Neurophysiology: How the Brain Works

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Reaction score
0
The purpose of this thread is to post and discuss interesting discoveries regarding neurophysiology and how the brain works.
Anticipatory haemodynamic signals in sensory cortex not predicted by local neuronal activity
Haemodynamic signals underlying functional brain imaging (for example, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)) are assumed to reflect metabolic demand generated by local neuronal activity, with equal increases in haemodynamic signal implying equal increases in the underlying neuronal activity 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Few studies have compared neuronal and haemodynamic signals in alert animals 7, 8 to test for this assumed correspondence. Here we present evidence that brings this assumption into question. Using a dual-wavelength optical imaging technique9 that independently measures cerebral blood volume and oxygenation, continuously, in alert behaving monkeys, we find two distinct components to the haemodynamic signal in the alert animals' primary visual cortex (V1). One component is reliably predictable from neuronal responses generated by visual input. The other component—of almost comparable strength—is a hitherto unknown signal that entrains to task structure independently of visual input or of standard neural predictors of haemodynamics. This latter component shows predictive timing, with increases of cerebral blood volume in anticipation of trial onsets even in darkness. This trial-locked haemodynamic signal could be due to an accompanying V1 arterial pumping mechanism, closely matched in time, with peaks of arterial dilation entrained to predicted trial onsets. These findings (tested in two animals) challenge the current understanding of the link between brain haemodynamics and local neuronal activity. They also suggest the existence of a novel preparatory mechanism in the brain that brings additional arterial blood to cortex in anticipation of expected tasks.

This finding is interesting in two ways.
1) One of the assumptions in brain scans is that that blood flow changes in the brain the signal measured by brain scanners) are always linked to changes in neuronal activity. This study has thrown a spanner in the works for that assumption.
2) It shows that there is a mechanism that channels extra blood to the visual cortex in anticipation that there might be lots of visual material to look at.

Read more:
Another shock for brain imaging research - the signal isn't always linked to neuronal activity
 
Single Brain Cell Can Hold a Memory
Memory has long been described as a function of brain cells getting together and forming connections. A new study finds single cells can remember things.

Individual nerve cells (called neurons) in the front part of the brain can hold traces of memories by themselves for up to a minute, perhaps longer.

The fleeting memories, which the researchers found in mice brains, are held in the most highly evolved part of the brain in a manner akin to the nonpermanent working memory of a computer.

"It's more like RAM [random access memory] on a computer than memory stored on a disk," said Don Cooper, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. "The memory on the disk is more permanent and you can go back and access the same information repeatedly. RAM memory is rewritable temporary storage that allows multitasking."

The general view of memory formation is that they are caused by changes in the sensitivity of synaptic transmission between neurons. The finding that single neurons are capable of memory retention indicates that mental actions can occur at a sub-cellular level. This is intriguing as this finding is compatible with the view that microtubules can act as protein quantum computers relaying the information locked in Planck scale.
 
Brain Develops Motor Memory For Prosthetics
ScienceDaily (July 20, 2009) — "Practice makes perfect" is the maxim drummed into students struggling to learn a new motor skill - be it riding a bike or developing a killer backhand in tennis. Stunning new research now reveals that the brain can also achieve this motor memory with a prosthetic device, providing hope that physically disabled people can one day master control of artificial limbs with greater ease.

In this study, macaque monkeys using brain signals learned how to move a computer cursor to various targets. What the researchers learned was that the brain could develop a mental map of a solution to achieve the task with high proficiency, and that it adhered to that neural pattern without deviation, much like a driver sticks to a given route commuting to work.

The study, conducted by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, addresses a fundamental question about whether the brain can establish a stable, neural map of a motor task to make control of an artificial limb more intuitive.

"When your own body performs motor tasks repeatedly, the movements become almost automatic," said study principal investigator Jose Carmena, a UC Berkeley assistant professor with joint appointments in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, and the Program in Cognitive Science. "The profound part of our study is that this is all happening with something that is not part of one's own body. We have demonstrated that the brain is able to form a motor memory to control a disembodied device in a way that mirrors how it controls its own body. That has never been shown before."

Researchers in the field of brain-machine interfaces, including Carmena, have made significant strides in recent years in the effort to improve the lives of people with physical disabilities. An April 2009 survey by the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation found that nearly 1.3 million people in the United States suffer from some form of paralysis caused by spinal cord injury. When other causes of restricted movement are considered, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis and cerebral palsy, the number of Americans affected jumps to 5.6 million, the survey found.

Already, researchers have demonstrated that rodents, non-human primates and humans are able to control robotic devices or computer cursors in real time using only brain signals. But what had not been clear before was whether such a skill had been consolidated as a motor memory. The new study suggests that the brain is capable of creating a stable, mental representation of a disembodied device so that it can be controlled with little effort.

To demonstrate this, Carmena and Karunesh Ganguly, a post-doctoral fellow in Carmena's laboratory, used a mathematical model, or "decoder," that remained static during the length of the study, and they paired it with a stable group of neurons in the brain. The decoder, analogous to a simplified spinal cord, translated the signals from the brain's motor cortex into movement of the cursor.

It took about four to five days of practice for the monkeys to master precise control of the cursor. Once they did, they completed the task easily and quickly for the next two weeks.

As the tasks were being completed, the researches were able to monitor the changes in activity of individual neurons involved in controlling the cursor. They could tell which cells were firing when the cursor moved in specific directions. The researchers noticed that when the animals became proficient at the task, the neural patterns involved in the "solution" stabilized.

"The solution adopted is what the brain returned to repeatedly," said Carmena.

That stability is one of three major features scientists associate with motor memory, and it is all too familiar to music teachers and athletic coaches who try to help their students "unlearn" improper form or techniques, as once a motor memory has been consolidated, it can be difficult to change.

Other characteristics of motor memory include the ability for it to be rapidly recalled upon demand and its resistance to interference when new skills are learned. All three elements were demonstrated in the UC Berkeley study.

In the weeks after they achieved proficiency, the primates exhibited rapid recall by immediately completing their learned task on the first try. "They did it from the get-go; there was no need to retrain them," said Carmena.

Real-life examples of resistance to interference, the third feature of motor memory, include people who return to an automatic transmission car after learning how to drive stick-shift. In the study, the researchers presented a new decoder - marked by a different colored cursor - two weeks after the monkeys showed mastery of the first decoder.

As the monkeys were mastering the new decoder, the researchers would suddenly switch back to the original decoder and saw that the monkeys could immediately perform the task without missing a beat. The monkeys could easily switch back and forth between the two decoders, showing a level of neural plasticity never before associated with the control of a prosthetic device, the researchers said.

"This is a study that says that maybe one day, we can really think of the ultimate neuroprosthetic device that humans can use to perform many different tasks in a more natural way," said Carmena.

Yet, the researchers acknowledged that prosthetic devices will not match what millions of years of evolution have accomplished to enable animal brains to control body movement. The complexity of wiring one's brain to properly control the body is made clear whenever one watches an infant's haphazard attempts to find its own hands and feet.

"Nevertheless, beyond its clinical applications, which are very clear, this line of research sheds light on how the brain assembles and organizes neurons, and how it forms a motor memory to control the prosthetic device," Carmena said. "These are important, fundamental questions about how the brain learns in general.

This study was supported by the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association.

Interesting how the brain adapts towards situations that has no evolutionary history. Natural selection had nothing to do with this. There was not some ancestor that accidentally managed to learn to adapt to prosthetics and then survived to pass on its genes. Once again showing the vacuous nature of "natural-selection-did-it" explanations.
Robustness and redundancy. Signs of an optimal system.
 
Last edited:
Interesting how the brain adapts towards situations that has no evolutionary history. Natural selection had nothing to do with this.

Brains are adapted to adapt and to learn. What DID have something to do with this then?

EDIT. Deep and profound stuff here:

Already, researchers have demonstrated that... non-human primates... are able to control... computer cursors

Hell, they only had to visit the PD section to find plenty evidence of that LOL!
:D
 
Last edited:
Brains are adapted to adapt and to learn. What DID have something to do with this then?
So... brains are adapted TO adapt. Just like artificial neural networks are adapted TO adapt...

Differiate between those two adaptations above if you don't mind.


Hell, they only had to visit the PD section to find plenty evidence of that LOL!
:D
Don't be so tough on yourself there, shame man. And don't insult monkeys like that ;).
 
Brains are adapted to adapt and to learn. What DID have something to do with this then?

EDIT. Deep and profound stuff here:

Hell, they only had to visit the PD section to find plenty evidence of that LOL!
:D

Or the Science section (some monkeys even believe they know somethings about maths and stats, "one banana two banana....").

Some interesting facts about the brain:

Your brain uses 20% of your body's energy, but it makes up only 2% of your body's weight.

Your cerebral cortex is about as thick as a tongue depressor. It grows thicker as you learn and use it.

Your brain is about 1300-1400 cubic centimeters in volume, about the size of a cantaloupe and wrinkled like a walnut.

The brain feels like a ripe avocado and looks pink because of the blood flowing through it.

Your brain generates 25 watts of power while you're awake---enough to illuminate a light bulb.

http://www.mamashealth.com/organs/brain2.asp
 
Brain Innately Separates Living And Non-living Objects For Processing
ScienceDaily (Aug. 14, 2009) — For unknown reasons, the human brain distinctly separates the handling of images of living things from images of non-living things, processing each image type in a different area of the brain. For years, many scientists have assumed the brain segregated visual information in this manner to optimize processing the images themselves, but new research shows that even in people who have been blind since birth the brain still separates the concepts of living and non-living objects.

The research, published in the Cell Press journal Neuron, implies that the brain categorizes objects based on the different types of subsequent consideration they demand—such as whether an object is edible, or is a landmark on the way home, or is a predator to run from. They are not categorized entirely by their appearance.

"If both sighted people and people with blindness process the same ideas in the same parts of the brain, then it follows that visual experience is not necessary in order for those aspects of brain organization to develop," says Bradford Mahon, postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the University of Rochester, and lead author of the study. "We think this means significant parts of the brain are innately structured around a few domains of knowledge that were critical in humans' evolutionary history."

Previous studies have shown that the sight of certain objects, such as a table or mountain, activate regions of the brain other than does the sight of living objects, such as an animal or face—but why the brain would choose to process these two categories differently has remained a mystery, says Mahon. Since the regions were known to activate when the objects were seen, scientists wondered if something about the visual appearance of the objects determined how the brain would process them. For instance, says Mahon, most living things have curved forms, and so many scientists thought the brain prefers to processes images of living things in an area that is optimized for curved forms.

To see if the appearance of objects is indeed key to how the brain conducts its processing, Mahon and his team, led by Alfonso Caramazza, director of the Cognitive Neuropsychology Laboratory at Harvard University, asked people who have been blind since birth to think about certain living and non-living objects. These people had no visual experience at all, so their brains necessarily determined where to do the processing using some criteria other than an object's appearance.

"When we looked at the MRI scans, it was pretty clear that blind people and sighted people were dividing up living and non-living processing in the same way," says Mahon. "We think these findings strongly encourage the view that the human brain's organization innately anticipates the different types of computations that must be carried out for different types of objects."

Mahon thinks it's possible that other parts of the human brain are innately structured around categories of knowledge that may have been important in human evolution. For instance, he says, facial expressions need a specific kind of processing linked to understanding emotions, whereas a landmark needs to be processed in conjunction with a sense of spatial awareness. The brain might choose to process these things in different areas of the brain because those areas have strong connections to other processing centers specializing in emotion or spatial awareness, says Mahon.

Mahon is now working on new experiments designed to further our understanding of how the brain represents knowledge of different classes of objects, both in sighted and blind individuals, as well as in stroke patients.

The data for the study were collected at the Center for Mind/Brain Sciences at the University of Trento in Italy.

Some would like to assert (well only a small group of people really) that both living and non-living things are just material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning. If so, the brain is naturally delusional because it separates two states of being that are actually the same. Or is it there something that separates the living from the non-living... like intentionality?
 
Last edited:
Or is it there something that separates the living from the non-living... like intentionality?

Nah! It's Jesus wot does it.
:p

BTW Phroners, haven't seen you over at the skeptics forum lately? What happened - Schrodinger's cat got your tongue?
 
The purpose of this thread is to post and discuss interesting discoveries regarding neurophysiology and how the brain works.
Anticipatory haemodynamic signals in sensory cortex not predicted by local neuronal activity


This finding is interesting in two ways.
1) One of the assumptions in brain scans is that that blood flow changes in the brain the signal measured by brain scanners) are always linked to changes in neuronal activity. This study has thrown a spanner in the works for that assumption.
2) It shows that there is a mechanism that channels extra blood to the visual cortex in anticipation that there might be lots of visual material to look at.

Read more:
Another shock for brain imaging research - the signal isn't always linked to neuronal activity

1. Try standing on your head.
 
Think someone should check out that Babinski reflex :eek: and ask their dad whether they were a cute and clever baby or not.

God-the-father or my long-dead earthly one? Tell me, do reflexes constitute the sum total of your own intellectual abilities? :confused::p
 
1. Try standing on your head.
Pheww... luckily the authors did not have you as a peer-reviewer :p.

God-the-father or my long-dead earthly one? Tell me, do reflexes constitute the sum total of your own intellectual abilities? :confused::p
Long-dead earthly one? Not your loving and caring dad that passed away? Daddy issues?
Well, it would make perfect sense...
Order this one:
Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism

Editorial Reviews
Review
Vitz (psychology, New York U.), an atheist himself until his 30s, exposes atheism to the same psychological analysis atheistic apologists have used to debunk religious belief. Beginning with Freud's notion that belief in God is a product of humanity's desire for security, he argues that psychoanalysis is actually a better explanation for denial of God, concluding that the absence of a good father is at the core of militant atheism. Surveys of the leading intellectual defenders of atheism and Christianity, show that the atheists had "defective fathers" while the believers did not. Vitz does not intend to suggest that atheism is psychologically determined, but rather hopes to counteract the idea that irrational psychological factors lead one to believe in God. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com) -- Booknews --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Product Description
Starting with Freud's "projection theory" of religion-that belief in God is merely a product of man's desire for security-Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading intellectual defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Professor Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism.

Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined. Each man, whatever his experiences, ultimately chooses to accept God or reject him. Yet the cavalier attribution of religious faith to irrational, psychological needs is so prevalent that an exposition of the psychological factors predisposing one to atheism is necessary.
Guess "defective father" means "long-dead" one in your case.

Why this might give a clue as to why philosophers thinks this poor small movement is such a huge disaster...

Go sort out your daddy issues...
 
Last edited:
Long-dead earthly one? Not your loving and caring dad that passed away? Daddy issues?
Well, it would make perfect sense...

Hehe! Nice try! So there's hope for you still. When you grow up and mature a bit, your defective daddeh will vrek, then maybe you'll see the light. :p
 
Nice try what? Your the poor old chop with a few daddy issues you need to sort out. Your poppa probably had the same philosophy as you... Guess what, he probably thought you were just more crap that happened... ROFL, no wonder you have daddy issues.

Shame, more bad news for you:
Parental Influences Differ In Determing Child's Later Academic Success
ScienceDaily (Aug. 13, 2009) — Mothers and fathers play different roles and make different contributions to a child’s upbringing, but a father’s influence upon a child’s academic success later in life is felt the most when he’s involved from the very beginning, says a University of Illinois expert in early childhood education.
Blame your poppa...
 
ROFL, don't look for friends now. Go sort out your dadda problems somewhere else.
 
Mechanism For Neuron Self-preservation Discovered

ScienceDaily (Oct. 24, 2009) — Tsuruta et al. find that a lipid kinase directs a voltage-gated calcium channel's degradation to save neurons from a lethal dose of overexcitement. The study appears in the October 19, 2009 issue of the Journal of Cell Biology.

091019122846.jpg

With glutamate stimulation (right), CaV1.2 channels (red) are internalized and degraded by cortical neurons under PIKfyve's direction. (Credit: Tsuruta, F., et al. 2009. J. Cell Biol. doi:10.1083/jcb.200903028.)
An important player in cellular signaling, calcium is also terribly toxic at high levels. Neurons have evolved ways to protect themselves against the calcium influxes that come during periods of intense electrical activity. One way to limit the calcium flood is to remove the gatekeepers, calcium channels, from the cell surface. How neurons direct this is clinically important in a range of disorders, including stroke, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease.

In a proteomic screen for binding partners of the CaV1.2 channel, Tsuruta et al. extracted what seemed a strange companion at first: PIKfyve, the lipid kinase that generates PI(3,5)P2 and promotes the maturation of endosomes into lysosomes. Other groups had recently shown that mutations affecting PI(3,5)P2 production cause degeneration of excitable cells in both mice and humans, including mutants found in ALS and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. The team hypothesized that PIKfyve might be directing CaV1.2 degradation. Using glutamate excitation to simulate excitotoxic stress, the authors showed that CaV1.2 is internalized, associates with PIKfyve, and is degraded in the lysosome. When Tsuruta et al. squelched levels of PIKfyve or PI(3,5)P2, excess channels stayed at the surface and left neurons vulnerable to apoptosis.

The findings clarify how this neuroprotective mechanism unfolds and suggest that existing calcium channel-blocking drugs might aid patients with neurodegenerative disorders stemming from a PI(3,5)P2 defect.
 
Last edited:
How the unconscious mind works

Hi,
I'm new to this and not even sure if I’m posting this in the correct forum, if not I apologise.

I need some help on the functioning of the unconscious mind. I am busy studying the "Law of Attraction" and they try to explain the workings and power of the unconscious mind to allow you to understand the negative or positive frequencies the mind projects in thought processes.

I hope someone can help me by confirming its accuracy or even give me an easier explanation to make it more comprehendible, I will really appreciate any help.

This is an extract:
Your unconscious mind, the 95% of your entire brain power is processing over three million pieces of information every second, It Is your auto-pilot – It runs your life for you and it's been building habits for you perfectly since the day you were born. Everything you do is an unconscious habit.

There is like a catch 22 with the mind, it will find evidence that everything it believes is true, there is no way to prevent this from happening and this is why the Law of Attraction is so powerful if you hold on your unconscious in your unconscious mind limiting belief that limits you from being rich, if you think that money is bad for you, if you think that rich people are bad and you consider yourself to be nice. All those tiny beliefs that are hidden inside of your unconscious, they are the ones that limit your potential to become the one thing you require to become.

Now how does all this tie together? First we require setting up some rules on how your unconscious works. The first thing you require to know is that your unconscious does not understand the difference between sizes of things, meaning wins or losses. For example, to your mind it is the exact same thing to be able to tie your shoe or to win the lotto. It is also the same failure not to be able to tie your shoe as it is to sink the Titanic.

Your mind sees one of three things, either a win a success or a failure. Your mind can also not distinguish between other peoples failures and yours, meaning whenever you watch the news or someone comes to you with some gossip or bad news, your unconscious does not understand that this is happening to someone else, it take it as if it’s happening to you.

Another limit that your unconscious have is that it does not recognize the time, meaning that to it everything is in the now, there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now and it does not differentiate between what you imagine, what you remember or what is happening to you right now.

This are very important things to keep in mind because they are the ones that somehow are used by your unconscious to prevent you from achieving the things you want and at the same time they are the one that you can learn how to use in order to make your mind work for you.

Your mind has a number one priority and that number one priority is to survive no matter what. In order for it to survive it must prove that everything that it believes is true. This tie with the fact that you cannot actually, literally prove that anything that you hold as real is actually real.

There has been a lot of research in Quantum Physics showing that you cannot touch anything because the electrons of your atoms and the electrons of the atoms of the thing you try to touch repel each other before you actually make contact. What is happening is that your mind is making you believe that you are actually touching something.

There is no tangible evidence of anything that is real, at least in your own mind that is, so what you require to do here is understand that your mind plays by different rules and what you hold as real is not necessary real. It is real because your unconscious makes it so. Your mind will make you see what it wants you to see not what it’s seeing. It will help you see whatever it is ready or it expects, it will not always let you see what is going on.

Now if we tie all this information together. If you came and made your mind (showed your mind) that whatever it believes, whatever it holds as the truth is not valid. What would happen is that it would find whatever it believes is not real and since the only thing that your mind knows and the only thing that it holds is its beliefs and its number one priority is to prove that whatever it believes is true. When you un-prove your mind from its belief it could literally die.

Let’s say for example if you decided to try to touch the table and your hand will go through it, there would be three different outcomes to the experience. The number one outcome which is the most common one is that your mind won't let you see that your mind went through; it will let you see that you actually touched the table and that everything was normal.

The second outcome will be that your mind would be shocked, you would actually be in shock and you could be in that state for a long time. The third and last outcome is that you would actually see it, your mind will let you see it and it would prove itself wrong and if it comes to much as a surprise to it, it would perish so your mind would die and its first priority is for that to never happen.

Now how does this all tie with you? Let’s say that you purchase the lotto because you want to win the lotto – right? Then you say to yourself that you are going to win the lotto. Your mind goes to its archives and sees all the opportunities and occasions that you were a failure in your life or a looser and it starts counting them.

Your mind can count all the failures or all the problems of everyone that surrounds you including everyone in the news, it will also count every time you remember a failure or you look back at a failure or you imagine a failure, every time you think of a problem, every time you think of a situation that is sad or it hurts you or it makes you mad. Your mind counts it as another failure and put it on the list. So when you come to your mind and say OK I’m going to win the lotto, it goes to the archives and see how many times you have been a looser, how many times have you experienced losses?

One thing that is very important is to know that your mind recognizes pain, hurt and losses automatically, it does not require any filter and it does not require you to tell it that you have actually suffered a loss or you are in pain, it recognizes it immediately. So basically your mind has been counting these since you were born. The difference with the wins is that your mind will only consider a win or a success once you actually go and tell it consciously that what happened right now was a success or a win.

It works that way, if you don’t tell it, it won't count it. You probably if you haven’t actually done it, have at the most 10 or 20 wins in your life so far. As you can see the scale is tipped towards the loss and your mind goes and sees what it believes to be true, in this case it sees a lot of evidence that you have been a looser and very small evidence of you being a winner.

So when you buy the lotto ticket and you say that you are going to win the lotto your mind goes to its archives and say OK this guy is actually a looser, so the first thing I am going to do is to prove to him that he is a looser and the second thing that happen is that your mind sees that you are trying to tell it that you are a winner and it sees that there is so much evidence against that and it understands that you are trying to lie to it and since lying to it, since proving to it whatever it believes is not true, you are actually killing your mind.

What happens now is that your mind does not see you as an integral part of itself, you are an outside entity which it can destroy and it does destroy each and every day for as long as you don’t know how to control it. So when you go and tell it that you are going to win the lotto, you’re mind first of all show you that you are a looser and second of all it goes and fight against everything you are and everything you say and it destroys your life. Now it is not when you say I’m going to win the lotto it is every single time you try to say you’re something that your mind does not believe you.

So, as you can see, your unconscious mind behaves like a stupid beast, it only takes in to consideration the things it "knows to be true". Those things (as I mentioned before) are your beliefs.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X