million) grant from the European Union, to develop tools such as EEG head nets that record electrical brain activity, helmets that use light to measure blood flow in different parts of the brain, and eye-trackers that help study attention. Eventually, they want to create wireless systems so babies can react and play naturally during experiments. But despite the wires, “all our studies are geared towards making sure our babies are contented,” says Johnson. “If we want data, we need happy babies.”

Meet London’s Babylab, where scientists experiment on babies’ brains

In the laboratories of the Henry Wellcome Building at Birkbeck, University of London, children’s squeaky toys lie scattered on the floor. Brightly coloured posters of animals are pasted on the walls and picture books are stacked on the low tables. This is the Babylab — a research centre that experiments on children aged one month to three years, to understand how they learn, develop and think. “The way babies’ brains change is an amazing and mysterious process,” says the lab director, psychologist Mark Johnson. “The brain increases in size by three- to four-fold between birth and teenage years, but we don’t understand how that relates to its function.”

The Birkbeck neuroscientists are interested in finding out how babies recognise faces, how they learn to pay attention to some things and not others, how they perceive emotion and how their language develops. Studies published by the lab have shown that babies prefer to look at faces over objects. They have also found that differences in the dopamine-producing gene can affect babies’ attention span and that at six to eight months of age, there are detectable differences in the brain patterns of babies who were later diagnosed with autism.

The biggest obstacle is designing the right kinds of experiment. “There aren’t many methods for getting inside the mind of an infant or a toddler,” Johnson explains. Graduate students at the Babylab have teamed up with technology companies, using a €1.9 million (£1.7 million) grant from the European Union, to develop tools such as EEG head nets that record electrical brain activity, helmets that use light to measure blood flow in different parts of the brain, and eye-trackers that help study attention. Eventually, they want to create wireless systems so babies can react and play naturally during experiments. But despite the wires, “all our studies are geared towards making sure our babies are contented,” says Johnson. “If we want data, we need happy babies.”

Filed under babies babylab brain research facial recognition attention EEG neuroscience psychology science

60 notes

UCSB Scientists Report ‘New Beginning’ in Split-Brain Research, Using New Analytical Tools

UC Santa Barbara has reported an important discovery in the interdisciplinary study of split-brain research. The findings uncover dynamic changes in brain coordination patterns between left and right hemispheres.

Split-brain research has been conducted for decades, and scientists have long ago shown that language processing is largely located in the left side of the brain. When words appear only in the left visual field –– an area processed by the right side of the brain –– the right brain must transfer that information to the left brain, in order to interpret it. The new study at UCSB shows that healthy test subjects respond less accurately when information is shown only to the right brain.

While hemispheric specialization is considered accurate, the new study sheds light on the highly complex interplay –– with neurons firing back and forth between distinct areas in each half of the brain. The findings rely on extremely sensitive neuroscience equipment and analysis techniques from network science, a fast-growing field that draws on insights from sociology, mathematics, and physics to understand complex systems composed of many interacting parts. These tools can be applied to systems as diverse as earthquakes and brains.

Fifty years ago, UC Santa Barbara neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga moved the field forward when he was a graduate student at the California Institute of Technology and first author of a groundbreaking report on split-brain patients. The study, which became world-renowned, was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in August 1962. This week, in the very same journal, Gazzaniga and his team announced major new findings in split-brain research. The report is an example of the interdisciplinary science for which UCSB is well known.

"The occasion of this paper is on the 50th anniversary of the first report on human split-brain research reported in PNAS," said Gazzaniga. "That study showed how surgically dividing the two hemispheres of the human brain –– in an attempt to control epilepsy –– allowed for studying how each isolated half-brain was specialized for cognitive function.

"In the present study, new techniques –– not present 50 years ago –– begin to allow for an understanding of how the normal, undivided brain integrates the special functions of each half brain. It is a new beginning and very exciting," said Gazzaniga, professor of psychology in UCSB’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, and director of UCSB’s SAGE Center for the Study of Mind.

(Source: ia.ucsb.edu)

Filed under brain brain research split-brain neural oscillations neuroscience psychology science

free counters