Neuroscience

Rethinking Reminiscence: Theater’s Ageism Dilemma Unveiled – Neuroscience News

Summary: A new study highlights the unintended ageist outcomes of Applied Theater, specifically reminiscence theater, which risks reducing older adults to mere storytellers of the past, overshadowing their current identities and contributions.

The research calls attention to how these practices, despite their positive intentions, may inadvertently perpetuate stereotypes and neglect the present lives and agency of participants. To combat this, the study introduces an Anti-Ageism Praxis (AAP) framework focusing on co-creation, present responses, and challenging stereotypes, aiming to foster more ethical and inclusive applied theatre practices that truly value older adults voices and experiences.

Key Facts:

Source: University of Surrey

Imagine your grandmothers life story distilled into a performance, applause washing over her as strangers dissect her past. Sounds heart-warming, doesnt it? Not so fast, warns a new study from the University of Surrey.

The study found that Applied Theater practices, particularly reminiscence theater, could encourage ageism. This happens when we only see older adults as sources of stories from the past and forget to listen to their current thoughts, opinions, and hopes for the future.

Reminiscence theater is a form of interactive drama in which older adults share memories and experiences through dialogue, storytelling, and creative activities.

The study, led byDr Georgia Bowersfrom the Guildford School of Acting, has shown that unconscious biases and assumptions can lead practitioners to unknowingly reinforce negative stereotypes about older adults. This can be particularly evident in reminiscence theatre, where focusing on extracting memories risks neglecting participants present experiences and agency.

Dr Georgia Bowers, Lecturer and Programme Leader of Applied and Contemporary Theatre BA (Hons) at the Guildford School of Acting and lead author of the study, said:

Its crucial to acknowledge that ageism exists within even well-intentioned practices like applied theatre. While reminiscence theatre offers valuable benefits, it can become problematic if we dont prioritize co-creation, shared power, and a focus on participants present responses to their memories.

The research proposes a new Anti-Ageism Praxis (AAP) framework to address these concerns. AAP emphasizes:

Dr Bowers continued:

This research opens important conversations about ethical practice in applied theatre. The proposed AAP framework offers a valuable guide for practitioners to ensure older adults are central to the work and their voices are truly heard.

The research demonstrates the University of Surreys contribution towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Particularly: SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 10 (Reduce Inequalities).

Author: Georgina Gould Source: University of Surrey Contact: Georgina Gould University of Surrey Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News

Original Research: Open access. Invading Capitalist Ageism in Applied Theatre through Anti-Ageism Praxis by Georgia Bowers. Performance Research

Abstract

Invading Capitalist Ageism in Applied Theatre through Anti-Ageism Praxis

This article highlights how in the UK ageism derives from invasive and pervasive capitalist practices, where our cultural understanding of being old is driven by institutional exit from the labour market.

The article explores how ageism has bled into applied theatre practices and problematizes the widespread use of reminiscence theatre as an ageist methodology, as it restricts older peoples experiences to the past.

Issues of power between the facilitator and practitioner are also explored by questioning the exclusive nature of reviewing and editing older peoples personal recollections and who determines what memories have creative value.

This article advocates that the field must now fracture away from reminiscence models and instead I propose an Anti-Ageism Praxis (AAP), which functions as a resistance against the invasion of capitalist informed ageism and oppressive ageist theatrical engagement. Instead, AAP places emphasis on shared power, co-collaboration, being present and creating theatre that is informed by real time moments, feelings and thoughts.

The rest is here:
Rethinking Reminiscence: Theater's Ageism Dilemma Unveiled - Neuroscience News

Neuroscience

The Partisan Morality Divide: When Politics Shapes Right and Wrong – Neuroscience News

Summary: In todays polarized political climate, a recent study uncovers a stark divide in moral judgment based on political affiliation, revealing a complex interplay between personal beliefs and political loyalty.

Researchers found that individuals are more lenient towards the misdeeds of political allies while adopting a punitive stance towards opponents, a phenomenon that challenges the notion of universal moral standards. This discrepancy is attributed to the evolutionary need for group success, which allows moral boundaries to flex in the face of political competition.

The study, based on four independent samples, also highlights that ingrained antipathy towards political outgroups exacerbates this divide, suggesting that deeply rooted political biases significantly influence moral judgment and ethical behavior.

Key Facts:

Source: Neuroscience News

In the fervent arena of politics, where the clash of ideologies often reaches fever pitch, a groundbreaking study sheds light on the intricate dance between moral judgment and political affiliation.

At the heart of this exploration lies a provocative question: Why do similar transgressions elicit starkly different reactions based on political loyalty?

The Fluidity of Moral Judgment in Political Contexts

The study, conducted across four independent samples, reveals a fascinating phenomenon: individuals exhibit a marked tendency to be more forgiving of the transgressions committed by those within their political camp, while simultaneously adopting a punitive stance towards their political adversaries.

This partisan morality, as it has been dubbed, not only challenges the notion of universal moral standards but also uncovers the deep-seated biases that influence ethical behavior in the political realm.

An Evolutionary Perspective on Morality and Politics

The researchers propose an evolutionary framework to explain this malleable moral landscape. According to their hypothesis, moral valuesoften considered as nonnegotiable pillars of right and wrongmay, in fact, serve a more adaptive purpose.

The study suggests that moral boundaries are inherently flexible, shaped by the evolutionary need to ensure the success of ones ingroup. In the competitive environment of politics, where the stakes of ingroup versus outgroup rivalry are high, this flexibility allows for a loosening of moral constraints to serve the interests of the ingroup.

The Role of Ingroup Antipathy

A critical finding of the study is the role of ingroup antipathyinternalized dislike of the outgroupin driving the partisan morality divide. Individuals with a strong aversion to their political outgroups were found to be more willing to deviate from their personal moral values in political situations.

This insight provides a compelling explanation for the often observed moral hypocrisy in politics, where loyalty to ones political group can override core ethical principles.

Implications for Political Polarization

The implications of these findings are profound, particularly in the context of increasing political polarization. The study highlights how deeply ingrained political biases can influence moral judgment, potentially exacerbating divisions and eroding bipartisan norms.

As politics becomes more about winning at all costs, the study raises important questions about the impact of partisan morality on democratic processes and the fabric of society.

A Closer Look at the Study

The studys methodology involved a systematic examination of moral behavior and tolerance, both in personal and political contexts, across four independent samples.

The researchers employed a range of measures, including moral foundations theory and the Motivation to Express Prejudice Scale, to investigate the relationship between moral judgment and political affiliation.

Their analysis revealed consistent support for the hypothesis that people are more likely to engage in and tolerate immoral behavior in the political realm compared to the personal realm.

Moral Judgment: Trait-Like or Context-Dependent?

The fluidity of moral judgment observed in the study challenges traditional conceptions of morality as a stable, trait-like attribute. Instead, the findings suggest that moral judgment and behavior are highly context-dependent, influenced by the salient features of the decision-making environment. This raises intriguing questions about the nature of moral values and their application across different spheres of life.

The Adaptive Function of Morality

At its core, the study posits that morality evolved as a solution to the challenges of social living, requiring a balance between individual self-interest and group cooperation. The selective application of moral values in group-competitive environments, such as politics, can be understood as an adaptive response to these challenges.

This perspective offers a fresh lens through which to view the complexities of moral judgment in the modern political landscape.

A Call for Further Research

While the study provides compelling evidence for the existence of partisan morality, it also underscores the need for further research to explore the nuances of this phenomenon.

Future studies could delve deeper into the individual and group-level variations in moral judgment, as well as the potential for interventions to mitigate the impact of political biases on ethical behavior.

Navigating the Partisan Morality Divide

As society grapples with the implications of the partisan morality divide, the study serves as a timely reminder of the power of political biases to shape our perceptions of right and wrong. In an era of heightened polarization, understanding the interplay between moral judgment and political affiliation is more critical than ever.

By shedding light on the adaptive roots of morality and the role of ingroup antipathy, this research offers valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities for fostering a more inclusive and ethically grounded political discourse.

Author: Neuroscience News Communications Source: Neuroscience News Contact: Neuroscience News Communications Neuroscience News Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News

Original Research: Open access. Politics makes bastards of us all: Why moral judgment is politically situational by Kyle Hull et al. Political Psychology

Abstract

Politics makes bastards of us all: Why moral judgment is politically situational

Moral judgment is politically situationalpeople are more forgiving of transgressive copartisans and more likely to behave punitively and unethically toward political opponents. Such differences are widely observed, but not fully explained.

If moral values are nonnegotiable first-principle beliefs about right and wrong, why do similar transgressions elicit different moral judgment in the personal and political realm?

We argue this pattern arises from the same forces intuitionist frameworks of moral psychology use to explain the origins of morality: the adaptive need to suppress individual behavior to ensure ingroup success.

We hypothesize ingroups serve as moral boundaries, that the relative tight constraints morality exerts over ingroup relations loosen in competitive group environments because doing so also serves ingroup interests.

We find support for this hypothesis in four independent samples and also find that group antipathyinternalized dislike of the outgrouppushes personal and political moral boundaries farther apart.

Read more here:
The Partisan Morality Divide: When Politics Shapes Right and Wrong - Neuroscience News

Neuroscience

Biological Sciences Professor Terrence Sejnowski Wins Brain Prize – University of California San Diego

Professor Terrence Sejnowski, Department of Neurobiology, School of Biological Sciences, and Salk Institute.

It is inconceivable to imagine modern brain sciences without the concomitant development of computational and theoretical neuroscience, says Professor Richard Morris, chair of The Brain Prize Selection Committee. These three scientists have applied novel and sophisticated approaches from physics, mathematics and statistics to study the brain. They have developed vital tools for the analysis of highly complex datasets acquired by modern-day experimental neuroscientists.

The three prize winners have also proposed conceptual frameworks for understanding some of the brains most fundamental processes, such as learning, memory, perception and how the brain generates maps of the external world. They have also provided crucial new insights into what may go awry in several devastating disorders of the nervous system, such as epilepsy, Alzheimers disease and schizophrenia. In addition, their scientific achievements have paved the way for the development of brain-inspired artificial intelligence, one of the emerging and transformational technologies of our time.

Sejnowski, a distinguished professor in the UC San Diego Department of Neurobiology, head of Salks Computational Neurobiology Laboratory and holder of the Frances Crick Chair, has helped shape the fields of neuroeconomics, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, psychology and artificial intelligence. In 1985, while at Johns Hopkins University, he collaborated with computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton to invent the Boltzmann machine, the first algorithm to solve the problem of learning in multilayered neural networks. It remains the most biologically plausible of all subsequent learning algorithms for artificial neural networks.

I am incredibly honored to receive the 2024 Brain Prize, says Sejnowski. Im proud that this award recognizes the remarkable computational advances being made by computer scientists and neuroscientists to our understanding of brain function.

Soon after announcing the Boltzmann machine, Sejnowski created NETtalk, a computer program that, like the human brain, was able to learn how to turn written text into speech. Not only was this an astounding engineering accomplishment, but it also marked a major cultural milestone as it raised new challenges for philosophy, linguistics and cognitive science.

Sejnowski also helped develop the first unsupervised learning algorithm for independent component analysis, which is now a mainstay in brain imaging. In addition, he has shown that sleep spindles (brain wave patterns during nonrapid eye movement sleep) are not synchronous across the cortex, as previously believed, but instead create circular traveling waves.

Sejnowski has received numerous other awards, including being named the 2024 Scientist of the Year by the ARCS Foundation of San Diego, winning the Gruber Prize in Neuroscience, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Frank Rosenblatt Award, Neural Network Pioneer Award, Hebb Prize and Wright Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Medicine, National Academy of Engineering, and National Academy of Inventors.

About the Brain Prize:

The Brain Prize is the worlds largest neuroscience research prize, and it is awarded each year by the Lundbeck Foundation. The Brain Prize recognizes highly original and influential advances in any area of brain research, from basic neuroscience to applied clinical research. Recipients of The Brain Prize may be of any nationality and work in any country in the world. Since it was first awarded in 2011, The Brain Prize has been awarded to 47 scientists from 10 different countries. Brain Prize recipients are presented with their award by His Royal Highness, King Frederik of Denmark, at a ceremony in the Danish capital, Copenhagen.

Adapted from a Salk Institute release

Read the rest here:
Biological Sciences Professor Terrence Sejnowski Wins Brain Prize - University of California San Diego

Neuroscience

Pioneering work in computational and theoretical neuroscience is awarded the world’s largest brain research prize – afp.com

COPENHAGEN, Denmark

The Lundbeck Foundation has announced the recipients of The Brain Prize 2024, the worlds largest award for outstanding contributions to neuroscience. This years award recognizes the pioneering work of three leading neuroscientists Professor Larry Abbott at Columbia University (USA), Professor Terrence Sejnowski at the Salk Institute (USA), and Professor Haim Sompolinsky at Harvard University (USA) and the Hebrew University (Israel).

This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240305504553/en/

Credit: The Lundbeck Foundation

Theoretical and computational neuroscience permeates neuroscience today and is of increasingly growing importance. The winners of The Brain Prize 2024 have made pioneering contributions to these scientific areas by uncovering some of the principles that govern the brains structure, function, and the emergence of cognition and behaviour.

The Brain Prize 2024 worth DKK 10 million (1.3 million) is awarded to: Larry Abbott (USA), Terrence Sejnowski (USA), and Haim Sompolinsky (Israel/USA) for their Foundational work in Computational and Theoretical Neuroscience.

Chair of The Brain Prize Selection Committee, Professor Richard Morris, explains the reasoning behind this years award:

It is inconceivable to imagine modern brain sciences without the concomitant development of computational and theoretical neuroscience. The three scientists have applied novel and sophisticated approaches from physics, mathematics, and statistics to study the brain. They have developed vital tools for the analysis of highly complex datasets acquired by modern day experimental neuroscientists.

The three prize winners have also proposed conceptual frameworks for understanding some of the brains most fundamental processes such as learning, memory, perception and how the brain generates maps of the external world. They have also provided crucial new insights into what may go awry in several devastating disorders of the nervous system, such as epilepsy, Alzheimers disease, and schizophrenia. In addition, their scientific achievements have paved the way for the development of brain-inspired artificial intelligence, one of the emerging and transformational technologies of our time.

On behalf of the Lundbeck Foundation, CEO Lene Skole extends her warmest congratulations to each of the three Brain Prize recipients:

Their pioneering research has created trailblazing knowledge and paved the way for other scientists to better understand critical brain functions, also in relation to diseases. It aligns fully with our purpose of bringing discoveries to lives. Each of their scientific endeavours began in the 70s, and their determination, courage and persistence over decades should serve as inspiration for other scientists, and indeed be rewarded.

FACTS

The human brain consists of approximately 100 billion neurons connected by trillions of synaptic connections. Every function the brain performs relies on the flow of information through these staggeringly complex networks of neurons. A fundamental goal of neuroscience is to understand how these networks are wired together, and how the patterns of neural activity within them give rise to cognition and behaviour. The sheer complexity of the brain means that understanding its language requires theoretical and computational approaches.

Theoretical and computational neuroscience uses mathematics, computer science, theoretical analysis, and abstractions of the brain to understand the principles that govern its structure, how it processes information, generates behaviour, and gives rise to cognitive abilities as perception, imagination, intelligence, the formation of knowledge, memory, problem-solving, decision-making, and the production of language. The field has laid the foundations for the development of AI - one of the most revolutionary developments in modern science.

MORE INFO

Find out more see the information pack of The Brain Prize 2024 >>

About The Brain Prize

The Brain Prize is the worlds largest neuroscience research prize, and it is awarded each year by the Lundbeck Foundation. The Brain Prize recognises highly original and influential advances in any area of brain research, from basic neuroscience to applied clinical research. Recipients of The Brain Prize may be of any nationality and work in any country in the world. Since it was first awarded in 2011, The Brain Prize has been awarded to 47 scientists from 10 ten different countries. The Brain Prize recipients are presented with their award by His Royal Highness, King Frederik of Denmark, at a ceremony in the Danish capital, Copenhagen.

About the Lundbeck Foundation

The Lundbeck Foundation is an enterprise foundation encompassing a comprehensive range of commercial and philanthropic activities all united by its strong purpose; Bringing Discoveries to Lives. The Foundation is the long-term and engaged owner of several international healthcare and medtech companies Lundbeck, Falck, ALK, Ellab, and Ferrosan Medical Devices and an active investor in business, science and people through its commercial investments in the financial markets; in biotech companies based on Danish research and through philanthropic grants to science talents and programmes in Danish universities. The Foundations philanthropic grants amount to more than DKK 500m annually primarily focusing on the brain including the worlds largest personal prize awarded in neuroscience, The Brain Prize.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240305504553/en/

For media enquiries and more information please contact:

Martin Meyer | Director of the Brain Prize | Lundbeck Foundation mm@lundbeckfonden.com

Anne Sophie Tnnesen | Sr Communications Partner | Lundbeck Foundation ast@lundbeckfonden.com

Business Wire, Inc.

Disclaimer: This press release is not a document produced by AFP. AFP shall not bear responsibility for its content. In case you have any questions about this press release, please refer to the contact person/entity mentioned in the text of the press release.

See original here:
Pioneering work in computational and theoretical neuroscience is awarded the world's largest brain research prize - afp.com

Neuroscience

Substance Abuse Beyond Dopamine and Impulsivity – Neuroscience News

Summary: Researchers shed new light on why some individuals are more vulnerable to substance abuse than others, focusing on the relationship between impulsivity, dopamine production, and cocaine use. Through a study on rats, they discovered that impulsivity predicts cocaine consumption not through dopamine production capacity but possibly through the control of its release.

This groundbreaking work challenges the conventional belief that regular cocaine use diminishes the brains ability to produce dopamine, suggesting that the mechanisms of vulnerability to drug abuse are more complex than previously thought.

Key Facts:

Source: University of Geneva

Why do some people who try drugs struggle with substance abuse while others dont? This question has long puzzled scientists.

A team from the University of Geneva (UNIGE) explored the complex interplay between personality traits and brain chemistry. The scientists studied the role of impulsivity and the production of dopamine the so-called happiness hormone in influencing the risk of cocaine abuse.

These results, published ineNeuro, offer new keys to understanding vulnerability to drug abuse, which could lead to the development of more targeted interventions for people at risk.

When a person consumes an addictive drug, his or her dopamine release surges, creating a high feeling. With repeated drug use, this dopamine release drops, potentially driving the person to increase drug consumption. This mechanism varies between individuals, with some showing a greater propensity to consume the drug while others dont. However, the reasons for these differences are unknown.

Cocaine does not affect dopamine production capacity

In a recent study, a UNIGE team explored the complex interaction between different impulsive behaviors, the production of dopamine and the use of drugs, more specifically cocaine. Does an impulsive personality increase the vulnerability to drug abuse? Does an impulsive individual produce more or less dopamine?

To find out, the scientists studied two groups of rats, one made up highly impulsive individuals, the other of less impulsive ones. These animals were trained to self-administer cocaine at a dose that triggers dopamine neuroadaptations without harming their health.

Scientists first trained the animals in a gambling task to measure two impulsive behaviors: impulsive action the inability to control automatic actions and risky decision-making the acceptance of more risk when making decisions.

Scientists then measured the level of dopamine synthesis using a non-invasive neuroimaging technique before and after cocaine intake in the two groups of rats. They found that impulsive action, but not risky decision-making, predicted a greater number of cocaine injections and faster cocaine use.

However, we observed that there was no difference in the capacity to produce dopamine between the highly impulsive and less impulsive animals. In other words, impulsivity and vulnerability to cocaine abuse might not be linked to dopamine production, but to mechanisms controlling its release, explains Ginna Paola Uruea-Mndez, PhD. student in the Department of Psychiatry and the Department of Basic Neurosciences in the Faculty of Medicine at the UNIGE, and first author of the study.The team then assessed repeated cocaine use and its impact on dopamine levels in the two groups of rodents.

Until now, the idea that regular cocaine consumption could reduce the ability to produce dopamine was accepted. Our results contradict this assumption as both populations of rats retained the same capacity to produce dopamine, despite chronic consumption, explains Nathalie Ginovart, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and the Department of Basic Neurosciences at the UNIGE Faculty of Medicine, who led this research.

Identifying other mechanisms

These results suggest dopamine synthesis is probably not the main driver of impulsivity or vulnerability to cocaine use. They also contradict the hypothesis that cocaine use may directly reduce the capacity to produce dopamine.

This work represents a significant advance in research into the risk of drug abuse. It opens the door to exploring other mechanisms that could explain individual vulnerability to drugs.

This variation in vulnerability could be linked to differences in the relative reactivity of dopaminergic neurons, so that certain stimuli, including drugs, are more salient for more impulsive animals, say the researchers. The team is currently continuing its research to assess how mechanisms controlling dopamine neuron reactivity influence vulnerability to abuse drugs.

Author: Antoine Guenot Source: University of Geneva Contact: Antoine Guenot University of Geneva Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News

Original Research: Open access. Decoupling Dopamine Synthesis from Impulsive Action, Risk-Related Decision-Making, and Propensity to Cocaine Intake: A Longitudinal [18F]-FDOPA PET Study in Roman High- and Low-Avoidance Rats by Ginna Paola Uruea-Mndez et al. eNeuro

Abstract

Decoupling Dopamine Synthesis from Impulsive Action, Risk-Related Decision-Making, and Propensity to Cocaine Intake: A Longitudinal [18F]-FDOPA PET Study in Roman High- and Low-Avoidance Rats

Impulsive action and risk-related decision-making (RDM) are two facets of impulsivity linked to a hyperdopaminergic release in the striatum and an increased propensity to cocaine intake.

We previously showed that with repeated cocaine exposure, this initial hyperdopaminergic release is blunted in impulsive animals, potentially signaling drug-induced tolerance.

Whether such dopaminergic dynamics involve changes in dopamine (DA) synthesis as a function of impulsivity is currently unknown.

Here, we investigated the predictive value of DA synthesis for impulsive action, RDM, and the propensity to take cocaine in a rat model of vulnerability to cocaine abuse. Additionally, we assessed the effects of cocaine intake on these variables.

Rats were tested sequentially in the rat Gambling Task (rGT) and were scanned with positron emission tomography and [18F]-FDOPA to respectively assess both impulsivity facets and striatal DA synthesis before and after cocaine self-administration (SA).

Our results revealed that baseline striatal levels of DA synthesis did not significantly predict impulsive action, RDM, or a greater propensity to cocaine SA in impulsive animals.

Besides, we showed that impulsive action, but not RDM, predicted higher rates of cocaine taking. However, chronic cocaine exposure had no impact on DA synthesis, nor affected impulsive action and RDM.

These findings indicate that the hyper-responsive DA system associated with impulsivity and a propensity for cocaine consumption, along with the reduction in this hyper-responsive DA state in impulsive animals with a history of cocaine use, might not be mediated by dynamic changes in DA synthesis.

Go here to see the original:
Substance Abuse Beyond Dopamine and Impulsivity - Neuroscience News

Neuroscience

Dal study of football players sheds light on how concussions affect the brain – Yahoo Canada Sports

The study led by researchers at Dalhousie University uses Riddell SpeedFlex helmets equipped with sensors to measure head impacts and detect concussions. (CBC - image credit)

Neuroscience researchers atDalhousie Universityare investigating how head impacts lead to injuriesin football players.

One of their preliminary findings is that it isn't the intensity of a single hit that can lead to concussions or trauma-like symptoms, it's the accumulation of small hits suffered during practice or games, saidAlon Friedman, a co-author ontheir recently published study.

"It's not necessary that we have to treat a concussion itself," he said. "The concussion is an outcome of many, many small injuries that you had throughout the season and you didn't even feel about them."

Their findings lend support to the idea that head impacts can cause dysfunction in the blood-brain barrier, which helps shield the brain from salts, proteins and toxins in the blood. When it's impacted, leakage can occur, causing changes in the brain function and structure, which can result in cognitive decline or emotional and movement problems.

Friedman said the effects of the leakage dependon what part of a player's head is impacted, sincethe brain hasvarious networksof nerve cells that control things like behaviour, mood and movement.

Alon Friedman is a professor of neuroscience at Dalhousie University. (Submitted by Alon Friedman)

One of Friedman's co-authors isCasey Jones,a former Dalhousie Tiger football player and coach, and the current resident physician in the university's department of emergency medicine.

"My goals as a past athlete and coach and someone who's been really involved with football my whole life is, 'how can we make our game safer?'" Jones said. "What are aspects of our game that we can, you know, reduce impacts to the head?"

Previous research on deceased athletes with a history of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a brain disorder caused by repeated head trauma, has found evidence of changes inthe blood-brain barrier, Jones said.

Story continues

"Not everyone after a concussion will have problems in the future, actually most people, most individuals after concussion will heal and will be fine," Friedman said.

But in some cases, people are susceptible mild head injuries, he said,and it's important to identify those who are at risk and who coulddevelop complications in the future, Friedman said.

Their study, which was led by researchers at Dalhousie andpublished in Januaryin the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, involved 60 football players.Eight had suffereda clinically diagnosed concussion, and five of them underwent an assessmentto gage leakage in the blood-brain barrier.

High-tech helmets

Theyused Riddell SpeedFlex helmets that are equipped with sensors to measure head impacts and detect concussions.

One of the benefits of using thehelmets, Jones said, is that they can continue to provide data days after an impact, showing any lingering effects.

Friedman said a previous study on traumatic brain injuries, conducted in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania, found that 60 per cent of cases with blood-brain-barrier dysfunction had healed three months later. The remaining cases had not and were likely to worsen, he said.

Although the current study is a pilot project, Jones is optimistic that their work willcontinue, although access to funding, technology and players are challenges.

Friedman said their findings suggest it's important to identify players who are susceptible to mild head injuries and risk developing complications in future.

"If we can identify them early, then we can treat them before they develop the severe complications."

MORE TOP STORIES

See the original post:
Dal study of football players sheds light on how concussions affect the brain - Yahoo Canada Sports

Neuroscience

Hebrew University’s Haim Sompolinsky awarded prestigious Brain Prize for pioneering neuroscience research – The Times of Israel

Prof. Haim Sompolinsky of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is awarded the Brain Prize for 2024, the largest and most prestigious international prize for brain research. The prize is awarded annually by the Lundbeck Foundation of Denmark.

Sompolinsky, who is also affiliated with Harvard University, is a physicist and pioneer in the field of theoretical and computational neuroscience, particularly in the study of neural circuit dynamics in the brain. His research has significantly contributed to understanding how neural circuits process and encode information, map the external world and participate in learning and memory.

Sompolinsky shares the annual prize totaling 1.3 million euros with Prof. Larry Abbott of Columbia University and Prof. Terrence Sejnowski of the Salk Institute, who are also widely recognized for their groundbreaking work in computational and theoretical neuroscience, which applies physics, mathematics, and statistics as tools for studying the brain and how it functions.

Its a very satisfactory and personal honor for me to receive this award. More so, it is a fantastic recognition of the important contribution of radical computational science at the heart of brain science. This would not have been the case decades ago, he tells The Times of Israel.

His Royal Highness King Frederik of Denmark, will present the Brain Prize medals to the winners at a ceremony in Copenhagen on May 30.

You're a dedicated reader

Were really pleased that youve read X Times of Israel articles in the past month.

Thats why we started the Times of Israel eleven years ago - to provide discerning readers like you with must-read coverage of Israel and the Jewish world.

So now we have a request. Unlike other news outlets, we havent put up a paywall. But as the journalism we do is costly, we invite readers for whom The Times of Israel has become important to help support our work by joining The Times of Israel Community.

For as little as $6 a month you can help support our quality journalism while enjoying The Times of Israel AD-FREE, as well as accessing exclusive content available only to Times of Israel Community members.

Thank you, David Horovitz, Founding Editor of The Times of Israel

View original post here:
Hebrew University's Haim Sompolinsky awarded prestigious Brain Prize for pioneering neuroscience research - The Times of Israel

Neuroscience

Harvard neuroscientist Haim Sompolinsky awarded Brain Prize – EurekAlert

image:

Haim Sompolinsky, professor in residence in molecular and cellullar biology and physics at Harvard.

Credit: Anthony Tulliani for the Kempner Institute at Harvard

Haim Sompolinsky, Professor in Residence in Harvards Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology and Department of Physics, has received theBrain Prizefor his pioneering contributions to computational and theoretical neuroscience.

Considered the worlds most prestigious prize for neuroscience research, the Brain Prize 2024 is shared by Sompolinsky, Larry Abbott of Columbia University, and Terrence Sejnowski of the Salk Institute. All three scientists have helped uncover key principles governing the brains structure, function, and the emergence of cognition and behavior, according to the Lundbeck Foundation in Denmark, which awards the annual recognition.

Richard Morris, chair of the Brain Prize Selection Committee, explained the reasoning behind this years awardees.

It is inconceivable to imagine modern brain sciences without the concomitant development of computational and theoretical neuroscience, Morris said. The three scientists have applied novel and sophisticated approaches from physics, mathematics, and statistics to study the brain. They have developed vital tools for the analysis of highly complex datasets acquired by modern-day experimental neuroscientists.

Director of the Swartz Program in Theoretical Neuroscience at Harvards Center for Brain Science and Associate Faculty in the Kempner Institute for the Study of Natural and Artificial Intelligence, Sompolinsky has spent his career developing new theoretical approaches to computational neuroscience. His research has helped establish a deeper understanding of neural processes through rigorous conceptual frameworks found in physics.

Among his most important foundational work is the establishment and theoretical understanding of models of neuronal circuit function, including circuits for long-term memory and recall, as well as elucidating the brains delicate balance between opposing forces orchestrated by excitatory and inhibitory neurons.

The brain is an intrinsically dynamic organ thats whats fascinating about it, Sompolinsky said. Think about sleep, dreaming, wandering thoughts, creative actions in arts or sciences, problem-solving. The theory gives us a framework for conceptualizing, quantifying, and studying the link between circuit dynamics and these types of functionalities in the brain.

Over the last 10 years, Sompolinsky has been captivated by advances in artificial intelligence technologies. His current research focuses on deep learning, language models, and reasoning models in artificial neural network settings. His goal is to adapt these models to be biologically plausible, using them to test new theories about how the brain works.

For the first time in the history of the science of intelligence, we have artificial neural networks with strong similarities to the architecture and operation of the brain, Sompolinsky said. We have distributed, experience-dependent processing with amazing cognitive functions that are similar in many ways to human cognition. For me, this is a game changer, and this is where I am working at the interface between AI and neuroscience.

Venkatesh Murthy, the Paul J. Finnegan Family Director of the Center for Brain Science, said, There are few who lay the foundation for a growing field, but thats what Sompolinsky has done for theoretical neuroscience. He brought approaches from physics to understand various ways a network of neurons can interact, which has led to an understanding of how brains can store and retrieve memories, how a brain knows which direction its head is pointing, and how a proper balance between excitatory and inhibitory neurons can be maintained in our brains. Now, he is bringing his customary rigorous physics approaches (and his unbounded energy) to bear on the many exciting puzzles in high-level animal cognition, as well as to the startlingly sophisticated AI models such as ChatGPT. His presence at Harvard has been transformative to many communities here.

Before joining the faculty of Harvard in 2022, Sompolinsky spent most of his academic career as a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he is now emeritus. His Ph.D. is from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and his first appointment at Harvard was as a physics postdoctoral researcher in 1982, working with Professor Bert Halperin.

Sompolinsky was the 2022 recipient of the Gruber Neuroscience Prize and was elected a fellow of the Israel Physical Society that same year. He is a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a former recipient of the EMET Prize in Life Sciences-Brain Research.

The Brain Prize 2024 comes with an award of 1.3 million to be shared by the three recipients.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Here is the original post:
Harvard neuroscientist Haim Sompolinsky awarded Brain Prize - EurekAlert

Neuroscience

Physicist Haim Sompolinsky first Israeli to win largest brain science research prize – The Times of Israel

Prof. Haim Sompolinsky of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has been awarded the Brain Prize for 2024, the largest and most prestigious international prize for brain research. The prize is awarded annually by the Lundbeck Foundation of Denmark.

Sompolinsky, who is also affiliated with Harvard University, is a physicist and pioneer in the field of theoretical and computational neuroscience, particularly in the study of neural circuit dynamics in the brain. His research has significantly contributed to understanding how neural circuits process and encode information, map the external world, and participate in learning and memory.

Sompolinsky shares the annual prize totaling 1.3 million euros ($1.4 million) with Prof. Larry Abbott of Columbia University and Prof. Terrence Sejnowski of the Salk Institute, who are also widely recognized for their groundbreaking work in computational and theoretical neuroscience, which applies physics, mathematics and statistics as tools for studying the brain and how it functions.

Haims work over more than 40 years has been instrumental in establishing theoretical and computational neuroscience as a cornerstone of modern brain research, said Richard Morris, chair of The Brain Prize selection committee.

Sompolinsky will be presented the Brain Prize medal by King Frederik on May 30 in Copenhagen, where he was born in 1949. The son of Danish and Hungarian Holocaust survivors who met in Sweden after the war, he is the third of 10 children, and the last to be born in Denmark before his family immigrated to Israel.

During the war, his father, Prof. David Sompolinsky, worked with the Danish Resistance to save 700 co-religionists from extermination by the Nazis, by arranging their escape to Sweden in October 1943.

Haim Sompolinsky as a young boy with his teacher, Rishon Lezion, 1954. (Courtesy of Sompolinsky family)

When asked whether his fathers work as a microbiologist inspired him to become a scientist, Sompolinsky said that while it is hard to know why someone goes into one profession or another, his father undoubtedly was an inspiration. The elder Sompolinsky modeled how a person could combine Orthodox Jewish observance with a deep love of science.

My fathers big library in our living room was a complete chaotic mix of Talmud, Torah and books of Jewish law. In the middle of this were books about mathematics, microbiology and physics. To me, it was a place where I could just pick up a book and read, Sompolinsky recalled.

There was no conflict between religious observance and a professional life in the sciences. I think I inherited from him the idea of leading a coherent lifestyle. I think that being a scientist enriches my religious experiences and insights and vice versa, he said.

In the following interview, edited for length and clarity, The Times of Israel asked Sompolinsky about how theoretical and computational neuroscience helps us understand the brain, where he sees the field going and his reaction to receiving the worlds largest prize for brain research.

The Times of Israel: Why did you decide to pursue research in neuroscience in particular?

Prof. Haim Sompolinsky: It was a matter of personal choice. Many of my physicist colleagues who, like me, worked on the theory of spin glasses branched out to problems in the areas of economics and other complex systems in physics. Some went into the fields of biochemistry or biophysics. For me, neuroscience and the brain presented a very attractive set of problems. Throughout my career, I have always chosen problems that I think are intellectually interesting and worthwhile. It was natural for me to go in the direction of neuroscience because there was a mesh between my interest in the problems and my abilities to contribute to [understanding] them.

Haim Sompolinsky and his wife Elisheva with their family on vacation in Holland, 2016. (Courtesy of Sompolinsky family)

Were you motivated by a desire to find cures for specific neurological diseases?

When we work on basic research, we all hope that it will contribute in the long run to the benefit of humanity, whether it is health, ecology, climate, energy or whatever. But Im a basic scientist and my area of excellence is thinking more about principles and fundamental problems. I dont think Id be very good at applied research, where the details and the short-term goals dominate the thinking and research. My primary interest has been to contribute to understanding the principles of brain function.

Brain research has different levels. Can you explain what these levels are in laymans terms?

People are more familiar with the experimental and empirical aspects of neuroscience. First, there is the molecular level. People often read about discoveries of genes or molecules in the brain. Then there is cellular neuroscience. There is very active and fascinating research in this area, including on the properties of single nerve cells and other cells in the brain aside from neurons.

Then comes the level of circuits, and above it the level of systems. Most of the work in theoretical and computational neuroscience is at the level of circuits and above. We dont study the theoretical principles of molecular neuroscience because, at the level of principles, molecular neuroscience is very similar to molecular biology. The DNA and the expression of proteins in molecules in brain cells are the same as in any other setting in the body. On the other hand, the circuit level is what is unique about the brain and more directly related to computation.

What are some examples of what we can understand by studying brain circuits and systems?

You can ask how a circuit stores information or how it encodes or retrieves memories. You can ask how the visual system in the brain performs cognitive functions associated with vision perception. How do we recognize somebody simply from visual signals? The primary focus of theoretical and computational neuroscience science is to try to understand the relation between the structure of the neurocircuits and the dynamics of the activation of the neurons and the function that comes out of it.

Hebrew University theoretical and computational neuroscientist professor Haim Sompolinsky with junior colleagues in Jerusalem, 2014. (Courtesy of Sompolinsky family)

Do theoretical and computational neuroscientists work on their own, or do they interact with neuroscientists who work in the lab?

Our goal is to make sense of experimental results and even make predictions about what can be expected based on our theoretical models. If you have a good idea, you have to be able to translate it to a concrete model, which means mathematical equations and algorithms and analyzing them. Then you can approach an experimentalist and say, hey, I have a great idea, and here are the predictions and lets see if they are right. By working this way with the experimentalist, we advanced the understanding of the brain.

What do you think will be the legacy that you and other pioneers in theoretical and computational neuroscience will leave to the next generation?

There are several legacies. Ill mention just a couple. First, I think we succeeded in establishing solid foundations based on physics and mathematics for theoretical neuroscience, which will largely remain relevant for future generations. What we started as research is now part of textbooks in the field.

Second, I believe the interdisciplinary nature of brain science research that developed due to our efforts will remain forever. Brain science is no longer just part of biology studies or medical school. Its too complex and important for humanity not to recruit all the intellectual and technical skills of disciplines in science and maybe also in philosophy. Most neuroscience institutes today are multidisciplinary, not only in terms of research but also education. The Hebrew University made a pioneering contribution to the development of multidisciplinary research in neuroscience, and I am very proud and grateful for that.

What are the more recent developments in computational neuroscience that will help carry the field forward?

An important and extremely active research area in neuroscience is artificial intelligence. It is an exciting new direction. We hope to integrate new ideas, tools and models coming from AI into experimental paradigms. AI is already showing its impact in the research of my group and that of others in the last 10 years.

On the technical side of neuroscience, the toolbox for researchers has grown exponentially in terms of devices, electronics, optics and more. With this, the amount of data that is accumulated in neuroscience has grown exponentially, and now we are talking about international observatories and centers that specialize in generating big data for neuroscience research and are open access.

The Brain Prize medal, designed by Georg Jensen. (The Lundbeck Foundation)

What does it mean to you to be awarded The Brain Prize?

It is very satisfactory and a personal honor. For me and my co-winners, it is an expression of the international national recognition of the central contribution and role that theoretical and computational neuroscience plays in contemporary brain research.

You are the first Israeli to be given this award.

Im humbled by my ability to bring honor to Israeli science, particularly at this time.

What does receiving this award from a Danish foundation at a ceremony in Copenhagen mean to you given your familys background?

We were always told about the king of Denmarks empathy and public expression of support for the Jewish community [during World War II]. My going to Copenhagen in a couple of months to receive the prize from the present king, who is a descendant of the wartime one, is going to be very moving.

Link:
Physicist Haim Sompolinsky first Israeli to win largest brain science research prize - The Times of Israel