Maddy Foley
Review #2
2.28.13
“One Rat Thinks, and Another Reacts.”
Gorman, James. "New Research Suggests Two Rat Brains
Can Be Linked." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Mar.
2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.
The article, “One Rat Thinks, and
Another Reacts,” by James Gorman details a recent experiment conducted at Duke
University involving the connection of two rat’s brains. The experiment was
created to test the ability of animals to read and translate brain signals. The
set-up was this: using water as a reward, one rat was trained to press one of
two levers, in response to a light signal over the correct lever. The other
also learned to press one of two levers in response to light, but then shifted
to respond to brain simulation. The first rat, or “encoder rat” as it was
named, responded to the light and the pattern of it’s brain activity in the
primary motor cortex was sent to and simplified into another pattern by a
computer. This pattern was then transmitted to the second rat, when the light
was absent. Seven out of ten times the rat pressed the correct lever.
Scientists, like Ron. D. Frostig, note however that this experiment is not
intended to prove nor does it prove mind-reading or telepathy. It does prove
that brain process signals from one body however, can affect the control the
actions of another body. This discovery could prove very influential in the
future.
The head
scientist of this experiment, Miguel Nicolelis, describes the benefits that
could come from the results of this experiment. It is Nicolelis’s hope to work
towards creating a full exoskeleton that a paralyzed person could operate with
brain signals. The discovery made with the rats displays the advances of brain
science and further refines the ability of the brain to read and translate
brain signals.
I thought
this article was well written and very detailed. My only critques are that I
felt the author could have explained the implications of this study a bit more.
While he notes the hopes of Mr. Nicolelis, the author did not fully describe
the positive and negative effects this discovery could mean for the future of
science. I also felt the description of the exact experiment could have been a
little more concise in order to make the process more understandable for the
reader.
Marika Chrisanthopoulos
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Comment #13
Comment on Maddy Foley’s Review of “One Rat Thinks, and Another Reacts,” by James Gorman
In this astounding article, James Gorman describes and details the experimental setup and results of an experiment performed at Duke University involving rats and the connection between their brains. The experiment was performed to test the ability of animals to read and translate signals. There were two rats involved in the experiment; one rat was trained to press one of two levers with a reward in response to a light signal over the left lever. Computers and technology was used to record a pattern of the first rat’s brain activity and then send it to another rat in order to see if the second rat would perceive the information in a similar way and respond to the stimulus with the connected actions. Seven out of ten times the second rat pressed the correct lever after receiving the transmitted information from the first rat, proving that the brain process signals from one body can affect and control the actions of another body. It was noted in the article that scientists like Ron. D. Frosting do state that this experiment is not intended to prove mind-reading or telepathy; it is a totally different setup and is performed to enhance another theory. The head of the experiment, Miguel Nicolelis, wants to further his knowledge and research in this category of science in order to benefit and help those who are paralyzed. He decided that in order to do this, he wants to create a full exoskeleton that a paralyzed person could operate with brain signals.
In her review of this article, Maddy clearly explained the complexity of the experiment, allowing me to fully understand what was going on. Another thing she did well was that she critiqued the article by addressing that “the author could have explained the implications of this study a bit more.” Maddy also notes how the discovery should have been included with more information on what the results could mean for the future of science, and how it should have been explained a bit more. One thing that Maddy could have done better in her review was to ask more questions and try and find more research on future implications of the study, including, how would the exoskeleton be created? Who would have access to this amazing innovation? How expensive would it be? It would have been a bit better if she was also able to link the experiment with any others that have been performed recently, and how these new results could help us in the future of science. Through this article and the review, I learned that brain signals can be transmitted from one organism to another, and in many circumstances the patterns can be recognized with completely different brains. It would be intriguing to learn more about this subject and how the brain works as well to integrate into our curriculum.
AP Biology
ReplyDeleteNastaran Soroori
3/3/13
“One Rat Thinks, and Another Reacts.”
Gorman, James. "New Research Suggests Two Rat Brains Can Be Linked." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.
The article, “One Rat Thinks, and Another Reacts,” by James Gorman details a recent experiment conducted at Duke University involving the connection of two rat’s brains. The experiment was created to test the ability of animals to read and translate brain signals. The experiment would use water as a rewarding system. One rat was trained to press one of two levers, in response to a light signal over the correct lever. The other also learned to press one of two levers in response to light, but then shifted to respond to brain simulation. The Scientist, Miguel Nicolelis, describes the benefits that could come from the results of this experiment. The hope is to work towards creating a full exoskeleton that a paralyzed person could operate with brain signals. The discovery made with the rats displays the advances of brain science and further refines the ability of the brain to read and translate brain signals. I thought the article was very interesting and well presented. This research could lead into new discoveries about the brain and eventually lead scientists to create an exoskeleton that a paralyzed could operate with brain signals.
I think the research and the experiment in general could have been better presented by the author of the article. I did not fully understand how the experiment was performed with the rats and how the information gained will be used to further their understanding of brain signals. Generally, the information is compelling and definitely shows an opportunity for greater understanding in brain signals.
One aspect of the review that really impressed me was the research. I was interesting in the concept that these rats were used to gain a greater understanding about brain signals. This research could be used to better understand the brain and be used to treat patients who are paralyzed to re-direct brain signals.
I read Maddy’s review of the article “One Rat Thinks, and Another Reacts.” One thing I think Maddy did very well was her explanation of the study. It was a very complicated experiment but Maddy did a great job summarizing and explaining it. In addition, a second thing Maddy did well in her review was her critiques of the article. I agree that “The description of the exact experiment could have been a little more concise in order to make the process more understandable for the reader.” Even though Maddy did a great job explaining the study the author himself could have done a better job explaining it. A third and final thing Maddy did nicely in her review was mentioning the key people and places that were performing this experiment. It is important for the reader to know who is performing the experiments and where so that the reader knows it is reliable information.
ReplyDeleteWhile Maddy did a great job reviewing the article there were some areas for improvement. For example, she did not go into much detail about the implications of the research. If she had given more information it would have made her review much more interesting and informative. A second thing Maddy could improve would be adding a link to the article. While the article was very interesting it was difficult to find the article because there was no link to it.
I learned many interesting things from reading this article. For example, I think that it would be incredible if a completely paralyzed person would be able to move. Based on the information from the study it seems that one day that might be possible, and it would completely change the life of the paralyzed person.
Maddy did an excellent job of summarizing the experiment, which was essentially testing the rats ability to read and react to signals. This experiment was to respond to a light simulation. One rat was trained to push a certain lever in response to light, while another rat was trained to press another lever in response to light but then also respond to a brain stimulation. This experiment in the article was quite complicated and i appreciated that Maddy simplified it. Also one of the things Maddy did well was explain why this experiment is beneficial to us. He wanted to utilize this experiment to help those who are paralyzed.He concluded that if he created a full exoskeleton that a paralyzed person could operate with brain signals.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I think Maddy could have improved upon is give more explanation as to what his plan was for using this research to help those who are paralyzed. While she did give a basic summary of what the goal was, since it is the goal of the experiment she should have included more detial on that subject. Secondly I think she could have maybe defined some of the terms used in the explanation of the experiment.
The most interesting part of the article for me was seeing how a simple experiment of testing the reading and responses to simulations in two different rats could translate into a remedy for a paralyzed person. The fact that science can have such large implications still fascinates and shocks me.
Maddy did an excellent job of summarizing the experiment, which was essentially testing the rats ability to read and react to signals. This experiment was to respond to a light simulation. One rat was trained to push a certain lever in response to light, while another rat was trained to press another lever in response to light but then also respond to a brain stimulation. This experiment in the article was quite complicated and i appreciated that Maddy simplified it. Also one of the things Maddy did well was explain why this experiment is beneficial to us. He wanted to utilize this experiment to help those who are paralyzed.He concluded that if he created a full exoskeleton that a paralyzed person could operate with brain signals.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I think Maddy could have improved upon is give more explanation as to what his plan was for using this research to help those who are paralyzed. While she did give a basic summary of what the goal was, since it is the goal of the experiment she should have included more detial on that subject. Secondly I think she could have maybe defined some of the terms used in the explanation of the experiment.
The most interesting part of the article for me was seeing how a simple experiment of testing the reading and responses to simulations in two different rats could translate into a remedy for a paralyzed person. The fact that science can have such large implications still fascinates and shocks me.
The review of “Experiment links brains of two rats” was very informative. A good point made in the article was she went in depth on how the experiment was conducted on the rats. The experiment was made to test the ability of rats to read and understand brain signals. The way the experiment was conducted was by using water as a reward, one rat was trained to press one of two levers, in response to a light signal over the correct lever. The other also learned to press one of two levers in response to light, but then shifted to respond to brain simulation. Another good point was the outcome. The first rat reacted to the light and the pattern of its brain activity in the primary motor cortex was sent to and changed into another pattern by a computer. This pattern was then transmitted to the second rat, when the light was not present. Experiment showed seven out of ten times the rat pressed the correct lever. The final good piece of information was in the article, scientists like Ron. D. Frosting explain that this experiment is not intended to prove telepathy, a completely different experiment.
ReplyDeleteOne thing this article could have improved on was analyzing the information more and asking more questions about future experiments. What exactly does this experiment prove and how exactly would it work on organisms other than rats? Another thing that could have been better in this article was the relation between this experiment in rats and then how it could affect humans.
Overall, this article was fascinating and opens door to greater experiments and studies for the future of humankind.
Timmy Donohue
ReplyDeleteI found Maddy’s article review to be very interesting. There were many aspects of the article that were very well written. For example, Maddy did a very good describing the setup of the experiment. I think this really allowed the reader to picture what the experiment looked like, which was very helpful. Secondly, I thought that her description of the procedure itself, and how the information on the cortex of the encoder rat was transferred to the second rat, was very well written. Her description allowed me to get a better sense of how they were carrying out this sort of “telepathy” between the rats, although it was not exactly telepathy. I also like how Maddy included the author’s description of how the results of the experiment are going to be applied to the medical world.
Though her article was very well written, there were a few aspects that I would have changed. For example, I would have gone into a little bit more detail in the area where she described how they were able to transfer signals from one rat to another. Though she included a lot of information, I felt that a little more would have been necessary in order to allow the reader to get a full understanding of the experiment. Also, I would also have included a little bit more on how this experiment affected other areas of science. Though she included a little bit on how the results affected Dr. Nicolelis’ thinking on the human brain and recovery, I felt that a little more would have sufficed.
Through reading her review, I was able to discover that scientists are finally breaching the surface of the transferring of brain signals or even the improvement of brain signals in a human. This discovery clearly has a serious impact on neuroscience.