Category Archives: Neuroscience

Undergraduate Antony wins neuroscience award – The Source – Washington University in St. Louis Newsroom

Irene Antony, a neuroscience major in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, won the Trainee Professional Development Award from the Society for Neuroscience.

Antony was selected for the award from a common pool of undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who demonstrate scientific merit and excellence in research. She and other recipients participated in the Neuroscience 2021 conference.

Im interested in autism and helping patients who have neurodevelopmental disorders, said Anthony, who is interested in becoming a physician-scientist. When I think about how deeply Ive been able to delve into the research side of things, specifically in the genetics that underlie autism, as well as on the clinical side, where I shadow physicians at the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic, I am very grateful for my experiences at WashU.

Read more from Anthony in this Q&A on the Department of Biology website.

See more here:
Undergraduate Antony wins neuroscience award - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis Newsroom

PEERS | Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior

The Program for the Education and Enrichment of Relational Skills (PEERS) is world-renowned for providing evidence-based social skills treatment to preschoolers, adolescents, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, depression, and other socio-emotional problems.

First developed at UCLA by PEERS Clinic director, Dr. Elizabeth Laugeson, the program has expanded to locations across the United States, has been translated into over a dozen languages, and is used in over 80 countries across the globe.

Visit link:
PEERS | Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior

How a tiny pet store fish became the center of neuroscience research – American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

I spent the better half of my twenties peering at tiny little fish under the microscope, and it was one of the most exciting time of my life.

Every morning, I would rush to the lab to see if my fish had laid eggs. I watched the brain cells of these completely transparent organisms multiply under the lens. I still remember the first time I saw a live neuron grow in front of my eyes, in the brain of a young fish larva. This striped tropical fish could fit in the palm of my hands, and yet is one of the most important organisms in biology, allowing researchers to answer fundamental questions in neuroscience, developmental, cancer, disease and regenerative biology.

The beginnings of zebrafish research can be traced back to early 1930s when Charles Creaser at Wayne State University in Detroit began using zebrafish (Danio rerio) eggs to show students the development of a live embryo and the movement of blood inside its arteries. Creaser was able to do this because zebrafish females release eggs from their body which are fertilized by the sperm released from the male. The freshly formed embryo is accessible to the observer from the moment it is fertilized. The fact that zebrafish embryos and larvae are transparent means studying the internal parts of the animal is a breeze. Creaser established methods for rearing, feeding and breeding zebrafish in the lab, but widespread use of the animal did not take off for another three decades.

Like Mendelian genetics, zebrafish had to be rediscovered. In the late 1930s, George Streisinger and his family moved across the Atlantic in an attempt to escape the anti-Semitic living conditions of 20th century Hungary. Streisingers passion for science got him a job under Myron Gordon, one of the fish researchers at the New York Zoological Society.

A school of adult zebrafish

Streisinger dedicated almost two decades of his career to studying the genetic code of viruses that infect bacteria, called bacteriophages. He used these viruses to decipher the way genetic material is coded in living beings. Despite having made such fundamental contributions to science using phages, Streisinger wished to switch to a different system. He aspired to understand the developmental of the nervous system in vertebrates, especially how neurons find their partners and make connections. At this time, in early 20th century, animals such as medaka fish and goldfish were the go-to choices for researchers interested in understanding development. But Streisinger went another way. The story goes that he walked into a pet store in Oregon, and asked the owner, whats a good simple vertebrate that I could study? and the owner pointed at zebrafish. At least thats what fishlore says, recounts Karuna Sampath, a professor studying control of embryo development at Warwick Medical School.

George Streisinger

Having already worked with zebrafish at the Zoological Society in New York, he was aware of the immense potential the fish held for biology experiments. When he joined the University of Oregon in 1960, Streisinger jumped headfirst into generating mutant fish strains. His initial lab was a converted army barrack, inside which he and his colleague Charlene Walker reared zebrafish in tanks. Zebrafish are naturally found in tropical climates of South Asia and can only survive in temperatures from 24C-38C, which meant that Streisinger and Walker had to get creative in maintaining the temperature of the hut at a sweet spot. In summer, water was poured on the roof to keep things cool, while in winter, electric heaters kept the hut toasty. Things soon started to pick up. In the two decades that Streisinger dedicated to zebrafish research before his death, he not only worked on deciphering neuronal development in the fish brain, but also set up techniques for linking mutations in the fish genome to changes in the fishs appearance.

Streisingers goal of bringing zebrafish up to par with model systems of the likes of Drosophila and rodents was carried to fruition by the army of colleagues he had inspired. Zebrafishs ease of maintenance and breeding, year round supply of embryos, external fertilization giving access to embyros from hour zero, and transparent young stages of development makes observation easy. But to really put the animal over the top, it was important to show that it was amenable to mutations, a key tool for biologists.

Thats exactly what Christiane Nusslein-Volhard at the Max Planck Institute in Tubingen and Wolfgang Driver at Massachusetts General Hospital did. They spearheaded the Big Screen, spread across multiple labs over the two continents, to produce about 4000 fish strains, each of which had a different aspect of early development disrupted. The result of this massive project was published as a collection of 37 papers in a single issue of the journal Development, finally announcing to the academic world that zebrafish was here to stay. On the heels of this accomplishment came the sequencing data of the entire zebrafish genome in 2001, which gave the community the ability to pick out the genes and match them to the changes observed in the big screen fish mutants.

Zebrafish larva bioengineered two have blood vessels glow in red and blood vessel cell nuclei in green

What began as an animal picked up from the local aquarium is now an established vertebrate model system used across thousands of labs to answer questions about the formation of the nervous system, evolution of behaviors, development and treatment of cancers, regeneration of tissues and much more. One can actually look at the activity patterns of every cell in the entire zebrafish brain while the fish swims around. You can screen thousands of candidate drugs by just dumping them into the water with the fish and watching what happens.

Its a good balance of being simple enough to get a holistic understanding of mechanisms underlying behaviour, while at the same time sharing a lot of conserved similarities in terms of anatomy, genes, molecules, that you can link to mammals and to humans, says Caroline Wee, a neurobiologist lab at the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, A*STAR Singapore.

Julien Vermot, who runs a lab at the Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London uses these fish for something unique. To study the effects of mechanical forces on the development of the heart, students in his lab stop the zebrafish heart from beating for as long as a couple of days. Its one of very few animals that can survive this. Despite such unique advantages, the model isnt everyones first choice and certainly not as popular as mice or rats. As Vermot puts it, Its a fish. And we are not fish. So, you need to convince people that what you do is meaningful for the entire community. Wee adds, You can argue theyre similar, but its hard to mentally draw the link between fish and humans.

While the connection between zebrafish research and humans may not be obvious, the benefits for them are. Rita Fior, group leader at the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown has shown how these animals can be used to test chemotherapy treatments for cancers growing in actual human patients. Fish injected with cancer cells from patients and given the same treatment as the patient show 84% similarity in the response to the drugs. This sets up precedence for potentially screening drug combinations in fish to look at their efficiency in reducing growth of cancerous cells before administering them to patients.

Read more from the original source:
How a tiny pet store fish became the center of neuroscience research - American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

How to solve the brain’s trickiest mysteries? Collaborate. – Scope

The Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute was founded in 2013, just as I was wrapping up my thesis work in Stanford's interdepartmental neurosciences program. I remember the excitement in the air about what it might mean for the future of neuroscience at Stanford, but in the fog of preparing for my defense, much of the spirit of the day was lost on me.

Not until March of this year, when I returned to Stanford to take a position as communications manager for the institute, did I discover how much has changed.

I wrote about this change in an article in the latest issue of Stanford Medicine magazine, which digs into the mystery of the brain and neurological disease.

For one thing, the institute has grown. As an interdisciplinary institute within the Office of the Vice Provost andDeanof ResearchatStanfordUniversity, Wu Tsai Neurosciences encompasses hundreds of affiliates from all seven of Stanford's schools. They include not only neurobiologists, psychiatrists and neurologists but also mechanical engineers, chemists, computer scientists, legal scholars, educators, economists and artists interested in human behavior and the workings of the brain.

Under one big tent

The institute has spent the past seven years leveraging its role as a big tent for neuroscience at Stanford to cultivate an inclusive and interdisciplinary future for the field -- exemplified by the new ChEM-H Neurosciences research complex, designed to maximize interaction between disciplines through grant programs that bring together researchers fof different fields, interdisciplinary training programs and a dedication to enhancing diversity, inclusion and equity in neuroscience.

I've been back for less than a year, but what I have learned is that -- at its core --Wu Tsai Neurosciences strives to harness the full collective intellectual power of Stanford to solve some of the most challenging questions in science: the nature of the three pounds of tissue that produces our experiences, memories and dreams, and how to keep it healthy throughout a lifespan.

As institute director Bill Newsome told me soon after my return to Stanford: "We need to be more than a sum of our parts. We have a shot to accomplish together things we have no hope of accomplishing apart."

Photo courtesy of the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute

Original post:
How to solve the brain's trickiest mysteries? Collaborate. - Scope

Monash secures more than $13m in NHMRC Ideas Grants in neuroscience and mental research – Monash University

You are here:

26 November 2021

Monash Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences has been awarded more than $13 million in funding across 13 neuroscience and mental health projects in the latest round of National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Ideas Grants.

Federal Minister for Health and Aged Care the Hon Greg Hunt MP announced the grants as part of $239 million in funding for 248 research projects, which will help advance understanding of a wide range of health and medical issues faced by Australians.

The Ideas Grant scheme is designed to support innovative research projects addressing a specific question, and provide particular opportunities for early and mid-career researchers. Research projects funded include exploring the effects of early exposure from bushfires, sleep, as well epilepsy management.

Overall, the University has received more than $41m across 38 projects.

By bringing together our world-class expertise from across our University, Monash continues to cultivate a culture and environment that supports research excellence in neuroscience and mental health, enabling us to tackle these complex challenges, and ultimately save and transform lives, says Professor Terence OBrien, Chair of Medicine and Head atCentral Clinical School and lead of the Monash Neuroscience Executive team.

Congratulations to all of our neuroscience and mental health researchers who have been awarded funding.

Neuroscience and mental health projects funded under the 2021 Ideas Grants scheme include:

The effects of early exposure to bushfires on adult brain structure and function

Dr Farshad Alizadeh Mansouri from Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute

Artificial Intelligence to Understand and Predict Chronic Subdural Haematoma Evolution

Dr Shalini Amukotuwa from School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health

Top down cortical control of hypothalamic feeding circuits

Professor Zane Andrews from Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute

Circadian clock, sleep, and depression in adolescence: Modelling a novel pathway

Dr Bei Bei from the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health

Neuropharmacology of decision-making: causal brain network modelling across species

Professor Mark Bellgrove from the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health

Can psychedelics treat anorexia nervosa? Insights into the therapeutic effects of psilocybin in an animal model

Dr Claire Foldi from Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute

Building an Evidence-Base to inform Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Treatment for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities

Associate Professor Laura Jobson from the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health

Precursor neurons on standby fast track neural repair

Associate Professor Jan Kaslin from Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute

Machine learning models for personalised epilepsy management

Professor Patrick Kwan from Central Clinical School

Targeting the brain and sympathetic nervous system to improve outcomes in cancer cachexia

Dr Sarah Lockie from the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health

Brain injury in intimate partner violence: Insight into a silent pandemic

Associate Professor Sandy Shultz from Central Clinical School.

Glioblastoma - inhibition of P2X7R as a potential therapeutic target for treatment of this aggressive cancer

Dr. Mastura Monif from Central Clinical School

About Monash University

Monash University is Australias largest university with more than 80,000 students. In the 60 years since its foundation, it has developed a reputation for world-leading high-impact research, quality teaching, and inspiring innovation.

With four campuses in Australia and a presence in Malaysia, China, India, Indonesia and Italy, it is one of the most internationalised Australian universities.

As a leading international medical research university with the largest medical faculty in Australia and integration with leading Australian teaching hospitals, we consistently rank in the top 50 universities worldwide for clinical, pre-clinical and health sciences.

For more news, visit Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences or Monash University.

MEDIA ENQUIRIES

E: media@monash.edu

Link:
Monash secures more than $13m in NHMRC Ideas Grants in neuroscience and mental research - Monash University

Brains are Naturally Wired to be Bilingual – News-Medical.net

In this interview, News-Medical talks to Sarah Phillips about new research on how bilingual brains process different languages, and how the same neural mechanism is used for each when interpreting mixed-language expressions.

My name is Sarah Phillips, and I am currently a Linguistics Ph.D. student at New York University. Prior to coming to NYU, I had no experience conducting neuroscience research. I studied code-switchingthe alternation between languages in discoursethrough sociolinguistic and theoretical perspectives. This was and continues to be highly motivated by my experiences growing up as a Korean and African-American English bilingual.

It was not until I was working for an academic publisher that I was exposed to what neuroscientists were saying about the bilingual mind, which seemed more focused on how bilingualism can affect cognition more broadly. I felt like there was a gap in understanding how bilinguals process languages, so that is where my journey in neuroscience began.

I think the field recognizes how many regions of the brain are used to process language, with each region hosting mechanisms responsible for specific tasks. Liina Pylkknen, senior author of the paper and my advisor, has been systematically investigating the left anterior temporal lobes role in how we derive meanings through composing words together. This is just one of many tasks that participate in language processing.

Image Credit: TypoArt BS/Shutterstock.com

My work extends much of what we know about how we combine words from a single language to what many bilinguals do, which is to also combine words from different languages.

We found that bilinguals recruited the left anterior temporal lobe to combine words from the same language as well as from different languages without exhibiting effects of language-switching. I think this tells us that both monolinguals and bilinguals use similar neural mechanisms to derive meanings through composition.

We used magnetoencephalography (MEG) to record Korean/English bilinguals brain activity as they were presented with two words, followed by a picture. The two words varied in three ways: they varied by whether they were composable (icicles melt vs jump melt); they varied by whether the words were in English or Korean ( melt vs melt); they varied by whether the Korean words were in Hangul (the standard writing system for Korean) or in the Roman alphabet (which is the same set of letters used in English).

After seeing both words, our participants saw a picture and were asked to indicate whether what they read matched the picture they saw.

I should preface by saying that the neurons in our brain emit electrical signals when they communicate with each other. These signals generate an electrical current, and electrical currents generate electromagnetic fields.

MEG is a technique that records changes in electromagnetic fields produced by the neuronal firings in our brain. We used this technique to identify when, in milliseconds, particular brain regions activate in response to the two words that participants were presented.

While several regions were activated in response to the mixed-language expressions, the timing of when they were activated is important in this study. If words are presented in a combinatory context (melt presented after icicles), we would expect that they would elicit increased activity in the left anterior temporal lobe at ~200 ms when compared to the same words presented in a non-combinatory context (melt presented after jump).

We saw this effect in our bilingual participants, even when words switched languages. While the left anterior temporal lobe did not show sensitivity to switching languages or writing systems during this combinatory stage of processing, we did see robust effects in several regions elicited by a correspondence between switching languages and switching writing systems.

The left anterior temporal lobe, the left inferior frontal gyrus (better known as Brocas Area), the anterior cingulate cortex, and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex all responded more whenever language-switching corresponded to switches in writing systems but at different timings. This leaves open the question of how bilingualism may affect all of these regions.

Image Credit: decade3d - anatomy online/Shutterstock.com

Current ideas about how bilinguals store words in their lexicons (which one can imagine being a mental dictionary) suggest we maintain language distinctions at the perceptual level (i.e., how words sound or are written).

I think the interaction effects between language membership and writing systems speak to this, but I am not sure how we keep languages separate at the perceptual level based on the results of this project.

Many, if not most, people in the world engage in more than one language on a daily basis, and yet our current understanding of how our brains process language is limited to those who engage in only one language.

I believe that developing models of language processing that are more linguistically inclusive is critical for how successful our models are when applied in clinical settings.

One of the biggest takeaways is that bilingual behavior should not be viewed as deviant or bad because they do not resemble monolingual behavior.

That said, I think this project serves as a starting point for understanding typical bilingual behaviors so that bilinguals are not misperceived as poor language users or, even worse, misdiagnosed for having a language processing deficit.

Languages can differ widely in how they structure words together into sentences (syntax), but this study used stimuli that kept syntax consistent within each stimulus type. I did this to ensure that switching effects were not confounded by syntactic differences.

However, I think it is important to see what happens when bilinguals switch languages in expressions where the two languages are syntactically different as this is a commonly observed phenomenon.

Readers can access the paper using the following link: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0084-21.2021

Sarah F. Phillips is currently a Linguistics Ph.D. Student at New York University. Her work focuses primarily on bilingual language processing and bilingual language development, using both neuroimaging and behavioral methods.

More information about Sarah can be found on her website: http://www.sarahfphillips.com

View original post here:
Brains are Naturally Wired to be Bilingual - News-Medical.net

UBCO researcher discusses the importance of science literacy – UBC News

New UBCO research asserts that more neuroscience literacy in the general population will result in health fads that are debunked before people invest their money and time.

With the holiday season fast approaching, many people may already be thinking of new resolutions to live a healthier lifestyle come 2022.

Elijah Haynes is a research assistant at UBC Okanagans School of Health and Exercise Sciences. He cautions jumping on the bandwagon of any new health trend or fad diet. Haynes, who researches neuroscience literacy, believes that if more people had access to scientific knowledge, new fads would be debunked before people invest their money and time.

Haynes talks about his recently published article in Advances in Physiology Education that discusses the need to improve neuroscience literacy, and how doing so might save lives.

Working as an outreach educator for UBC Okanagans iSTAND program, I had many opportunities to teach a range of learnerspreschoolers, retirees and everyone in between. While we provided activities for a number of different sciences, the neuroscience activities tended to be the most popular across all age groups. The neuroscience events also produced the most interesting discussions about the potential applications of science. I wrote the article hoping to make other physiologists and neuroscientists aware that there is a demand for neuroscience knowledge, and also highlight ways they can provide it.

I was training as a high school football player and I noticed how different strength coaches would talk about the neuroscience of getting stronger. I watched YouTube videos to learn more about how the nervous system controls movement and was so fascinated that I opted to pursue undergrad and graduate studies in kinesiology.

My experience as an outreach educator made it apparent that a lot of neuroscience research is misunderstood. Given the implications of neuroscience research, I became concerned that public misunderstanding of neuroscience might lead to its misapplication. Without sufficient public understanding, society wont be able to effectively use the knowledge gained from neuroscience research.

Canadians are lucky in that we have a vast supply of highly educated people living hereeveryone knows something about something. At the same time, people are hungry for knowledge about how the world works. Not only does scientific knowledge need to be accessible, but science-literate people should also be available to ensure that knowledge is appropriately understood.

People should also have opportunities to see science behind the scenes. It would be phenomenal if universities and colleges designated spaces on campus for regular community engagement events and exhibits. One of the contributors to misinformation spread is distrust. There is a perception that scientists are simply elites protected from public scrutiny by institutions and government. If citizens felt that research was something they could see for themselves, they might be more receptive to knowledge gained by science.

Many health disorders in Canada are related to modern lifestyles. People are living longer, residing in increasingly denser communities, have access to more food and fewer physical activity requirements than ever before. While culture and societal norms play a big role in determining how we behave in our current environment, empirical knowledge about the way our bodies, especially our nervous systems, will help people make decisions on how to live healthier lives.

I think most people are aware that health trends and diet fads exist, yet every year new ones rise as soon as the last ones are debunked. Quite frankly, its sad seeing people spend hard-earned money on these products and services. Its my hope that greater science literacy will prevent these fads and trends from gaining popularity.

People should know that science is more than just memorized facts and showy demonstrations. Science is a process that generates knowledge. We can apply that process to anything we want to know more about. It starts by asking a question, and proceeds by determining the best way to find an answer. In science, how a question is answered is often more important than the answer itself.

When it comes to health fads, people should consider multiple sources of evidence. Instead of just seeking information that promotes a new lifestyle routine, try looking for information to debunk that lifestyle routine.

Whether were talking about health or any other science-related topic, engaging with others is the best way to broaden our understanding. Weve seen many examples of science driving people apart over the last few years. By acknowledging that people approach, learning from a diverse array of backgrounds and then working together to improve our collective understanding, science can actually be a means of bringing people closer together. When this happens, science does more than just teach us about the world. Science creates connections between people. And those connections can create a healthy, thriving community.

View original post here:
UBCO researcher discusses the importance of science literacy - UBC News

Which side is which?: How the brain perceives borders – EurekAlert

image:From left: John Reynolds and Tom Franken view more

Credit: Salk Institute

LA JOLLA(November 30, 2021) In the classic Rubins vase optical illusion, you can see either an elaborate, curvy vase or two faces, noses nearly touching. At any given moment, which scene you perceive depends on whether your brain is viewing the central vase shape to be the foreground or background of the picture.

Now, Professor John Reynolds and Senior Postdoctoral Fellow Tom Franken have made headway into understanding how the brain decides which side of a visual border is a foreground object and which is background. The research, published on November 30, 2021 in the journal eLife, sheds light on how areas of the brain communicate to interpret sensory information and build a picture of the world around us.

The way that the brain organizes and generates a representation of the outside world is still one of the biggest unknowns in neuroscience today, says Reynolds, holder of the Fiona and Sanjay Jha Chair in Neuroscience. Our research provides important insights into how the brain processes borders, which could lead to a better understanding of psychiatric conditions where perception is disrupted, such as in schizophrenia.

When you view a scene in front of you, individual neurons in the brains cortex each receive information about a minuscule region of the scene. Neurons receiving information from the border of an object thus have little initial context about which side is foreground. However, scientists previously discovered a set of cells that very quickly signal which side of the border belongs to the object ( border ownership); after all, depth perception and the ability to pick out objects in front of you is critical to survivalis that a curb or a shadow, a rock or a cave?

Exactly how these neurons in the brain compute border ownership has been unclear. Some scientists hypothesized that as information from the eye passes through the brain, into successively more downstream (deeper) areas, additional computations occur in each area until your brain builds a model of the visual scene. This is called the feedforward pathway. But other scientists hypothesized the importance of the feedback pathway, in which downstream areas of the brain must first process information, and then send these clues back to neurons in upstream areas, to help them figure out border ownership.

Reynolds and Franken set out to determine which hypothesis was correct. They used electrodes to record the activity of neurons in different layers of the brains cortex as animals viewed an image of a square object on an otherwise blank background. The scientists first determined which particular neurons were processing information from a small part of the border that demarcates the square and the background; then they measured the timing of border ownership signals in these neurons and compared this for neurons in different layers.

What we found is that the earliest signals on border ownership occur in neurons in the deep layers of the brains cortex, says Franken, who is a physician-scientist and supported by a K99 Pathway to Independence Award from the National Institutes of Health. This supports the importance of the feedback pathway for deciphering borders, because feedback connections arrive at and leave from neurons in deep layers.

The researchers also observed that neurons stacked vertically in different layers in the cortex tended to share the same preference of border ownership. For example, certain columns of neurons preferred scenes where the left side of a border was the object, while other columns of neurons preferred scenes where the right side of a border was the object. Franken explains that these findings suggest that feedback might actually be organized in a systematic way, a promising avenue for further research.

As we come to understand the architecture of the brain and how ensembles of neurons communicate with each other to build up our internal representation of the external world, we are better positioned to develop diagnostic tools and treatments for brain disorders in which these internal representations are distorted, such as schizophrenia, says Franken. The hallucinations and delusions associated with schizophrenia may be associated with the disruptions of feedforward-feedback loops.

Next, Franken will follow up on these results with experiments to investigate how information conveyed by feedback contributes to the processing of borders.

The work was supported by grants from the George E. Hewitt Foundation for Medical Research, a NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

About the Salk Institute for Biological Studies:

Every cure has a starting point. The Salk Institute embodies Jonas Salks mission to dare to make dreams into reality. Its internationally renowned and award-winning scientists explore the very foundations of life, seeking new understandings in neuroscience, genetics, immunology and more. The Institute is an independent nonprofit organization and architectural landmark: small by choice, intimate by nature and fearless in the face of any challenge. Be it cancer or Alzheimers, aging or diabetes, Salk is where cures begin. Learn more at: salk.edu.

Columnar processing of border ownership in primate visual cortex

30-Nov-2021

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Read more here:
Which side is which?: How the brain perceives borders - EurekAlert

Wispr AI Raises $4.6M to Develop The Next Generation of Neural-Interfaces – Grit Daily

Wispr AI, a neurotechnology and AI startup based in San Francisco, has raised $4.6 million in seed funding to integrate deliberate thought into neural interfaces to create truly immersive technology.

The funding round was co-led by New Enterprise Associates (NEA) and 8VC, with participation from CTRL-Labs CSO & Co-founder Josh Duyan, Berkeley Neuroscience Professor & iota Biosciences Co-CEO Jose Carmena, Warby Parker CEO Dave Gilboa, Stanford NLP Professor Chris Manning, Salesforce Chief Scientist Richard Socher, Nesos CTO Vivek Sharma and Whoop Founder & CEO Will Ahmed.

Wispr AI will use the funding to boost its development and recruitment efforts, channeling the efforts of the top talent in the areas of engineering and neurosciences into the development of the first thought-powered digital interface. Alex Kolicich, Founding Partner at 8VC., referred to the firms motivation to participate in the round by stating:

What this means is that Wisprs technology would be akin to wearable devices people are already used to and would inconspicuously fit into their lives. Its brilliant how Sahaj and Tanay are looking at solving this problem. Its rare to find a combination of founders who are deeply technical and at the same time so focused on developing a product that is consumer-centric.

Founded in 2021 by Sahaj Garg (CTO) and Tanay Kothari (CEO), Wispr AI is looking to use deliberate thought as digital input, allowing users to interface in a seamless manner with an increasingly digital world. The startup is doing this by combining the latest technologies in the fields of deep learning, electrical interfaces, and neuroscience. Kothari said in this regard:

The technologies we use are evolving at an unprecedented pace. We have moved from phones to smartwatches, VR headsets and immersive augmented experiences. How we interact with this technology will be one of the biggest questions to shape this decade. As we move away from keyboards and voice, the next generation of interfaces are going to be more natural, seamless and private. Our mission is to bring these interfaces to every single person in the world.

Historically, technology has required hardware like keyboards, joysticks, control panels, and cameras for users to interact with it, which can result in certain users being able to access certain platforms. By replacing these interfaces with one that is directly powered by though, Wispr AI is aiming to simplify and improve how we interact with technology, creating new use cases and changing the lives of millions.

Visit link:
Wispr AI Raises $4.6M to Develop The Next Generation of Neural-Interfaces - Grit Daily