Current Event #9
Isabel Sondey
“Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds.” ScienceDaily, University of
Chicago Medical Center, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127135811.htm.
The article I read, titled “Amputees can learn to control a robotic arm with their minds,” centered around the discovery that sufferers of paralysis can move robotic arms through brain machine interference. The author seeks to validate this discovery in the article. An experiment was conducted on three monkeys who experienced an arm amputation at four, nine, and ten years ago, respectively. Electrode arrays were implanted in the side of the brain opposite to the side of the amputated limb in two of the monkeys. This side of the brain, the contralateral side, is in control of the intact limb. In the third monkey, electrode arrays were placed in same side of the brain as the amputated limb. This side of the brain is the ipsilateral side, and controls the limb that had been amputated. The monkeys were all trained to, using a robotic arm, grasp a ball, and neuron activity of the animals were observed throughout the course of the experiment. Researchers observed that inter-neural connections on the contralateral side- the side controlling the amputated limb- were relatively weak prior to training, as they had not been activated since amputation. However, these connections strengthened as the training progressed. On the ipsilateral side- the side controlling the intact limb- on the other hand, connection between neurons were initially fairly strong, yet decreased in strength as training progressed before ultimately forming a new, dense network. “After a few days it started rebuilding into a new network that can control both the intact limb and the neuroprosthetic,” postdoctoral researcher and leader of the study Karthikeyan Balasubramanian, PhD, stated.
This research is groundbreaking and can lead to influential technological advancements. In today’s world, an amputation is a life-changing operation; the procedure has detrimental effects on a person’s function and livelihood. However, these new findings on the ability of organisms’ brain to develop and strengthen new networks of neurons to control a prosthetic limb could lead to the creation of new, more user-friendly prosthetic technologies for people that could increase the quality of life of an amputee exponentially.
Overall, I thought the article was a very interesting and well-written one. The discussion of the research was somewhat brief, which made it comprehensible to an audience of individuals with a wide range of science backgrounds. However, at times I felt the summary to be too simple; the author certainly could have included a few more specifics on the methods used to collect the data and certain conclusions drawn from the data collection. Additionally, the article incorporates information on future research that will be conducted which helps the reader better understand the real-world application of the research. In the future, the research team hopes to equip neuroprosthetic limbs with sensory feedback for touch and proprioception (its position in space). Inclusion of this information helps put the study into perspective, and allows the reader to develop a sense of exactly how these findings will be used in the future.
Sarah Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio: Current Event Comment
5 December, 2017
Current Event #10
“Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds.” ScienceDaily, University of
Chicago Medical Center, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127135811.htm.
This week, I read Isabel Sondey’s review on the ScienceDaily article titled “Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds” by Matt Wood. Firstly, Isabel did a great job incorporating quotes from credible sources that were originally included in Matt Wood’s article. In doing so, she established herself as a qualified critic who could be trusted and relied on for valid information. Next, Isabel provided her readers with a great analysis of how these discoveries connect to daily life and the impact these innovations will have on the world. By including this, Isabel makes sure that her audience understands the importance of these findings, so that they will be able to better understand their effects and what scientists can create in the future regarding this technology. Finally, Isabel successfully critiqued the author of her original article. By providing her readers with a thorough critique, Isabel is able to prepare and educate her audience before reading Wood’s article.
Although Isabel had a very well-written and detailed response, there are two things she can work on to improve her work in the future. Firstly, Isabel could have described how the robotic arms would work in humans and not just in monkeys. She describes in-depth how scientists have tested the arms on disabled monkeys, but did not mention how scientists tested the robotic arms on humans. If Isabel had addressed this sufficiently, her audience would be left with fewer questions and would better understand the topic at hand. Secondly, Isabel could have made the summary easier to understand for her audience. Some of her summary was difficult for the average person to comprehend, so if she had simplified it, she could have reached a broader audience and could have taught even more people about these inventions.
I chose to read Isabel’s review because I was highly intrigued by the title, as I had never thought that controlling a robotic arm would be a possibility. This is a groundbreaking discovery and these innovations have the potential to change so many people’s lives, especially veterans or victims of terrorist attacks. From this reflection, I learned about how scientists are still coming up with creative ways to assist the public and how new discoveries are being made everyday. This article has changed my perception on this topic because now I have proof that these types of innovations are possible and we can only go further in improving robotic limbs in the future. Maybe we will even develop robotic legs that are strong enough to allow paralyzed people to walk again.
Luke Redman
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
AP Biology
December 6th 2017
Current Event #10
“Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds.” ScienceDaily, University of
Chicago Medical Center, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127135811.htm.
This week I read Isabel Sondey's review on the article titled, “Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds.” In her review she did an excellent job of balancing quotes and paraphrasing . It flowed very well with the writing and helped make the article a pleasant read. Another strength of her review was her extensive critiquing of the author, which gave the reader a deeper look into the writing of the author. Her third strength was how she related these discoveries to daily life and how these discoveries could affect us as a community.
Although there were some areas of strength in her review, Sondey’s review also contained some weaknesses. She did not really mention how the robotic arm could work on humans, just mentioning that it could happen in the future. Rather she mentioned the effect on monkeys than humans. Another weakness in her review was the complexity of the writing, if she was able to simplify the writing it would make a much better experience.
Overall, Sondey’s review was very well written and informative. I never knew about this procedure with mind controlling limbs, so it was very interesting for me to read. I look forward to reading another one of her reviews.
Timothy Cushman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Ap Biology - Current Events Comment
7 December 2017
Current Events #10
“Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds.” ScienceDaily, University of
Chicago Medical Center, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127135811.htm.
Isabel wrote a wonder review of the Science Daily article, “Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds. One aspect of her review that was done well was that Isabel included many definitions of terms that allowed the reader to gain a better understanding. For example, she included definitions of both sides of the brain, “the contralateral side, is in control of the intact limb” and “the ipsilateral side, and controls the limb that had been amputated.” These two definitions help keep the reader from being confused and allow for a better understanding. Another aspect of her review that was well done was how she able to identify that the article's summary was too brief at points, “the author certainly could have included a few more specifics on the methods used to collect the data and certain conclusions drawn from the data collection.” This gave her review more credibility in that she identified a flaw in the original article showing the reader that she did, in fact, read it. Finally, Isabel was able to give a thorough summary of the article including only the most important details and quotes from the author. This made it easier for the reader to understand such a confusing yet important topic. Overall, Isabel wrote a wonderful review that was both an informative and interesting read.
Although she wrote an overall wonderful review, there were two parts of it that could be improved upon to make it even better. Firstly, she mentions in her relevance paragraph how, the finds can help make more user friendly prosthetics. However, she never mentions what is being done to test this. She only talks about the testing on monkeys, and does not talk about how after the primary findings they are studying further on humans or planning to do other tests. This information would have given her a more well-rounded review and answered questions that the reader was left unanswered. A second aspect of Isabel’s review that could be improved upon was her lack of actual data. It would have been interesting to be able to see some of the data collected on the monkey’s brains. By including this information and other data about the study it would allow the reader to better understand what specific things were being tested. Despite these two areas for improvement, Isabel wrote a great review.
I chose to read Isabel’s review because I was intrigued by the title, “Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds.” The topic of possibly helping people who have lost a limb is interesting to me and I wanted to learn more about how this technology was evolving. The article was very interesting and allowed me to better understand how the science is always evolving. It is crazy to think that only a few years ago prosthetics were not able to be controlled and now scientists are testing ways to let them be controlled by the brain.
Cindy Kwok
ReplyDelete12/6/17
Current Events 10
“Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds.” ScienceDaily, University of
Chicago Medical Center, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127135811.htm.
I read Isabel Sondey’s critique of the article called “Amputees Can Learn to Control a Robotic Arm with Their Minds”. I thought that she did a good job with writing a summary of the experiment performed, giving interesting details such as the age of the monkeys that the scientists used in the experiment. This helps bring more interest into the article from readers looking into the critique. Other parts of details she added in were how the experiment was performed using electrodes and how the training led to increased success. Another good area of Sondey’s critique is how she connects the use of this finding to our daily lives. She mentioned how the technology could be used to find methods to create more “friendly” prosthetic arms and legs. Lastly, Sondey did a good job with listing the pros and cons to the article. She included information such as how the research was too brief and simple considering how complicated the actual experiment is, and others such as how the article helped readers by saying how the findings were useful.
Something that Sondey could improve on is her usage of quotes. I feel that she did not use enough and could have chosen a better one. The quote she used rephrased what she had already said, so a better use of quotes would be to cite one that would provide the readers with new information instead of a rephrase. Having more than one quote would also have enhanced her critique by making her work slightly more formal. Another area where Sondey could have improved was with adding more to how the technology could help. Even though she did address this point, I think that it was still a bit on the broader side when narrowing down the uses could have been better. She could explain instances of how it affects people of all ages who went through an accident or people born without a body part. By having more specific focus, it gives readers a better idea of the practical uses since readers already know the broader uses on their own without having to read her critique.
Overall, she did a good job and chose a particularly interesting article. I liked this article because people have obviously been trying to find ways to help people who have lost limbs or cannot move. This article shows that this experiment has moved the calendar for finding a practical invention for prosthetics forward. Not much shocked me as I would expect things like this to happen (using electrodes and animal test subjects). However, it was interesting to see how this finding will influenced the technology and how it will better the research in place now.