Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Motor Learning, New Brain Connections Form Rapidly

Posted by kdawson on from the reaching-out dept.

Science Daily has a report on research demonstrating directly that new connections begin to form between brain cells almost immediately as animals learn a new task. A team lead by researchers at UC Santa Cruz performed "...detailed observations of the rewiring processes that take place in the brain during motor learning. The researchers studied mice as they were trained to reach through a slot to get a seed. They observed rapid growth of... synapses between nerve cells in the motor cortex... The study used mice that had been genetically altered to make a fluorescent protein within certain neurons in the brain. The researchers were then able to use a special microscopy technique (two-photon microscopy) to obtain clear images of those neurons near the surface of the brain. The noninvasive imaging technique enabled them to view changes in individual brain cells of the mice before, during, and after the mice were trained in the seed-reaching task."

55 comments

  1. Just had to do it. by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

    So, what connections are formed when one learns to drive a motor vehicle?

    1. Re:Just had to do it. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not many if its an automatic, that's why stick-shift drivers are more intelligent.

    2. Re:Just had to do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So, what connections are formed when one learns to drive a motor vehicle?

      Seems that the "posting task" for some reduces the number of connections by half.

    3. Re:Just had to do it. by Fotograf · · Score: 3, Funny

      but live shorter because makeuping your self while phoning while driving is more difficult on stick cars

      --
      God's gift to chicks
    4. Re:Just had to do it. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, come on. Women don't know how to drive stick, much less drive at all. They'd never get licensed if it weren't for their tits.

      Nothing is more frightening than a soccer-mom behind the wheel of an Escalade or Expedition with a cell phone in one hand, Starbucks grande in the other, steering with her knees while her frightened kids cling to their back seats.

    5. Re:Just had to do it. by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Why would the kids cling to their back seats? It's an Escalade, preservation of momentum and so on dictates a crash won't bother it much. Pesky kids.

    6. Re:Just had to do it. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Informative
      They flip on a dime. True story: saw an accident between a Honda Del Sol and a Ford Expedition* at an intersection. The Del Sol was dented but able to drive away from the scene while the Expedition was flipped, turned upside down with the passenger-side roof smashed-in. The expedition apparently "jumped" the Del Sol on one side like a ramp and flipped right over.

      * The laws of physics work on more than 2 dimensions. From this:

      People believe that the bigger their vehicle, the safer they are. That perception has propelled the SUV industry into one of the fastest growing car markets in the United States. Unfortunately, that perception is not correct. SUV's, have a disturbing tendency to roll over which results in more serious accidents. Just about every make and model of SUV's have this problem...

      What causes SUVS to flip and rollover? SUVs have a higher center of gravity because they are taller, have higher ground clearance and a narrower distance between their wheels. This higher center of gravity makes it easier for SUVs to tip over. In fact, the heavier the vehicle, which SUVs tend to be, the more likely the vehicle will tip over.

    7. Re:Just had to do it. by darthflo · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... and that, kids, is why I proudly drive my M1 Abrams. With a track width of more than 3.5 metres, it won't flip over sideways, and it has that stalk extending forward to stop it from flipping over it's front when braking sharply.

      On a more serious note, though, this is quite probably the most awesome news I've heard today. Well, anything that'll increase mortality in SUV drivers is a good thing. Let's hope this sells a few extra Priuses or even Del Sols.

    8. Re:Just had to do it. by Jetboy01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They flip on a dime. True story: saw an accident between a Honda Del Sol [swaqvalley.com] and a Ford Expedition* at an intersection. The Del Sol was dented but able to drive away from the scene while the Expedition was flipped, turned upside down...

      And I'd like to take a second just sit right there, I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air.

    9. Re:Just had to do it. by jeti · · Score: 1

      Seeing is believing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6bjtuAbIz4

    10. Re:Just had to do it. by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a pedestrian, I believe that synapse connections disappear as one learns to drive.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    11. Re:Just had to do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love blanket assertions. There are those of us who drive said vehicle because it is extremely difficult to find a vehicle that fits. I am 6'6" and weigh 350lbs. Point out to me the Prius that fits. I spent a year searching for my sedan. They discontinued it after 2 years. Try finding a used minivan. At least around here they are rare, however SUVs are quite common.

    12. Re:Just had to do it. by baboo_jackal · · Score: 1

      On a more serious note ... anything that'll increase mortality in SUV drivers is a good thing. Let's hope this sells a few extra Priuses or even Del Sols.

      You hope that people die in order to increase the sales of battery-powered cars? Wow.

      Mod parent "Asshole, plus I hope you die in a car wreck."

    13. Re:Just had to do it. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I am 6'6" and weigh 350lbs. Point out to me the Prius that fits.

      Methinks you more need somebody who points out to you the diet that fits...

    14. Re:Just had to do it. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Well, anything that'll increase mortality in SUV drivers is a good thing. Let's hope this sells a few extra Priuses or even Del Sols.

      You know that the green movement caused us to have SUVs, right? We used to have these things called "station wagons", but CAFE standards essentially forced car companies to reinvent them (since there was a strong consumer need) as light trucks.

      Kind of like how the Clean Air Act is responsible for global warming. It's one of those things that eco-hippies don't like to talk about.

    15. Re:Just had to do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how much that front stalk will help...

      - Pitabred

    16. Re:Just had to do it. by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Sorry for omitting the sarcasm tags. I don't actually like people dying, not even in SUVs. Especially seeing as SUV drivers don't quite strike me as the kind of people carrying an organ donor card.

      On CAFE:
      Actually, I didn't; thanks for that. Reading up on it, I can't help but dislike it. Seems like another unnecessary piece of legislation. In my opinion, just jacking gas up to reasonable rates (say, $6 to $6 per gallon, somewhere in the vicinity of the rest of the world) and using the tax brought in with that measure for roads and public transit would help a great deal more, while allowing those 30% of station wagon drivers who actually require the space to choose for themselves if they want or don't want to pay up.

      Being European, I'm also not that familiar with the Clean Air Act, but seeing how the DMCA, CAN-SPAM or the Various Wars on Stuff are working out, I can imagine expense and results.

      In any case: I don't have a problem with soccer moms driving their 6 kids to school/soccer/whatever in a minivan; they need the extra seats. I don't mind lumberjacks driving their F-150 to their place of work; they may not have any roads there. What annoys me are pretentious pricks driving pretentious SUVs with dismal mileage, handling or anything exclusively through well-plowed and much-used city roads and highways. Also, soccer moms using the same kind of vehicle for the same purpose; especially if the vehicle only features the same number of seats a normal sedan would.

    17. Re:Just had to do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious (not being snarky), how exactly do modern minivans not outdo traditional station wagons on essentially all fronts?

    18. Re:Just had to do it. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seems like another unnecessary piece of legislation. In my opinion, just jacking gas up to reasonable rates (say, $6 to $6 per gallon, somewhere in the vicinity of the rest of the world) and using the tax brought in with that measure for roads and public transit would help a great deal more, while allowing those 30% of station wagon drivers who actually require the space to choose for themselves if they want or don't want to pay up.

      Fair enough. Public transit only really works in dense urban areas though, and since America has a lot more land available (LA County would cover all of London and out to the coast to the east and south) its public transportation systems tend to likewise suck. I actually like public transportation, but even when I lived in the Bay Area, which has one of the most developed public transit systems, it would take 3.5 hours on the BART to get somewhere that was about 45 minutes by car, with traffic. LA public transportation is even worse, and they've been investing heavily in public transportatio instead of highways for the last 30 years. All they got out of it was a road system that was hopelessly snarled compared with the contiguous Orange County, which took the opposite approach. The transition from LA to OC on the interstate is like waking up from a nightmare.

      In places like downtown Manhattan, though, public transit works quite fine, because it is dense enough to make sense.

      If we're concerned with CO2 emissions, we can halve our national CO2 output in America simply by switching to nuclear power. The outlay on this (I've run the numbers myself) would range between $400B and $4T at current prices (though when building plants en masse and providing liability protection would likely put the cost around $300B), and would allow us to meet all conceivable CO2 goals without making the utterly impractical approach of trying to get people to stop driving. People won't change their habits.

      I'm giving a guest lecture on global warming tomorrow at a local college, and the students know this, so I'm going to poll them how many drove to the school vs. biked or walked, as well as how many think global warming is a serious problem. If my experience is right, about 75% will think it's a problem, and yet all of them will have driven anyway.

      >>Being European, I'm also not that familiar with the Clean Air Act, but seeing how the DMCA, CAN-SPAM or the Various Wars on Stuff are working out, I can imagine expense and results.

      Similar measures were taken in England, to get rid of the killer smog that was killing thousands of people every year. Not saying that was bad (nobody wants to live next to a dirty smokestack), but all the particulate matter we were throwing into the year wasn't just stopping the global warming from the CO2, but was actually causing a decrease in global temperatures. When filters were put on, you can measure the corresponding decrease in atmospheric particulate count, and global temperatures started rising quite swiftly after that. I can provide references if you'd like, I have them all on hand for the lecture I'm prepping right now.

    19. Re:Just had to do it. by baboo_jackal · · Score: 1

      What annoys me are pretentious pricks driving pretentious SUVs with dismal mileage, handling or anything exclusively through well-plowed and much-used city roads and highways.

      What do you find so reprehensible about SUVs? Is it the gas consumption? The size of the vehicle? SUVs are pretty much the same in size, shape, and gas consumption as minivans and pickup trucks. Some smaller SUVs get gas mileage that's comparable with sedans.

      So what, exactly, are you upset about re: SUVs?

    20. Re:Just had to do it. by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Gas consumption, size and increased dangerousness to other people in crashes (SUV vs car as well as SUV vs person).

      Minivans I don't mind because they tend to be driven out of necessity/utility, not as penis extenders. Trucks are no issue around here, so I don't really have any opinion on them; but I'm guessing it'd be along the lines of minivans.

    21. Re:Just had to do it. by alexo · · Score: 1

      It did not flip over so I'd say the stalk works.

    22. Re:Just had to do it. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Saw the same type of situation with a new VW Bug and an F150. The hump on the bug was flattened a bit and had some visible scratching from my ~30' driving past slowly. The truck was on it's side with the whole lower side door pushed up a foot and all the windows broken. What seemed to have happened is the lower part of the car went under the truck and the curve of the hood pushed the door up as it wedged under and flipped it. It couldn't have hit too fast because the car looked like rubber hammer and some paint would've made it look new again.

    23. Re:Just had to do it. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      It's not a weight issue. I'm 6' 5" and about 280 lbs. I'm doughy, but I'm not waddle-while-I-walk fat.

      I learned how to drive in my friend's '89 Honda Civic. If the steering wheel were an inch lower it literally would have been grazing my balls. If the seat was an inch thinner I would have had to stick one leg out the door while driving around the parking lot.

      I (ironically) like small, fast, and nimble cars, but I've yet to find one that I'll fit in.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  2. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this just how the brain works in general? We gain experience and the brain adapts by growing new synapses and changing the neuron thresholds. At least this is how neural networks work and aren't those supposed to be similiar to our brains.

    1. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you mean artificial neural networks (ANNs). Yes, they are supposed to be similar to biological brains but the devil is in the details. There is some question, at least among computer scientists, about _exactly_ how the biobrain does it. Gerald Edelman put forward some interesting ideas in the book _Neural_Darwinism_. Ken Stanley has been working on something called NEAT for many years, building on it with Compositional Pattern Producing Networks.

      Refining our observations of how nature does it may help produce better artificial neural networks, among other things...

    2. Re:hmm by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Most neural networks have fixed layout of "synapses" and operate only on changing neuron thresholds.

      Thing is the thresholds are a temporary, easily forgettable kind of memory. The synapses once grown stay there for the rest of your life (unless you kill them, say, with alcohol).

      This explains why if you learn riding a bicycle once, you need up to 15 minutes to recall it even if you haven't been riding it for some decades. Same goes for swimming.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:hmm by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Current student of Ken Stanley in Neuroevolution and Generative Development this semester.

      Parent is correct: The devil is in the details. A Neural Network is a _model_ of what actually happens in the brain. It is an approximation. There are a number of things that the model does not account for, such as the growth of new connections (somewhat accounted for in the GA-NN NEAT), and the exponential response nature (accounted for in CRTNN networks).

      CPPNs are a model to account for generative development, rather than Neural Networks. The hope is to get a full system without going through the actual step-by-step constructive development of it. To this end, it is successful.

      You can find more information about the subject, or implement your own CPPN network here: http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~kstanley/neat.html

      The article presents a good argument that the ANN model is at least partially incorrect on its approximation of brain development. ANNs do not add connections after the topology is created. This could provide interesting new developments to the AI crowd.

    4. Re:hmm by TheLink · · Score: 1

      It'll be funny if it turns out that the neurons are actually quite smart and their only problem is they don't have much in the way of arms, legs etc to prove it :).

      --
    5. Re:hmm by JWyner · · Score: 1

      In the last decade or so, research has finally shown that new synapse formation and pruning continue to occur throughout life, not simply during the critical period in our early years. (the main article here is one such example). So, while the statement about re-learning a bicycle is likely correct, to say that most of our neural networks are fixed and operate only on changing synapse thresholds is questionable.

      --
      "Owning a computer is like having your very own TV -- with a built in radio!" - Ed Helms
    6. Re:hmm by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Nope, not what I meant. Most of -artificial- neural networks are fixed. The mathematical/software constructs usually display a fixed, organized architecture with little or no ability to create new connections from scratch. The self-constructing neural networks are a small margin of the science.

      In most cases you set a number of neurons, connect them in a specific pattern, then save the construction and run the network: feed the input, analyze the output and adjust weights so that some connections are more active and some are less.

      Meanwhile biological brain grows new synapses - which is different from creating new neural paths through existing synapses.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    7. Re:hmm by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>There are a number of things that the model does not account for, such as the growth of new connections (somewhat accounted for in the GA-NN NEAT), and the exponential response nature (accounted for in CRTNN networks).

      It has long been established that physical movement is a major neurotropic factor. I can dig up the reference if you want.

      It's always amusing when Slashdot touts something as amazing when it's been known for a long time.

  3. motor learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is it more difficult to learn to ride a bike?

  4. Six weeks by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Thats how long it seems to take between starting to learn something and getting it properly. Learning a new, totally different programming language would take that long for me. But the transition, when it comes is very fast.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  5. Same ones by Ivan+Stepaniuk · · Score: 1

    Coarse muscle control comes from your motor cortex, fine control and feedback loop for motor movement through the posterior lobe of your cerebellum. Driving a motor vehicle requires in fact a lot of motor coordination, most people can learn how to. Note, however, that making an intelligent joke in the first post requires a much more complicated mechanism.

    --
    My other signature is a car
  6. Rewiring Might be Fast ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

    ... but reconfiguring the body from bones up (to compensate for aquired deficits regarding posture, e.g. by continued abuse while sitting in front of a screen) takes much longer. At least, this is my experience.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  7. I don't understand by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a car analogy to help with this one?

    --
    Summation 2
    1. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Does anyone have a car analogy to help with this one?

      Sadly not, but I can use an Internet analogy.

      As the Internet acquires more porn, the number of tubes that are plumbed increases faster than they do for any other situation; because of the huge demand for porn, porn tubes have become faster to build and deploy. As a consequence, porn is more readily available; the Internet has "learned" to have more porn.

      --Ted Stevens

    2. Re:I don't understand by Faerunner · · Score: 1

      Best internet analogy ever. Mod parent up!

    3. Re:I don't understand by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      You forgot that the number of porn holes has increased at roughly the same rate as the number of porn tubes. Else, where would you plug in all those porn tubes?

      O, and there are 2 kinds of porn holes.

  8. so what am i? by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

    I get it. the brain is big enough for me, my alternate personalities, my paranoid delusions, my subconscious and the useful part dealing with the heartlungsstomach thingies.
    I thought various experiences just put information in my memory. But if experiences can actually rewire the brain, where does that lead me? is "I" rewirable too?
    Thanks for nothing. now my day will be spent on purposeless pondering of the nature of me.

    --
    new sig
    1. Re:so what am i? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      "I" *is* the sum total of your wiring, so yes, you are rewireable.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    2. Re:so what am i? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Here's a positive spin: Do you really want people to think that you are the same person you were 10 years ago?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:so what am i? by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      I read your reply so I "experienced" it.
      Thus "I" just died inside. And you're saying it's a good thing.

      (my wife keeps telling me to stop making bad jokes, but she doesn't see me here)

      --
      new sig
  9. Re:Just had to do it.Christmas sale, free shipping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always remember that Republicans are directly responsible for spam like this.

    They're the ones who, starting with Nixon, pushed for free trade with China. They opened up the world to all of these products from China that are utter crap.

    Thanks a lot, Republicans. What haven't you idiots fucked up?

  10. Woah by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just learned kung-fu.

    1. Re:Woah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Show me.

    2. Re:Woah by Njoyda+Sauce · · Score: 1

      No you didn't, for the eleventy billionth time.

      --

      You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Duh? by tburkhol · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dogma has been that the brain does two kinds of learning - short term and long term. Short term learning happens within a few (or even a single) depolarization, lasts for a few hours, and is perfect for learning that the path is wet today. Long term learning has been seen as a separate, but related process, where repeated neural activity triggers new protein synthesis, and that synthesis results in new synapse formation. That process is thought to require repetition over minutes to hours, results in learning that lasts for days to weeks, and is well suited for learning that this path goes to grandma's house.

    To find synaptic remodeling after a single training trial would require some revamping of that model. It seems reasonable enough, especially in more complex brains. A lot of what we know about the biochemistry of learning comes from invertebrates with fewer than 1e5 neurons. Even a mouse brain has ~1e8 neurons, which means there are a lot more opportunities for reinforcing signals, internal repetition, and god knows what else that might accelerate the long-term learning process we see in invertebrates.

  13. Re:Duh? by Levetron · · Score: 1

    Having hiked the Flume, I'd never go _DOWN_ the slide trail. As an avid hiker, the synapses in my brain do everything possible to avoid steep descents.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_Movement_Desensitization_and_Reprocessing

    I read this about a week ago..thought it was interesting. The bits about the eye movement and whether or not it made a difference seems to generate a lot of debate.

    Apparently, the therapy takes the patient through their thoughts - while the motor learning aspects are thought to take the problematic memory out of it's neural 'rut' and provide connections that assist the patient to process and move on.

    I don't know if EMDR would be considered 'motor' learning, but perhaps that's why the software allows the therapist to change the settings up. See http://www.practicemagic.com/emdr.html "There & Back" cost free software for example..