Research Area: Systems Neuroscience

​neural circuits, attention, brain disorders, executive function, sensory processing, behavior, timing, plasticity, learning, memory, emotion, habits

Antenna-like inputs unexpectedly active in neural computation

Anne Trafton |

Most neurons have many branching extensions called dendrites that receive input from thousands of other neurons. Dendrites aren’t just passive information-carriers, however. According to a new study from MIT, they appear to play a surprisingly large role in neurons’ ability to translate incoming signals into electrical activity.

Neuroscientists had previously suspected that dendrites might be active only rarely, under specific circumstances, but the MIT team found that dendrites are nearly always active when the main cell body of the neuron is active.

“It seems like dendritic spikes are an intrinsic feature of how neurons in our brain can compute information. They’re not a rare event,” says Lou Beaulieu-Laroche, an MIT graduate student and the lead author of the study. “All the neurons that we looked at had these dendritic spikes, and they had dendritic spikes very frequently.”

The findings suggest that the role of dendrites in the brain’s computational ability is much larger than had previously been thought, says Mark Harnett, who is the Fred and Carole Middleton Career Development Assistant Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, a member of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the paper.

“It’s really quite different than how the field had been thinking about this,” he says. “This is evidence that dendrites are actively engaged in producing and shaping the outputs of neurons.”

Graduate student Enrique Toloza and technical associate Norma Brown are also authors of the paper, which appears in Neuron on June 6.

“A far-flung antenna”

Dendrites receive input from many other neurons and carry those signals to the cell body, also called the soma. If stimulated enough, a neuron fires an action potential — an electrical impulse that spreads to other neurons. Large networks of these neurons communicate with each other to perform complex cognitive tasks such as producing speech.

Through imaging and electrical recording, neuroscientists have learned a great deal about the anatomical and functional differences between different types of neurons in the brain’s cortex, but little is known about how they incorporate dendritic inputs and decide whether to fire an action potential. Dendrites give neurons their characteristic branching tree shape, and the size of the “dendritic arbor” far exceeds the size of the soma.

“It’s an enormous, far-flung antenna that’s listening to thousands of synaptic inputs distributed in space along that branching structure from all the other neurons in the network,” Harnett says.

Some neuroscientists have hypothesized that dendrites are active only rarely, while others thought it possible that dendrites play a more central role in neurons’ overall activity. Until now, it has been difficult to test which of these ideas is more accurate, Harnett says.

To explore dendrites’ role in neural computation, the MIT team used calcium imaging to simultaneously measure activity in both the soma and dendrites of individual neurons in the visual cortex of the brain. Calcium flows into neurons when they are electrically active, so this measurement allowed the researchers to compare the activity of dendrites and soma of the same neuron. The imaging was done while mice performed simple tasks such as running on a treadmill or watching a movie.

Unexpectedly, the researchers found that activity in the soma was highly correlated with dendrite activity. That is, when the soma of a particular neuron was active, the dendrites of that neuron were also active most of the time. This was particularly surprising because the animals weren’t performing any kind of cognitively demanding task, Harnett says.

“They weren’t engaged in a task where they had to really perform and call upon cognitive processes or memory. This is pretty simple, low-level processing, and already we have evidence for active dendritic processing in almost all the neurons,” he says. “We were really surprised to see that.”

Evolving patterns

The researchers don’t yet know precisely how dendritic input contributes to neurons’ overall activity, or what exactly the neurons they studied are doing.

“We know that some of those neurons respond to some visual stimuli, but we don’t necessarily know what those individual neurons are representing. All we can say is that whatever the neuron is representing, the dendrites are actively participating in that,” Beaulieu-Laroche says.

While more work remains to determine exactly how the activity in the dendrites and the soma are linked, “it is these tour-de-force in vivo measurements that are critical for explicitly testing hypotheses regarding electrical signaling in neurons,” says Marla Feller, a professor of neurobiology at the University of California at Berkeley, who was not involved in the research.

The MIT team now plans to investigate how dendritic activity contributes to overall neuronal function by manipulating dendrite activity and then measuring how it affects the activity of the cell body, Harnett says. They also plan to study whether the activity patterns they observed evolve as animals learn a new task.

“One hypothesis is that dendritic activity will actually sharpen up for representing features of a task you taught the animals, and all the other dendritic activity, and all the other somatic activity, is going to get dampened down in the rest of the cortical cells that are not involved,” Harnett says.

The research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

How we make complex decisions

by Anne Trafton |

When making a complex decision, we often break the problem down into a series of smaller decisions. For example, when deciding how to treat a patient, a doctor may go through a hierarchy of steps — choosing a diagnostic test, interpreting the results, and then prescribing a medication.

Making hierarchical decisions is straightforward when the sequence of choices leads to the desired outcome. But when the result is unfavorable, it can be tough to decipher what went wrong. For example, if a patient doesn’t improve after treatment, there are many possible reasons why: Maybe the diagnostic test is accurate only 75 percent of the time, or perhaps the medication only works for 50 percent of the patients. To decide what do to next, the doctor must take these probabilities into account.

In a new study, MIT neuroscientists explored how the brain reasons about probable causes of failure after a hierarchy of decisions. They discovered that the brain performs two computations using a distributed network of areas in the frontal cortex. First, the brain computes confidence over the outcome of each decision to figure out the most likely cause of a failure, and second, when it is not easy to discern the cause, the brain makes additional attempts to gain more confidence.

“Creating a hierarchy in one’s mind and navigating that hierarchy while reasoning about outcomes is one of the exciting frontiers of cognitive neuroscience,” says Mehrdad Jazayeri, the Robert A. Swanson Career Development Professor of Life Sciences, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the study.

MIT graduate student Morteza Sarafyzad is the lead author of the paper, which appears in Science on May 16.

Hierarchical reasoning

Previous studies of decision-making in animal models have focused on relatively simple tasks. One line of research has focused on how the brain makes rapid decisions by evaluating momentary evidence. For example, a large body of work has characterized the neural substrates and mechanisms that allow animals to categorize unreliable stimuli on a trial-by-trial basis. Other research has focused on how the brain chooses among multiple options by relying on previous outcomes across multiple trials.

“These have been very fruitful lines of work,” Jazayeri says. “However, they really are the tip of the iceberg of what humans do when they make decisions. As soon as you put yourself in any real decision-making situation, be it choosing a partner, choosing a car, deciding whether to take this drug or not, these become really complicated decisions. Oftentimes there are many factors that influence the decision, and those factors can operate at different timescales.”

The MIT team devised a behavioral task that allowed them to study how the brain processes information at multiple timescales to make decisions. The basic design was that animals would make one of two eye movements depending on whether the time interval between two flashes of light was shorter or longer than 850 milliseconds.

A twist required the animals to solve the task through hierarchical reasoning: The rule that determined which of the two eye movements had to be made switched covertly after 10 to 28 trials. Therefore, to receive reward, the animals had to choose the correct rule, and then make the correct eye movement depending on the rule and interval. However, because the animals were not instructed about the rule switches, they could not straightforwardly determine whether an error was caused because they chose the wrong rule or because they misjudged the interval.

The researchers used this experimental design to probe the computational principles and neural mechanisms that support hierarchical reasoning. Theory and behavioral experiments in humans suggest that reasoning about the potential causes of errors depends in large part on the brain’s ability to measure the degree of confidence in each step of the process. “One of the things that is thought to be critical for hierarchical reasoning is to have some level of confidence about how likely it is that different nodes [of a hierarchy] could have led to the negative outcome,” Jazayeri says.

The researchers were able to study the effect of confidence by adjusting the difficulty of the task. In some trials, the interval between the two flashes was much shorter or longer than 850 milliseconds. These trials were relatively easy and afforded a high degree of confidence. In other trials, the animals were less confident in their judgments because the interval was closer to the boundary and difficult to discriminate.

As they had hypothesized, the researchers found that the animals’ behavior was influenced by their confidence in their performance. When the interval was easy to judge, the animals were much quicker to switch to the other rule when they found out they were wrong. When the interval was harder to judge, the animals were less confident in their performance and applied the same rule a few more times before switching.

“They know that they’re not confident, and they know that if they’re not confident, it’s not necessarily the case that the rule has changed. They know they might have made a mistake [in their interval judgment],” Jazayeri says.

Decision-making circuit

By recording neural activity in the frontal cortex just after each trial was finished, the researchers were able to identify two regions that are key to hierarchical decision-making. They found that both of these regions, known as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and dorsomedial frontal cortex (DMFC), became active after the animals were informed about an incorrect response. When the researchers analyzed the neural activity in relation to the animals’ behavior, it became clear that neurons in both areas signaled the animals’ belief about a possible rule switch. Notably, the activity related to animals’ belief was “louder” when animals made a mistake after an easy trial, and after consecutive mistakes.

The researchers also found that while these areas showed similar patterns of activity, it was activity in the ACC in particular that predicted when the animal would switch rules, suggesting that ACC plays a central role in switching decision strategies. Indeed, the researchers found that direct manipulation of neural activity in ACC was sufficient to interfere with the animals’ rational behavior.

“There exists a distributed circuit in the frontal cortex involving these two areas, and they seem to be hierarchically organized, just like the task would demand,” Jazayeri says.

Daeyeol Lee, a professor of neuroscience, psychology, and psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine, says the study overcomes what has been a major obstacle in studying this kind of decision-making, namely, a lack of animal models to study the dynamics of brain activity at single-neuron resolution.

“Sarafyazd and Jazayeri have developed an elegant decision-making task that required animals to evaluate multiple types of evidence, and identified how the two separate regions in the medial frontal cortex are critically involved in handling different sources of errors in decision making,” says Lee, who was not involved in the research. “This study is a tour de force in both rigor and creativity, and peels off another layer of mystery about the prefrontal cortex.”

Alumnus gives MIT $4.5 million to study effects of cannabis on the brain

by MIT School of Science |

The following news is adapted from a press release issued in conjunction with Harvard Medical School.

Charles R. Broderick, an alumnus of MIT and Harvard University, has made gifts to both alma maters to support fundamental research into the effects of cannabis on the brain and behavior.

The gifts, totaling $9 million, represent the largest donation to date to support independent research on the science of cannabinoids. The donation will allow experts in the fields of neuroscience and biomedicine at MIT and Harvard Medical School to conduct research that may ultimately help unravel the biology of cannabinoids, illuminate their effects on the human brain, catalyze treatments, and inform evidence-based clinical guidelines, societal policies, and regulation of cannabis.

Lagging behind legislation

With the increasing use of cannabis both for medicinal and recreational purposes, there is a growing concern about critical gaps in knowledge.

In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report calling upon philanthropic organizations, private companies, public agencies and others to develop a “comprehensive evidence base” on the short- and long-term health effects — both beneficial and harmful — of cannabis use.

“Our desire is to fill the research void that currently exists in the science of cannabis,” says Broderick, who was an early investor in Canada’s medical marijuana market.

Broderick is the founder of Uji Capital LLC, a family office focused on quantitative opportunities in global equity capital markets. Identifying the growth of the Canadian legal cannabis market as a strategic investment opportunity, Broderick took equity positions in Tweed Marijuana Inc. and Aphria Inc., which have since grown into two of North America’s most successful cannabis companies. Subsequently, Broderick made a private investment in and served as a board member for Tokyo Smoke, a cannabis brand portfolio, which merged in 2017 to create Hiku Brands, where he served as chairman. Hiku Brands was acquired by Canopy Growth Corp. in 2018.

Through the Broderick gifts to Harvard Medical School and MIT’s School of Science through the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, the Broderick funds will support independent studies of the neurobiology of cannabis; its effects on brain development, various organ systems and overall health, including treatment and therapeutic contexts; and cognitive, behavioral and social ramifications.

“I want to destigmatize the conversation around cannabis — and, in part, that means providing facts to the medical community, as well as the general public,” says Broderick, who argues that independent research needs to form the basis for policy discussions, regardless of whether it is good for business. “Then we’re all working from the same information. We need to replace rhetoric with research.”

MIT: Focused on brain health and function

The gift to MIT from Broderick will provide $4.5 million over three years to support independent research for four scientists at the McGovern and Picower institutes.

Two of these researchers — John Gabrieli, the Grover Hermann Professor of Health Sciences and Technology, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences, and a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research; and Myriam Heiman, the Latham Family Associate Professor of Neuroscience at the Picower Institute — will separately explore the relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia.

Gabrieli, who directs the Martinos Imaging Center at MIT, will monitor any potential therapeutic value of cannabis for adults with schizophrenia using fMRI scans and behavioral studies.

“The ultimate goal is to improve brain health and wellbeing,” says Gabrieli. “And we have to make informed decisions on the way to this goal, wherever the science leads us. We need more data.”

Heiman, who is a molecular neuroscientist, will study how chronic exposure to phytocannabinoid molecules THC and CBD may alter the developmental molecular trajectories of cell types implicated in schizophrenia.

“Our lab’s research may provide insight into why several emerging lines of evidence suggest that adolescent cannabis use can be associated with adverse outcomes not seen in adults,” says Heiman.

In addition to these studies, Gabrieli also hopes to investigate whether cannabis can have therapeutic value for autism spectrum disorders, and Heiman plans to look at whether cannabis can have therapeutic value for Huntington’s disease.

MIT Institute Professor Ann Graybiel has proposed to study the cannabinoid 1 (CB1) receptor, which mediates many of the effects of cannabinoids. Her team recently found that CB1 receptors are tightly linked to dopamine — a neurotransmitter that affects both mood and motivation. Graybiel, who is also a member of the McGovern Institute, will examine how CB1 receptors in the striatum, a deep brain structure implicated in learning and habit formation, may influence dopamine release in the brain. These findings will be important for understanding the effects of cannabis on casual users, as well as its relationship to addictive states and neuropsychiatric disorders.

Earl Miller, Picower Professor of Neuroscience at the Picower Institute, will study effects of cannabinoids on both attention and working memory. His lab has recently formulated a model of working memory and unlocked how anesthetics reduce consciousness, showing in both cases a key role in the brain’s frontal cortex for brain rhythms, or the synchronous firing of neurons. He will observe how these rhythms may be affected by cannabis use — findings that may be able to shed light on tasks like driving where maintenance of attention is especially crucial.

Harvard Medical School: Mobilizing basic scientists and clinicians to solve an acute biomedical challenge 

The Broderick gift provides $4.5 million to establish the Charles R. Broderick Phytocannabinoid Research Initiative at Harvard Medical School, funding basic, translational and clinical research across the HMS community to generate fundamental insights about the effects of cannabinoids on brain function, various organ systems, and overall health.

The research initiative will span basic science and clinical disciplines, ranging from neurobiology and immunology to psychiatry and neurology, taking advantage of the combined expertise of some 30 basic scientists and clinicians across the school and its affiliated hospitals.

The epicenter of these research efforts will be the Department of Neurobiology under the leadership of Bruce Bean and Wade Regehr.

“I am excited by Bob’s commitment to cannabinoid science,” says Regehr, professor of neurobiology in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School. “The research efforts enabled by Bob’s vision set the stage for unraveling some of the most confounding mysteries of cannabinoids and their effects on the brain and various organ systems.”

Bean, Regehr, and fellow neurobiologists Rachel Wilson and Bernardo Sabatini, for example, focus on understanding the basic biology of the cannabinoid system, which includes hundreds of plant and synthetic compounds as well as naturally occurring cannabinoids made in the brain.

Cannabinoid compounds activate a variety of brain receptors, and the downstream biological effects of this activation are astoundingly complex, varying by age and sex, and complicated by a person’s physiologic condition and overall health. This complexity and high degree of variability in individual biology has hampered scientific understanding of the positive and negative effects of cannabis on the human body. Bean, Regehr, and colleagues have already made critical insights showing how cannabinoids influence cell-to-cell communication in the brain.

“Even though cannabis products are now widely available, and some used clinically, we still understand remarkably little about how they influence brain function and neuronal circuits in the brain,” says Bean, the Robert Winthrop Professor of Neurobiology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS. “This gift will allow us to conduct critical research into the neurobiology of cannabinoids, which may ultimately inform new approaches for the treatment of pain, epilepsy, sleep and mood disorders, and more.”

To propel research findings from lab to clinic, basic scientists from HMS will partner with clinicians from Harvard-affiliated hospitals, bringing together clinicians and scientists from disciplines including cardiology, vascular medicine, neurology, and immunology in an effort to glean a deeper and more nuanced understanding of cannabinoids’ effects on various organ systems and the body as a whole, rather than just on isolated organs.

For example, Bean and colleague Gary Yellen, who are studying the mechanisms of action of antiepileptic drugs, have become interested in the effects of cannabinoids on epilepsy, an interest they share with Elizabeth Thiele, director of the pediatric epilepsy program at Massachusetts General Hospital. Thiele is a pioneer in the use of cannabidiol for the treatment of drug-resistant forms of epilepsy. Despite proven clinical efficacy and recent FDA approval for rare childhood epilepsies, researchers still do not know exactly how cannabidiol quiets the misfiring brain cells of patients with the seizure disorder. Understanding its mechanism of action could help in developing new agents for treating other forms of epilepsy and other neurologic disorders.

Neuroscientists reverse some behavioral symptoms of Williams Syndrome

by Anne Trafton |

Williams Syndrome, a rare neurodevelopmental disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 babies born in the United States, produces a range of symptoms including cognitive impairments, cardiovascular problems, and extreme friendliness, or hypersociability.

In a study of mice, MIT neuroscientists have garnered new insight into the molecular mechanisms that underlie this hypersociability. They found that loss of one of the genes linked to Williams Syndrome leads to a thinning of the fatty layer that insulates neurons and helps them conduct electrical signals in the brain.

The researchers also showed that they could reverse the symptoms by boosting production of this coating, known as myelin. This is significant, because while Williams Syndrome is rare, many other neurodevelopmental disorders and neurological conditions have been linked to myelination deficits, says Guoping Feng, the James W. and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience and a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

“The importance is not only for Williams Syndrome,” says Feng, who is one of the senior authors of the study. “In other neurodevelopmental disorders, especially in some of the autism spectrum disorders, this could be potentially a new direction to look into, not only the pathology but also potential treatments.”

Zhigang He, a professor of neurology and ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School, is also a senior author of the paper, which appears in the April 22 issue of Nature Neuroscience. Former MIT postdoc Boaz Barak, currently a principal investigator at Tel Aviv University in Israel, is the lead author and a senior author of the paper.

Impaired myelination

Williams Syndrome, which is caused by the loss of one of the two copies of a segment of chromosome 7, can produce learning impairments, especially for tasks that require visual and motor skills, such as solving a jigsaw puzzle. Some people with the disorder also exhibit poor concentration and hyperactivity, and they are more likely to experience phobias.

In this study, the researchers decided to focus on one of the 25 genes in that segment, known as Gtf2i. Based on studies of patients with a smaller subset of the genes deleted, scientists have linked the Gtf2i gene to the hypersociability seen in Williams Syndrome.

Working with a mouse model, the researchers devised a way to knock out the gene specifically from excitatory neurons in the forebrain, which includes the cortex, the hippocampus, and the amygdala (a region important for processing emotions). They found that these mice did show increased levels of social behavior, measured by how much time they spent interacting with other mice. The mice also showed deficits in fine motor skills and increased nonsocial related anxiety, which are also symptoms of Williams Syndrome.

Next, the researchers sequenced the messenger RNA from the cortex of the mice to see which genes were affected by loss of Gtf2i. Gtf2i encodes a transcription factor, so it controls the expression of many other genes. The researchers found that about 70 percent of the genes with significantly reduced expression levels were involved in the process of myelination.

“Myelin is the insulation layer that wraps the axons that extend from the cell bodies of neurons,” Barak says. “When they don’t have the right properties, it will lead to faster or slower electrical signal transduction, which affects the synchronicity of brain activity.”

Further studies revealed that the mice had only about half the normal number of mature oligodendrocytes — the brain cells that produce myelin. However, the number of oligodendrocyte precursor cells was normal, so the researchers suspect that the maturation and differentiation processes of these cells are somehow impaired when Gtf2i is missing in the neurons.

This was surprising because Gtf2i was not knocked out in oligodendrocytes or their precursors. Thus, knocking out the gene in neurons may somehow influence the maturation process of oligodendrocytes, the researchers suggest. It is still unknown how this interaction might work.

“That’s a question we are interested in, but we don’t know whether it’s a secreted factor, or another kind of signal or activity,” Feng says.

In addition, the researchers found that the myelin surrounding axons of the forebrain was significantly thinner than in normal mice. Furthermore, electrical signals were smaller, and took more time to cross the brain in mice with Gtf2i missing.

The study is an example of pioneering research into the contribution of glial cells, which include oligodendrocytes, to neuropsychiatric disorders, says Doug Fields, chief of the nervous system development and plasticity section of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

“Traditionally myelin was only considered in the context of diseases that destroy myelin, such as multiple sclerosis, which prevents transmission of neural impulses. More recently it has become apparent that more subtle defects in myelin can impair neural circuit function, by causing delays in communication between neurons,” says Fields, who was not involved in the research.

Symptom reversal

It remains to be discovered precisely how this reduction in myelination leads to hypersociability. The researchers suspect that the lack of myelin affects brain circuits that normally inhibit social behaviors, making the mice more eager to interact with others.

“That’s probably the explanation, but exactly which circuits and how does it work, we still don’t know,” Feng says.

The researchers also found that they could reverse the symptoms by treating the mice with drugs that improve myelination. One of these drugs, an FDA-approved antihistamine called clemastine fumarate, is now in clinical trials to treat multiple sclerosis, which affects myelination of neurons in the brain and spinal cord. The researchers believe it would be worthwhile to test these drugs in Williams Syndrome patients because they found thinner myelin and reduced numbers of mature oligodendrocytes in brain samples from human subjects who had Williams Syndrome, compared to typical human brain samples.

“Mice are not humans, but the pathology is similar in this case, which means this could be translatable,” Feng says. “It could be that in these patients, if you improve their myelination early on, it could at least improve some of the conditions. That’s our hope.”

Such drugs would likely help mainly the social and fine-motor issues caused by Williams Syndrome, not the symptoms that are produced by deletion of other genes, the researchers say. They may also help treat other disorders, such as autism spectrum disorders, in which myelination is impaired in some cases, Feng says.

“We think this can be expanded into autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. For these conditions, improved myelination may be a major factor in treatment,” he says. “We are now checking other animal models of neurodevelopmental disorders to see whether they have myelination defects, and whether improved myelination can improve some of the pathology of the defects.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation, the Poitras Center for Affective Disorders Research at MIT, the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and the Simons Center for the Social Brain at MIT.

How our gray matter tackles gray areas

by Gina Vitale | MIT News correspondent |

When Katie O’Nell’s high school biology teacher showed a NOVA video on epigenetics after the AP exam, he was mostly trying to fill time. But for O’Nell, the video sparked a whole new area of curiosity.

She was fascinated by the idea that certain genes could be turned on and off, controlling what traits or processes were expressed without actually editing the genetic code itself. She was further excited about what this process could mean for the human mind.

But upon starting at MIT, she realized that she was less interested in the cellular level of neuroscience and more fascinated by bigger questions, such as, what makes certain people generous toward certain others? What’s the neuroscience behind morality?

“College is a time you can learn about anything you want, and what I want to know is why humans are really, really wacky,” she says. “We’re dumb, we make super irrational decisions, it makes no sense. Sometimes it’s beautiful, sometimes it’s awful.”

O’Nell, a senior majoring in brain and cognitive sciences, is one of five MIT students to have received a Marshall Scholarship this year. Her quest to understand the intricacies of the wacky human brain will not be limited to any one continent. She will be using the funding to earn her master’s in experimental psychology at Oxford University.

Chocolate milk and the mouse brain

O’Nell’s first neuroscience-related research experience at MIT took place during her sophomore and junior year, in the lab of Institute Professor Ann Graybiel at the McGovern Institute.

The research studied the neurological components of risk-vs-reward decision making, using a key ingredient: chocolate milk. In the experiments, mice were given two options — they could go toward the richer, sweeter chocolate milk, but they would also have to endure a brighter light. Or, they could go toward a more watered-down chocolate milk, with the benefit of a softer light. All the while, a fluorescence microscope tracked when certain cell types were being activated.

“I think that’s probably the closest thing I’ve ever had to a spiritual experience … watching this mouse in this maze deciding what to do, and watching the cells light up on the screen. You can see single-cell evidence of cognition going on. That’s just the coolest thing.”

In her junior spring, O’Nell delved even deeper into questions of morality in the lab of Professor Rebecca Saxe. Her research there centers on how the human brain parses people’s identities and emotional states from their faces alone, and how those computations are related to each other. Part of what interests O’Nell is the fact that we are constantly making decisions, about ourselves and others, with limited information.

“We’re always solving under uncertainty,” she says. “And our brain does it so well, in so many ways.”

International intrigue

Outside of class, O’Nell has no shortage of things to do. For starters, she has been serving as an associate advisor for a first-year seminar since the fall of her sophomore year.

“Basically it’s my job to sit in on a seminar and bully them into not taking seven classes at a time, and reminding them that yes, your first 8.01 exam is tomorrow,” she says with a laugh.

She has also continued an activity she was passionate about in high school — Model United Nations. One of the most fun parts for her is serving on the Historical Crisis Committee, in which delegates must try to figure out a way to solve a real historical problem, like the Cuban Missile Crisis or the French and Indian War.

“This year they failed and the world was a nuclear wasteland,” she says. “Last year, I don’t entirely know how this happened, but France decided that they wanted to abandon the North American theater entirely and just took over all of Britain’s holdings in India.”

She’s also part of an MIT program called the Addir Interfaith Fellowship, in which a small group of people meet each week and discuss a topic related to religion and spirituality. Before joining, she didn’t think it was something she’d be interested in — but after being placed in a first-year class about science and spirituality, she has found discussing religion to be really stimulating. She’s been a part of the group ever since.

O’Nell has also been heavily involved in writing and producing a Mystery Dinner Theater for Campus Preview Weekend, on behalf of her living group J Entry, in MacGregor House. The plot, generally, is MIT-themed — a physics professor might get killed by a swarm of CRISPR nanobots, for instance. When she’s not cooking up murder mysteries, she might be running SAT classes for high school students, playing piano, reading, or spending time with friends. Or, when she needs to go grocery shopping, she’ll be stopping by the Trader Joe’s on Boylston Avenue, as an excuse to visit the Boston Public Library across the street.

Quite excited for the future

O’Nell is excited that the Marshall Scholarship will enable her to live in the country that produced so many of the books she cherished as a kid, like “The Hobbit.” She’s also thrilled to further her research there. However, she jokes that she still needs to get some of the lingo down.

“I need to learn how to use the word ‘quite’ correctly. Because I overuse it in the American way,” she says.

Her master’s research will largely expand on the principles she’s been examining in the Saxe lab. Questions of morality, processing, and social interaction are where she aims to focus her attention.

“My master’s project is going to be basically taking a look at whether how difficult it is for you to determine someone else’s facial expression changes how generous you are with people,” she explains.

After that, she hopes to follow the standard research track of earning a PhD, doing postdoctoral research, and then entering academia as a professor and researcher. Teaching and researching, she says, are two of her favorite things — she’s excited to have the chance to do both at the same time. But that’s a few years ahead. Right now, she hopes to use her time in England to learn all she can about the deeper functions of the brain, with or without chocolate milk.

Guoping Feng elected to American Academy of Arts and Sciences

by MIT News |

Four MIT faculty members are among more than 200 leaders from academia, business, public affairs, the humanities, and the arts elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the academy announced today.

One of the nation’s most prestigious honorary societies, the academy is also a leading center for independent policy research. Members contribute to academy publications, as well as studies of science and technology policy, energy and global security, social policy and American institutions, the humanities and culture, and education.

Those elected from MIT this year are:

  • Dimitri A. Antoniadis, Ray and Maria Stata Professor of Electrical Engineering;
  • Anantha P. Chandrakasan, dean of the School of Engineering and the Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science;
  • Guoping Feng, the James W. (1963) and Patricia T. Poitras Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences; and
  • David R. Karger, professor of electrical engineering.

“We are pleased to recognize the excellence of our new members, celebrate their compelling accomplishments, and invite them to join the academy and contribute to its work,” said David W. Oxtoby, president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. “With the election of these members, the academy upholds the ideals of research and scholarship, creativity and imagination, intellectual exchange and civil discourse, and the relentless pursuit of knowledge in all its forms.”

The new class will be inducted at a ceremony in October in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Since its founding in 1780, the academy has elected leading “thinkers and doers” from each generation, including George Washington and Benjamin Franklin in the 18th century, Maria Mitchell and Daniel Webster in the 19th century, and Toni Morrison and Albert Einstein in the 20th century. The current membership includes more than 200 Nobel laureates and 100 Pulitzer Prize winners.

Halassa named Max Planck Fellow

by Sabbi Lall |

Michael Halassa was just appointed as one of the newest Max Planck Fellows. His appointment comes through the Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience (MPFI), which aims to forge collaborations between exceptional neuroscientists from around the world to answer fundamental questions about brain development and function. The Max Planck Society selects cutting edge, active researchers from other institutions to fellow positions for a five-year period to promote interactions and synergies. While the program is a longstanding feature of the Max Planck Society, Halassa, and fellow appointee Yi Guo of the University of California, Santa Cruz, are the first selected fellows that are based at U.S. institutions.

Michael Halassa is an associate investigator at the McGovern Institute and an assistant professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. Halassa’s research focuses on the neural architectures that underlie complex cognitive processes. He is particularly interested in goal-directed attention, our ability to rapidly switch attentional focus based on high level objectives. For example, when you are in a roomful of colleagues, the mention of your name in a distant conversation can quickly trigger your ‘mind’s ear’ to eavesdrop into that conversation. This contrasts with hearing a name that sounds like yours on television, which does not usually grab your attention in the same way. In certain mental disorders such as schizophrenia, the ability to generate such high-level objectives, while also accounting for context, is perturbed. Recent evidence strongly suggests that impaired function of the prefrontal cortex and its interactions with a region of the brain called the thalamus may be altered in such disorders. It is this thalamocortical network that Halassa has been studying in mice, where his group has uncovered how the thalamus supports the ability of the prefrontal cortex to generate context-appropriate attentional signals.

The fellowship will support extending Halassa’s work into the tree shrew (Tupaia belangeri), which has been shown to have advanced cognitive abilities compared to mice while also offering many of the circuit-interrogation tools that make the mouse an attractive experimental model.

The Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience (MPFI), a not-for-profit research organization, is part of the world-renowned Max Planck Society, Germany’s most successful research organization. The Max Planck Society was founded in 1911, and comprises 84 institutes and research facilities. While primarily located in Germany, there are 4 institutes and one research facility located aboard, including the Florida Institute that Halassa will collaborate with. The fellow positions were created with the goal of increasing interactions between the Max Planck Society and its institutes with faculty engaged in active research at other universities and institutions, which with this appointment now include MIT.

Elephant or chair? How the brain IDs objects

by Anne Trafton |

As visual information flows into the brain through the retina, the visual cortex transforms the sensory input into coherent perceptions. Neuroscientists have long hypothesized that a part of the visual cortex called the inferotemporal (IT) cortex is necessary for the key task of recognizing individual objects, but the evidence has been inconclusive.

In a new study, MIT neuroscientists have found clear evidence that the IT cortex is indeed required for object recognition; they also found that subsets of this region are responsible for distinguishing different objects.

In addition, the researchers have developed computational models that describe how these neurons transform visual input into a mental representation of an object. They hope such models will eventually help guide the development of brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) that could be used for applications such as generating images in the mind of a blind person.

“We don’t know if that will be possible yet, but this is a step on the pathway toward those kinds of applications that we’re thinking about,” says James DiCarlo, the head of MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, a member of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the new study.

Rishi Rajalingham, a postdoc at the McGovern Institute, is the lead author of the paper, which appears in the March 13 issue of Neuron.

Distinguishing objects

In addition to its hypothesized role in object recognition, the IT cortex also contains “patches” of neurons that respond preferentially to faces. Beginning in the 1960s, neuroscientists discovered that damage to the IT cortex could produce impairments in recognizing non-face objects, but it has been difficult to determine precisely how important the IT cortex is for this task.

The MIT team set out to find more definitive evidence for the IT cortex’s role in object recognition, by selectively shutting off neural activity in very small areas of the cortex and then measuring how the disruption affected an object discrimination task. In animals that had been trained to distinguish between objects such as elephants, bears, and chairs, they used a drug called muscimol to temporarily turn off subregions about 2 millimeters in diameter. Each of these subregions represents about 5 percent of the entire IT cortex.

These experiments, which represent the first time that researchers have been able to silence such small regions of IT cortex while measuring behavior over many object discriminations, revealed that the IT cortex is not only necessary for distinguishing between objects, but it is also divided into areas that handle different elements of object recognition.

The researchers found that silencing each of these tiny patches produced distinctive impairments in the animals’ ability to distinguish between certain objects. For example, one subregion might be involved in distinguishing chairs from cars, but not chairs from dogs. Each region was involved in 25 to 30 percent of the tasks that the researchers tested, and regions that were closer to each other tended to have more overlap between their functions, while regions far away from each other had little overlap.

“We might have thought of it as a sea of neurons that are completely mixed together, except for these islands of “face patches.” But what we’re finding, which many other studies had pointed to, is that there is large-scale organization over the entire region,” Rajalingham says.

The features that each of these regions are responding to are difficult to classify, the researchers say. The regions are not specific to objects such as dogs, nor easy-to-describe visual features such as curved lines.

“It would be incorrect to say that because we observed a deficit in distinguishing cars when a certain neuron was inhibited, this is a ‘car neuron,’” Rajalingham says. “Instead, the cell is responding to a feature that we can’t explain that is useful for car discriminations. There has been work in this lab and others that suggests that the neurons are responding to complicated nonlinear features of the input image. You can’t say it’s a curve, or a straight line, or a face, but it’s a visual feature that is especially helpful in supporting that particular task.”

Bevil Conway, a principal investigator at the National Eye Institute, says the new study makes significant progress toward answering the critical question of how neural activity in the IT cortex produces behavior.

“The paper makes a major step in advancing our understanding of this connection, by showing that blocking activity in different small local regions of IT has a different selective deficit on visual discrimination. This work advances our knowledge not only of the causal link between neural activity and behavior but also of the functional organization of IT: How this bit of brain is laid out,” says Conway, who was not involved in the research.

Brain-machine interface

The experimental results were consistent with computational models that DiCarlo, Rajalingham, and others in their lab have created to try to explain how IT cortex neuron activity produces specific behaviors.

“That is interesting not only because it says the models are good, but because it implies that we could intervene with these neurons and turn them on and off,” DiCarlo says. “With better tools, we could have very large perceptual effects and do real BMI in this space.”

The researchers plan to continue refining their models, incorporating new experimental data from even smaller populations of neurons, in hopes of developing ways to generate visual perception in a person’s brain by activating a specific sequence of neuronal activity. Technology to deliver this kind of input to a person’s brain could lead to new strategies to help blind people see certain objects.

“This is a step in that direction,” DiCarlo says. “It’s still a dream, but that dream someday will be supported by the models that are built up by this kind of work.”

The research was funded by the National Eye Institute, the Office of Naval Research, and the Simons Foundation.

Ila Fiete

Neural Coding and Dynamics

Ila Fiete builds theoretical models and tools that are elucidating computations performed by the brain as it interacts with the world. Her focus includes describing how plasticity and development shape networks to perform computation and how the brain represents and manipulates information. She works closely with collaborators to design experiments that allow analysis of how the brain solves complex tasks, such as spatial navigation. By combining theoretical insights with predictions and designs for experiment, Fiete aims to better understand how the brain constructs and uses memory for spatial and non-spatial reasoning, the mechanisms for error control in neural codes, and rules for synaptic plasticity that enable neural circuit organization. Through these avenues, she hopes to better understand the circuits underlying phenomena including short-term memory, integration, and inference, navigation, and reasoning in the brain.

Alan Jasanoff

Next Generation Brain Imaging

One of the greatest challenges of modern neuroscience is to relate high-level operations of the brain and mind to well-defined biological processes that arise from molecules and cells. The Jasanoff lab is creating a suite of experimental approaches designed to achieve this by permitting brain-wide dynamics of neural signaling and plasticity to be imaged for the first time, with molecular specificity. These potentially transformative approaches use novel probes detectable by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and other noninvasive readouts. The probes afford qualitatively new ways to study healthy and pathological aspects of integrated brain function in mechanistically-informative detail, in animals and possibly also people.