a tribute to those wonderful fans of Zelda and Link out there! I am one of them!
Heres what we are reading today:
““The importance of studying sex differences in the brain is about making biology and medicine relevant to everyone, to both men and women,” said Catherine S. Woolley, senior author of the study. “It is not about things such as who is better at reading a map or why more men than women choose to enter certain professions.”
Among their findings, the scientists found that a drug called URB-597, which regulates a molecule important in neurotransmitter release, had an effect in females that it did not have in males. While the study was done in rats, it has broad implications for humans because this drug and others like it are currently being tested in clinical trials in human”
“They suggest that these well-known flickering movements accompany a “change of scene” in our dreams.
The recordings were made from patients with electrodes implanted in their brains to monitor seizures.
“It’s a unique opportunity to look at what’s happening inside the human brain,” Dr Yuval Nir, from Tel Aviv University in Israel, told the BBC. “We’re very thankful to the epilepsy patients who volunteered to take part.””
“That long-range goal is moving toward reality thanks to an effort led by professors in the University of Wisconsin-Madison departments of computer sciences, psychology and educational psychology. Their collaborative research aims to break new ground in what computer scientist Jerry Zhu calls “machine teaching”— a twist on the more familiar concept of machine learning.”
Interesting?
“Video games and gameplay are pervasive in the lives of most American teens – and for boys in particular, video games serve as a major venue for the creation and maintenance of friendships. Fully 72% of all teens play video games on a computer, game console or portable device like a cellphone, and 81% of teens have or have access to a game console.”
evaluating hypotheses: there is NO bear?
“What do black bears have in common with Bayesian statistics? Both make an appearance in a 2013 paper written by Rens Van de Schoot, Marjolein Verhoeven, and Herbert Hoijtink in the European Journal of Developmental Psychology. In this paper, the authors use a hiking trip to illustrate Bayesian thinking and its advantages over traditional, sometimes called frequentist, statistics.
During a hiking trip in Alaska, one of the Dutch authors observed a bit of black fur behind some bushes. Was it a bear? Being a scientist, he applied a traditional significance testing approach to the problem, formulating a null hypothesis: “There is no bear.” The hiker then had to use the evidence available to decide whether to reject the null hypothesis, which he did, deciding, “It is not the case that there is not a bear.” Presumably, he turned around.”
“The importance of the receptor, called mGluR5, in other areas of the brain had been previously established. Until now, however, no one had studied their specific role in a cell type known as parvalbumin-positive interneurons, thought to be important in general cognition and generating certain types of oscillatory wave patterns in the brain.
“We found that without this receptor in the parvalbumin cells, mice have many serious behavioral deficits,” says Terrence Sejnowski, head of Salk’s Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, which led the research published in Molecular Psychiatry on August 11, 2015. “And a lot of them really mimic closely what we see in schizophrenia.””
“Alexander Michael Petersen, a researcher with the Lucca Institute for Advanced Studies in Italy has conducted a study looking into one measure of scientific career success—publication—and found that those people that pair with another researcher to form a long term collaboration, tend to have more productive careers. In his paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Petersen describes the study he carried out, and what he found along the way.”
1 Comment
EricaFinfer · December 2, 2015 at 6:26 pm
It is interesting that a positive correlation has been associated with collaborating with a partner in the research field. I would think that it depends on the type of person and how they prefer to do work. The positive correlation may have to do with the level of expertise of the participants. With the partners both being respected in their fields, they can feed off of each other and build stronger careers from learning from each other.