Posts tagged brain

ScienceDaily (June 21, 2012) — Preventing diabetes or delaying its onset has been thought to stave off cognitive decline — a connection strongly supported by the results of a 9-year study led by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

Earlier studies have looked at cognitive decline in people who already had diabetes. The new study is the first to demonstrate that the greater risk of cognitive decline is also present among people who develop diabetes later in life. It is also the first study to link the risk of cognitive decline to the severity of diabetes.

The result is the latest finding to emerge from the Health, Aging, and Body Composition (Health ABC) Study, which enrolled 3,069 adults over 70 at two community clinics in Memphis, TN and Pittsburgh, PA beginning in 1997. All the patients provided periodic blood samples and took regular cognitive tests over time.

When the study began, hundreds of those patients already had diabetes. A decade later, many more of them had developed diabetes, and many also suffered cognitive decline. As described this week in Archives of Neurology, those two health outcomes were closely linked.

People who had diabetes at the beginning of the study showed a faster cognitive decline than people who developed it during the course of the study — and these people, in turn, tended to be worse off than people who never developed diabetes at all. The study also showed that patients with more severe diabetes who did not control their blood sugar levels as well suffered faster cognitive declines.

"Both the duration and the severity of diabetes are very important factors," said Kristine Yaffe, MD, the lead author of the study. "It’s another piece of the puzzle in terms of linking diabetes to accelerated cognitive aging."

An important question for future studies, she added, would be to ask if interventions that would effectively prevent, delay or better control diabetes would also lower people’s risk of cognitive impairment later in life.

Yaffe is the Roy and Marie Scola Endowed Chair of Psychiatry; professor in the UCSF departments of Psychiatry, Neurology and Epidemiology and Biostatistics; and Chief of Geriatric Psychiatry and Director of the Memory Disorders Clinic at the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

Diabetes and Cognitive Decline

Diabetes is a chronic and complex disease marked by high levels of sugar in the blood that arise due to problems with the hormone insulin, which regulates blood sugar levels. It is caused by an inability to produce insulin (type 1) or an inability to respond correctly to insulin (type 2).

A major health concern in the United States, diabetes of all types affects an estimated 8.3 percent of the U.S. population — some 25.8 million Americans — and costs U.S. taxpayers more than $200 billion annually. In California alone, an estimated 4 million people (one out of every seven adults) has type 2 diabetes and millions more are at risk of developing it. These numbers are poised to explode in the next half century if more is not done to prevent the disease.

Over the last several decades, scientists have come to appreciate that diabetes affects many tissues and organs of the body, including the brain and central nervous system — particularly because diabetes places people at risk of cognitive decline later in life.

In their study the scientists looked at a blood marker known as “glycosylated hemoglobin,” a standard measure of the severity of diabetes and the ability to control it over time. The marker shows evidence of high blood sugar because these sugar molecules become permanently attached to hemoglobin proteins in the blood. Yaffe and her colleagues found that greater levels of this biomarker were associated with more severe cognitive dysfunction.

While the underlying mechanism that accounts for the link between diabetes and risk of cognitive decline is not completely understood, Yaffe said, it may be related to a human protein known as insulin degrading enzyme, which plays an important role in regulating insulin, the key hormone linked to diabetes. This same enzyme also degrades a protein in the brain known as beta-amyloid, a brain protein linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

Source: Science Daily

June 21, 2012 By Janice Wood

Thanks to science, we know that love lives in the brain, not the heart.

Now a new international study has mapped out where love and sexual desire are in the brain.

“No one has ever put these two together to see the patterns of activation,” says Dr. Jim Pfaus, professor of psychology at Concordia University.

“We didn’t know what to expect –the two could have ended up being completely separate. It turns out that love and desire activate specific but related areas in the brain.”

Working with colleagues in the United States and Switzerland, Pfaus analyzed the results of 20 separate studies that examined brain activity while subjects engaged in tasks such as viewing erotic pictures or looking at photographs of their significant others. Pooling this data enabled the scientists to form a map of love and desire in the brain.

They found that two brain structures, the insula and the striatum, are responsible for tracking the progression from sexual desire to love.

The insula is a portion of the cerebral cortex folded deep within an area between the temporal lobe and the frontal lobe, while the striatum is located nearby, inside the forebrain.

According to the researchers, love and sexual desire activate different areas of the striatum. The area activated by sexual desire is usually turned on by things that are inherently pleasurable, such as sex or food.

The area activated by love is involved in the process of conditioning in which things paired with reward or pleasure are given inherent value. That is, as feelings of sexual desire develop into love, they are processed in a different place in the striatum, the researchers explain.

This area of the striatum is also the part of the brain associated with drug addiction. Pfaus says there is good reason for this.

“Love is actually a habit that is formed from sexual desire as desire is rewarded,” he explains. “It works the same way in the brain as when people become addicted to drugs.”

However, the habit is not a bad one, he said, noting that love activates different pathways in the brain that are involved in monogamy and pair bonding. Some areas in the brain are actually less active when a person feels love than when they feel desire, he added.

“While sexual desire has a very specific goal, love is more abstract and complex, so it’s less dependent on the physical presence someone else,” says Pfaus.

Source: PsychCentral

June 20, 2012 By Robin Erb

Go ahead - do it: Grab a pencil. Right now. Write your name backward. And upside down. Awkward, right?

But if researchers and neurologists are correct, doing exercises like these just might buy you a bit more time with a healthy brain.

Some research suggests that certain types of mental exercises - whether they are memory games on your mobile device or jotting down letters backward - might help our gray matter maintain concentration, memory and visual and spatial skills over the years.

"There is some evidence of a use-it-or-lose-it phenomenon," says Dr. Michael Maddens, chief of medicine at Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich.

Makers of computer brain games, in fact, are tapping into a market of consumers who have turned to home treadmills and gym memberships to maintain their bodies, and now worry that aging might take its toll on their mental muscle as well.

But tweaking every day routines can help.

Like brushing your teeth with your non-dominant hand. Or crossing your arms the opposite way you’re used to, says Cheryl Deep, who leads “Brain Neurobics” sessions on behalf of the Wayne State Institute of Gerontology.

At a recent session in Novi, Mich., Deep encouraged several dozen senior citizens to flip the pictures in their homes upside-down. It might baffle houseguests, but the exercise crowbars the brain out of familiar grooves cut deep by years of mindless habit.

"Every time you walk past and look, your brain has to rotate that image," Deep says. "Brain neurobics is about getting us out of those ruts, those pathways, and shaking things up."

Participants were asked to call out the color of ink that flashed on a screen in front them. The challenge: The colors spelled out names of other colors. Blue ink spelled o-r-a-n-g-e, for example.

Several in the crowd at Waltonwood Senior Living hesitated - a few scrunching up faces in concentration. The first instinct is to say “orange.”

In another exercise, participants had to try to name as many red foods as possible. Apple? Sure that’s an easy one. It took a while, but the crowd eventually made its way to pomegranate and pimento.

Elissa and Hal Leider chuckled with friends as they tested their recall.

Hal Leider, 82, a retired carpenter, was diagnosed with early-stage Alzheimer’s, and he tries to challenge himself mentally and physically - bowling and shooting pool and playing poker: “I think anything we can do might be helpful,” says Elissa Leider, 74.

The idea of mental workouts marks a dramatic shift in how we understand the brain these days.

"We want to stretch and flex and push" the brain, says Moriah Thomason, assistant professor in Wayne State University School of Medicine’s pediatrics department and in the Merrill Palmer Skillman Institute for Child and Family Development

Thomason also is a scientific adviser to http://www.Lumosity.com, one of the fastest-growing brain game websites.

"We used to think that what you’re born with is what you have through life. But now we understand that the brain is a lot more plastic and flexible than we ever appreciated," she says.

Still, like the rest of your body, aging takes its toll, she says.

The protective covering of the neural cells - white matter - begins to shrink first. Neural and glial cells, often called the gray matter, begin to shrink as well, but more slowly. Neurotransmitters, or chemical messengers, decrease.

But challenging the brain stimulates neural pathways - those tentacles that look like tree branches in a cluster of brain cells. It boosts the brain’s chemistry and connectivity, refueling the entire engine.

"Certain activities will lay more neural pathways that can be more readily re-engaged," Thomason says. "The hope is that there are ways to train and strengthen these pathways."

Maddens explains it this way: Consider the neurons of your brain like electrical wires and the white matter like the insulation. When the insulation breaks down over time, things can misfire.

In labs, those who engaged in mentally challenging games do, in fact, show improvement in cognitive functioning. They get faster at speed games and stronger in memory games, for example.

What’s less clear is whether this improvement transfers to everyday tasks, like remembering where you parked the car or the name of your child’s teacher, both Thomason and Maddens say.

But when it comes to the link between physical exercise and the brain, researchers and clinicians agree: physical exercise is good for the brain; it has also been linked to lower rates of chronic disease. Good nutrition is essential too.

Oxygen, itself, is essential, Deep said: “Your brain is an oxygen hog.”

Diet, exercise and mental maneuvers all may boost brain health in ways science still doesn’t understand. In the best cases, the right mix might stave off the effects of Alzheimer’s and other age-related disease too, Maddens says.

All this is good news for an aging, stressed out, and too-busy society, he says.

Reading a book, engaging with friends or going out for a walk and paying attention to what’s around you - that’s not really about goofing off. Rather, it’s critical time that stimulates neural pathways and boosts the odds of long-time brain health.

"It’s talking to friends. It’s getting out socially. It’s engaging in life. The question is ‘How do I force myself to learn?’" Thomason says.

The same might be true when it comes to mentally changing computer games.

Says Maddens: “Would I have patients playing computer games eight hours a day in hopes that they can delay Alzheimer’s by two months? No. But you can enjoy (playing such games) and possibly get a benefit from it, too.”

Read more …

ScienceDaily (June 20, 2012) — Most of us assume that confidence and certainty are preferred over uncertainty and bewilderment when it comes to learning complex information. But a new study led by Sidney D’Mello of the University of Notre Dame shows that confusion when learning can be beneficial if it is properly induced, effectively regulated and ultimately resolved.

Most of us assume that confidence and certainty are preferred over uncertainty and bewilderment when it comes to learning complex information. But a new study shows that confusion when learning can be beneficial if it is properly induced, effectively regulated and ultimately resolved. (Credit: © Ana Blazic Pavlovic / Fotolia)

The study will be published in a forthcoming issue of the journal Learning and Instruction.

Notre Dame psychologist and computer scientist D’Mello, whose research areas include artificial intelligence, human-computer interaction and the learning sciences, together with Art Graesser of the University of Memphis, collaborated on the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation.

They found that by strategically inducing confusion in a learning session on difficult conceptual topics, people actually learned more effectively and were able to apply their knowledge to new problems.

In a series of experiments, subjects learned scientific reasoning concepts through interactions with computer-animated agents playing the roles of a tutor and a peer learner. The animated agents and the subject engaged in interactive conversations where they collaboratively discussed the merits of sample research studies that were flawed in one critical aspect. For example, one hypothetical case study touted the merits of a diet pill, but was flawed because it did not include an appropriate control group. Confusion was induced by manipulating the information the subjects received so that the animated agents sometimes disagreed with each other and expressed contradictory or incorrect information. The agents then asked subjects to decide which opinion had more scientific merit, thereby putting the subject in the hot spot of having to make a decision with incomplete and sometimes contradictory information.

In addition to the confusion and uncertainty triggered by the contradictions, subjects who were confused scored higher on a difficult post-test and could more successfully identify flaws in new case studies.

"We have been investigating links between emotions and learning for almost a decade, and find that confusion can be beneficial to learning if appropriately regulated because it can cause learners to process the material more deeply in order to resolve their confusion," D’Mello says.

According to D’Mello, it is not advisable to intentionally confuse students who are struggling or induce confusion during high-stakes learning activities. Confusion interventions are best for higher-level learners who want to be challenged with difficult tasks, are willing to risk failure, and who manage negative emotions when they occur.

"It is also important that the students are productively instead of hopelessly confused. By productive confusion, we mean that the source of the confusion is closely linked to the content of the learning session, the student attempts to resolve their confusion, and the learning environment provides help when the student struggles. Furthermore, any misleading information in the form of confusion-induction techniques should be corrected over the course of the learning session, as was done in the present experiments."

According to D’Mello, the next step in this body of research is to apply these methods to some of the more traditional domains such as physics, where misconceptions are common.

Source: Science Daily

ScienceDaily (June 20, 2012) — Most of us have experienced it. You are introduced to someone, only to forget his or her name within seconds. You rack your brain trying to remember, but can’t seem to even come up with the first letter. Then you get frustrated and think, “Why is it so hard for me to remember names?”

You may think it’s just how you were born, but that’s not the case, according to Kansas State University’s Richard Harris, professor of psychology. He says it’s not necessarily your brain’s ability that determines how well you can remember names, but rather your level of interest.

"Some people, perhaps those who are more socially aware, are just more interested in people, more interested in relationships," Harris said. "They would be more motivated to remember somebody’s name."

This goes for people in professions like politics or teaching where knowing names is beneficial. But just because someone can’t remember names doesn’t mean they have a bad memory.

"Almost everybody has a very good memory for something," Harris said.

The key to a good memory is your level of interest, he said. The more interest you show in a topic, the more likely it will imprint itself on your brain. If it is a topic you enjoy, then it will not seem like you are using your memory.

For example, Harris said a few years ago some students were playing a geography game in his office. He started to join in naming countries and their capitals. Soon, the students were amazed by his knowledge, although Harris didn’t understand why. Then it dawned on him that his vast knowledge of capitals didn’t come from memorizing them from a map, but rather from his love of stamps and learning their whereabouts.

"I learned a lot of geographical knowledge without really studying," he said.

Harris said this also explains why some things seem so hard to remember — they may be hard to understand or not of interest to some people, such as remembering names.

Harris said there are strategies for training your memory, including using a mnemonic device.

"If somebody’s last name is Hefty and you notice they’re left-handed, you could remember lefty Hefty," he said.

Another strategy is to use the person’s name while you talk to them — although the best strategy is simply to show more interest in the people you meet, he said.

Source: Science Daily

June 20, 2012

A “brain pacemaker” called deep brain stimulation (DBS) remains an effective treatment for Parkinson’s disease for at least three years, according to a study in the June 2012 online issue of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

But while improvements in motor function remained stable, there were gradual declines in health-related quality of life and cognitive abilities.

First author of the study is Frances M. Weaver, PhD, who has joint appointments at Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital and Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.

Weaver was one of the lead investigators of a 2010 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine that found that motor functions remained stable for two years in DBS patients. The new additional analysis extended the follow-up period to 36 months.

DBS is a treatment for Parkinson’s patients who no longer benefit from medication, or who experience unacceptable side effects. DBS is not a cure, and it does not stop the disease from progressing. But in the right patients, DBS can significantly improve symptoms, especially tremors. DBS also can relieve muscle rigidity that causes decreased range of motion.

In the DBS procedure, a neurosurgeon drills a dime-size hole in the skull and inserts an electrode about 4 inches into the brain. A connecting wire from the electrode runs under the skin to a battery implanted near the collarbone. The electrode delivers mild electrical signals that effectively reorganize the brain’s electrical impulses. The procedure can be done on one or both sides of the brain.

Researchers evaluated 89 patients who were stimulated in a part of the brain called the globus pallidus interna and 70 patients who were stimulated in a different part of the brain called the subthalamic nucleus. (Patients received DBS surgery at seven VA and six affiliated university medical centers.) Patients were assessed at baseline (before DBS surgery) and at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months. Patients were rated on a Parkinson’s disease scale that includes motor functions such as speech, facial expression, tremors, rigidity, finger taps, hand movements, posture, gait, bradykinesia (slow movement) etc. The lower the rating, the better the function.

Improvements in motor function were similar in both groups of patients, and stable over time. Among patients stimulated in the globus pallidus interna, the score improved from 41.1 at baseline to 27.1 at 36 months. Among patients stimulated in the subthalamic nucleus, the score improved from 42.5 at baseline to 29.7 at 36 months.

By contrast, some early gains in quality of life and the abilities to do the activities of daily living were gradually lost, and there was a decline in neurocognitive function. This likely reflects the progression of the disease, and the emergence of symptoms that are resistant to DBS and medications.

Researchers concluded that both the globus pallidus interna and the subthalamic nucleus areas of the brain “are viable DBS targets for treatment of motor symptoms, but highlight the importance of nonmotor symptoms as determinants of quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease.”

Source: medicalxpress.com

June 20, 2012

With a single drug treatment, researchers at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine can silence the mutated gene responsible for Huntington’s disease, slowing and partially reversing progression of the fatal neurodegenerative disorder in animal models.

This image shows stained mouse neurons. Credit: Image courtesy of Taylor Bayouth

The findings are published in the June 21, 2012 online issue of the journal Neuron.

Researchers suggest the drug therapy, tested in mouse and non-human primate models, could produce sustained motor and neurological benefits in human adults with moderate and severe forms of the disorder. Currently, there is no effective treatment.

Huntington’s disease afflicts approximately 30,000 Americans, whose symptoms include uncontrolled movements and progressive cognitive and psychiatric problems. The disease is caused by the mutation of a single gene, which results in the production and accumulation of toxic proteins throughout the brain.

Don W. Cleveland, PhD, professor and chair of the UC San Diego Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine and head of the Laboratory of Cell Biology at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, and colleagues infused mouse and primate models of Huntington’s disease with one-time injections of an identified DNA drug based on antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs). These ASOs selectively bind to and destroy the mutant gene’s molecular instructions for making the toxic huntingtin protein.

The singular treatment produced rapid results. Treated animals began moving better within one month and achieved normal motor function within two. More remarkably, the benefits persisted, lasting nine months, well after the drug had disappeared and production of the toxic proteins had resumed.

"For diseases like Huntington’s, where a mutant protein product is tolerated for decades prior to disease onset, these findings open up the provocative possibility that transient treatment can lead to a prolonged benefit to patients,” said Cleveland. “This finding raises the prospect of a ‘huntingtin holiday,’ which may allow for clearance of disease-causing species that might take weeks or months to re-form. If so, then a single application of a drug to reduce expression of a target gene could ‘reset the disease clock,’ providing a benefit long after huntingtin suppression has ended.”

Beyond improving motor and cognitive function, researchers said the ASO treatment also blocked brain atrophy and increased lifespan in mouse models with a severe form of the disease. The therapy was equally effective whether one or both huntingtin genes were mutated, a positive indicator for human therapy.

Cleveland noted that the approach was particularly promising because antisense therapies have already been proven safe in clinical trials and are the focus of much drug development. Moreover, the findings may have broader implications, he said, for other “age-dependent neurodegenerative diseases that develop from exposure to a mutant protein product” and perhaps for nervous system cancers, such as glioblastomas.

Provided by University of California - San Diego

Source: medicalxpress.com

ScienceDaily (June 20, 2012) — Researchers at the RIKEN Brain Science Institute (BSI) in Japan have uncovered two brain signals in the human prefrontal cortex involved in how humans predict the decisions of other people. Their results suggest that the two signals, each located in distinct prefrontal circuits, strike a balance between expected and observed rewards and choices, enabling humans to predict the actions of people with different values than their own.

Figure one shows the neural activity for the simulation of another person: Reward Signal (red) and Action Signal (green). The action signal shown in this figure (green) is in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. The activity of reward signal (red) largely overlaps with the activity of the signal for the self-valuation (blue) in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. (Credit: RIKEN)

Every day, humans are faced with situations in which they must predict what decisions other people will make. These predictions are essential to the social interactions that make up our personal and professional lives. The neural mechanism underlying these predictions, however, by which humans learn to understand the values of others and use this information to predict their decision-making behavior, has long remained a mystery.

Researchers at the RIKEN Brain Science Institute (BSI) in Japan have now shed light on this mystery with a paper to appear in the June 21st issue of Neuron. The researchers describe for the first time the process governing how humans learn to predict the decisions of another person using mental simulation of their mind.

Learning another person’s values and mental processes is often assumed to require simulation of the other’s mind: using one’s own familiar mental processes to simulate unfamiliar processes in the mind of the other. While simple and intuitive, this explanation is hard to prove due to the difficulty in disentangling one’s own brain signals from those of the simulated other.

Research scientists Shinsuke Suzuki and Hiroyuki Nakahara, a Principal Investigator of the Laboratory for Integrated Theoretical Neuroscience at RIKEN BSI, together with their collaborators, set out to disentangle these signals using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) on humans. First, they studied the behavior of subjects as they played a game by making predictions about the other’s behavior based on the knowledge of others and their decisions. Then they generated a computer model of the simulation process to examine the brain signals underlying the prediction of the other’s behavior.

The authors found that humans simulate the decisions of other people using two brain signals encoded in the prefrontal cortex, an area responsible for higher cognition. One signal involves the estimated value of the reward to the other person, and is called the reward signal, referring to the difference between the other’s values, simulated in one’s mind, and the reward benefit that the other actually received. The other signal is called the action signal, relating to the other’s expected action predicted by the simulation process in one’s mind, and what the other person actually did, which may or may not be different. They found that the reward signal is processed in a part of the brain called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. The action signal, on the other hand, was found in a separate brain area called the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.

"Every day, we interact with a variety of other individuals," Suzuki said. "Some may share similar values with us and for those interactions simulation using the reward signal alone may suffice. However, other people with different values may be quite different and then the action signal may become quite important."

Nakahara believes that their approach, using mathematical models based on human behavior with brain imaging, will be useful to answer a wide range of questions about the social functions employed by the brain. “Perhaps we may one day better understand how and why humans have the ability to predict others’ behavior, even those with different characteristics. Ultimately, this knowledge could help improving political, educational, and social systems in human societies.”

Source: Science Daily

ScienceDaily (June 20, 2012) — The human brain can recognize thousands of different objects, but neuroscientists have long grappled with how the brain organizes object representation; in other words, how the brain perceives and identifies different objects. Now researchers at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL) and the MIT Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences have discovered that the brain organizes objects based on their physical size, with a specific region of the brain reserved for recognizing large objects and another reserved for small objects.

This figure shows brain activations while participants view pictures of large and small objects. (Credit: Image courtesy of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CSAIL)

Their findings, to be published in the June 21 issue of Neuron, could have major implications for fields like robotics, and could lead to a greater understanding of how the brain organizes and maps information.

"Prior to this study, nobody had looked at whether the size of an object was an important factor in the brain’s ability to recognize it," said Aude Oliva, an associate professor in the MIT Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and senior author of the study.

"It’s almost obvious that all objects in the world have a physical size, but the importance of this factor is surprisingly easy to miss when you study objects by looking at pictures of them on a computer screen," said Dr. Talia Konkle, lead author of the paper. "We pick up small things with our fingers, we use big objects to support our bodies. How we interact with objects in the world is deeply and intrinsically tied to their real-world size, and this matters for how our brain’s visual system organizes object information."

As part of their study, Konkle and Oliva took 3D scans of brain activity during experiments in which participants were asked to look at images of big and small objects or visualize items of differing size. By evaluating the scans, the researchers found that there are distinct regions of the brain that respond to big objects (for example, a chair or a table), and small objects (for example, a paperclip or a strawberry).

By looking at the arrangement of the responses, they found a systematic organization of big to small object responses across the brain’s cerebral cortex. Large objects, they learned, are processed in the parahippocampal region of the brain, an area located by the hippocampus, which is also responsible for navigating through spaces and for processing the location of different places, like the beach or a building. Small objects are handled in the inferior temporal region of the brain, near regions that are active when the brain has to manipulate tools like a hammer or a screwdriver.

The work could have major implications for the field of robotics, in particular in developing techniques for how robots deal with different objects, from grasping a pen to sitting in a chair.

"Our findings shed light on the geography of the human brain, and could provide insight into developing better machine interfaces for robots," said Oliva.

Many computer vision techniques currently focus on identifying what an object is without much guidance about the size of the object, which could be useful in recognition. “Paying attention to the physical size of objects may dramatically constrain the number of objects a robot has to consider when trying to identify what it is seeing,” said Oliva.

The study’s findings are also important for understanding how the organization of the brain may have evolved. The work of Konkle and Oliva suggests that the human visual system’s method for organizing thousands of objects may also be tied to human interactions with the world. “If experience in the world has shaped our brain organization over time, and our behavior depends on how big objects are, it makes sense that the brain may have established different processing channels for different actions, and at the center of these may be size,” said Konkle.

Oliva, a cognitive neuroscientist by training, has focused much of her research on how the brain tackles scene and object recognition, as well as visual memory. Her ultimate goal is to gain a better understanding of the brain’s visual processes, paving the way for the development of machines and interfaces that can see and understand the visual world like humans do.

"Ultimately, we want to focus on how active observers move in the natural world. We think this not only matters for large-scale brain organization of the visual system, but it also matters for making machines that can see like us," said Konkle and Oliva.

Source: Science Daily