Does Human Brain signal of same task in different time have the same characteristics?

Does Human Brain signal of same task in different time have the same characteristics?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I am currently doing some research about human emotion based on EEG classification.

I do an experiment in that I show subject a picture about 3 state of emotion and record their EEG signal. I split my experiment into 3 set, each set I change record order (for example: Set 1: emotion 1, 2 ,3 ; Set 2: emotion 2, 3, 1 and Set 3: emotion 3,1,2).

I have a question that at different record time (or at different set) does the EEG signal perform on same task have the same characteristics with order set.?

I have this question because I hear that people always change state of mind at different time.

Thank you very much.

The Human Brain Functions List:

The master organ of your body, it is assigned a multitude of vital brain functions that are regulated and accomplished quite efficiently. The delicate spongy mass making up the brain is enclosed in a hard shell, the skull, beautifully placed at the top of your body.

What are human brain functions in the body? To list all the functions and responsibilities of this collection of billions of neurons, you need to compose a whole book.

From a mild feeling of touch to the complex phenomenon of sublime thoughts and critical decision-making capabilities, all fall under the domain of this central part of the Central Nervous System.

The higher functions of the brain are to be performed by the cerebral cortex, a highly developed region of the brain.

It contains four lobes, each assigned a specific task. Thus,the brain executes all the actions and processes involving the division of labour.

For the basic understanding of the subject, here follows a list of the human brain functions.

Reasoning – A Definitive Characteristics of Human Nature

Thinking or reasoning is performed by the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex. That is what distinguishes human beings as the most advanced creature on the planet earth.

Cognition or intellect is the capacity of human beings that enables them to challenge social or religious beliefs and verify facts.

Here it is no wonder to know that the development of knowledge in various fields, such as science, art, philosophy, mathematics, and language is solely due to the marvellous potential of your reasoning.


Your brain initiates and coordinates various body movements. These movements can be of two types, voluntary and involuntary. They occur in different organs of the body.

For example, the arms, legs, and neck muscles are to be controlled by conscious actions. On the other hand, the beating of heart, regulation of the blood pressure, and breathing are the involuntary ones.

The conscious activities are directed to by cerebrum and originate from the motor areas of the frontal lobe and the primary motor cortex.

Just imagine, if there were no movement in your body, there would be no life or soul in it!

Sensory Perception

All the five traditional senses, namely, sight (vision), hearing (auditory), smell (olfaction), taste (gustation), and touch (somatosensory), are perceived, processed and controlled by the brain.

It involves the primary sensory areas in the cerebrum. The perception of the world around is developed by the sensory information that is synthesized by these regions of the cerebral cortex.

Communication and Language

Broca's and Wernicke's Areas are primarily associated with the production and comprehension of speech sounds, respectively.

Broca's area is in the Frontal Lobe, while Wernicke's area is at the junction between the temporal and parietal lobe. So, this part of the brain assists you in communication with other members of society.

What are non-fluent and fluent aphasias? These are the disorders of language caused by any damage or injury to the areas that are responsible for the creation and perception of speech sounds.

Visual Processing

Did you ever think of how your brain creates a perfect visual image of the things you see in the world around? Yes, this is the task assigned to the occipital lobe of the telencephalon.

The telencephalon is a region of your brain that receives the visual signals from the retina of your eye via the Optic Nerve. After processing, it converts the signals into the mirror image of the same object.

Problem Solving and Emotions

Humans, among all the advanced creatures on earth, have the profound capability of understanding and evaluating, and offering a comprehensive and applicable solution to the critical issues of life.

You also know the man is called the 'emotional beast'. It is because of the variety of emotional attitudes in response to various real-life situations. Both these assignments fall under the domain of Frontal Lobe of the cerebral cortex.

However, these problem-solving characteristics are also found in some lower animals. They simply follow the genetic programs already present in their brain but are unable to reason (think over) and plan the tasks.

Auditory Processing

The perception, recognition and interpretation of the stimuli, related to the sense of hearing, are accomplished by the assistance of the temporal lobe.

The temporal lobe stretches across both the hemispheres of the cerebral cortex and is located beneath the lateral fissure.

The function of this structurally and functionally specialized region of the brain is not just limited to auditory processing. It is also involved in producing emotional attitudes, storing new memories, processing sensory output, and the retention of visual memories.

Memory and Learning

The hippocampus is found in the temporal lobe of the telencephalon and is considered as one of the functionally important regions of the human brain.

It plays an important role in the process of learning and memory processing. Once you receive information through your sensory organs, it is processed in the brain and temporarily stored in the short-term memory.

The function of the medial temporal lobe is to consolidate the information from short term memory to the long-term memory and carry out the spatial navigation.

Breathing Control

Can you take breathing under your voluntary command or can you control and continue the activity while sleeping? The answer to the first part of the question is ‘no’. The reason is explained by the second clause.

If it were really under your deliberate action, you wouldn't be able to breathe while sleeping, and consequently, die!

The posterior part of the hindbrain, called medulla oblongata, performs involuntary tasks of your body, such as a gaseous exchange.

The alternative expansion and contraction of lung muscles, the lowering and elevation of the diaphragm, and the similar activities of the chest muscles are done quite automatically without even thinking so.

Regulation of Heartbeat

The heartrate or regular pumping of blood by heart is vital to the overall functioning of the body. It is responsible for the delivery and elimination of the respiratory gases and the products of metabolism across each smallest part of your body.

If there is a delay in the supply of oxygen and essential nutrients, the deprived cells start dying. An extended delay may even lead to your death.

The medulla oblongata is the organ concerned with the regulation of your heartbeat rate and is comprised of the lower part of brainstem or hindbrain.

Blood Pressure Control

The maintenance and regulation of blood pressure is one of the involuntary functions. It is performed by the medullar region of your brain that connects the higher parts of the Central Nervous System with the spinal cord.

It keeps the diastolic (minimum) and systolic (maximum) pressure in the arteries under normal limits.

In the case the blood pressure rises beyond the bearable limits, you are very likely to suffer from a heartattack, brain haemorrhage or other critical circulatory disorders.

Does Human Brain signal of same task in different time have the same characteristics? - Psychology

Whether you are reading a book, studying for a class, or simply doing your job, concentration plays a major role in how we accomplish those tasks. In the same manner, our concentration allows us to clearly focus on the task at hand. Concentration is simply the mental process of focusing your mind on a single thought or task. In some ways, our brains are very much like computers. We receive data, process the data, somehow compute thoughts, and verbalize the information. Sometimes our concentration doesn't perform the way we expect we may have a slower-than-normal response and we become frustrated. A person's intelligence level is tied to their ability to concentrate. There is research that suggests the level of intelligence a person has can be traced to heredity -- meaning that you may inherit the smarts of your parents. In theory, if any one person has a high level of concentration, their intelligence level would also likely be high.

The process of concentration is a very important part of what we do on a daily basis. Without the ability to concentrate, thoughts could be lost and memories wasted. Some consider concentration a way of branding our brains to recall things and assist our memory. For example, when studying for an exam, you study by concentrating you read, focus on the key words, and to the phrases and exercises that will assist you with remembering the details. Famous intellects, such as Einstein, must have mastered this ability quite well. It is easy to assume that highly intelligent people were born with a bigger brain, or larger capacity for learning. However, it is also fair to assume that enhancing the way we think and focus can ultimately produce better concentrating skills. In essence, concentration is an ability we are able to maintain and enhance to better ourselves.

Let's discuss where this function takes place, as it obviously originates in our brain. The brain is made up of billions of nerve cells, commonly called neurons. Neurons basically gather and transmit electrochemical signals that evoke our thoughts and motor functions. The cerebral cortex is the part of the brain that is associated with our memory, thought, attention, awareness, and consciousness. This is also, where concentration comes into play. With everything we do, there is a certain amount of concentration that takes place. If you are eating ice cream, you are most likely thinking or focusing on the taste and texture -- and possibly the fact that you will have more when you are finished. When you are reading the newspaper or your favorite magazine, you are concentrating on the words and details that bring the articles to life, and finish up with a nice crossword puzzle. Just as you read the text for this class, you are stimulating your brain and putting forth an effort to concentrate.

It is interesting in an office setting how different people adapt to the surroundings of their environment in order to do their job. Some people find it very easy to concentrate with background noise, while others find it quite distracting. There are also those who prefer to be locked away silently in order to properly focus. Imagine working in an office consisting of cubicles. There is virtually no privacy, no way to drown out the noise of the day-to-day, such as co-workers' phone calls, or the busy sounds of printers, faxes, and staplers. Yet over and over we hear that people in these settings simply adapt their minds allow them to drown out things they do not need to hear. It is as if all irrelevant background noises disappear. Haven't you ever been so deep in thought, so deep in concentration that someone speaks to you and you simply do not hear them? So, the second time they ask, you respond with a half-hearted, "Huh? I didn't even hear you." And they are just astounded that you were nearly deaf for that moment. Thousands of thoughts literally cross our minds daily, and with so much activity taking place, it is hard to imagine solidly focusing on one simple task or one thought. For many, it is difficult to concentrate on one task, let alone multitasking. Even as we are performing a physical function, the instruction to do the task is, of course, coming from the brain. If we were puppets, our brains would surely act as the puppeteer of our every move, and in reality, it pretty much seems to work that way.

Attention, focus, thought, and concentration are interrelated. Without one, it would be difficult to utilize the others. In order to concentrate, if you cannot focus, you simply would not be able to pay attention. Concentration, attention, and focus all involve thought, and therefore assist one another in the thought process.

1. Brain - the part of the central nervous system that includes all of the higher nervous centers, enclosed within the skull.

2. Concentration - exclusive attention to one object or close mental application.

3. Focus - a central point, as of attraction, attention, or activity.

4. Cerebral cortex - The extensive outer layer of gray matter of the cerebral hemispheres, largely responsible for higher brain functions, including sensation, voluntary muscle movement, thought, reasoning, and memory.

5. Mind - the human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

6. Mental - involving the mind or an intellectual process.

7. Neurons - any of the impulse-conducting cells that constitute the brain.

8. Electrochemical signal - signal transmitted throughout the brain by neurons.

9. Consciousness - an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation.

10. Memory - the mental capacity of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling and recognizing previous experiences.

11. Thought - to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.

As children, we absorb every detail, every word, every interesting situation, and successfully retain most of this information. It is during this time that our minds gather so much information, consciously andsubconsciously. Children are often compared to sponges that literally soak up everything they see and hear in their immediate surroundings. They learn so much at a young age and carry that with them as part of the building blocks upon which they add their personality, characteristics, and habits.

It is considered part of educational success that a child is able to clearly concentrate. According to some research studies, thebrainpower of a baby develops within the womb. The brain is growing and developing during a pregnancy from the start. During this time, a baby's brain is growing fairly quickly, and is producing a high number of neurons every minute. This is believed to be part of the reason that pregnant woman become fatigued, not only because they are sharing nutrients with the baby, but brain cells, as well. This is why many pregnant women say that they are not all there mentally during a pregnancy, because their memory and concentration seem to deteriorate some days. It seems natural that a baby's brain is growing and adapting within the womb, considering when they are born they are not only accustomed to their mother's voice, but are aware of their environment and the bond that have with their mother. As they get a little older, they are also aware that crying will bring their mother to the rescue.

When children start attending school, some of their concentration and focus skills will depend on the classroom environment and whether or not they follow what others do. At a young age, many children will exhibit the "monkey see monkey do" syndrome. As they adapt to the classroom environment and the various routines that are put in place, this will become a little easier.

With older children, it is evident that listening skills and attention span are virtually nonexistent, or so it seems. In reality as children get older and become teenagers, their stress levels increase, as do their social activities, so a lack of listening and attention can be attributed to the environment around them. It is simply more difficult at this age. However, in many cases, the average student focuses and concentrates quite well in school or other controlled environments, where the chance for distractions are less prominent.

In a study conducted of 12 individuals between the ages of 20 and 60, the following items were noted. In younger adults: The activity that takes place in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is associated with certain tasks that require concentration -- such as reading or writing -- seemed to increase during the task. However, in older adults, the activity in this area seemed to decrease. This decrease is more evident in older adults that are 65-plus years. Overall, the study concluded that middle-aged adults performed tests just as accurately as younger adults, and that changes to our brain and brain functions are gradual. As these changes are gradual, we can, in turn, gradually improve our concentration skills.

In older adults, while memory loss may be evident, these commonly known characteristics are unique to each person. For example, Joe Smith and Ron Johnson are both 80 years old. However, Joe lives in his own home alone, pays his bills regularly, mows the lawn every week, reads frequently, and plays chess on a regular basis. Joe also leads a book club that he typically hosts at his home. Ron is a good friend of Joe, but lives in an assisted living retirement facility. Ron does not have to do yard work or keep up with his apartment home in his spare time, he chats with friends, walks with the help of a cane, and goes to therapy regularly for his recent hip replacement. There are so many factors that affect the way in which we age, and that, in some respects, will have an effect on the way our minds age. Perhaps Joe was a very healthy eater and exercised regularly, or he simply inherited great genes. Ron may have been very healthy as well, but perhaps wasn't as active, physically and mentally. Research suggests that within the age group from 15 to 30 years, there are common stereotypical traits that describe older Americans among this group.

This is Your Brain on DREADDs

The phrase “mind-control drugs” probably conjures up some terrifying images, but in the case of chemogenetics, it could be cause for rejoicing. To study the brain in any useful level of detail requires precise targeting of neural circuits, no easy task in an organ that’s basically a thicket of long, interconnected cells—cells that send and receive a profusion of electrical and chemical signals.

The idea behind chemogenetics is simple: create a receptor that reacts only to a pharmacologically inert ligand, that doesn’t do anything in the body. Then, stick that receptor into the particular neurons you want to influence. Once the cells start expressing the receptor, inject the ligand to activate the neurons, or inhibit them, depending on your receptor, with no unintended effects in other cells.

Receptors that exemplify the chemogenetic principle are called DREADDs (designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs). DREADDs sidestep the major issue of off-target effects, because they aren’t found anywhere in the body except where the researcher puts them. The “designer drug” that activates them is usually clozapine-N-oxide, or CNO—or rather the CNO metabolite clozapine. CNO has minimal side effects at the dosages used for chemogenetics.

Chemogenetic Ups and Downs

DREADD pioneers include Bryan L. Roth, M.D., Ph.D., a professor in the Division of Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry and in the Department of Pharmacology at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Dr. Roth’s first DREADD-related paper languished for two years before it was finally published in 2005. At the time, DREADD technology was a curiosity, but it’s everywhere now.

“Nobody understood what this would possibly be useful for,” he laughs. “It’s nice to see that it has turned out to be a useful technology.”

These days, Dr. Roth and his team are working to develop new DREADDs, with an eye to multiplexing. “We’d like to be able, if they’re going to be used in humans, to have activating and inhibiting DREADDs in the same neuron,” Dr. Roth says. This could be a way to exert fine control over treatment of symptoms that vary throughout the day, or to manipulate multiple neuronal circuits simultaneously.

Chemogenetics isn’t the only way to target brain cells for activation: optogenetics allows researchers to activate or suppress neuron activity with pulses of light. The two technologies have different strengths, Dr. Roth points out, and many researchers use both.

“Optogenetics is very good if you want millisecond control,” he notes. Chemogenetics, on the other hand, is easier to use, and more practical for activating larger populations of neurons. Instead of implanting light fibers all over the brain, “you can put the drug in the drinking water,” Dr. Roth explains, and simultaneously activate all the cells containing your DREADD, wherever they are located.

Once the utility of DREADDs caught on in the neuroscience community, Dr. Roth’s lab was inundated with requests for the plasmids. To keep up with demand, he deposited them with Addgene, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to make it easier for labs to share genetic engineering tools.

Chemogenetic Resources

“Any scientist from anywhere in the world can send their DNA to us,” says Leila Haery, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Addgene. “Our role is to minimize the time that scientists spend dealing with the logistics of sharing their materials.”

Addgene offers many chemogenetic plasmids attached to different promoters, which can be used for different types of experiments. Addgene doesn’t create any new constructs, Dr. Haery remarks, but researchers will often request plasmids, stick a new promoter on the DREADD, and then send the resulting plasmid back to Addgene so that it can be shared with others.

After obtaining a plasmid from Addgene, researchers face the challenge of getting it into the specific neurons they want to study. To help streamline this process, Addgene offers some constructs as viral preparations.

“One of the main challenges of using viruses is getting delivery into specific cells,” Dr. Haery points out. “It’s really important to know that you’re activating or inhibiting specific neurons.”

To this end, Addgene offers many of the chemogenetic plasmids in several different viral serotypes. “We have a few different serotypes which have tropism for specific cell types,” Dr. Haery notes. Of the approximately 100 chemogenetic plasmids Addgene currently offers, the organization packages 12 of them in viruses, and each of those might be available in up to five serotypes.

Another common way to control which cells express the DREADD is by the promoter that drives its expression. Certain promoters target glial cells, for instance, or particular neurons. Addgene is expanding the selection of promoters available to request, as researchers create new plasmid constructs and redeposit them with Addgene. Finally, some plasmids available through Addgene contain Cre-dependent constructs, limiting DREADD expression to cells that express Cre recombinase.

Chemogenetics resources provided by Addgene include this schematic, which shows various chemogenetic receptors and their signaling properties. Five types of chemogenetic receptors (Rq, hM3Dq, GsD, hM4Di, and KORD) have been genetically engineered from muscarinic or opioid receptors (as indicated by corresponding colors in the legend). Each receptor is specifically activated by its ligand (clozapine-N-oxide [CNO] or salvinorin B [SALB]) to signal to downstream effectors (arrestin-2/arrestin-3 or G protein a subunits Gaq, Gas, or Gai). Activation of these effectors then leads to unique physiological outputs, as listed. Some receptors signal canonically through G proteins (yellow box), whereas others have been engineered to signal through noncanonical pathways (green box).

Riding the (Sound) Wave

All of these methods—viral serotypes, promoters, and Cre-dependent constructs—can work together to ensure the chemogenetic receptor is expressed in a specific cell type. But what about targeting a particular area of the brain? Currently, the best method is injecting virus directly into the brain, which works well but can cause damage.

Mikhail G. Shapiro, Ph.D., assistant professor of chemical engineering at the California Institute of Technology, turned to ultrasound to develop a noninvasive technique for getting viruses into specific brain regions. First, micrometer-size bubbles are sent into the bloodstream, then focused ultrasound is applied to the area of interest, with millimeter precision.

“Wherever we’re applying the ultrasound, these bubbles expand and contract with the ultrasound wave,” Dr. Shapiro says. As the bubbles bump against the blood–brain barrier, he explains, they create an opening that allows virus particles to enter the brain, just in that location.

“This allows us to specify, based on where we’re applying the ultrasound, what spatial part of the brain we want to modulate,” Dr. Shapiro continues. The blood–brain barrier stays open about two hours, and during that time viral vectors containing chemogenetic elements can be injected in the bloodstream.

The technique, which Shapiro calls “acoustically targeted chemogenetics,” or ATAC, eliminates certain downsides to setting up a chemogenetic system in animals with larger brains. For instance, the study of a larger region of the brain, or multiple different regions, typically involves dozens of injections of virus and repeated piercings of the brain. With ATAC, the ultrasound beam can easily be shifted around to target the desired areas. “From the point of view of both convenience, and also, how much are you perturbing the brain through the surgical approach, I think this noninvasive technique has some advantage,” asserts Dr. Shapiro.

Someday, the technique could make it easier to treat neurological diseases, particularly those originating in a defined area of the brain. “One example of that is epilepsy,” Dr. Shapiro points out. “For some patients, you can identify a seizure focus, a region of the brain where the seizures originate.”

Instead of administering drugs, which could affect the whole brain, or resorting to surgery to remove just that part of the brain, one could use ultrasound to guide the delivery of a chemogenetic treatment, Dr. Shapiro suggests. Ultrasound-guided delivery could allow specific neurons to be turned off, completely noninvasively.

At the California Institute of Technology, researchers Jerzy O. Szablowski, Ph.D., and Mikhail G. Shapiro, Ph.D., are developing acoustically targeted chemogenetics. This approach begins by using focused ultrasound to open up the blood-brain barrier in a specific geographic region of the brain. Viruses carrying chemogenetic elements can then enter the brain and install engineered receptors that respond to a chemogenetic drug and activate neural pathways.

Uncovering Mechanisms of Addiction

Chemogenetic tools also provide a real boost to researchers studying complex neurological problems, such as addiction. Jun Wang, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor in the Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics at the Texas A&M College of Medicine, uses chemogenetics in mice to control the neural circuits involved in alcohol dependence.

The neurology of alcoholism is, of course, complex. Most people who indulge in alcohol don’t become addicted, and identifying the brain characteristics that lead to addiction has been difficult. “The general idea is that drinking too much alcohol changes your brain,” Dr. Wang says. Some of these changes increase cravings, resulting in alcoholism. Those are the changes he wants to study. “We want to find a way to specifically reverse or normalize activity in this circuit,” he points out.

Dr. Wang and his colleagues inserted DREADDs into neurons in mice that express certain dopamine receptors. The brain’s reward system relies on two opposing pathways, which work against each other to train the animal to seek out pleasurable experiences, such as food, and to avoid unpleasant ones.

Dr. Wang refers to the cells expressing dopamine receptor D1, the cells that are activated by dopamine, as “go” neurons. He refers to the cells expressing the D2 receptor, the cells that are inhibited by dopamine, as “no-go” neurons. Using chemogenetics, investigators may specifically target just the go or the no-go circuit. “This is the beauty of chemogenetics,” Dr. Wang declares.

By activating just the D2, no-go neurons, Dr. Wang’s team caused the animals to drink less alcohol. Turning off the D1 neurons had the same effect, reducing the amount of alcohol the mice consumed. Conversely, exciting the D1 neurons or inhibiting the D2 neurons spurred the mice to drink more alcohol.

The effect, however, is short-lived. “This is not a cure for alcoholism,” Dr. Wang cautioned. Still, he envisions a possibility that chemogenetic therapy could one day help alleviate alcohol cravings when they’re at their worst.

Scientists Demonstrate Direct Brain-to-Brain Communication in Humans

We humans have evolved a rich repertoire of communication, from gesture to sophisticated languages. All of these forms of communication link otherwise separate individuals in such a way that they can share and express their singular experiences and work together collaboratively. In a new study, technology replaces language as a means of communicating by directly linking the activity of human brains. Electrical activity from the brains of a pair of human subjects was transmitted to the brain of a third individual in the form of magnetic signals, which conveyed an instruction to perform a task in a particular manner. This study opens the door to extraordinary new means of human collaboration while, at the same time, blurring fundamental notions about individual identity and autonomy in disconcerting ways.

Direct brain-to-brain communication has been a subject of intense interest for many years, driven by motives as diverse as futurist enthusiasm and military exigency. In his book Beyond Boundaries one of the leaders in the field, Miguel Nicolelis, described the merging of human brain activity as the future of humanity, the next stage in our species&rsquo evolution. (Nicolelis serves on Scientific American&rsquos board of advisers.) He has already conducted a study in which he linked together the brains of several rats using complex implanted electrodes known as brain-to-brain interfaces. Nicolelis and his co-authors described this achievement as the first &ldquoorganic computer&rdquo with living brains tethered together as if they were so many microprocessors. The animals in this network learned to synchronize the electrical activity of their nerve cells to the same extent as those in a single brain. The networked brains were tested for things such as their ability to discriminate between two different patterns of electrical stimuli, and they routinely outperformed individual animals.

If networked rat brains are &ldquosmarter&rdquo than a single animal, imagine the capabilities of a biological supercomputer of networked human brains. Such a network could enable people to work across language barriers. It could provide those whose ability to communicate is impaired with a new means of doing so. Moreover, if the rat study is correct, networking human brains might enhance performance. Could such a network be a faster, more efficient and smarter way of working together?

The new paper addressed some of these questions by linking together the brain activity of a small network of humans. Three individuals sitting in separate rooms collaborated to correctly orient a block so that it could fill a gap between other blocks in a video game. Two individuals who acted as &ldquosenders&rdquo could see the gap and knew whether the block needed to be rotated to fit. The third individual, who served as the &ldquoreceiver,&rdquo was blinded to the correct answer and needed to rely on the instructions sent by the senders.

The two senders were equipped with electroencephalographs (EEGs) that recorded their brain&rsquos electrical activity. Senders were able to see the orientation of the block and decide whether to signal the receiver to rotate it. They focused on a light flashing at a high frequency to convey the instruction to rotate or focused on one flashing at a low frequency to signal not to do so. The differences in the flashing frequencies caused disparate brain responses in the senders, which were captured by the EEGs and sent, via computer interface, to the receiver. A magnetic pulse was delivered to the receiver using a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) device if a sender signaled to rotate. That magnetic pulse caused a flash of light (a phosphene) in the receiver&rsquos visual field as a cue to turn the block. The absence of a signal within a discrete period of time was the instruction not to turn the block.

After gathering instructions from both senders, the receiver decided whether to rotate the block. Like the senders, the receiver was equipped with an EEG, in this case to signal that choice to the computer. Once the receiver decided on the orientation of the block, the game concluded, and the results were given to all three participants. This provided the senders with a chance to evaluate the receiver&rsquos actions and the receiver with a chance to assess the accuracy of each sender.

The team was then given a second chance to improve its performance. Overall, five groups of individuals were tested using this network, called the &ldquoBrainNet,&rdquo and, on average, they achieved greater than 80 percent accuracy in completing the task.

In order to escalate the challenge, investigators sometimes added noise to the signal sent by one of the senders. Faced with conflicting or ambiguous directions, the receivers quickly learned to identify and follow the instructions of the more accurate sender. This process emulated some of the features of &ldquoconventional&rdquo social networks, according to the report.

This study is a natural extension of work previously done in laboratory animals. In addition to the work linking together rat brains, Nicolelis&rsquos laboratory is responsible for linking multiple primate brains into a &ldquoBrainet&rdquo (not to be confused with the BrainNet discussed above), in which the primates learned to cooperate in the performance of a common task via brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). This time, three primates were connected to the same computer with implanted BCIs and simultaneously tried to move a cursor to a target. The animals were not directly linked to each other in this case, and the challenge was for them to perform a feat of parallel processing, each directing its activity toward a goal while continuously compensating for the activity of the others.

Brain-to-brain interfaces also span across species, with humans using noninvasive methods similar to those in the BrainNet study to control cockroaches or rats that had surgically implanted brain interfaces. In one report, a human using a noninvasive brain interface linked, via computer, to the BCI of an anesthetized rat was able to move the animal&rsquos tail. While in another study, a human controlled a rat as a freely moving cyborg.

The investigators in the new paper point out that it is the first report in which the brains of multiple humans have been linked in a completely noninvasive manner. They claim that the number of individuals whose brains could be networked is essentially unlimited. Yet the information being conveyed is currently very simple: a yes-or-no binary instruction. Other than being a very complex way to play a Tetris-like video game, where could these efforts lead?

The authors propose that information transfer using noninvasive approaches could be improved by simultaneously imaging brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in order to increase the information a sender could transmit. But fMRI is not a simple procedure, and it would expand the complexity of an already extraordinarily complex approach to sharing information. The researchers also propose that TMS could be delivered, in a focused manner, to specific brain regions in order to elicit awareness of particular semantic content in the receiver&rsquos brain.

Meanwhile the tools for more invasive&mdashand perhaps more efficient&mdashbrain interfacing are developing rapidly. Elon Musk recently announced the development of a robotically implantable BCI containing 3,000 electrodes to provide extensive interaction between computers and nerve cells in the brain. While impressive in scope and sophistication, these efforts are dwarfed by government plans. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been leading engineering efforts to develop an implantable neural interface capable of engaging one million nerve cells simultaneously. While these BCIs are not being developed specifically for brain&ndashto-brain interfacing, it is not difficult to imagine that they could be recruited for such purposes.

Even though the methods used here are noninvasive and therefore appear far less ominous than if a DARPA neural interface had been used, the technology still raises ethical concerns, particularly because the associated technologies are advancing so rapidly. For example, could some future embodiment of a brain-to-brain network enable a sender to have a coercive effect on a receiver, altering the latter&rsquos sense of agency? Could a brain recording from a sender contain information that might someday be extracted and infringe on that person&rsquos privacy? Could these efforts, at some point, compromise an individual&rsquos sense of personhood?

This work takes us a step closer to the future Nicolelis imagined, in which, in the words of the late Nobel Prize&ndashwinning physicist Murray Gell-Man, &ldquothoughts and feelings would be completely shared with none of the selectivity or deception that language permits.&rdquo In addition to being somewhat voyeuristic in this pursuit of complete openness, Nicolelis misses the point. One of the nuances of human language is that often what is not said is as important as what is. The content concealed in privacy of one&rsquos mind is the core of individual autonomy. Whatever we stand to gain in collaboration or computing power by directly linking brains may come at the cost of things that are far more important.

Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook. Gareth, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, is the series editor of Best American Infographics and can be reached at garethideas AT or Twitter @garethideas.


Robert Martone is a research scientist with expertise in neurodegeneration. He spends his free time kayaking and translating Renaissance Italian literature.

How different are men's and women's brains?

In a world of equal rights, pay gaps, and gender-specific toys, one question remains central to our understanding of the two biological sexes: are men’s and women’s brains wired differently? If so, how, and how is that relevant?

Share on Pinterest How might differences in the brains of men and women affect their behavior and cognition? We investigate.

There are many studies that aim to explore the question of underlying differences between the brains of men and women. But the results seem to vary wildly, or the interpretations given to the main findings are in disagreement.

In existing studies, researchers have looked at any physiological differences between the brains of men and women. They then studied patterns of activation in the brains of participants of both sexes to see if men and women relate to the same external stimuli and cognitive or motor tasks in the same way.

Finally, the question that emerges is: do any of these differences affect the way in which men and women perform the same tasks? And do such differences affect men versus women’s susceptibility to different brain disorders?

Often, there are no clear-cut answers, and scientists tend to disagree on some of the most basic aspects – such as whether there are any notable physiological differences between the brains of men and women.

In this article, we look at some of the more recent studies dealing with these questions and give you an overview of where current research stands.

Increasingly, online articles and popular science books appeal to new scientific studies to deliver quick and easy explanations of “why men are from Mars and women come from Venus,” to paraphrase a well-known bestseller about heterosexual relationship management.

One such example is a book from the Gurian Institute, which emphasizes that baby girls and boys should be treated differently because of their underlying neurological differences. Non-differentiated child-rearing, the authors suggest, may ultimately be unhealthy.

Cars for boys, teddies for girls?

Dr. Nirao Shah, who is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University in California, also suggests that there are some basic “behaviors [that] are essential for survival and propagation,” related to reproduction and self-preservation, that are different in men and women.

These, he adds, are “innate rather than learned […] [in animals] so the circuitry involved ought to be developmentally hardwired into the brain. These circuits should differ depending on which sex you’re looking at.”

Share on Pinterest A study on rhesus monkeys showed that males preferred “wheeled toys,” whereas females leaned toward “plush toys.”

Some examples brought to bear on these “innate differences” often come from studies on different primates, such as rhesus monkeys . One experiment offered male and female monkeys traditionally “girly” (“plush”) or “boyish” (“wheeled”) toys and observed which kinds of toys each would prefer.

This team of researchers found that male rhesus monkeys appeared to naturally favor “wheeled” toys, whereas the females played predominantly with “plush” toys.

This, they argued, was a sign that “boys and girls [may] prefer different physical activities with different types of behaviors and different levels of energy expenditure.”

Similar findings have been reported by researchers from the United Kingdom about boys and girls between 9 and 32 months old – a period when, some researchers suggest, the children are too young to form gender stereotypes.

Apparent differences in preferences have been explained through a differential hardwiring in the female versus male brain. Yet, criticisms of this perspective also abound.

Refuting studies in monkeys, some specialists argue that, no matter how similar to human beings from a biological point of view, monkeys and other animals are still not human, and guiding our understanding of men and women by the instincts of male and female animals is erroneous.

As for studies on infants and young children, researchers often identify pitfalls. Boys and girls, some argue, can already develop gender stereotypes by age 2, and their taste for “girly” or “boyish” toys may be influenced by how their parents socialize them, even if the parents themselves are not always aware of perpetuating stereotypes.

The perspective that “gendered” preferences can be explained through hormonal activity and differences in the brains of men and women remains, therefore, controversial.

Still, there are a number of studies that pinpoint different patterns of activation in the brains of men versus women given the same task, or exposed to the same stimuli.


One such study evaluated sex-specific brain activity in the context of visuospatial navigation . The researchers used functional MRI (fMRI) to monitor how men’s and women’s brains responded to a maze task.

In their given activity, participants of both sexes had to find their way out of a complex virtual labyrinth.

It was noted that in men, the left hippocampus – which has been associated with context-dependent memory – lit up preferentially.

In women, however, the areas activated during this task were the right posterior parietal cortex , which is associated with spatial perception, motor control, and attention, and the right prefrontal cortex, which has been linked to episodic memory.

Another study discovered “rather robust differences” between resting brain activity in men and in women. When the brain is in a resting state, it means that it is not responding to any direct tasks – but that doesn’t mean it isn’t active.

Scanning a brain “ at rest ” is meant to reveal any activity that is “intrinsic” to that brain, and which happens spontaneously.

When looking at the differences between male and female brains “at rest,” the scientists saw a “complex pattern, suggesting that several differences between males and females in behavior might have their sources in the activity of the resting brain.”

What those differences in behaviour might amount to, however, is a matter of debate.

Social cues

An experiment targeting men’s and women’s response to perceived threat, for instance, highlighted a better evaluation of threat on the part of women.

The study, which used fMRI to scan the brain activity of teenagers and adults of both sexes, found that adult women had a strong neural response to unambiguous visual threat signals, whereas adult men – and adolescents of both sexes – exhibited a much weaker response.

Last year, Medical News Today also reported on a study that pointed to different patterns of cooperation in men and women, with possible underlying neural explanations.

Groups of male-male, female-female, and female-male couples were observed as they performed the same simple task involving cooperation and synchronization.

Overall, same-sex pairs did better than opposite sex pairs. But interbrain coherence – that is, the relative synchronization of neural activity in the brains of a pair performing a cooperative task – was observed in different locations in the brains of male-male versus female-female subjects.

Another study using fMRI also emphasized significant differences between how the brains of men and women organize their activity. There are different activation patterns in the brain networks of males and females, the researchers explain, which correlate with substantial differences in the behavior of men and of women.

Different activation patterns, but what does that mean?

A more recent study, however, disagrees that there are any fundamental functional differences, though the methodology of this research has been questioned. The authors of this work analyzed the MRI scans of more than 1,400 human brains, sourced from four different datasets.

Their findings suggest that, whatever physiological differences may exist between the brain of men and of women, they do not indicate underlying, sex-specific patterns of behaviour and socialization.

The volumes of white and gray matter in brains of people pertaining to both sexes do not differ significantly, the study found.

Also, the scientists pointed out that “most humans possess a mosaic of personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors,” consistent with individual physiological traits, and inconsistent with a dualistic view of “maleness” and “femaleness.”

“ The lack of internal consistency in human brain and gender characteristics undermines the dimorphic [dualistic] view of human brain and behavior […] Specifically, we should shift from thinking of brains as falling into two classes, one typical of males and the other typical of females, to appreciating the variability of the human brain mosaic.”

That being said, many scientists continue to point toward evidence that the distinct physiological patterns of male and female brains lead to a differentiated susceptibility to neurocognitive diseases, as well as other health-related problems.

One recent study covered by MNT, for instance, suggests that microglia – which are specialized cells that belong to the brain’s immune system – are more active in women, meaning that women are more exposed to chronic pain than men.

Yet another analysis of brain scans for both sexes suggested that women show higher brain activity in more regions of the brain than men.

According to the researchers, this heightened activation – especially of the prefrontal cortex and of the limbic regions, tied with impulse control and mood regulation – means that women are more susceptible to mood disorders such as depression and anxiety.

‘Male-biased’ and ‘female-biased’ conditions

A meta-analysis of studies related to sex-based differences in the brain confirms that men and women are susceptible to largely different brain disorders.

“ Examples of male-biased conditions include autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, specific language impairment, Tourette syndrome, and dyslexia, and examples of female-biased conditions include depression, anxiety disorder, and anorexia nervosa.”

The authors suggest that it is important to take into account physiological differences in order to enhance preventive approaches and treatments.

An earlier study had also noted differentiated patterns of susceptibility to brain disorders between sexes, yet it also acknowledged some significant limitations.

First, the authors said, many previous studies did not manage to recruit similar numbers of participants of each sex, which may have led to gender bias. Additionally, they explained, “because women may seek treatment more than men, it may be easier for a researcher to recruit females.”

“Both of these factors may lead to a patient sample predisposed to an uneven gender distribution,” the authors admit, but their conclusion remains firm.

“[G]ender matching is essential in clinical functional imaging studies, and supports the idea of exploring male and female populations as distinct groups,” the scientists urge, citing the wealth of studies that point to the same interpretation.

So, are brain differences fundamental to how men and women function? The answer is maybe. While so many studies noted different activation patterns in the brain, these did not necessarily amount to differences in the performance of given tasks.

At the same time, from a healthcare perspective, it may be important to take sex-based differences into account, so as to devise the best possible treatment plans for different individuals.


Many of the greatest contemporary technological developments have centered on advancing human communication. From the telegraph to the Internet, the primary utility of these game-changing innovations has been to increase the range of audiences that an individual can reach.

However, most current methods for communicating are still limited by the words and symbols available to the sender and understood by the receiver. Even when they include non-verbal content (as in the case of visual and auditory information), communication constraints can be severe. A great deal of the information that is available to our brain is not introspectively available to our consciousness, and thus cannot be voluntarily put in linguistic form. For instance, knowledge about one’s own fine motor control is completely opaque to the subject [1], and thus cannot be verbalized. As a consequence, a trained surgeon or a skilled violinist cannot simply “tell” a novice how to exactly position and move the fingers during the execution of critical hand movements. But even knowledge that is introspectively available can be difficult to verbalize. Brilliant teachers may struggle to express abstract scientific concepts in language [2], and everyone is familiar with the difficulty of putting one’s own feelings into words. Even when knowledge can be expressed in words, one might face the hurdle of translating between the many existing spoken human languages. Can information that is available in the brain be transferred directly in the form of the neural code, bypassing language altogether? We explore this idea in the rest of this article.

The idea of direct brain-to-brain communication could potentially be achieved using a Brain-to-Brain Interface (BBI) [3]–[5]. A BBI rests on two pillars: the capacity to read (or “decode”) useful information from neural activity and the capacity to write (or “encode”) digital information back into neural activity. In recent years, we have witnessed incredible progress in these two capabilities with the development of Brain-Computer Interfaces, or BCIs [6], [7]. BCI researchers have demonstrated the possibility of decoding motor [8], visual [9] and even conceptual information [10] from neural activity via a range of recording techniques such as implanted electrodes [8], electrocorticography (ECoG, e.g., [11]), electroencephalography (EEG, e.g., [12]), functional MRI (e.g., [13]), and magnetoencephalography (MEG, e.g., [14]). A variety of stimulation techniques also exist that permit users to encode digital information into neural activity using implanted electrodes [15], [16], transcranial magnetic stimulation, (TMS, [17]) and focused ultrasound (FUS, [18]). Prominent examples of BCIs that use stimulation include the cochlear implant [15] and deep brain stimulators [16].

Given these advances in BCIs, two recent efforts have addressed the question of whether direct brain-to-brain communication is possible with the technology we have today. Pais-Vieira and colleagues [3] explored the possibility of directly connecting the brains of two awake and behaving rats. In their experiment, cortical microelectrode arrays recorded the neural activity of “encoder” rats performing either a motor task or a tactile stimulation task, and guided the stimulation of motor and sensory areas in the brains of “decoder” rats. Because the actions of “decoder” rats mimicked those of the original “encoder” rats, the authors concluded that information had to have been transferred between their brains. An alternative BBI was proposed by Yoo and colleagues [5], who successfully demonstrated the transmission of information from a human brain to a rat brain. In this case, visual evoked potentials in the human brain were recorded with EEG and translated into FUS-based stimulation of the part of motor cortex that controlled the tail of the anesthetized rat.

Both of these BBIs rely on stimulation technologies that are either invasive or experimental in humans, and thus are currently confined to animal models. In this paper, we report results from the first non-invasive BBI that can be safely applied to humans. Specifically, we show that it is possible to use EEG to decode motor intentions from a “sender” brain, and TMS to deliver an equivalent motor command to the motor cortex of a “receiver” brain, allowing the receiver to perform the hand movement that was intended by the sender. To test the feasibility and applicability of this procedure, a task was designed that required cooperative information sharing between pairs of participants along the BBI. The rest of the article describes the BBI in detail and presents in-depth results from 6 human participants who played the role of either sender or receiver of information in the BBI. Results from the first demonstration of this BBI were announced in an online report in August 2013 [19].

Brain makes decisions before you even know it

Brain activity predicts decisions before they are consciously made.

Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it, according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.

The work calls into question the ‘consciousness’ of our decisions and may even challenge ideas about how ‘free’ we are to make a choice at a particular point in time.

“We think our decisions are conscious, but these data show that consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg,” says John-Dylan Haynes, a neuroscientist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, who led the study.

“The results are quite dramatic,” says Frank Tong, a neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Ten seconds is "a lifetime” in terms of brain activity, he adds.

Haynes and his colleagues imaged the brains of 14 volunteers while they performed a decision-making task. The volunteers were asked to press one of two buttons when they felt the urge to. Each button was operated by a different hand. At the same time, a stream of letters were presented on a screen at half-second intervals, and the volunteers had to remember which letter was showing when they decided to press their button.

When the researchers analysed the data, the earliest signal the team could pick up started seven seconds before the volunteers reported having made their decision. Because of there is a delay of a few seconds in the imaging, this means that the brain activity could have begun as much as ten seconds before the conscious decision. The signal came from a region called the frontopolar cortex, at the front of the brain, immediately behind the forehead.

This area may well be the brain region where decisions are initiated, says Haynes, who reports the results online in Nature Neuroscience 1 .

The next step is to speed up the data analysis to allow the team to predict people's choices as their brains are making them.

The results build on some well-known work on free will done in the 1980s by the late neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet, then at the University of California, San Francisco. Libet used a similar experimental set-up to Haynes, but with just one button and measuring electrical activity in his subjects' brains. He found that the regions responsible for movement reacted a few hundred milliseconds before a conscious decision was made.

But Libet's study has been criticized in the intervening decades for its method of measuring time, and because the brain response might merely have been a general preparation for movement, rather than activity relating to a specific decision.

Haynes and his team improved the method by asking people to choose between two alternatives — left and right. Because moving the left and right hands generates distinct brain signals, the researchers could show that activity genuinely reflected one of the two decisions.

But the experiment could limit how ‘free’ people’s choices really are, says Chris Frith, who studies consciousness and higher brain function at University College London. Although subjects are free to choose when and which button to press, the experimental set-up restricts them to only these actions and nothing more, he says. “The subjects hand over their freedom to the experimenter when they agree to enter the scanner," he says.

What might this mean, then, for the nebulous concept of free will? If choices really are being made several seconds ahead of awareness, “there’s not much space for free will to operate”, Haynes says.

But results aren't enough to convince Frith that free will is an illusion. “We already know our decisions can be unconsciously primed,” he says. The brain activity could be part of this priming, as opposed to the decision process, he adds.

Part of the problem is defining what we mean by ‘free will’. But results such as these might help us settle on a definition. It is likely that “neuroscience will alter what we mean by free will”, says Tong.

Boost your autopilot

In the experiment, people whose DMN structures are more strongly connected also performed better in the card game. In these people, the various regions fired together more consistently, showing more coordinated activity. This suggests that the more strongly a person’s DMN is linked up, the more effective their autopilot mode, says Vatansever.

It may be possible to train yourself to have a better autopilot mode. In other studies, people have been able to control their brain activity when shown real-time scans of their brains. Similar “neurofeedback” training may enable people to boost their brain’s autopilot mode, allowing them to perform better on tasks without directly focusing on them, says Paul Stillman at Ohio State University.

Brain-to-Brain Communication Is Closer Than You Think

When neuroscientists used a monkey's thoughts to control computers, it was a huge breakthrough in mind-machine research. But harnessing brain waves has become even more complex now that humans are the subjects. Recently, researchers used the thoughts of one human's brain to control the physical actions of another. Really. As a panel of experts explained at the World Science Festival this week, brain-to-brain linkups are just getting started.

The field got its start in 1998 in the lab of Miguel Nicolelis, a Brazilian researcher working at Duke University. Before Nicolelis started experimenting with the brain, scientists were measuring the electrical output of a single neuron at a time. But Nicolelis and his colleagues began recording information from the brains of rats, where they discovered that to make their bodies move, rat brains would fire 48 neurons at a time. Believing that they could advance their understanding further, Nicolelis and his team then turned to monkeys.

They recorded 100 neurons firing at once in the brain of a monkey. Believing they might be able to take this data and use it to perform a task, the team connected a probe into the area of the monkey's brain that controlled for arm movement. Then they gave the monkey a game to play: Using a joystick, the monkey moved a dot around on a screen until it entered a circle in the center. When the monkey moved the dot into the correct location, she received a reward of juice. Once they recorded the brain patterns that resulted from the movement, the team took the joystick away. The monkey was now able to move the dot around simply by imagining it move.

"Somehow she figured out that she could just imagine. She realized this is the prototype of a free lunch," Nicolelis said. The innovation was the grandfather of the brain-to-brain interface. "This was the first time a primate's brain liberated itself from the body," he said.

After Nicolelis's study, other neuroscientists began taking the work to humans. In 2013, Chantel Prat and Andrea Stocco, both researchers at the University of Washington Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences, wanted to see if they could send a message to control physical movement from one brain to another. Because it's a breach of research ethics to connect probes directly into a living human brain, they had to figure out how to do it using non-invasive techniques.

Using an electroencephalography (EEG) cap, which records brain activity, they positioned two researchers in separate areas of the campus. In one room a colleague, Rajesh Rao, played a videogame using his mind. Each time Rao saw an enemy he wanted to shoot in the game he would think about pressing a button. Across campus, Stocco sat with his back to the same video game while wearing noise-canceling headphones so he wouldn't know when to respond. On his head was a transcranial magnetic stimulation coil (a device that can emit a focused electrical current), which was positioned directly over the part of the brain that controlled the movement of his finger.When Rao thought about moving his finger, the signal was transmitted across campus to Stocco who, without any knowledge of it, would twitch his finger and trigger the game to shoot an enemy.

"The first time I didn't even realize my hand had moved. I was just waiting for something to happen," said Stocco.

That reaction, Prat says, is an important aspect of this science. "There is this idea that I would like to dispel. This is not the X-Men version of telepathy where you hear a disembodied voice. My brain would have no way of knowing that your thoughts are mine. Whatever shape [future brain-to-brain communication] takes is going to be very different than listening to someone's thoughts in your head."

"I don't think we will ever be able to broadcast from one brain to another the essence of the human condition."

The neuroscientists all agreed that, while this technology is still rudimentary there are implications for future uses. Nicolelis, for example, has adapted the brain-to-machine interface to help paralyzed patients walk by using their brain signals to control prosthetic devices. He says that over the two years he's been working with them several of his patients have recovered some sensory ability in their paralyzed lower limbs. "The conjunction of output to control device and feedback may have triggered axons that survived to start working again," he says.

Prat, who is especially interested in the differences between individual brains, believes that the technology could also eventually be used to improve learning by harnessing the EEG's ability to distinguishing between a brain that is focusing and one that is "zoning out." That way, perhaps in the future, when a "good learner" starts to focus on a learning task their brain can trigger someone who is not paying attention to focus in on the task at hand. Brain-to-brain communication, she says, may one day be especially good at transmitting a state of mind.

In the end the researchers agreed that despite the technology's many potential benefits one future we won't see is one in which you can connect your brain into a computer and download all the Earth's knowledge. According to Nicolelis, downloading massive amounts of data or mimicking telepathy will be impossible because the brain is just too complex.

"I don't think we will ever be able to broadcast from one brain to another the essence of the human condition. We don't even know how to record those things let alone broadcast them and then interpret that broadcast. We love analogies, metaphors, expecting things, and predicting things. These thing are not in algorithms. We're not going to be broadcasting my dreams to your head."


  1. Cary

    In my opinion you are mistaken. Let's discuss. Write to me in PM.

  2. Arashigar

    There is something in this. I will know, thank you for your help in this matter.

Write a message