By Catherine Wagley
By Channing Sargent
By L.A. Weekly critics
By Amanda Lewis
By Catherine Wagley
By Carol Cheh
By Keegan Hamilton
By Bill Raden
Your average neuroscientist‘s world-view is relentlessly mechanistic -- from love to God to Pokemon, it’s the neurons, babe. But even mechanists get the mind-body duality blues. Neuroscientists may consider “mind” nothing more than a romantic conception of how the brain works. But at least “mind” takes into account the interconnections between the brain and the rest of the body. The bitch of neuroscientific research is that it‘s impossible to study brain cells in the body; they die off too quickly. All researchers have to work with is a bunch of cells in a dish.
Nearly all current research and monitoring techniques that attempt to get around this obstacle are invasive. The few that aren’t, such as magnetic resonance imaging, can take only brief, blurred snapshots of neuronal activity. Worse, as Caltech scientist Dr. Steve Potter puts it, “The cells are stacked on top of each other inside a skull.” (And if you think that sounds dishearteningly reductionist, don‘t get Potter started on the nature of consciousness.)
Currently, scientists can study clusters of living, growing neurons in great detail over time only by observing their activities in a dish. In fact, one of the classic dues-paying chores of neuroscience graduate students is spending the night in the lab watching for signs of mold on cultured rat neurons. Potter, who’s logged plenty of time looking for mold, has an idea for bridging the gap: Make your own virtual animal in the lab.
His work at a Caltech lab in Pasadena is an extension of the concept of “animats” -- artificial animals, either software simulations or actual robots. Animats differ from more abstract entities such as neural nets by having virtual bodies that “move” in environments, allowing scientists to study functions like motor control.a
Still, without the context of a real body there‘s no way to study how, for example, we develop procedural memory. Procedural memory is what dancers call “muscular memory” -- the ability to do physical tasks, like riding bicycles or performing pirouettes, without consciously thinking through the steps involved. You can watch a live rat learn a maze, or you can watch cells respond to electrical stimuli, but you can’t watch a rat‘s neurons grow and change as it learns the maze.
What distinguishes Potter’s animats from everybody else‘s is that his have an actual organic component. Potter’s unique contribution was to combine software animats with multi-electrode arrays (MEAs) -- dishes lined with electrodes. Neurons are then grown on top of the electrodes. Earlier methods often damaged cells; with Potter‘s technique, cells flourish for weeks.
Potter connects the neuron-lined MEA to a computer programmed to simulate the behavior of an animal body. The body exists in software, but the brain external to the body is wetware -- or at least a cybernetic hybrid of living neurons and electrodes. As Potter puts it, “It’s an input device that happens to have brain cells growing on it.” The pun is unavoidable: He‘s created the first true computer mouse.
“We will create something that behaves and learns. This has never been done by anybody who studied cells in culture,” says Potter. “They’ve never been able to say, ‘These cells in a dish here are learning.’ All they‘ve been able to say is, ’I‘ve probed them and prodded them and electrocuted them, and look, I’ve made a change.‘”
This new hybrid animat “lives” in Potter’s lab. To a layperson, it looks rather Rube Goldbergian -- electrodes stick out from a petri dish like multicolored plastic quills, their sensations directed and recorded by an adjacent computer and viewed through a two-photon microscope. On a nearby computer monitor, a breathtaking software program written by Caltech undergrad Gray Rybko creates a real-time visualization of neurons firing and growing. Onscreen is a kind of cybernetic video game: Pong-like movements alternate with a fluctuating three-dimensional graph. While you watch, the patterns increase in complexity as the cells themselves begin to grow and branch.
“[Neurons] get bigger and branchier as they get older,” Potter explains. “That process happens in culture for about a month, and so the animat must gain more intelligence, since its capacity to process information has something to do with how many connections it has to other cells. When we stimulate the animat, we can literally watch those connections being formed.” Dr. Tom DeMarse, an expert in animal learning, is working out the basics of how best to stimulate the neurons, while graduate student Daniel Wagenaar is analyzing the neural data for patterns significant enough to be recognized as behaviors.
DeMarse explains that what they are looking for is “association among stimuli,” that is, the way the animat comes to understand that stimulus X is associated with result Y. The object is to see what goes on when the brain thinks “a big rock is located to the right of a tree and behind that tree is a stream” -- a series of associations, one of which happens to be an obstacle that the physical body must react to.