Epilepsy, where patients suffer from unexpected seizures, affects roughly 1% of the population. These seizures often involve repetitive and excessive neuronal firing, with the trigger behind this still poorly understood.

Now, researchers at Tohoku University have monitored astrocyte activity in mice using fluorescence calcium sensors, discovering that astrocyte activity starts approximately 20 seconds before the onset of epileptic neuronal hyperactivity. This suggests that astrocytes play a significant part in triggering epileptic seizures, facilitating the hyper-drive of the neural circuit.

The findings were detailed in the journal Glia on April 9, 2024.

Araki S, Onishi I, Ikoma Y, Matsui K (2024) Astrocyte switch to the hyperactive mode. Glia, available online, April 9, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.24537

Currently, the accepted speed that a signal travels from the brain to the muscles in the arm is accepted to be around 16-25ms, measured by electrical impedance on the nerves themselves.
I've had such a test done on me due to ulnar neuropathy and carpel tunnel inflammation, for example.
Purely electrical tests, (that do not require or go through a microprocessor and display chain, and are entirely signal based) are far more accurate for many reasons, but there's a lot more to it:

I'm a computer engineer by trade.
There's something we talk about called "end to end latency".
When you're measuring input packets from say, a user tapping a keyboard, those packets are "wrapped up" in the frame buffer of the application you're running it on.
Video games and all graphical programs waiting for input have a "event loop" which is measured in how long it takes to generate a frame of action. THose packets of input are then sent along with a frame. The operating system also causes a fair bit of latency, and so does the hardware, via something called HPET and the "DPC Latency" chain.

Each frame of a 60hz monitor introduces 16.66(repeating) milliseconds of delay, but that's not the whole story. Almost 100% of graphics applications have something we call "backpressure" where the CPU has queued 2 more frames or more "from the past" while it's waiting for the GPU to render them.
This means, that a loop just from the monitor alone could be adding 50ms and you could get "superframes" where two inputs are recorded at once, or worse, where an input is way behind when the application can record it, which introduces all kinds of crazyness.

The VAST majority of human reaction speed tests are done on a single laptop, and while measuring via a single device is good, unless that machine is running a custom operating system and the application is written in pure assembly, and the keyboard is wired directly to the bus and not over usb, there will be a 100% unpredictable flaw in latency testing that even after thousands of tests will skew the results significantly, and this is literally due to things like the temperature of the room and how long the computer has been physically running, as the clock speeds of the GPU and CPU determine game loop backpressure.

The only way to truly accurately measure real human reaction time therefore would be entirely mechanical, analog computer systems using something like laser modulation to measure movement that are observed AFTER they are recorded using high speed cameras and the deltas calculated by hand.
Something about the way we test this lately just seems really flawed, as I know quite a few people (myself included) that can discern a 7 to 10ms difference between auditory queues (snare vs bass, which came first?) after hundreds of tests proving it's not a fluke (use planar magnetic headphones when doing this kind of test) https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_timing_3w.php (for example)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/

This test was done on a laptop, and while they don't realize it, the laptop itself introduced around 50 to 100ms at least, I promise.
Yet, audio reaction time was 140ms or less. Does that mean human reaction speed is 40ms or something like 75? We can't tell.

This video on how computers have "end to end latency" is a good primer on this phenomenon. Nvidia recently released a driver modifier called Nvidia Reflex which attempts to reduce the end to end latency based on the way monitors work, and it demonstrates that 100ms or even more latency is introduced from the moment you click vs when it's actually processed by the computer itself and displayed on screen. This is compounded when you're sending the data over a network, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj-wZ_KGcsg

This video explains consistent input lag and ways to mitigate it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msOWcvoIC8M&t=123s

But it demonstrates clearly, that if we're using software to measure human reaction times, we're all wrong. It seems to me that our reaction speed should be something like a few ms above the physical time it takes for a signal to go from the brain to the muscle+mechanical lag. This will vary based on training and health of course, but that's another factor that is part of being human...
Not the flaws of the testing equipment.

"Our Behavior is the only way to deal with randomness"

I realized the best moments in my life were completely unexpected and randomly happened whereas predictable moments made me happy (or sad), but the most unpredictable events are only shaped my life to a maximum proportion. So, In understanding of "how to deal with the randomness" I found that It's our control in the behavior (likely Stoicism) is the only way to survive and cope up with randomness. So I read this book called "Behave" where the author explained why humans behave in a certain way at their best and worst moments of their life (irrespective of how talented & skillful they were)

Here are some conclusions I made (correct me If I am wrong)

• Amygdala & Insula are the regions of the brain where all our fears and pain are processed. The sensory information passing to amygdala is so fast that we inaccurately judge the source of pain and fear. A person who is addicted to smoking will never stop smoking even though it's harmful.
• Frontal cortex is the region which will lead you to do hard things when they are right (that's how leader were made). Frontal cortex will work well when you are confident enough that you're doing right. The more confident in you work, there is more chance of letting frontal cortex help you to finish the task.
• But the frontal cortex is highly sensitive to emotions. Once your emotions went out of control, amygdala can knock off frontal cortex. Then you probably can't do things that are hard & right [ you procastinate & convince yourself to do easy things]

why emotions go out of control?

• when you're not sure of the choices you made ["continuous self-doubt -"Am I doing it right or wrong"]
• Fear of Missing Out (FOMO). Always thinking there might be some best choice that I'm ignoring than the choice I made now.

how to get over from the continuous turmoil of emotions?

• Be 100% confident of your choice irrespective of the outcome
• Take enough stressors that you can manage off
• Stop thinking too much about how your future will be manifested
• Take every choice in your life as, "this is the least and best thing that I could do with my present time"

One single sentence Conclusion

"The more confident in your choice. The less overwhelming and more gain of control in your life."

​

https://preview.redd.it/oaz5qrjs5onc1.png?width=2365&format=png&auto=webp&s=004e60f643d0a382d0ac862ee9806f482ac653f2

To read the article: Article link

So there is an idea that's been simmering in my mind for a while now. It popped up a few years back but I didn't give it too much attention – it was like one of those numerous 'shower thoughts', and I soon forgot about it. But lately, it's been coming back to me for a few times, and I have decided it's time to jot it down and see what you all think.

​

Differential Neuronal Resource Allocation Hypothesis

It is a widely accepted fact that the brain is responsible for an array of functions, from the basic (like breathing and movement) to the advanced (like abstract thinking and creativity). Given its diverse responsibilities, how does the brain manage its resources? Specifically, does the size and physical composition of a person's body influence how their brain allocates its resources between managing bodily functions and facilitating higher cognitive processes?

The core claim of this hypothesis is that individuals with larger, more muscular bodies require a proportionately greater number of their brain's neurons to manage and control their physicality. Consequently, this could leave fewer neurons available for cognitive functions compared to individuals with smaller bodies.

Imagine two individuals who have the same exact number of neurons in their brains, the cells responsible for processing and transmitting information. One individual is much larger and more muscular than the other, who is smaller and less muscular. The hypothesis suggests that because the larger person has more body mass and muscle to control, a greater number of their neurons would be dedicated to managing their bodily functions. As a result, fewer neurons might be available for complex cognitive tasks such as thinking, learning, and problem-solving.

To understand this, let's compare the brain to a company where neurons are the employees. In a large muscular individual, it's as if more employees are needed in the 'physical department' to manage the extensive muscle and body operations. This department takes care of everything from coordinating movements to maintaining posture and performing physically demanding tasks.

Now, looking at the smaller individual, their 'physical department' doesn't need as many employees because there's less body mass to manage. This might mean that they have more employees free to work in the 'cognitive department.' This department is responsible for activities like planning, creating, and strategizing—what we might think of as higher-level thinking and intelligence tasks.

The hypothesis is based on a presumed fixed total number of neurons (employees). If more neurons are busy with physical tasks (working in the physical department), fewer are available for cognitive processes (working in the cognitive department). So, in this scenario, the smaller individual could potentially have more neurons available for cognitive tasks, potentially resulting in higher cognitive functions.

I have a question for neurobiologists: I am aware that neurons are all-or-nothing. But we as humans experience feelings, sensation, and muscular action on a gradient rather than an interger or binary. What creates the bridge so that we can sense and act with rapidly adjusting precision? Is it just that we have so many nerves acting in tandem that it's difficult to accurately picture? If so, why is severing a nerve, even partially, equally all-or-nothing?

Dear colleague,

We are conducting an online study to explore how scientists, like yourself, learn about the world. We are inviting you to participate in the experiment.

Study Details

The study takes roughly 30 minutes, during which you will be exploring the functions of a fictional brain area by conducting scientific experiments. Your objective will be to learn the link between this neural area and behavioral outcomes.

Eligibility

18+ years old

Current PhD student or higher in Neuroscience or a similar field (including postdocs, junior & senior faculty, research scientists, etc)

Residing in the US

Compensation

You will receive $10 reimbursement through Paypal, Venmo, or a gift card of your choice.

If you are interested in participating in the study, please email Marina Dubova at mdubova@iu.edu to sign up.

Thank you for considering participating in this study. Your participation could help shape our understanding of how scientists learn about the world and how this learning could be improved.

The study is approved by Indiana University IRB (Protocol #20811).

Im a senior in high school, initially wanted to pick biotech as my major because I wanted to a PhD in neuroscience research, parents want me to do pre med , I'm just really muzzy about all of this

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/174/2/210/5741194?login=false

I recently came across this article while doing some research. In summary it concludes that male mice that were injected with THC for 28 days and then mated with THC naive females, the offspring have alterations in Ach pathways and dopamine pathways... They allude that there would be a similar effect in humans that are trying to concieve and the father has used THC.

My question is to what degree is this really applicable in humans? Yes I am aware of the similarity in neuronal circuitry between mice and humans, but anecdotal evidence shows that maybe these effects aren't as pronounced in humans given that so many people have smoked weed and had healthy offspring.

Thoughts?

​

https://reddit.com/link/19091mw/video/t0zo166xnvac1/player

This medieval illustration maps the process of thought. The illustration is from a compendium that was assembled in Britain in the early 14th century and is currently at Cambridge University Library.

References:
https://linktr.ee/chiral\_light

Scanned Manuscript:
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-GG-00001-00001/1

Hello! You might call me… an entertainer, and I heard another entertainer (a Christian comedian, of all things) issue an apology today. She is brilliant in her delivery and she is a gifted stage presence in the digital space. We do not share faith.

Back to her apology. Early this morning, maybe 2am or 3am, this woman posted a video she had recorded the previous day. She retracted one of her most recent comedy bits because some pastor or another is barely exonerated for a wild night that would make me yawn. Again, I have no horse in this spiritual race or the events that took place or her apology to the faithful, BUT… in her apology she said, “I thought about it, and though I disagree with the events of the night I have a heart to defend the people of God’.”

Now, I grew up in a separatist Christian home and I have a broad understanding of the spiritual connotations at work here, to the point that I could still write a sermon on it after having left for a few decades, but I’m curious to know what a group of professionals and Reddit f-bags would say about the neurological implications of such a statement. The “GOD” Experience, such as it is, whether it be a cascade of pyramidal neurons pulsing in order or if it were simply the relief felt by belonging and loyalty born from the psychosomatic response toward a group— this experience is felt by the woman I’ve been discussing, so much so that she issued a professional retraction. She called it “a heart to defend the people of God.”

I would not say that I have a heart to defend the people every group I’ve participated in, and I was in the infantry Marine Corps. What are “the people of God”, from a neurological standpoint? If another person finds their sense of belonging in a religious center and they are finding solace in the throng around them, how do we classify this bond in comparison to bonds formed by smaller, more specialized and knowledgeable groups? Is tribalism the driving force, rather than the individual? Is this an emergent behavior? Will you go out with me?! 😂

I have so many questions. Any response is welcome. I’m here to learn about the brain.

Hello. I have been suffering from anhedonia for a long time. Psychiatrists treated me with SSRIs. This only worsened the situation and led to total anhedonia.

I really want to find a cure, but for that I need to understand neuroscience. Please, can you recommend sources that are suitable for self-education.

If you know of medications that can help with anhedonia, please write the names.

This is very important to me because my life is miserable because of anhedonia.

Participated in a study a few years back and was able to get these photos of my brain after! I'm not a scientist, but it's always been my fun fact to tell people like, hey want to see my brain? But I wondered if anyone here might be able to actually tell me some fun facts about these scans! Thank you in advance :)

I’m an aspiring scientist (16) stuck on what study to pursue is neuroscience interesting and does it pay well and is there specifics in the field. Random question for any neuroscientist does having a bigger brain mean you have more capacity to be intellectually superior, then a smaller brained species

Hello, I am in college and doing a mini dissertation (which is called an EPQ) and I would love to do it on neurology. It has to be a debate question and I was thinking on doing something relating to sleep (e.g. what is the best benefit of sleep on the brain?)

However, I would also like to explore more ideas to finalise my question (preferably to do with sleep but I would also love other topic areas!) I have to write 10 pages so I need to have a lot of stuff to talk about.

What are other areas or questions I can explore?

Does it make a difference in brain health what time in the day we run or exercise especially when we are trying to heal brain ?? Does it matter if we are fasted?

At first I thought that the AP threshold remains fixed at around -55 mV and that the reason a second nerve impulse being fired during the RRP requires a much stronger stimulus is because the new resting potential is more negative due to the hyperpolarization phase. But I also somewhat remember a lecture where it was explained that the AP threshold is also much higher/ more positive as well. Can someone explain/clarify this a bit more for me please?

My friend is looking for accommodation at and around MNI.