Post is pinned.
Community guidelines

Posts must:
1. be of academic interest to experts (i.e. someone already trained in cogsci or one of its related fields)
2. link directly to the original source material discussed (e.g. the actual research paper, not a blog or popular media discussion of it)
3. not be commercial (with rare exceptions, e.g. for companies' posts of actual research)
4. have comments enabled and not delete comments (summon a mod if there's a problem)

We've had a lot of posts lately that are of marginal quality, or are questions that a cogsci undergrad night have in their early years. Because of the breadth of the field, this is quite wide indeed, and dilutes the value of the community.

I'm adopting the same standard here that I did with the Computer Security & Lockpicking community[0]: for experts by experts, so that the signal to noise ratio is high for those of us who are in the field.

There are lots of other avenues for more newbie level discussion; this will not be one of them.

Current moderators are +Melissa Hall, +Michael R. Bernstein, +Richard Law, +Science Whiz Kid, and +charles griffiths.

If you have any questions, issues with moderation, or would like to help moderate, please leave a comment on this post.

Your friendly neighborhood community owner / meta-moderator


ETA 2014-10-21: added "academic" to #1 to clarify.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
The operations of PathNet resemble those of the Basal Ganglia, which we propose determines which subsets of the cortex are to be active and trainable as a function of goal/sub-goal signals from the prefrontal cortex, a hypothesis related to others in the literature.

Post has attachment

The last blog post I released can be of interest for the Cognitive Science community. The post is about the role of Basal Ganglia in Reinforcement Learning. Starting from the interaction between Dorsal and Ventral Striatum I introduce a computational Actor-Critic model. The complete Python code is available on my GitHub repository:

Please share if you like!

Can any one give me a interesting topic on science to do paper presentation 

Post has shared content
The ability to recognize other human faces is the basis of social awareness and interaction
When we are walking down a crowded street, our brains are constantly active, processing a myriad of visual stimuli. Faces are particularly important social stimuli, and, indeed, the human brain has networks of neurons dedicated to processing faces. These cells process social information such as whether individual faces in the crowd are happy, threatening, familiar, or novel.
New research from Caltech now shows that the activation of face cells depends highly on where you are paying attention--it is not enough for a face to simply be within your field of vision. The findings may lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms behind social cognitive defects that characterize conditions such as autism.
The research was conducted in the laboratories of Ralph Adolphs (PhD '93), Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and professor of biology, and collaborator Ueli Rutishauser (PhD '08) of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and a visiting associate in biology and biological engineering at Caltech.
"The ability to recognize other human faces is the basis of social awareness and interaction," Adolphs says. "Previous work on this subject has typically been conducted under rather artificial conditions--a single, large image is displayed on a monitor in front of a subject to focus on. We wanted to understand how brain activity changes with eye movements and capture the natural dynamics of how people constantly shift their attention in crowded scenes."
"We know that a damaged amygdala can result in profound deficits in face processing, especially in recognizing emotions, but how amygdala neurons normally contribute to face perception is still a big open question," says Juri Minxha, a graduate student in Caltech's computation and neural systems program and lead author on the paper. "Now, we have discovered that face cells in the amygdala respond differently depending on where the subject is fixating."
When a face cell responds to a stimulus, it fires electrical impulses or "spikes." By working with patients who already had electrodes implanted within their amygdalae for clinical reasons, the group measured the activity of individual face cells while simultaneously monitoring where a subject looked. Subjects were shown images of human faces, monkey faces, and a variety of other objects such as flowers and shapes. This study is the first in which subjects were free to look around at various parts of a screen and focus their attention on different things.
The study found two types of face cells: those that fire more spikes when the patient is looking at a human face and those that fire a few spikes when the patient is looking at a face of another species (in this case, that of a monkey). Neither type of face cell fired when the subjects were paying attention to objects that were not faces, even if those objects were near a face in the image.
"We saw that if a person was paying attention to a flower picture, for example, the face cells would not fire even if the flower was close to a face," says senior author Rutishauser. "This suggests that the responses of face cells are controlled by where we are focusing our attention."
Experiments in monkeys, performed in collaboration with Katalin Gothard of the University of Arizona, showed similar results. In both groups of subjects, face cells were most responsive to conspecifics--faces of the same species. "This is remarkable because many aspects of social perception and social behavior are different between the two species," Gothard says. "This discovery now indicates that the primate amygdala is an integral part of the network of brain areas dedicated to processing the faces we pay attention to, and is the first such direct comparison between humans and monkeys."
The studies showed that when the monkey and human subjects were viewing images of the same species, the monkeys' face cells reacted about one-tenth of a second more quickly than the face cells of humans, validating a long-standing hypothesis that face cells in monkeys would respond more quickly than corresponding cells in humans. The tenth-of-a-second difference is larger than what can be explained by variation in human and monkey brain size, leaving open the question of why human face cells have a delayed response. "The power of this comparative approach is that it identifies critical differences in brain function that might be unique to humans," Rutishauser says.
"The experimental design brings researchers a step closer to studying how the brain works during natural behaviors," Minxha says. "Ideally, we would want to observe neural activity while a person actually moves through a crowded scene. The next step is to study how face-cell activation changes with the subject's emotional state, or when they are interacting with someone. We would also like to understand how face-cell responses are different in subjects with specific clinical disorders, such as in people with autism, which is work we have been conducting as well."
#neuroscience #sleep #memory #neurobiology #sugar #dendrites #DendriticSpines #protein #brain #cells #neuron #HumanBrain #plasticity #neurology #medicine #synapses #SynapticTransmission #cortex #neurons #BrainCells #research #discovery #learning #behavior #interaction


Post has shared content
Postpartum depression and anxiety distinct from other mood disorders, brain studies suggest

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
How your prefrontal cortex inhibits instinctive behavior
The neuronal projections that stop social animals like us from acting out instinctual impulses have been traced by scientists at European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL).
The driver of our instincts is the brainstem, the region at the very base of your brain, just above the spinal chord. Scientists have known for some time that another brain region, the prefrontal cortex, plays a role in keeping those instincts in check. But exactly how the prefrontal cortex puts a break on the brainstem has remained unclear. Gross and colleagues have now literally found the connection between prefrontal cortex and brainstem. The EMBL scientists teamed up with Tiago Branco’s lab at MRC LMB, and traced connections between neurons in a mouse brain. They discovered that the prefrontal cortex makes prominent connections directly to the brainstem. The researchers went on to confirm that this physical connection was the brake that inhibits instinctive behavior. They found that in mice that have been repeatedly defeated by another mouse (the murine equivalent to being bullied) this connection weakens, and the mice act more scared. The scientists found that they could elicit those same fearful behaviors in mice that had never been bullied, simply by using drugs to block the connection between prefrontal cortex and brainstem.These findings provide an anatomical explanation for why it’s much easier to stop yourself from hitting someone than it is to stop yourself from feeling aggressive. The scientists found that the connection from the prefrontal cortex is to a very specific region of the brainstem, called the periaqueductal gray (PAG), which is responsible for the acting out of our instincts. However, it doesn’t affect the hypothalamus, the region that controls feelings and emotions. So the prefrontal cortex keeps behaviour in check, but doesn’t affect the underlying instinctive feeling.
#neuroscience #PrefrontalCortex #hypothalamus #BrainImaging #InstinctiveBehavior #behavior #brain #cells #neuron #HumanBrain #plasticity #SynapticTransmission #neurology #medicine #cortex #neurons #synapses #BrainCells #research #discovery #learning #behavior #neurotransmitters #MedicalResearch #BrainActivity

Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded