After nearly two decades of work, scientists have completed a wiring diagram of the central nervous system of an adult male fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster).
The post Researchers Unveil Complete Fruit Fly Connectome appeared first on Sci.News: Breaking Science News.
Depression in later life may be an early warning from the brain, appearing years before Alzheimer’s begins to affect memory and thinking A new study in JNeurosci found that faster accumulation of tau, a protein closely tied to Alzheimer’s, was associated with worsening depressive symptoms in older adults who remained cognitively healthy. Teodora Markova of [...]On Friday, researchers announced the completion of a map of every neuron in the brain of a male fruit fly. The "connectome" provides a tool that can accelerate neurobiology research. But it also provides an opportunity to do some science on its own, as the connectome of a female Drosophila had been completed earlier this year. The work also provided the team behind it the opportunity to refine tools that are likely to be applied to ever-more complex nervous systems, including (potentially) those of vertebrates.
The new work involved a collaboration between biologists at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Janelia Research Campus and computer scientists at Google—both acknowledge that neither could have done the project without the other. Preparation of an entire brain for imaging at the necessary resolution requires a distinct set of skills, as does interpreting what those images indicate. But building a complete picture of the hundreds of millions of synapses in a brain as small as the fruit fly's is a task that can't be achieved by humans in a manageable amount of time.
The people behind the effort expect that in the long term, the effort will be worth it, as the connectome could give neurobiologists a valuable tool for understanding how the brain works.
© Philip Hubbard/HHMI Janelia
A University of St. Andrews-led research team has proposed that the red wavelengths of flickering light emitted by early human ancestors’ campfires helped reprogram the human brain to boost social and verbal communication, leading to modern language and storytelling behaviors found only in humans.
The team, which included researchers from Dartmouth College, said the study builds on earlier theories linking fire and language to the extra hours it added to the day.
However, their findings suggest that the biological changes caused by fire use may have enabled complex language as much as fire-associated behavioral changes, accelerating the evolution of verbal communication away from the ape-like systems still used by modern apes toward more complex, “uniquely human” interactions.
Catherine Hobaiter, a Professor of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of St Andrews and the lead author of a paper detailing the team’s idea, said she has always been fascinated by the origins of language.
“What was the first word?” the professor asked. “The first story?”
Unfortunately, Professor Hobaiter noted, many questions about the origin of humanity’s complex and diverse forms of verbal communication remain unanswered.
Some earlier research has explored a possible link between the first spoken words and the advent of controlled fire use. However, the team notes that most studies have focused primarily on the extra hours of practical light added to the end of each day.
Curious whether other biological mechanisms also contributed to the evolution of language and complex storytelling behavior, Professor Hobaiter and colleagues examined the effects of sitting around a campfire to see whether the emitted light could reprogram the human brain.
First, the team noted that one potential catalyst emitted by firelight that could help reprogram the human brain for complex language is the color of the light wavelengths emitted by campfires. Specifically, Hobaiter and colleagues noted that campfire light emits almost no blue wavelengths but instead mostly in the visible red spectrum.
Many modern studies have focused on the potentially adverse effects of exposure to blue light wavelengths from modern technology on sleep patterns and overall health. Conversely, the paper’s authors described the red wavelengths emitted from fire as ‘uniquely suited’ for human socializing, “allowing an extension to the day without negatively impacting sleep.”
Another component of firelight the study authors suggest could have reprogrammed the human brain for speech is the way a campfire behaves. Unlike a modern, steady light source, the authors noted that firelight “flickers.”
Hobaiter and colleagues said that neurons in the human brain synchronize firing patterns with external flickering lights. For example, flickering lights in movies and TV shows often come with warnings against possible neurological effects on vulnerable viewers. The research team said this mechanism might also help synchronize the behavior of those seated around the campfire, resulting in a much deeper feeling of connection.
Finally, the researchers noted that firelight emits infrared wavelengths, which may have also contributed to helping firelight reprogram the human brain for complex verbal communication.
When discussing the potential impact of their proposal, study co-author Nathaniel Dominy, the Charles Hansen Professor of Anthropology at Dartmouth College, said many of the chemical properties have been well researched. However, Professor Dominy also notes that understanding the properties of light that capture our attention and focus, thereby instilling “harmony and cooperation,” has received far less attention.
“Measuring these features is an exciting part of this project,” the study author added.
Professor Hobaiter agreed, while also noting the conundrum scientists face when explaining why humans speak, when “decades of research with other species has shown us that you don’t need language to learn from each other, to organize where and when to forage, to learn cultural knowledge about tools and songs, to co-ordinate hunting, or navigate social politics.”
“While other species share all these skills, there is a fundamental puzzle: we struggle to find evidence of key differences between human and ape communication,” Professor Hobaiter explained. “And yet, we are surrounded by evidence of human distinctiveness. For all their incredible, rich communication and cultures, no other ape is inventing algebra, writing King Lear, or heading out into interstellar space.”
“So, it’s especially exciting to be able to generate testable predictions, to be able to ask if, at the end of the day, we are the storytelling ape,” the professor added.
The paper “Firelight and the Origins of Spoken Language” was published in Proceedings of the Royal Society.
Christopher Plain has spent the last six years as Associate News Editor and Head Science Reporter at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his novels at plainfiction.com, or email him at christopher@thedebrief.org.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation looks almost unrecognizable under director Kash Patel’s leadership.
The agency’s head has been embroiled in a seemingly endless list of controversies, from allegations of excessive drinking to buying up location data on everyday American citizens to furthering of harebrained conspiracies.
Patel lacked virtually any degree of relevant working experience for the job before the Senate confirmed him — and now, the agency is opening the doors for even more highly questionable hirings.
As inside sources told CBS News, the FBI has quietly lowered standards of its background checks for potential federal agents and other personnel. The bureau is now officially looking the other way when it comes to prostitution, for instance — as long as recruits didn’t hire sex workers over three times.
Even more eyebrow-raising is that the FBI is even allowing the consideration of candidates who engaged in bestiality or animal cruelty, according to CBS‘ sources. However, any such incidents would’ve had to have taken place before the candidate turned 18.
The broadcaster’s sources also said there was no distinction between candidates who were forced into sexual activity with animals or if they did so willingly. An FBI spokesperson claimed that eligibility requirements were limited to a “narrow set of circumstances, such as in cases where a person was sexually abused with animals as a child.”
Experts, however, were appalled at the news, arguing that the FBI is undermining its responsibility in vetting applicants by changing background check standards.
“Bestiality is clearly a potential indication of a more serious emotional issue, and even in a circumstance where it is not, the pool of candidates should be extensive enough that the criteria should certainly not be eliminated,” former FBI agent James Davidson told CBS.
Before the changes, which were reportedly implemented earlier this summer, the FBI’s webpage was clear about automatically disqualifying special agents who engaged in “prostitution or bestiality.”
Both current and former FBI employees told the CBS that the bureau could now be hiring “people with questionable backgrounds,” allowing them to undermine the integrity of the service. Others warned that the news was evidence of a major “recruiting problem.”
Considering the fact that the agency is being helmed by a personality as controversial as Patel, these changes shouldn’t come as too much of a shock.
While he hasn’t personally acknowledged the latest changes, Patel has frequently called for new hiring standards at the bureau, arguing that “we are losing too many qualified candidates to the rigors of the requirements from yesteryear” in a July interview with former FBI agent John Nantz.
Patel’s motivation for lowering standards could be to bring in his closest associates. As ProPublica reported in November, his personal assistant didn’t clear their polygraph test and required a waiver, claims the FBI has since denied.
More on Patel: The Head of the FBI Just Admitted Something Moderately Horrifying
The post FBI Now Allowing History of Bestiality Among New Recruits appeared first on Futurism.
New research from Indiana University suggests that when your brain makes a decision, it may not actually “make” it in the way neuroscientists have traditionally assumed.
Conventionally, decision-making has been described as a sequence: you have options to consider, you choose one, and then you act. However, neuroscientist Tom James argues that this sequence may not accurately reflect what actually happens in the brain.
Traditional models suggest that the brain has centralized processes responsible for making decisions. James argues that what people experience as “decision-making” may instead arise from ongoing interactions among perception, movement, the body, and the environment. If correct, this perspective could significantly change how scientists understand human behavior.
James describes one traditional approach to cognition as the “sandwich model”: sensory systems take in information, cognitive processes evaluate it and determine what to do, and motor systems then carry out the chosen action.
The problem, James argues, is that while scientists can identify many of the physical mechanisms involved in sensation and movement, it is much harder to locate a central point in the brain where a “decision” actually occurs.
Instead, James proposes thinking in terms of “action selection,” in which sensory, sensorimotor, and motor processes continually interact to produce behavior. But does that mean humans don’t actually make decisions?
“Of course they do. We use this language all the time, and it’s very helpful in terms of describing behavior,” James said in a statement. “The leap, I think, is to say that the brain works by having decision-making or control processes. It produces behavior that is well described in that way. But it doesn’t need a process that does that to make it look that way.”
In his view, “decision-making” may therefore be a useful way of describing human behavior rather than something the brain accomplishes through a specific, centralized process or system.
“As mental phenomena, they are defined on too abstract a level for the goals of cognitive neuroscience,” adds James.
Bridging neuroscience and philosophy, James draws on a physicalist framework associated with philosopher Daniel Dennett. Consider an object’s center of mass: it helps us describe and predict how the object behaves, but it isn’t a separate physical component causing the object to move.
James suggests decisions may work similarly. We can say someone “decided” to pick up a glass, but that does not necessarily mean there is a central location in the brain where that decision was made. Instead, the action could emerge from multiple brain and bodily processes working together.
As an analogy, James describes a robot programmed to follow a wall. Someone watching it might interpret its movements as a series of decisions, yet the robot does not require a centralized decision-making system. Instead, its sensors continually interact with its surroundings to guide its behavior.
James suggests that aspects of human behavior could be understood in much the same way.
James’s argument also addresses a longstanding philosophical problem. If the brain contains a central system that observes information and decides how we should act, what controls that controller?
This resembles what Dennett famously called the “Cartesian Theater”: the idea of an internal observer somehow watching and interpreting what happens inside the brain. But proposing such an observer only pushes the problem back another step—who, then, observes the observer?
Rather than placing a hypothetical decision-maker somewhere inside the brain, James argues that researchers should focus on the interacting physical systems that produce behavior.
That could mean studying cognition as something that emerges through the ongoing relationship between the brain, body, and environment, rather than as a sequence of isolated stages.
The feeling that “I made a decision” may remain perfectly real and useful as a description of human experience, even if there is no single place or process in the brain where that decision occurs. From James’s perspective, what we call a decision may instead be the outcome of interactions among the brain, body, and surrounding world.
This study can be found in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.
The human brain is remarkably adept at juggling different kinds of information, allowing us to switch rapidly between tasks and adapt our behavior as circumstances change. A new study by MIT neuroscientists takes a closer look at how the brain accomplishes this, providing evidence for flexible neural modules that may help support this cognitive versatility.
Using mice, scientists found that a group of neurons in the prefrontal cortex could switch between retaining sensory information and maintaining an action plan in working memory.
“We found that the brain doesn’t dedicate a separate group of neurons for every type of information,” says Yuma Osako, an MIT postdoc and the lead author of the new study. “Instead, it uses the same populations of neurons to perform the same computation on different kinds of information, which means the same subset of neurons can hold both an action and a sensory stimulus in working memory,”
The findings also lend support to a longstanding theory known as compositionality—the idea that cognition can be constructed by combining and reusing neural components.
“One of the solutions that’s always been proposed has been this idea of compositionality — that you can take pieces of cognition that perform part of a task and reuse them in another task,” says Timothy Buschman, a professor at the Princeton Neuroscience Institute, and the senior author of the paper, in a statement.
Another way to see this is to view it as “cognitive Legos,” Buschman suggests. Instead of building a new neural circuit when a new task starts, the brain reuses existing circuits and combines them in different ways.
To see how this neural network operates, the scientists trained mice to compare two tones and respond depending on whether the sounds matched. As the mice performed the tasks, the scientists recorded electrical activity from thousands of neurons.
“When mice do tasks that test whether memory computations can be reused, the answer is they are,” notes Mriganka Sur, the Newton Professor of Neuroscience at MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory. “There are subspaces of functional activity in the prefrontal cortex that can be the substrate of mixing and matching toward flexible cognition.”
Two important components of the task allowed the researchers to examine how different kinds of information were maintained. First, the mice had to remember the initial tone for a short period. They then had to retain their decision and form an action plan.
In the parietal cortex, neurons were dedicated to storing information about the tone. However, researchers found something different in the prefrontal cortex: a specific group of neurons could switch roles.
During one stage of the task, the circuit helped maintain a sensory memory. During another, the same population was involved in maintaining an action plan. This flexibility may help explain how a finite number of neurons can support an enormous range of behaviors.
“Our everyday life requires us to temporarily hold many different kinds of information. One big question is how the brain can represent an unlimited variability of information using only a finite number of neurons,” Osako says.
The researchers view these reusable neural circuits as potential building blocks for flexible cognition. More broadly, the findings suggest that the brain may be less like a machine filled with components dedicated to individual tasks and more like an interconnected system that continually repurposes its existing neural resources.
The recent study appeared in the journal Nature.
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.
Scientists have uncovered new details about how the brain’s “information hub” responds to uncertainty, revealing a remarkably flexible system that rapidly changes how it communicates with other brain regions as we make decisions.
Every second of our lives, the human brain sorts through enormous amounts of information. From remembering a driving route and handling daily tasks to making decisions, the brain must continually determine what information matters and how to respond. Researchers at the University of Iowa wanted to better understand how the human brain manages and processes this information and found that it may be more flexible than previously thought.
At the center of this sorting process is an area of the brain known as the frontoparietal cortex. This region supports decision-making and behavioral control and can function as a kind of “information hub” for the brain.
Using MRI scans, behavioral experiments, and computational modeling, researchers took a deeper look at how the frontoparietal cortex responds when people are uncertain about what they should do next.
“That’s the main contribution,” says Kai Hwang, associate professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences and the study’s corresponding author, in a statement.
“Our study shows in more detail how the frontoparietal cortex operates — what kind of information it extracts from other systems and how it uses its connectivity pattern to integrate information that is coming in from different areas of the brain,” Hwang adds.
The research team recruited 38 participants between the ages of 18 and 35 and had each person learn associations between combinations of colors, faces, and scenes and particular actions—for example, pressing a button with the index or middle finger of either hand. The researchers then intentionally changed those associations.
When an action or rule changes, the brain has to determine what went wrong.
Did the situation change? Was the information unclear? Or did the person simply make a mistake? This uncertainty allowed researchers to observe how the brain’s “information hub” responds under different circumstances.
“It’s like where other areas of the brain don’t have all the information, so they send what they have to the frontoparietal cortex for guidance,” Hwang explains.
The results from the team’s research suggest the frontoparietal cortex does more than become more active when a task becomes difficult. Instead, the region changes how it communicates with other brain regions. This also depends on what information is needed at different decision-making stages.
Hwang notes, “If they always get it right, they know they’ve made the correct association, but once they start doing it wrong, they will have to guess, ‘Oh, did the context change, or did I not see the color clearly?’ That creates uncertainty.”
Hwang describes the brain’s “information hub” as a system that gathers information from different regions, determines what is relevant, and integrates those signals into a broader picture. One way to think of this function is as an air traffic controller, monitoring incoming information and adjusting communications as circumstances change.
“These are situations where people struggle with regulating their behavior. That, to me, is an integration problem. If that integration function is not working properly, then that could very likely mean they didn’t use the right context to regulate their behavior,” Hwang adds.
The study does not address how neurodiversity might affect this information-sorting process, although the findings could provide a foundation for researchers to investigate that question.
“It remains an open question how neurodiversity might affect frontoparietal integration. It is a very interesting question that, as far as I know, has not been studied directly, so I don’t have a definitive answer. One of our goals in conducting this study is to lay the foundation for future clinical investigations,” Hwang tells The Debrief in an email.
The findings suggest that the frontoparietal cortex can rapidly integrate and update information as circumstances change. Understanding this flexibility could eventually improve researchers’ understanding of neurological and psychiatric conditions involving behavioral regulation and decision-making. In particular, studying these communication patterns could help inform future investigations of conditions such as ADHD and schizophrenia, in which behavioral regulation and the use of contextual information can be impaired.
The new research was published in the Journal of Neuroscience.
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.
Login