Neuroscience - Science topic

I think so because

Esta pregunta esta relacionada a como influye la investigación transdisciplinar, en la neurociencia o viceversa, por lo cual es imprescindible entender ambos contenidos de conocimiento para que puedan apoyar uno al otro

Many evidence with neuroscience basis exist, but teachers from every levels yet think that learning occur acord to learning styles or multiple intelligences, or if we have more analytical or artistic profile

Is there any Neuroscience Lab PI from any American university here? i want to know about their research work

Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.

With an introductory apology for repeating a few definitions in various arguments here below and justifying the same as necessary for clarity, I begin to differentiate between the foundations of the concept of complexity in the physical sciences and in philosophy. I reach the conclusion as to what in the concept of complexity is problematic, because the complexity in physical and biological processes may not be differentiable in terms of complexity alone.

Thereafter I build a concept much different from complexity for application in the development of brains, minds, consciousness etc. I find it a fine way of saving causation, freedom, the development of the mental, and perhaps even the essential aspects of the human and religious dimension in minds.

Concepts of complexity considered in the sciences are usually taken in general as a matter of our inability to achieve measuremental differentiation between certain layers of measurementally integrated events within a process or set of processes and the same sort of measurementally integrated activities within another process or set of processes.

But here there is an epistemological defect: We do not get every physical event and every aspect of one physical event to measure. We have just a layer of the object’s total events for us to attempt to measure. This is almost always forgotten by any scientist doing complexity science. One tends to generalize the results for the case of the whole object! Complexity in the sciences is not at all a concept exactly of measurement of complexity in one whole physically existent process within itself or a set of processes within themselves.

First, what is termed as complexity in an entity is only the measure of our inability to achieve measurements of that part of a layer of process which has been measured or attempted to be measured. Secondly, always there is a measuremental comparison in the sciences in order to fix the measure of complexity in the aspects that are measured or attempted to measure. This is evidently a wrong sort of concept.

The essential difference here must be sharpened further. As a result of what is said above, the following seems more appropriate. Instead of being a measure of the complexities of one or a set of processes, complexity in science is a concept of the difference between (1) our achieved abilities and inabilities to achieve the measurement of actual complexity of certain levels of one physical process or a set of processes and (2) other types of levels of the extent of our ability and inability to measurement within another process or set of processes. This is strange with respect to the claims being made of complexity of whichever physical process a science considers to measure the complexity.

If a scientist had a genuine measurement of complexity, one would not have called it complexity. We have no knowledge of a higher or highest complexity to compare a less intense complexity with. In all cases of complexity science, what we have are just comparisons with either more or less intense complexities. This makes the concept of complexity very complex to deal with.

On a neutral note, each existent physical process should possess great complexity. How much? We do not know exactly; but we know exactly that it is neither infinite nor zero. This truth is the Wisdom of complexity. Let us call it complexity philosophy. This philosophical concept of complexity within the thing itself (CI) is different from the methodologically measurement-based concept of complexity (CM) in the sciences. In CM, only the measured and measurable parts of complexity are taken into consideration and the rest of the aspects and parts of the existent physical process under consideration are forgotten.

If this were not true, the one who proposes this is bound to prove that all the aspects and parts of the physical process or at least of the little layer of it under measurement are already under any one or more or all measurementally empirical procedures with respect to or in terms of that layer of the process.

To explain the same differently, the grade of complexity in the sciences is the name of the difference (i.e., in terms of ‘more’ or ‘less’) between the grades of difficulty and ease of measuring a specific layer of causal activity within one process and a comparable or non-comparable layer of causal activity in another.

Both must be measured in terms of the phenomena received from them and the data created of them. Naturally, these have been found to be too complex to measure well enough, because we do not directly measure, but instead measure in terms of scales based on other more basic scales, phenomena, and data. But the measure-elements titled infinite-finite-zero are slightly more liberated of the directly empirically bound notions. I anticipate some arguing that even these are empirically bound. I am fully agreed. The standpoint from which I called the former as formed out of directly empirically bound notions is different, that is all.

Both the above (the grades of difficulty and ease of measuring a specific layer of causal activity within one process and a comparable or non-comparable layer of causal activity in another) must be measured in terms of certain modes of physical phenomena and certain scales set for these purposes. But this is not the case about the scale of infinity-finitude-zero, out of which we can eternally choose finitude for the measure of ease and difficulty of measuring a specific layer of causal activity without reference to any other.

The measure-difference between the causal activities is not the complexity, nor is it available to be termed so. Instead, complexity is the difference between (1) the ease and difficulty of measuring the one from within the phenomena issuing from certain layers of the physical process and the data created by us out of the phenomena, and (2) the ease and difficulties of measuring the same in the other.

In any case, this measure-difference of ease and difficulty with respect to the respective layers of the processes can naturally be only of certain layers of activity within the processes, and not of all the layers and kinds of activity in them both. Evidently, in the absence of scale-based comparison, their complexity cannot be termed a high or a low complexity considered within itself. Each such must be compared with at least another such measurementally determined layer/s of process in another system.

The question arises now as to whether any process under complexity inquiry has other layers of activity arising from within themselves and from within the layers themselves from which directly the phenomena have issued and have generated the data within the bodily, conscious, and cognitive system of the subjects and their instruments.

Here the only possible answer is that there is an infinite number of such layers in any finite-content physical processual entity, and within any layer of a process we can find infinite other sub-layers, and between the layers and sub-layers there are finite causal connections, because every existent has parts that are in Extension and Change.

The infinite number of such complexity layers are each arrangeable in a scale of decremental content-strength in such a way that no finite-content process computes up to infinite content-strength. This does not mean that there are no actual differences between any two processes in the complexity of their layers of activity, or in the total activity in each of them.

Again, what I attempt to suggest here is that the measured complexity of anything or of any layer of anything is just a scale-based comparison of the extent of our capacity to discover all the complexity within one process or layer of process, as compared to the same in another process or layer of process.

Any generalization of processes in themselves concerning their complexity proper (i.e., the extent of our capacity to discover all the complexity within one process or one layer of activities of a process) must now be concluded to be in possession of only the quantitative qualities that never consist of a specific or fixed scale-based number, because the comparison is on a range-scale of ‘more than’ and ‘less than’.

This generalization is what we may at the most be able to identify regarding the complexity within any specific process without any measuremental comparison with another or many others. Non-measuremental comparison is therefore easier and truer in the general sense; and measuremental comparison is more applicable in cases of technical and technological achievements.

The latter need not be truer than the former, if we accept that what is truer must be more general than specific. Even what is said merely of one processual object must somehow be applicable to anything that is of the same nature as the specific processual object. Otherwise, it cannot be a generalizable truth. For this reason, the former seems to be truer than the latter.

Now there are only three possibilities for the said sort of more general truth on comparative complexity: accepting the infinite-finite-zero values as the only well-decidable values. I have called them the Maximal-Medial-Minimal (MMM) values in my work of 2018, namely, Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology.

Seen from this viewpoint, everything physically existent has great processual-structural complexity, and this is neither infinite nor zero, but merely finite – and impossible to calculate exactly or even at any satisfactory exactitude within a pre-set scale, because (1) the layers of a process that we attempt to compute is but a mere portion of the process as such, (2) each part of each layer has an infinite number of near-infinitesimal parts, and (3) we are not in a position to get at much depths and breadths into all of these at any time.

Hence, the two rationally insufficient conclusions are:

(1) The narrowly empirical-phenomenologically measuremental, thus empirically partially objective, and simultaneously empirically sufficiently subjective amount of complexity (i.e., the extent of our capacity and incapacity to discover all the complexity) in any process by use of a scale-level comparison of two or more processes.

(2) The complexity of entities without having to speak about their existence in every part in Extension-Change and the consequently evident Universal Causality.

These are the empirically highly insulated, physical-ontologically insufficiently realistic sort of concept of complexity that the sciences entertain and can entertain. Note that this does not contradict or decry technological successes by use of scientific truths. But claiming them to be higher truths on complexity than philosophical truths is unjustifiable.

Now the following question is clearly answerable. What is meant by the amount of complexity that any existent physical process can have in itself? The only possible answer would be that of MMM, i.e., that the complexity within any specific thing is not a comparative affair within the world, but only determinable by comparing the complexity in physical processes with that in the infinitely active and infinitely stable Entity (if it exists) and the lack of complexity in the zero-activity and zero-stability sort of pure vacuum. It can also be made based on a pre-set or conventionalized arithmetic scale, but such cannot give the highest possible truth probability, even if it is called “scientific”.

MMM is the most realistic generalization beyond the various limit possibilities of scale-controlled quantities of our incapacity to determine the amount of complexity in any layer of processes, and without incurring exact numbers, qualifications, etc. The moment a clear measuremental comparison and pinning up the quantity is settled for, it becomes a mere scientific statement without the generality that the MMM realism offers.

Nonetheless, measuremental studies have their relevance in respect of their effects in specific technological and technical circumstances. But it must be remembered that the application of such notions is not directly onto the whole reality of the object set/s or to Reality-in-total, but instead, only to certain layers of the object set/s. Truths at that level do not have long life, as is clear from the history of the sciences and the philosophies that have constantly attempted to limit philosophy with the methods of the sciences.

Consider any existent process in the cosmos. It is in a state of finite activity. Every part of a finite-content process has activity in every one of its near-infinitesimal parts. This state of having activity within is complexity. In general, this is the concept of complexity. It is not merely the extent of our inability to measure the complexity in anything in an empirical manner.

Every process taken in itself has a finite number of smaller, finite, parts. The parts spoken of here are completely processual. Nothing remains in existence if a part of it is without Extension or without Change. An existent part with finite Extension and Change together is a unit process when the cause part and the effect part are considered as the aspects or parts of the part in question.

Every part of a part has parts making every part capable of being a unit process and in possession of inner movements of extended parts, all of which are in process. This is what I term complexity. Everything in the cosmos is complex. We cannot determine the level of complexity beyond the generalized claim that complexity is normally limited within infinite or finite or zero, and that physical and biological processes in the cosmos come within the finitude-limit.

Hereby is suggested also the necessity of combining the philosophical truth about complexity and the scientific concept of the same for augmentation of theoretical and empirical-scientific achievements in the future. While determining scientifically the various natures and qualities of complexity, chaos, threshold states, etc. in a manner not connected to the philosophical concept of it based on the MMM method of commitment access to values of content and their major pertinents, then, scientific research will remain at an elementary level – although the present theoretical, experimental, and technological successes may have been unimaginably grand. Empirical advancement must be based on the theoretical.

Constant effort to differentiate anything from anything else strongly, by making differentiations between two or more processes and the procedures around them, is very much part of scientific research. In the procedural thrust and stress related to these, the science of complexity (and all other sciences, sub-sciences, etc.) suffer from the lack of ontological commitment to the existence of the processes in Extension-Change and Universal Causality.

The merely scientific attitude is due to a stark deficit of the most general and deepest possible Categories that can pertain to them, especially to Extension-Change and Universal Causality. Without these, the scientist will tend to work with isolated and specifically determined causal processes and identify the rest as non-causal, statistically causal, or a-causal!

The above discussion shows that the common concept of complexity is not the foundation on which biological evolution, growth of consciousness, etc. can directly be based. I have plans to suggest a new concept.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

First of all, the so-called algorithms in BI are algorithms in imitation of the AI algorithms. They belong properly to human consciousness, which is a complex of millions of mainly brain-based neurons (their sub-neurons, sub-sub-neurons, etc.) and their activities which, together, very much connect and coordinate the consciousness within the body as “embodied” and the world. We do not discuss the brain science of the neurons and their sub-sub-… parts. To a great extent, the activities of the BI and the consciousness that embodies BI as a minute part of it are connected and coordinated within the brain-body nexus and to some extent by the world. This coordination takes place in such a manner that the ontological, connotative, and denotative universals can be conceived only by consciousnesses and not even by BI, let alone AI. If BI may be isolated from consciousnesses, their algorithms and functions may be comparable to those of AI, but BI never exists in isolation from the other brain-and-body functions.

It may be claimed that advanced AI as in some robots and ChatGPT is not a result of memory but generalization. [Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFS90-FX6pg] But here the claims of “generalization”, “sentiment neurons”, and “states of mind” are not enough. First of all, the neurons that AI specialists speak of are not living neurons. Secondly, it should be proved that the so-called procedures in neurons due to the results (‘state neurons’ and the unity of many of them called ‘state space’) of input memory (that is clearly learned as mechanically induced, not exactly learned in the manner in which consciousness learns) are themselves being termed generalization based on other imaginative names like sentiment neurons and states of mind, merely due to the generalizations involved in the very machine memory and the receptacles of such memory. Here, generalization is falsely being interpreted by claimants of fantastic AI as something done in consciousness by the intelligence alone.

The learning and recognition of patterns by decreasing entropy is also not a matter of generalization in the sense of what happens in animate objects. Even in children the manner of learning is not merely a result of an intelligence exercise; instead, many other brain functions are involved in this in consciousnesses. Thus, BI is not a prediction machine for AI to be termed so. AI algorithms and strictly BI (i.e., only intelligence, and not the other functions of the brain) algorithms never go beyond the quantitively processed, quantitively defined, and quantitatively interpretable properties of any of the data fed into its procedural memory. It becomes procedural memory and happen to be termed generalization merely because of the volume of state neurons involved in what is termed a state space (of course, it is not a “space”). When intelligence is isolated from all other functions of consciousness, the demerits of BI begin exactly from there and indicate regions far beyond.

For the above reasons, it is not acceptable to describe the demerits of BI in terms merely of the absence of willing, emotions, intentionality, intentions, love, social life, morality, etc. of persons. Unlike in the case of AI, BI has at least some direct organismically based connections to these and to the three theoretical functions of consciousness mentioned above: (1) to discover the foundational Categories and ontological universals behind the objects, phenomena, and data, (2) to find out the social or genetic causes of the abiding emotions, and (3) to imagine the possible non-answers or non-solutions for the problems. It is the mechanistic-scientistic thinking of the experts that delinks from BI these and other non-BI functions of consciousnesses.

With these stats probably A LOT:

1)

The unwritten rule is "don't look suspicious. If people do look suspicious then they either get destroyed or subvert enough TO survive."

Sources:

1)

2)

Hi everyone,

I have been having some issues with SHSY5Y cells that I never had in the past. I used to culture them in DMEM:F12 with 10% FBS and 1%Antibiotic-Antimycotic and they grew just fine. Back in October, when we received a new batch of medium, I started seeing increased cell death after 1-2 passages: specifically, I would see debris like structures and the cells literally peeling off from the bottom of the flask. I initially attributed this to the quality of the medium and ruled out incubator, FBS etc issues. I thawed a new vial of cells and I had the same issue. Then I was told to try OptiMEM and with a new vial from ATCC I noticed that they grew beautifully and reached confluence within 3 days. After the 3rd passage, I started seeing the same type of pattern that I saw before--cells fragmenting, a lot of debris and cells peeling off and floating in suspension 1-2 days after plating. I am desperate as my lab has wasted many cell stocks and money on trying to figure out what this is. My next step is to test for mycoplasma but I wasn't sure if this is the case considering that we literally just bought a new stock from ATCC and it grew fine until the third passage.The medium doesn't yellow out and it is not yeast contamination. What can be the source of this type of behavior?Any input is greatly appreciated! :)

Hi, Recently, I've been searching various paradigms that have been used in the field of cognitive psychology, neuroscience, or cognitive neuroscience. What I try to understand is which one/ones is the most used by researchers in the field. There are ways to research this question. What would your path be? What do you think that Which one would be the most used/cited?

A question for neuroscientists: Are psychologists claiming expertise in neuroscience actually have THAT? Or, are they pretending for ascribed status?

Or grasping for justification of their views or "findings" (just to find superficial and crude patterns of activity in the brain SEEMINGLY related to their "findings")? Or, are they just trying to "milk" their imaginations? I clearly see "yes" as the answer to each of the questions. But I am open to persuasive correction.

Can one even believe the "understanding" from brain activity? -- that now seems to be an "understanding" MOST psychologists seem to have ?? It's not empirical, really, it's desperation; and it's not even a good analogy or metaphor.

Liberalism is a highly hegemonic and maybe all encompassing force that stems from God as humans would NOT have the ability to reason to implement social justice WITHOUT The Holy Trinity.

I would like to open a discussion on melatonin's role in sleep and sleep disorders with special reference to the molecular mechanism of melatonin concerning the pathogenesis of sleep disorders.

If you are interested in reviewing this article for publication, please send me your email. I am submitting to Exploration of Neuroscience. The article discusses innovations in artificial intelligence but is not technical. Thank you!

Olá! Busco doutores(as) na área de Neurociências e Comportamento com ênfase em Desenvolvimento e Plasticidade. Interessados podem entrar em contato por mensagem, por gentileza, para mais detalhes!

Agradeço a consideração.

In order to be as safe and innocuous as possible, which vehicle to use:

PBS?

PBS with pluronic acid to prevent attachment of viral particles to cannula and catheter?

Artificial CSF?

I welcome your input.

I want to embed a 2 mm thick tissue sample (with a polymerized diaminobenzidine stain) into glycol methacrylate and use synchrotron phase contrast x-ray microtomography to image the tissue. However, I am not sure whether glycol methacrylate is translucent to x-rays at wavelengths ranging from 15 to 30 keV. Could someone please let me know if they have ever had success with imaging through this material via x-rays?

In addition, I was wondering if the x-ray phase decrement for polymerized diaminobenzidine is distinct enough from that of glycol methacrylate plastic that it should give good contrast. Thanks!

which websites that usually professors post phD vacancies on ?

Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) represent the so-called ‘third generation’ of artificial neural network models that bridge the gap between neuroscience and artificial intelligence by relying on biologically realistic models of neurons and network architectures to carry out computations. Specifically, information transfer between the neurons in the spiking neural network occurs via the precise timing of spikes generated by the individual neurons.

Could you explain this scientific theory in a way that an ordinary person can understand?

In order to measure the Blood Brain barrier permeability I am trying to inject Evans blue dye and after six hours Ill take the mouse brain but I need to remove the Evans blue out of the blood vessels first,any recommendations please.

Me gustaría subir a ResearchGate mi nueva publicación en el formato de pdf Psicoteología: la neurociencia de la fe, para la difusión y divulgación del contenido. Gracias.

I am interested in a mouse model of a controlled cortical impact that would mimic sports concussions by creating a mild TBI without any incisions, but I'd like to try and create specific coordinates and target specific brain areas. I figured I could use the eye as a landmark to find Bregma, but I can't seem to find an atlas for the head like you'd find for the brain or skull. Is there a reference for the average mouse skull size with measurements like the mouse brain atlas, or another effective landmark for locating Bregma without creating an incision?

I have been looking at family violence data in Australia and noticed a pattern of gender symmetry emerging in DFV murder victimisation. While men are still over represented in DFV perpetration data, it has made me question why there is such a strong focus on segmenting data by gender in DFV research, and why there is such a high level of polarisation around discussions of DFV data and public policy.

The experiment conducted by Bose at the Royal Society of London in 1901 demonstrated that plants have feelings like humans. Placing a plant in a vessel containing poisonous solution he showed the rapid movement of the plant which finally died down. His finding was praised and the concept of plant’s life has been established. If we scold a plant it doesn’t respond, but an AI bot does. Then how can we disprove the life of a Chatbot?

I'm asking for experts who's interested in neuroscience, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, biophysics or artificial intelligence systems and computation or related fields. Thank you!

I'm a undergraduate Biotechnology student from India, My university requires a thesis project to be done in the fourth year. I'm not interested in Pursuing Biotech further and my interest lies in Neuroscience. Should I pursue a Master's Neuroscience or look for a PhD program even if it requires waiting for a year or two gaining experience as research assistant. I'm planning to study further abroad preferably US

Relative to neuroscience in general, medical research in neurology and psychiatry are far less tolerant of theory and speculation (as reflected in the bottom-up approach taken by most prestigious journals, for example).

In your opinion, does this warrant some type of paradigm shift, or is the status quo as should be? Why?

I am currently repeating the same procedures with slightly different methods, but every time, my brain tissue slices disappear from the slides within a few weeks of coverslipping them. The slides have perfect brain tissue outlines where there are greyish debris-like material (maybe?) at everywhere outside of the slices and where the ventricles were, but where the tissue was is crystal clear.

Here are the steps I take:

1. Perfusion with 4% PFA and transferal of brains into the same PFA solution

2. Transferal of brains to 30% sucrose for 3 days

3. Section tissue via microtome and store in 96 well plates with PB+Azide

4. Transfer select tissue to gelatinous mounting solution to help place tissue onto the top of polarized slides

5. Let tissue on slides dry for two days

6. Wash the slides

7. Add 50 uL of the Vectashield DAPI mounting media onto the slides and add coverslips at an angle to prevent bubbles

Please help. I only have a few days to figure this out and none of my lab members have seen anything like this before and I would like to prevent this from happening.

Because psychology research is more and more inclined to brain physiology or neuroscience, doesn't psychology become brain physiology or neuroscience? Is there still a subject of psychology? Is there still a psychologist?

I understand increasing stimulation causing stronger EPSP, but sometimes, after certain point, further increasing stimulation only decreases EPSP. What is the mechanism of this?

For example https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312105041/figure/fig7/AS:668881442054149@1536485171251/Larger-Excitatory-Responses-to-PP-Stimulation-in-Superficial-Compared-to-Deep-CA1-PNs-in.png (from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.12.012)

or

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0306452211005793-gr3_lrg.jpg(from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.05.030)

Hi everyone,

I am currently doing stereotaxic surgeries in mice and I am using the retrograde tracer CTB Alexa Fluor 488 Conjugate. I am performing injections in the mouse BLA of 300nl CTB488 in a 1:10 dilution but I don't really see as many projections in the PFC as I expected from literature. I return the mice in their home cage for 2 weeks before next experiment.

I was thinking that made it shouldn't be diluted or maybe it needs more time after surgery.

Your input would be really helpful.

Can passive movement of a joint, for example plantar/dorsiflexion of ankle joint, elicit EMG activity in tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius muscles?

I am hoping someone here can give me a little help with my NMJ staining.

I am staining mouse so keys and tibialis anterior muscle. The stain works well but even though I have teased the muscles into smaller bundles when I go to coverslip they do not flatten well resulting in air pockets ect. I can still image them acutely but long term they don’t keep as well. I am quite experienced in staining nervous tissue sections and so have never had this problem.

I am worried about teasing the muscle into too small of bundles - is this possible? Or is it better to go smaller and have more individual bundles, thanks very much in advance!

I am looking for a colleague to carry out valuable academic research (In the field of increasing the quality of managers' decision-making) with the following conditions:

- University faculty member

- Has research experience in the field of neuroscience and neurofeedback training

The name of the collaborator will be included in the articles extracted from this research

Three-year Ph.D. positions in Neuroscience available @ University of Verona (Italy) for 2 projects

Supervisor: Mirta Fiorio

1. Ph.D. position for the project “The cognitive-motor interplay in a virtual reality environment”

The project will investigate the neuro-cognitive mechanisms of the bidirectional link between movement and cognition (mainly attention and expectation) in a virtual reality environment. Neurophysiological techniques (TMS and EEG) will be used to tackle the underlying neural networks. The project will provide basic knowledge necessary to develop ad-hoc cognitive training for improving motor functions in the elderly population.

2. Ph.D. position for the project “Markers of physical and cognitive fatigue in healthy and pathological conditions”

The project will search for potential markers of physical and cognitive fatigue in healthy and clinical populations. Sensory attenuation will be considered as a first potential marker, and a combined TMS-EEG approach will be used to tackle the neural network involved. On a theoretical level, the project will allow developing a predictive coding framework for fatigue. The project will also provide basic knowledge necessary for the development of strategies useful to prevent and reduce fatigue in clinical conditions (like Parkinson’s disease and functional neurological disorder), in which this symptom may interfere with the quality of life.

For both projects, ideal candidates would have a background or strong interest in cognitive neuroscience, cognitive sciences, movement sciences, or computational neuroscience; prior experience in data collection; knowledge of neurophysiological techniques and computer programming, preferably in Matlab; fluency in English.

Deadline for applications: 6th July 2023

For more information, please contact Mirta Fiorio [email protected]

I will really appreciate it if somebody could share the software. My lab owns the stimulator but when we acquired it we didn't get the software nor the drivers. Grass doesn't exist anymore and "Natus" which is the company that bought it told me that "S88X" is a discontinued product and they do not longer provide support for it.

Its crucial for us to control the device from a PC.

Thanks in advance

Hi all

I'm looking to buy packages that are useful for postdoc fellow in the field of neuroscience who is working in RNA sequencing as well.

I really appreciate if you could suggest me any options

Hello everyone,

could anyone point me to papers comparing different masks/atlases for a particular brain region? I couldn't seem to find anything and I'm interested in different methods used for the comparison. The paper doesn't need to be specifically dedicated to the comparison, even if it is mentioned somewhere in the discussion it would be helpful. Thank you in advance!

1. Does consciousness exist?

2. If so, what is Consciousness and what are its nature and mechanisms?

3. I personally think consciousness is the subjective [and metaphysical] being that (if exists) feels and experiences the cognitive procedures (at least the explicit ones). I think that at some ambiguous abstract and fuzzy border (on an inward metaphysical continuum), cognition ends and consciousness begins. Or maybe cognition does not end, but consciousness is added to it. I don't know if my opinion is correct. What are potential overlaps and differences between consciousness and cognition?

4. Do Freudian "Unconscious mind" or "Subconscious mind" [or their modern counterpart, the hidden observer] have a place in consciousness models? I personally believe these items as well are a part of that "subjective being" (which experiences cognitive procedures); therefore they as well are a part of consciousness. However, in this case we would have unconscious consciousness, which sounds (at least superficially) self-contradictory. But numerous practices indicate the existence of such more hidden layers to consciousness. What do you think about something like an "unconscious consciousness"?

5. What is the nature of Altered States of Consciousness?

Our answer is YES. This continues an homonimous older project at RG, and adds quantum computing.

The project's conclusion was that consciousness is not defined by any single organ in the human or animal brain, but is ubiquitous. It can be measured by trust, as that which is essential to a channel but cannot be communicated through that channel [1].

This definition is seen in cybersecurity, in two-factor authentication. It is also seen in fish and invertebrates, who can learn to do simple additions and subtractions.

Mathematics seems to offer in numbers, a way for quantum consciousness, available to quantum processing. Not because the brain would have a special organ for consciousness or even quantum consciousness.

But that the properties of numbers, that humans, lower animals, insects, and plants, can use -- include +4 quantum properties.

Thus, we suggest that all nature can do quantum computing. Atoms and molecules included. By the +4 quantum properties of numbers. In particular, it is important for neuroscience, in consciousness and quantum consciousness.

How to optimize this? Importantly, one needs to avoid binary thinking. The role of uncertainty seems necessary to arrive at a firmer conclusion through a very large number of states. This is presented in [2].

This affirms the question, and YES answer.

What is your qualified opinion?

REFERENCES

[1]

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368838533/

Hi everyone! I'm a beginner in neurophysiology. One basic question I have is how to decide the sigma when smoothing the firing rate using the Gaussian filter. What factors do you take into consideration? For example, do you determine the sigma based on the spike density function (SDF) and sampling frequency of your neural data?

Thank you.

"Feeling" (noun) is the basic capacity, to be able to feel anything at all, or occurrence thereof.

"Feelings," unless otherwise defined for a discussion, are typically those which are commonplace experiences of human and related minds.

The second requires and is built up from the first. Human feelings are complex and multitudinous and typically incorporate or reference information.

This is because the term "consciousness" is typically presumed to mean that which our selves "internally" experience. Something so large as that is an elaborate composition courtesy of evolution. What makes consciousness unique is feeling. Basic felling is fundamental, preceding minds.

My lab has recently be discovering a problem that some of our old nissl stain (2-3 years old) is turning to a disgusting orange/ brown color. Its not even every slide that was stained together, just a few every once in a while. Our slides are coverslipped with permount and glass and there's no air bubbles in any of the slides

Does anyone have any idea what could be causing this?

Hello

How can i get my article :

Mly Ismail El Karimi, Khalid Hattaf, Noura Yousfi, Dynamics of an immunological viral infection model with lytic and non-lytic immune response in presence of cell-to-cell transmission and cure of infected cells, Commun. Math. Biol. Neurosci., 2022 (2022), Article ID 119

in ResearchGate

Thank you

I would like to publish in a neuroscience journal without APC

I need experts opinion, Can you help with my survey?

Thank you in advance.

Why and how is this kind of long-term potentiation (LTP) possible?

Is LTP even needed for all sorts of synaptic plasticity and long-term memory formation?

------------

Longer version:

Long-term potentiation (LTP which is necessary for synaptic plasticity and long-term memory formation) needs repeats and reinforcement of the engrams to be triggered.

However, apparently everybody automatically "absorbs" a lot of information immediately and also permanently, even without needing any extra effort (at least any conscious effort), which seems to be needed for LTP to happen. Everyone seems to have this ability, although it is even stronger in those with better memories.

People simply "learn" many things once; and many of those learned items remain there for a pretty long duration, and in many cases even for the rest of their lives. This seems to happen without any repeats, at least without any apparent or conscious efforts to remember or re-remember those memories. This is the case for a lot of semantic information (especially the information of interest or importance to the person) as well as a large portion of the contents of episodic memory.

Perhaps attention plays a major role here, e.g., being interesting and important automatically triggers LTP without a further need for repeats.

But such effortless long-term memorization happens also in the case of a lot of semantic information or autobiographical events that are not inherently interesting or significant to the person.

Is LTP even needed for all sorts of synaptic plasticity and long-term memory formation?

What is this curious non-updatable mega memory? Does it have any scientific terms?

What are its causes and mechanisms?

--------------

Explanation:

I have had the honor of witnessing very rare people who have some strange forms of mega memory: They effortlessly, automatically, and immediately memorize many difficult things such as phone numbers or their difficult and comprehensive books, etc. And they retain those easily captured memories for a very very long time (a couple of decades at least), without any smallest effort or reinforcement. Not to mention that they record or remember almost everything else (semantic or episodic) quite easily, and also with a lot of details. Furthermore, they are very very accurate in recalling those items. For example, they can serve as pretty reliable living phone books; or for example, they are extremely awesome at medicine, etc.

But when I am talking about "strange", I don't mean their super-human ability to easily capture such vast amounts of information for such long durations and recall them accurately.

Their super-human ability is of course strange. But the even stranger part of their memory is that once it is captured, it cannot be updated or revised easily. For example, if they misunderstand something the first time, it will take perhaps 10 or 20 attempts over days or weeks for their colleagues to remind them of the mistake and ask them to correct their misunderstanding.

It is like that once their memory is formed the very first time, it is set in stone. It is absorbed very efficiently and strongly, and at the same time, not much prone to future updates.

Please spread the word: Folding at Home (https://foldingathome.org/) is an extremely powerful supercomputer composed of thousands of home computers around the world. It tries to simulate protein folding to Fight diseases. We can increase its power even further by simply running its small program on our computers and donating the spare (already unused and wasted) capacity of our computers to their supercomputation.

After all, a great part of our work (which is surfing the web, writing texts and stuff, communicating, etc.) never needs more than a tiny percent of the huge capacity of our modern CPUs and GPUs. So it would be very helpful if we could donate the rest of their capacity [that is currently going to waste] to such "distributed supercomputer" projects and help find cures for diseases.

The program runs at a very low priority in the background and uses some of the capacity of our computers. By default, it is set to use the least amount of EXCESS (already wasted) computational power. It is very easy to use. But if someone is interested in tweaking it, it can be configured too via both simple and advanced modes. For example, the program can be set to run only when the computer is idle (as the default mode) or even while working. It can be configured to work intensively or very mildly (as the default mode). The CPU or GPU can each be disabled or set to work only when the operating system is idle, independent of the other.

Please spread the word; for example, start by sharing this very post with your contacts.

Also give them feedback and suggestions to improve their software. Or directly contribute to their project.

Folding at Home: https://foldingathome.org/

Folding at Home's Forum: https://foldingforum.org/index.php

Folding at Home's GitHub: https://github.com/FoldingAtHome

Additionally, see other distributed supercomputers used for fighting disease:

Rosetta at Home: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/

GPUGRID: https://www.gpugrid.net/

I would be grateful for the help, as I am unable to identify these networks myself.

I have submitted a manuscript that is under review by the journal Psychology and Neuroscience, and I wanted to understand if I could make this first version of the manuscript available to the people here at research gate.

Hi,

Does anyone know how to get rid of wicked production editors of Hindawi, especially those who take care of the journal "computational intelligence and neuroscience". A manuscript was accepted and APC was made some 4 months ago, since then nothing was shown by them.

Also, does anyone know how to contact Hindawi for a complaint? I have contacted academic editors, production editors, research integrity specialists, help, journal, press, and all of the attempts in these 4 months have gone unfruitful.

I differentiate N2a cells with 20 uM retinoic acid 1% serum in a 24 well plate. During the differentiation process that lasts 4 days, I change the medium every two days, but on the 4th day the cells start to die. How can i make cells live for a long time (10 days)?

Do the cells in amygdala, especially neurons, express some genes which are not expressed in any other regions in the brain or in the body? Is there any gene which only expressed in Amygdala, or neurons in amygdala?

I notice my cells at 36 000 cells per well retain to survive in beta amyloid concentration of 20uM.

Does anyone have a recommended reduced number of cell density that will allow evident reduction in cell viability induced by beta amyloid peptide?

Thank you in advance :)

Hello,

I would love to receive some recommendations from experts in regards to the topic, whether there are valid findings in research on biological markers for anxiety disorders. I am trying to gain some stable insight and be able to argue in favor of the notion, that no anxiety disorder "comes from a malfunction/sickness of the brain".

Thank you in advance!

Best

Ivo

Hello Everyone

I want to know the experience of other people and whether they have recovered at least 80-90% of the original GABA current prior to PTX application or not. Based on literature, PTX is a kind of an "irreversible" and an open channel blocker, especially to WT GABAARs.

If you have recovered 80-90% of the original GABA current, how long is your wash time, and what is your working PTX concentration in your electrophysiology experiment?

Hoping for an informative answer, advice, and recommendation.

Thank you very much.

Commercially available BDNF is human recombinant protein. Can you use it for stimulating primary neuronal cultures of mice and rats? If yes, what is the basis of this cross species activity?

During the recognition, It has a process of information matching. How does it match successfully despite some variation?

I am working on a project where I am able to perform conversion of NIFTI to JNIFTI file. These are neuroimaging files that require conversion so that I could integrate this into NiBabel, which is a package that gives access to some common medical and neuroimaging file formats. How can I perform this conversion in Python?

Hi everyone,

I recorded the LFP signal in two different conditions of the rat brain Ca1. Under different conditions, the power spectral density(PSD) values in the delta, theta, beta and gamma frequency bands have changed. What does it mean to change the values of different frequency bands in the rat Ca1? Does anyone know the meanings of the different frequency bands of the rat brain Ca1? Or in these cases, introduce references to me.

I will be thankful for any help.

Our research team met one question on calculating EEG relative power and absolute power at this stage.

When we integrated all negative and positive amplitude/power data in five EEG bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta, gamma), a few relative power results became huge (i.e., 440%(44.44) or even over 1000%). We thought these values were abnormal results. The reason is that the integration result of five EEG bands with negative and positive power values could be 1 or 2 as the denominator, but the numerator could be very large for the integration of one specific band(i.e., delta). The relative power calculation is (sum of spectral power in the band)/(sum of spectral in all bands)

The attached image showed some negative and positive spectral power values.

Therefore, we would like to ask whether we need first to transfer negative value to absolute value to consider relative power or absolute power. Normally, the relative power should be around 0-100%.

Can experts help us? Could experts please share some references with us?

I am currently working on some philosophical issues that today's neurotechnology can raise. My main field of research is the philosophy of technology (more specifically, phenomenology and postphenomenology). I will be very grateful for literature recommendations from experts in this field. Many thanks!

The lab I am working in is looking for a signal peptide sequence for neurotransmitters and I do not know how to go about finding such information. I do not have a neuroscience background and was wondering if there is a way to find specific signal peptide sequences?

Hi everyone,

Is the LFP frequency bands different for rat and human brains?

What are the LFP frequency bands for rats?

I will be thankful for any help.

Hi,

I am looking for a good EEG amplifier (preferably with more than 16 channels) for general neuroscience and BCI research with a budget of 10000 USD. After some research, Mitsar EEGs seem to be suitable for my budget. However I am having a hard time finding people using Mitsar EEGs for neuroscience and BCI research - majority of the papers I have found were using Mitsar EEGs for qEEG and neurofeedback which is not an area I am interested in.

Are there many universities which use Mitsar's EEGs for neuroscience and BCI research? Would you recommend a Mitsar EEG amplifier or are there better alternatives for that price?

Thanks in advance.

I need to device an experiment with the n-Back Pointing task without any hardware complement; e.g., no tablet to execute the reaching movements or computer touch screen to select the presumed correct items. The paradigm should be consistent with an ambulatory setting, as a traditional neuropsychological test.

Thanks in advance.

Heidegger said that philosophy is thinking. What else is philosophy? What is the ultimate aim of philosophy? Truth? Certainty? …

Heidegger said that science is knowledge. What else is science? What is the ultimate aim of science? Knowledge? Truth? Certainty? …

Dears friends, researchers, professors,

It is interesting to me to receive recommendations about postdoc position, its advantages, disadvantages, living conditions for a foreigner, it's financial issues and its all aspects

Please share your experiences.

Dear researchers,

I received an invitation from clinical neurology and neuroscience journal to be part of there editorial team. And I'm wondering if it is a serious journal to be part of?

Cordially,

Canli, T., Zhao, Z., Brewer, J., Gabrieli, J. D., & Cahill, L. (2000). Event-related activation in the human amygdala associates with later memory for individual emotional experience. Journal of neuroscience, 20(19), RC99-RC99.

I am a grad student. I am looking for research grants. But most of them require being either a citizen or permanent resident. I was wondering if there is any funding opportunities for international students like me.

Hi, I would like to find a good anterograde tracer. Which is better, BDA or Fluoro-Ruby? Thanks a lot in advance!

I need to understand the fibromyalgia tender points and the relation between each other, according to the concept " If they fire together, they wire together". But all what I found by searching was only their positions and some information about pain/ diagnosis/relief,...

So I need a help with any reference even if just an opinion about this issue. Thanks a lot.