I created a body art piece that is medically accurate (well as medically accurate as something that not all anatomy textbooks actually agree on can be) and I would absolutely love if you reblogged any of the pieces from this project. I’m currently working on a bachelors degree in sports medicine and I wanted to create a piece of photography that represents my own internal struggle between the symphysis of art and science. The human body has nerve pathways that are called dermatomes they represent the different vertebrae and the areas of the skin that they innervate with sensory nerves.Essentially what I did was paint these dermatomes on the skin of a model with blacklight paint.
Thank you very much for your time and have a wonderful day, -Elliot Smithson
The Neuroscience Information Framework is the largest semantically enhanced neuroscience search portal on the net! Currently indexing over 100 federated neuroscience databases and over 4000 resources (from data, materials to software and lgrants), the NIF provides the one-stop shop for all things neuroscience. Find what you need, faster with less queries at www.neuinfo.org. To contribute and register your resource or data visit NeuroLex.org. Follow @neuinfo for updates and announcements. Questions and comments? Feel free to contact us at email@example.com
Brainstorming is a popular method of generating new and creative ideas. Osborn (1957) is credited with developing the idea (of brainstorming) and creating four brainstorming rules. These rules were designed with the purpose of creating non-evaluative context that fosters the process of idea generation. They are:
Criticism is ruled out.
Freewheeling is welcome.
Quantity is wanted.
Combination and improvement are sought.
Additionally, Osborn suggested an advantage for group brainstorming. According to him, ideas from an individual would spawn associations (or associated ideas) not only in the mind of the generator of the idea, but also in the minds of the group members. He termed this process chain reaction. Osborn believed that individuals can prime one another with the ideas presented to the group because hearing the ideas of other group members may activate and make more accessible some ideas that may have not been generated if it weren’t for an external cue. Moreover, the degree of influence that brainstormers have on one another is dependent on the degree of attention to one another’s ideas, with more attention resulting in more influence or cognitive stimulation. However, research suggests that small sets of individuals (or nominal groups) outperform large interactive groups, which commonly employ group brainstorming. Furthermore, newer research has identified a number of social factors (such as social loafing/free riding, downward comparisons, among others) as being the culprit for this discrepancy in productivity between nominal groups and interactive groups.
In an attempt to uncover the potential for cognitive stimulation in brainstorming, Dugosh and others used idea exposure paradigms in which individuals could listen to tapes of other individuals brainstorming on the same topic while in isolation. By listening to the tapes alone, negative social influences present in group brainstorming sessions were removed from the individual’s brainstorming experience. Also, the presence of instructions during the tape served to enhance attention and improve memory recall. The series of conducted experiments demonstrated the benefit from exposure to others’ ideas in the brainstorming, mainly by showing that it is possible to process ideas generated by someone else while generating own ideas, resulting in enhanced generation of ideas. They also found 2 additional factors that enhance idea production: the number of ideas a person is exposed to and the amount of talking beyond the expression of ideas (filler time) to which a person is exposed. Thus, they conclude that the highest degree of cognitive stimulation occurs when a large number of ideas is presented with no filler (task-irrelevant discussion) or kept to a minimum.
Just something to think about next time you work in a group. To make your time more worthwhile, put your ideas out there, attentively listen to what others have to say, and keep irrelevant discussions to a minimum.
A while ago I was hearing a talk by Joe Le Doux and he mentioned what Eric Kandel’s (a Nobel prize winning neuroscientist) approach for conducting research was in the late 60s. It seems simple, yet elegant. Allow me to share…
Find a quantifiable behavior you can measure (otherwise known as a behavioral phenotype).
Identify the areas/substrates involved in the regulation or expression of that behavior (aka the neural pathway or circuitry underlying that behavior).
Conduct experiments to determine the areas in which plasticity occurs (basically where in the pathway plasticity happens) and changes (i.e. enhances, dampens) the behavior of study.
Zoom into those areas and try to determine at the molecular mechanism related to that specific behavior in that particular area.
Sounds easy enough right? Now off to work! In case you are unfamiliar with Dr. Kandel’s work, click here.
Hi. I'm a CyberPsychologist myself and I noticed your post about the Google Effects paper on here. I've recently read this paper and find it to be pretty much 'ground-breaking' in the research area concerning whether the internet is changing the way that we read, think and remember. I find the topic to be an intriguing one. Hoping to research whether the net is changing the way we read. Sorry that this is more of a comment that a question, just wanted to respond and I'm new to Tumblr :)
Thanks for your interest and your read :) Welcome!
Can our brain develop new neurons? If they can explain.
In short, yes, and in response to a variety of endogenous and exogenous factors. Several areas in the brain have been identified as sites for adult neurogenesis, but some postulate other sites (such as cortex) to be a likely possibility.