Dana Foundation Blog

BAW Events Help Dyslexic Students

Our guest blogger is Marilyn Cook, a Brain Awareness Week partner and professional educational therapist who works as a reading/district dyslexia specialist for K-12 students in the Port Aransas (Texas) Independent School District.

“Wow…I didn’t know that was a picture of the brain.”

“I want to learn more about this.”

“This is so cool.”

“I can’t believe these students can do this.”

What could these people be talking about? Why Brain Awareness Week, of course!

About three years ago, my interest in neuroscience led me to surf the web and find a treasure trove of information about the brain and an exciting opportunity to become a partner in an international brain awareness campaign sponsored by the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives. The organization’s website has excellent resources, and combined with some imagination, the possibilities to teach about the brain and how it functions are endless. With a generous grant from The Port Aransas Educational Foundation, I was able to develop the Brain Awareness Week (BAW) initiative Neuroscience for Kids: The Mind That’s Mine for my students and my schools.

A goal I have for my students is for them to figure out their best individual learning styles. In the words of a school staff member, “[the students] are proud and they own their challenges.” To help accomplish my goal, I use kid-friendly resources from Dana such as Brainy Kids Online and the Its Mindbloggling! booklets, as well as the website Neuroscience for Kids from the University of Washington. Several teachers and the counselor of the middle and elementary schools have commented how the students that participate in brain awareness activities have become more confident in their abilities and are more patient with students who struggle.

BAW began early with this year with our lunch and learn program at the Brundrett Middle School. The students I work with have dyslexia and other learning challenges, so we have been meeting and discussing how our brains work. During our first lunch, students were already asking about our next BAW activity.

At one of our presentation luncheons at H.G. Olsen Elementary School, we hosted local pediatrician Dr. Lori Anderson and our school counselor Jeri Franco for discussions on how the brain works and dyslexia. Dr. Anderson even made a brain out of Jell-O, which the students thought was the “coolest thing.”

     

An integral part of our BAW program is student displays. Students from the Brundrett Middle School have exhibited posters about the brain at several venues, including the Brundrett Middle School libraries and the Bill Ellis Memorial Library (Port Aransas city library). Poster topics have included learning challenges as a strength (featuring many famous people with dyslexia) and a comparison of the brain activity of two reading students; one with dyslexia and one without.

In 2011, the Port Aransas Independent School District partnered with the Art Center for the Islands and provided students grades 3-7 with activities based on the theme, Your Brain on Art and Reading. This idea was based on a study from the Dana Foundation on the brain and the visual arts. Over the course of a week, students studied the brain and what happens when they read and when they view visual art. One particular project that the students completed was to draw the brain with an acetate overlay showing how the brain activates when looking at images from art history. They also participated in creative activities with two guest artists, using colored dyes and colored chalk. At the end of the week, a student art show was held and the students discussed their brains in relation to the art they created. These activities have resulted in an increased interest in student art classes and in conversations about how we learn.

BAW has been a wonderful learning initiative for both me and my students. And we’re not the only ones who benefit from the experience. I feel that the school community and the surrounding community have also benefitted from BAW. We have increased awareness of dyslexia, including dispelling certain myths, and through lessons on brain function, we have promoted the idea that people learn in diverse ways.

-- Marilyn Cook

Love and Other (Gateway) Drugs

How do you keep things fresh in a relationship after 55 years of marriage? If you are prolific Columbia University scientists Eric and Denise Kandel, you collaborate on a research project for the first time.

While every neuroscience undergraduate knows Nobel Laureate Eric Kandel, his wife, Denise, has some serious science chops of her own. A professor of sociomedical science at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, Denise’s main research interests center on risk factors and consequences of drug use. Decades of epidemiological research suggested that smoking acted as a gateway to harder drugs. After hearing Eric give a lecture on cocaine, plasticity, and histone acetylation, she wondered if perhaps an epigenetic model might help explain the relationship between nicotine and cocaine addiction.

“That’s how the whole thing started, really. It triggered this idea,” she says. “And it is important to mention because I think that oftentimes a scientific collaboration or scientific success arises out of a chance event and a prepared mind.”

Still, she didn’t ask her husband to collaborate on this particular “chance event” at first. “I didn’t think he was interested,” she says matter-of-factly. So, instead, she asked him to recommend a few other scientists who might want to collaborate. None of them were available.

“I don’t know why but Denise had trouble coming up with another collaborator,” Eric says. “But as we discussed it more, I felt the problem was interesting so, at that point, I stepped in. But it was the failure to come up with another collaborator that really encouraged me to try it.”

The study, heralded as a landmark experiment by both the neurobiological and epidemiological communities, demonstrated for the first time how nicotine can act as a “gateway,” accelerating the cellular and epigenetic processes that facilitate drug addiction (see Dana's story about it).

When I asked the Kandels how well their personal partnership translated to one in the lab, Eric laughed. “It was difficult at the beginning. Denise asked a lot of questions that I felt were interfering with my own line of thought,” he said. “But I soon realized that I needed to hear those questions. That’s the point of collaboration. You pick two very different approaches to address a problem. Once I realized that, we fell into step.”

“Eric was exasperated because I said we needed to do more work on the figures for the paper,” she says. “But he admits now that I was right. The figures look very good.”

“Yes, they do,” he says. “The figures look very good.”

And any advice to other couples on the brink of scientific collaboration?

“It’s been very exciting to work together,” says Denise. “But it’s not easy.”

“I don’t think one can give general advice to the lovelorn here,” Eric adds. “We’re both strong, independent people and I think, in any collaboration with two strong, independent people, there’s going to be some awkwardness initially. But I have a sense of enormous satisfaction that we accomplished this together. And I’m glad that we’re continuing on together.”

The two are currently working on a study to see whether alcohol results in a similar gateway mechanism. And they hope to later examine marijuana, too. And while the two are excited by the scientific possibilities, they admit they are pleased to have the chance to work together, too.

“It’s wonderful to be able to spend this time together,” says Eric. “And it’s wonderful to finally have a way to look at these questions about gateway drugs. I’m hoping that our collaboration will inspire a whole new field of translational epidemiology.”

What better Valentine could a scientific couple ask for?

--Kayt Sukel

Sukel's first book, Dirty Minds: How our brains influence love, sex, and relationships, is available now.

Brain Bee Study Sessions a Success

Our guest blogger is Florence Varodayan, a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Neurobiology and Behavior at Columbia University. Florence helped organize two study sessions in preparation for Saturday's New York City Regional Brain Bee Competition.

If a patient comes to a hospital ER complaining of general weakness and a “clumsy” right hand, what would you, the doctor, do? What tests would you perform to diagnose the patient?

This scenario was presented to high school students preparing for the NYC Regional Brain Bee by a Columbia University M.D./Ph.D. student. The ensuing discussion covered the topics of identifying different causes of movement disorders and interpreting the results of neurological tests. The final diagnosis, after an MRI scan, was multiple sclerosis.

The Brain Bee is an international competition that aims to inspire the next generation of neuroscientists by teaching them about the brain. The Dana Alliance has been running the NYC area competition since 2002, and this year decided to bring the Brain Bee to Columbia University by teaming up with two student groups: the undergraduate group, the Columbia Neuroscience Society; and the graduate student group, Columbia University Neuroscience Outreach. The 2012 NYC Regional Brain Bee will be held from 1-5 pm on Saturday February 4^th, at Roone Arledge Auditorium, Alfred Lerner Hall, Columbia University.

To help the participants prepare for the competition, Columbia undergraduate and graduate students hosted two workshops in January. At the first workshop, held on Columbia’s medical campus, neuroscience graduate students gave presentations on each of the key areas covered in the competition. The competitors learned things as varied as how optical illusions work, what happens when we sleep, and what approaches scientists are taking to model the brain. What made these presentations truly special is that the graduate students discussed material directly related to what they study in the lab. As a result, the presenters were delighted to answer the competitors’ numerous and often complex questions. In fact, several of the graduate students later commented to me on the passion and intelligence of the competitors. Several told me, “We weren’t that smart back when we were in high school!”

Two weeks later, the Brain Bee participants attended a second workshop at Columbia’s main campus to engage with neuroscience as a process that involves investigation, discussion, and often a lot of controversy. The competitors learned how to diagnose patients with neurological disorders and then viewed (and touched!) real human and animal brains. They also discussed the scientific and legal ramifications of several neuroethics case studies with Columbia undergraduate and graduate students.

In one scenario, students were presented with a case study modeled after the issue of whether Science & Nature should release all the details of the controversial H5N1 study, while risking the information landing in the hands of bioterrorists. Another case, about the potential use of memory-enhancing drugs in preparation for a test, was particularly contentious. Some students pointed out that if the goal of (illegally) using drugs such as Adderall is merely to improve concentration, using a substance that has similar effects, such as coffee, could be a viable (legal) alternative. The day ended on a high note with tours of some of Columbia’s neuroscience research laboratories.

Thank you to all the wonderful undergraduate and graduate student volunteers who organized and ran these workshop sessions. We are really excited to celebrate neuroscience next Saturday and wish all the Brain Bee competitors good luck!

--Florence Varodayan

Rubi the Robot Heads Back to School

Two years after first reporting on the development of Rubi the robot, a teacher’s aide droid, the Dana Foundation checks back in with one of the creators to learn about the project’s progress.

Last week was the first day of school for Rubi, the social robot being tested as a teacher’s aide in a San Diego early-childhood center, and Rubi’s chief developer was as nervous as a parent. After all, Rubi’s predecessor lasted only a couple of hours before the 18- to 24-month-olds at the center—apparently mistaking Rubi for a super-size Mrs. Potato Head—yanked off its sophisticated robotic arm and set the project back by months.

To solve the problem, researchers equipped Rubi with sensors that detected when a child might be getting too rough and triggered the robot to cry, digital tears and all. Seeing this, the children backed off, just as they typically do in interactions with one another. For Javier Movellan, Ph.D., and his team at the Machine Perception Laboratory at the University of California, San Diego, it was an illustration of how important social cues are when learning how to play well with others.

“The brain is wired to respond to social stimuli,” Movellan said. “We know that the social and emotional aspects of learning are very important. This is particularly true in children but applies to adults as well.”

Surviving in the Real World of a Day Care Center

More practically, the incident underscored why any droid dropped into the unpredictable environment of a day care center had better be able to adapt to the conditions at hand. “That was a big lesson,” Movellan said. “If Rubi was to do its job, it had to survive the children. It needed to respond to the real world.”

Funded by the National Science Foundation, the project, which began in 2004, aims to optimize the Rubi prototype for use in real-time, real-world educational environments and eventually develop a network of up to ten Rubi robots that can act as teachers’ assistants. The imperative is to develop a workable, socially interactive robot that is easy to replicate, a kind of “open-source” droid, in Movellan’s description.

Movellan’s long-term vision is to improve early-childhood education by enabling teachers to incorporate the robots in lesson plans to help children learn basic skills—not just the three Rs but socially appropriate behavior as well—and to open new windows for learning by digitally connecting classrooms across town or around the world. For example, Movellan is collaborating with a research group in Japan to develop a cross-cultural exchange program that lets children and teachers in California communicate with their counterparts in Kyoto via the computer screen built into Rubi’s belly. “Kind of like super-Skype,” said Movellan.

Its early dismemberment aside, Rubi not only survives in the preschool classroom, but enriches learning. Results presented in February at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Society showed that Rubi teaches children vocabulary words effectively and efficiently, and even imparts a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish. Moreover, Rubi can exist in the classroom autonomously and positively affect social interactions, both between the children and the robot and among the children themselves.

A Face Steve Jobs Would Have Loved

The latest version of Rubi uses sophisticated software to recognize facial expressions and detect moods in others, then respond with digitally concocted smiles or frowns, accolades or tears. Rubi shows “emotions” through cartoonish animation on a face built around an iPad. Movellan worked with a team of computational scientists, including Dana Alliance member Terry Sejnowski, Ph.D., of the Salk Institute, to develop the software “brains” behind Rubi’s mood-detection capabilities. (For more, read a Q&A with Sejnowski.)

       The new faces of Rubi the robot (Photos courtesy of Javier Movellan.)

“The software we developed for recognizing facial expressions is very much based on what is known about early information processing in the brain, especially in area V1, the primary visual cortex,” said Movellan. The team applied mathematical models gleaned from studies of how neurons in area V1 detect and process images to create sophisticated computer simulations of neural processing. “We have built a neural network on the order of 10 million neurons dedicated to finding faces and recognizing facial expressions, all based on what we know from the neuroscience of the early visual cortex.”

To see Rubi’s range of facial expressions and movements, watch this video.

--Brenda Patoine, science writer

Iconic Law Cases Revisited at the International Neuroethics Society Meeting

The 2011 Annual Meeting of the International Neuroethics Society is coming up on November 10 and 11 at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C. and I think it's going to be a terrific meeting. I particularly want to draw your attention to the law panel, scheduled for 2:45 to 4:00 on Friday, November 11. This panel will focus on neuroscience in real cases. We've got three speakers, each of whom was involved as a professional in one of the iconic cases involving law and neuroscience.

Steve Greenberg is the lawyer who introduced fMRI evidence of psychopathy into a capital sentencing case (the Dugan case in Illinois). There's a fascinating write-up of that case in Nature magazine. 

Houston Gordon is the lawyer who tried, unsuccessfully, to introduce for the defense some fMRI lie detection evidence (from Cephos, one of the two companies in this market) into a federal criminal trial. This led to a two-day evidentiary hearing and an extensive written opinion (United States v. Semrau, in Westlaw or Lexis).

Russell Swerdlow is a neurologist who was the treating physician for a man who pleaded guilty to the sexual molestation of his 12 year old stepdaughter after a year or so of increasing interest in pornography. Just before sentencing, the man was found to have a tumor the size of a chicken egg pressing on his left frontal lobe. When the tumor was removed, the defendant reported that his urges disappeared. He was released on probation; about 10 months later, his urges returned. So had the tumor. When the tumor was surgical removed again, so were the urges. See the case report at 60 Arch. Neurol. 437 (2003) (PDF).

Each speaker will briefly present his thoughts on the case and then participate in a question and answer period. This kind of chance to question people involved in seminal cases is rare; I think that, at least for those of us interested in law and neuroscience, it should be fascinating. Oh - and there are also a lot of other great panels and speakers on the program, including a panel on neuroscience and national security, a panel on novel treatments in neuropsychiatry, and a talk by Michael Chorost (great speaker) on neurotechnologies and humanity. (His first book, "Rebuilt: How Being Part Computer Made Me More Human," is about his own cochlear implant; I highly recommend it. He has a new book that I haven't read yet.)

--Henry T. Greely, J.D., director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford Law School and executive committee member of the International Neuroethics Society

Professor Greely has written and been featured in several neuroethics articles for the Dana Foundation. A sampling:

Enhancing Brains: What Are We Afraid Of?
Lie Detection Services Remain Premature, Neuroethicists Say
The Ethics of Forensic Neuroscience: Neuroethics Q&A: Hank Greely
Seeking More Goodly Creatures