Jimthew.

By the time I finished graduate school, reddit was dead so I never bothered getting verified on the Science subreddits. It was a bummer!

I’ll be the pedant no one asked for - the sodium and potassium channels in the neuron respond to voltage changes in the membrane, so the author isn’t wrong.

Action potentials are generated when dendritic (input) channels bind with neurotransmitters like glutamate and GABA released by the axon terminal (output) of the pre-synapse cell. When these channels open, the let in ions like Calcium, Sodium, and Chloride.

These ions change the electric potential across the cell membrane, once this passes a key threshold, the sodium channels in the rest of the cell open up and generate an action potential. It’s driven by ions with electric charge (electrochemical).

Not quite, an iron lung replaces a dysfunctional organ. I’m saying we can already grow neurons onto circuits, and it’s difficult (not impossible) to implant neurons into a body. I don’t easily see how these bio-engineered neurons make those processes easier.

Credentials: I published in this field, but I don’t have time to read the entire paper right now.

This is exciting work. Based on the key highlights, it sounds like their work focuses on how plausible it is to construct the bio-artificial neuron, and they have done so with great success.

What I would like to learn about is what advantages this technology has compared to just cultivating neurons on a microelectrode array. Are the artificial cells easier to maintain? Do they interface with electrodes without developing glial scarring like our brains do? Can they bio-engineer special proteins (e.g. optogenetic channels) easier in these cells than in mouse lines?

The discussion section is fairly anemic. The authors say this will “spearhead” additional development but I was disappointed the authors didn’t clarify what will be additionally developed.

Until these advantages are spelled out, it feels like we’re re-invented the biological wheel. We already have cells that can integrate and fire at low voltages. They’re called neurons. Why did we need artificial ones?

I was about that age when I was gifted a microscope. No idea if you can still find them that cheap, though

This happened with an academic conference (physics iirc). A professor was asked to speak and she submitted a headshot for use in their advertising, but the conference wanted a different aspect ratio. Rather than crop the image, the materials designer asked ChatGPT to expand the photo to the correct size. It gave the professor a low cut shirt, and no one at the conference company noticed until the promotional materials were distributed and the professor contacted them.

I’ve been watching this treatment for a while, in my opinion it’s one of the most exciting development in modern medicine. It represents a lot of potential - Huntington’s is one of many brain diseases related to protein aggregates, so this technology could be adapted to other diseases. Plus, this is the first curative treatment for what was otherwise a 100% fatal genetic condition.

That’s not quite the same thing - the 7 digit phone number has more to do with short-term memory capacity than visual perception. Miller’s Law of short-term memory is we can store 7 +/- 2 items at a time, depending how complex they are.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

I’m a tall guy that fenced in college. You’re a monster. But every fencer consents for this torture, so you can keep on keepin’ on.

PhD in neuroscience here. I didn’t specifically study musicology, but i did study the neuroscience of music.

The theory that holds the most water, in my opinion, is that music activates all the same parts of the brain as motor processing. It makes us want to move, and to make predictions about what’s coming next. People like makimg predictions. It’s also a pro-social activity that encourages bonding and communication. These are typically positive experiences.

Edit: you mentioned we like the breaking of patterns in music. Very true, we love syncopation. But we don’t tap our foot to the rhythm, we groove to the beat.

Have you tried learning Japanese / English after learning the other? I studied Japanese and learned how to pronounce the /r/ in Japanese correctly.

For some people, the difficulty is less in production, and more in interpretation for someone who is native Japanese speaking and later learned English.

Chiming in with more context, my PhD was in neuroscience and I worked in a language lab. As others have stated, there is a critical window for learning a language. The biology behind it is fascinating.

As early as about 9 months of age, your brain begins to decide what speech sounds are important to you. For example, in Japanese the difference between /r/ and /l/ sounds doesn’t matter, but in English it does. Before 9 months, most babies can tell the difference between the two sounds, but babies living in Japanese-speaking environments (without any English) LOSE this ability after 9ish months!

Language is more than just speech sounds, though. Imagine all these nuances of language - there are critical moments where your brain just decides to accept or reject them, and it’s coded somewhere in your DNA.

Great, now I have to start proof-reading any communications I get from the FDA to make sure it didn’t hallucinate a scientific article in the citations. There’s going to be so many Vegetative Microscopy proposals.

If you’re working on a budget like I was when starting out on my own, I recommend your first purchase to be a bed frame. You can use Ceaigslist / FB marketplace to find some really cheap used options. From there, you can start buying (used) furniture that matches the bed frame. Personally, I needed a nightstand immediately after the bed frame because I wanted to put my glasses somewhere.

Good point, I’m assuming all monitors are as good as mine.

Fair point, but a lot of the article talks about how many studies aren’t meeting all four pillars of clinical trial design - that’s where my issue comes in, I think reporting that X% of trials do not meet all pillars is a bad metric.

And, not all medications these days are pills or IV infusions - some medications and treatments, which are governed by the FDA, are more invasive and more complicated.

The consent process for clinical trials has a ton of guidance (ICH GCP), but the onus is on the clinical monitors and hospitals to make sure it’s done correctly. Many trials now generate supporting documentation in which hospital staff are required to describe the circumstances in which consent was acquired. If the documents are generated, then it’s auditable.

Things get a bit hairy when you look at trials in Alzheimer’s and other cognitive disorders, because the patient may not be coherent enough to withdraw from the trial. In those cases, a legal guardian is responsible for the decision.

Unfortunately, this was an issue before Trump and will continue to be one afterwards. Assuming there even is an afterwards…

The article brings up some great points, some of which that I, an industry insider, weren’t even aware of, especially the historical context surrounding the AIDS epidemic. I’ll jump into the thread to critique an issue within the article.

One of the four pillars recommended by the FDA (control groups) are great in theory but can lead to very real problems in practice, specifically within indications that have an unmet treatment need or are exceptionally rare conditions.

If you have a disease that is 99% fatal but has 0 standard of care treatment options, is it ethical to ask a participant to enroll in a clinical trial and potentially not receive the study treatment/be on placebo? Or, what if the trial involves an incredibly invasive procedure like brain surgery - is it ethical for people to do a placebo procedure? Food for thought - and an explanation for why so few trials meet all four criteria proposed by the FDA.

Happy to answer questions about the industry if anyone has them.