Live data from Hacker News

Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain

nytimes.com

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain

#11

I was stunned reading this. It looks like the group pushing this project are just taking advantage of the president's advisers ignorance. Cognitive neuroscientists, psychologists and neurologists have been "mapping" the human brain for well over 20 years now. There's even a conference dedicated to the pursuit ( http://www.humanbrainmapping.org ) it attracts over 2500 attendees each year. Unless this project is focusi…

[deleted]

Re: Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain

#12
Sounds like snake oil. Too early to build a complete human brain model. Simpler brain models (cat, lizard) haven't been done yet (?) but that's not headline-worthy.

How about "President announces program to solve all human suffering"? About as meaningless, but would actually be more useful if by some astronomical fluke they succeeded.

Re: Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain

#13
post #9

I may be way out of my depth on this, but isn't this project assuming that there is a 'normative' human brain, and that we all have the same neuron structure? I know we all have the same general brain regions, and in most of us they function approximately the same. But to go down to the neuronal-level will any single brain be able to give a map that would be useful to the population as a whole? Or are they planning o…

I used to work in functional brain imaging (fMRI), so perhaps I can shed some light on this. Generally what happens is you take a group of subject, and get "structural" (anatomic) scans of their brain as well as the functional scans showing brain activity for the given task. The structural scans are then run through a statistical "normalization" procedure, which basically does some fancy bending/warping of everyone's brains such that they all line up. Once this is done you apply that normalization function to the functional scans so you can compare everyone. It is also important to note that typically neuroimaging does not go down the neuronal level, the resolution is just not that high. Typically you are looking for brain regions, or sub-regions that correlate with a given activity. Something on the order of millimeters to centimeters. However there are other ways of investigating brain activity, and some of those can go down to the neuronal level.

Here is an example of common software package to do such normalization and analysis: http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/

Re: Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain

#14
I went to a fantastic talk by Microsoft Research's Stephen Emmott recently in which he referred to fMRI as "phrenology for the 21st century" and advocated the building of computational models of the brain. Mixed feelings about this announcement - some of the newer methods do look promising.

Re: Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain

#15
While there has been a huge growth in brain research over the last decade or so, the methods and analysis are still immature, and results are often quite fuzzy (even if researchers would like their reviewers to believe otherwise). There also doesn't seem to be a clear goal here, other than to throw a bunch of money at some interesting questions. The Genome Project had the very clear goal of mapping the human genome. The European project aims to simulate a human brain. This just seems to be directing a lot of money at research which is already being done.

That being said, I think there might be some very interesting opportunities here for talented developers. When I worked in the field a few years ago, the software used for this stuff was generally a lot of MATLAB scripts with C subroutines held together by some scripting language duct tape (Python/Bash). It was slow, it was buggy, we were basically writing documentation as we figured it out ourselves, different labs had different methods and scripts and in general it was kind of a mess. It's actually bad enough that there are research grants out there to develop better analysis software. Most of the researchers are trained in statistics, neuroscience, and psychology but have very little programming experience. If you are interested in some of the software that is out there right now, below is a partial list. Also, if you are interested in this kind of research but can't contribute code-wise, contact your local research university. They are always looking for test subjects for this kind of stuff, you usually get paid pretty well ($50-100/hour for imaging studies) and you get some cool images of your own brain out of it if you ask.

http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/

http://fsl.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/fslwiki/FSL

http://afni.nimh.nih.gov/afni

http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/

http://nipy.sourceforge.net/

http://www.trackvis.org/

Re: Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain

#18

I was stunned reading this. It looks like the group pushing this project are just taking advantage of the president's advisers ignorance. Cognitive neuroscientists, psychologists and neurologists have been "mapping" the human brain for well over 20 years now. There's even a conference dedicated to the pursuit ( http://www.humanbrainmapping.org ) it attracts over 2500 attendees each year. Unless this project is focusi…

Right, and people had been playing with rockets for 30 years before the Apollo project. There is something to be said for large, concerted effort toward a singular goal. There are still enough massive gaps in our understanding of the brain to justify further research.

That said, this press speculation is just fluff and it's unclear to me whether it is possible to define such a focused goal.

As an aside, I don't quite get all the cynicism in this thread. President: we will spend more money on science! HN: Meh?

Re: Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain

#19

http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/cms/lang/en/pid/56882 Here are more details of the European project (labelled Blue Brain Project) other posters had mentioned about in this thread. Also, there is this TED talk http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_supercomputing_the_br... by Henry Markram, the project director of the blue brain project.

For anyone still curious after watching the TED talk, also see the Almaden Cognitive Computing 2006 series - these presentations are technically intense (cellular biology, beyond-pop neuroscience) but(/and) enjoyable. The second one in the series is a lecture/presentation by the same Henry Markram: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gFI7o69VJM

NB: intros (by those other people at the start of each video) tend to be long (especially for the first presentation (which is by the way very interesting as well)), I'd maybe skip them.

There are a couple of other videos from the series on youtube, but the original collection of twelve was removed from google video once that service became defunct. They are still available via somewhat obscure means from the original source:

webpage (original now gone from the source for some reason) with links to original AVIs and PPTs: http://kostas.mkj.lt/almaden2006/agenda.shtml ; I'm redownloading those AVIs now just in case... (www.almaden.ibm.com/institute/resources/2006/Disk[1-12].avi (replace integer interval with a single integer.))

Re: Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain

#20
post #9

I may be way out of my depth on this, but isn't this project assuming that there is a 'normative' human brain, and that we all have the same neuron structure? I know we all have the same general brain regions, and in most of us they function approximately the same. But to go down to the neuronal-level will any single brain be able to give a map that would be useful to the population as a whole? Or are they planning o…

isn't this project assuming that there is a 'normative' human brain, and that we all have the same neuron structure?

At a certain resolution the structure of the brain is certainly close to normative, as demonstrated by decades of dissection studies. But when you get down to the axon level, there is a huge variability in connectivity. The open question is: at what level of connectivity (and, importantly, temporal synchronicity) does cognition emerge (or otherwise, depending on your philosophical school).

Post reply on HN