neurosciencestuff: Brain Makes Call on Which Ear Is Used for Cell Phone If you’re a left-brain thinker, chances are you use your right hand to hold your cell phone up to your right ear, according to a newly published study from Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. The study – to appear online in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery – shows a strong correlation between brain dominance and the ear used to listen to a cell phone. More than 70% of participants held their cell phone up to the ear on the same side as their dominant hand, the study finds. Left-brain dominant people – who account for about 95% of the population and have their speech and language center located on the left side of the brain – are more likely to use their right hand for writing and other everyday tasks. Likewise, the Henry Ford study reveals most left-brain dominant people also use the phone in their right ear, despite there being no perceived difference in their hearing in the left or right ear. And, right-brain dominant people are more likely to use their left hand to hold the phone in their left ear. “Our findings have several implications, especially for mapping the language center of the brain,” says Michael Seidman, M.D., FACS, director of the division of otologic and neurotologic surgery in the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at Henry Ford. “By establishing a correlation between cerebral dominance and sidedness of cell phone use, it may be possible to develop a less-invasive, lower-cost option to establish the side of the brain where speech and language occurs rather than the Wada test, a procedure that injects an anesthetic into the carotid artery to put part of the brain to sleep in order to map activity.” He notes that the study also may offer additional evidence that cell phone use and tumors of the brain, head and neck may not necessarily be linked. Since nearly 80% of people use the cell phone in their right ear, he says if there were a strong connection there would be far more people diagnosed with cancer on the right side of their brain, head and neck, the dominant side for cell phone use. It’s likely, he says, that the development of tumors is more “dose-dependent” based on cell phone usage. The study began with the simple observation that most people use their right hand to hold a cell phone to their right ear. This practice, Dr. Seidman says, is illogical since it is challenging to listen on the phone with the right ear and take notes with the right hand. To determine if there is an association between sidedness of cell phone use and auditory or language hemispheric dominance, the Henry Ford team developed an online survey using modifications of the Edinburgh Handedness protocol, a tool used for more than 40 years to assess handedness and predict cerebral dominance. The survey included questions about which hand was used for tasks such as writing; time spent talking on cell phone; whether the right or left ear is used to listen to phone conversations; and if respondents had been diagnosed with a brain or head and neck tumor. It was distributed to 5,000 individuals who were either with an otology online group or a patient undergoing Wada and MRI for non-invasive localization purposes. On average, respondents’ cell phone usage was 540 minutes per month. The majority of respondents (90%) were right handed, 9% were left handed and 1% was ambidextrous. Among those who are right handed, 68% reported that they hold the phone to their right ear, while 25% used the left ear and 7% used both right and left ears. For those who are left handed, 72% said they used their left ear for cell phone conversations, while 23% used their right ear and 5% had no preference. The study also revealed that having a hearing difference can impact ear preference for cell phone use. In all, the study found that there is a correlation between brain dominance and laterality of cell phone use, and there is a significantly higher probability of using the dominant hand side ear. Studies are underway to look at tumor registry banks of patients with head, neck and brain cancer to evaluate cell phone usage. Controversy still exists around a potential association of cell phone use and tumors. Until this is fully understood, Dr. Seidman advises using hands-free modes for calls rather than holding a phone up to the side of the head. (Original publication: “Study Examines Relationship Between Hemispheric Dominance and Cell Phone Use” JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 2013; Michael D. Seidman et al.) oh my god this is the most useless study i have ever seen

neurosciencestuff:

Brain Makes Call on Which Ear Is Used for Cell Phone

If you’re a left-brain thinker, chances are you use your right hand to hold your cell phone up to your right ear, according to a newly published study from Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.

The study – to appear online in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery – shows a strong correlation between brain dominance and the ear used to listen to a cell phone. More than 70% of participants held their cell phone up to the ear on the same side as their dominant hand, the study finds.

Left-brain dominant people – who account for about 95% of the population and have their speech and language center located on the left side of the brain – are more likely to use their right hand for writing and other everyday tasks.

Likewise, the Henry Ford study reveals most left-brain dominant people also use the phone in their right ear, despite there being no perceived difference in their hearing in the left or right ear. And, right-brain dominant people are more likely to use their left hand to hold the phone in their left ear.

“Our findings have several implications, especially for mapping the language center of the brain,” says Michael Seidman, M.D., FACS, director of the division of otologic and neurotologic surgery in the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at Henry Ford.

“By establishing a correlation between cerebral dominance and sidedness of cell phone use, it may be possible to develop a less-invasive, lower-cost option to establish the side of the brain where speech and language occurs rather than the Wada test, a procedure that injects an anesthetic into the carotid artery to put part of the brain to sleep in order to map activity.”

He notes that the study also may offer additional evidence that cell phone use and tumors of the brain, head and neck may not necessarily be linked.

Since nearly 80% of people use the cell phone in their right ear, he says if there were a strong connection there would be far more people diagnosed with cancer on the right side of their brain, head and neck, the dominant side for cell phone use. It’s likely, he says, that the development of tumors is more “dose-dependent” based on cell phone usage.

The study began with the simple observation that most people use their right hand to hold a cell phone to their right ear. This practice, Dr. Seidman says, is illogical since it is challenging to listen on the phone with the right ear and take notes with the right hand.

To determine if there is an association between sidedness of cell phone use and auditory or language hemispheric dominance, the Henry Ford team developed an online survey using modifications of the Edinburgh Handedness protocol, a tool used for more than 40 years to assess handedness and predict cerebral dominance.

The survey included questions about which hand was used for tasks such as writing; time spent talking on cell phone; whether the right or left ear is used to listen to phone conversations; and if respondents had been diagnosed with a brain or head and neck tumor.

It was distributed to 5,000 individuals who were either with an otology online group or a patient undergoing Wada and MRI for non-invasive localization purposes.

On average, respondents’ cell phone usage was 540 minutes per month. The majority of respondents (90%) were right handed, 9% were left handed and 1% was ambidextrous.

Among those who are right handed, 68% reported that they hold the phone to their right ear, while 25% used the left ear and 7% used both right and left ears. For those who are left handed, 72% said they used their left ear for cell phone conversations, while 23% used their right ear and 5% had no preference.

The study also revealed that having a hearing difference can impact ear preference for cell phone use.

In all, the study found that there is a correlation between brain dominance and laterality of cell phone use, and there is a significantly higher probability of using the dominant hand side ear.

Studies are underway to look at tumor registry banks of patients with head, neck and brain cancer to evaluate cell phone usage. Controversy still exists around a potential association of cell phone use and tumors. Until this is fully understood, Dr. Seidman advises using hands-free modes for calls rather than holding a phone up to the side of the head.

(Original publication: “Study Examines Relationship Between Hemispheric Dominance and Cell Phone Use” JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 2013; Michael D. Seidman et al.)

oh my god this is the most useless study i have ever seen

so the other day i was walking back to class from lunch with my boyfriend and we were holding hands

and some kid i didn’t see walking towards the cafeteria yells in our direction, “interracial, nice!”

it made me wanna throw up

don’t be that kid

maybenotboring:

sometimes I hear/read people talk about how they’ve lost faith in humanity. sometimes, more often than I’d like, I see what they mean.

everyone ever who loses faith in humanity needs to be shown this video.

this is a man playing music in space

like, whatever else we do as a species humanity has made it to the point where a commander of the international space station (THAT IS A THING THAT EXISTS LIKE WOW) can play a david bowie song while literally sitting in a tin can far above the earth and then upload it to a website for the world to see

holy dangwow I love everything

chris hadfield, you beautiful man, godspeed and safe travels

wow col. chris hadfield is an amazing human being

brofriends said: AND RICO FROM HANNAH MONTANA IS GONNA BE BONZO AND ITS SO FUCKRIGN PERFECT IM GOING TO CRY

ACE HAND GESTURE EMOJI

neurosciencestuff:

E-tattoo monitors brainwaves and baby bump

Mind reading can be as simple as slapping a sticker on your forehead. An “electronic tattoo” containing flexible electronic circuits can now record some complex brain activity as accurately as an EEG. The tattoo could also provide a cheap way to monitor a developing fetus.

The first electronic tattoo appeared in 2011, when Todd Coleman at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues designed a transparent patch containing electronic circuits as thin as a human hair. Applied to skin like a temporary tattoo, these could be used to monitor electrophysiological signals associated with the heart and muscles, as well as rudimentary brain activity.

To improve its usefulness, Coleman’s group has now optimised the placement of the electrodes to pick up more complex brainwaves. They have demonstrated this by monitoring so-called P300 signals in the forebrain. These appear when you pay attention to a stimulus. The team showed volunteers a series of images and asked them to keep track of how many times a certain object appeared. Whenever volunteers noticed the object, the tattoo registered a blip in the P300 signal.

The tattoo was as good as conventional EEG at telling whether a person was looking at the target image or another stimulus, the team told a recent Cognitive Neuroscience Society meeting in San Francisco.

The team is now modifying the tattoo to transmit data wirelessly to a smartphone, Coleman says. Eventually, he hopes the device could identify other complex patterns of brain activity, such as those that might be used to control a prosthetic limb.

For now, the group is focusing on optimising the tattoo for use in conditions such as depression and Alzheimer’s disease, each of which have characteristic patterns of neural activity. People with depression could wear the tattoo for an extended period, allowing it to help gauge whether medication is working. “The number one advantage is the medical ease of application,” says Michael Pitts of Reed College in Portland, Oregon.

Because its electronic components are already mass-produced, the tattoo can also be made very cheaply.

That means it might also lend itself to pregnancy monitoring in developing countries. With help from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Coleman’s group is working on an unobtrusive version of the tattoo that monitors signals such as maternal contractions and fetal heart rate.

i love science

neurosciencestuff: Energy Efficient Brain Simulator Outperforms Supercomputers In November 2012, IBM announced that it had used the Blue Gene/Q Sequoia supercomputer to achieve an unprecedented simulation of more than 530 billion neurons. The Blue Gene/Q Sequoia accomplished this feat thanks to its blazing fast speed; it clocks in at over 16 quadrillion calculations per second. In fact, it currently ranks as the second-fastest supercomputer in the world. But, according to Kwabena Boahen, Ph.D., the Blue Gene still doesn’t compare to the computational power of the brain itself. “The brain is actually able to do more calculations per second than even the fastest supercomputer,” says Boahen, a professor at Stanford University, director of the Brains in Silicon research laboratory and an NSF Faculty Early Career grant recipient. That’s not to say the brain is faster than a supercomputer. In fact, it’s actually much slower. The brain can do more calculations per second because it’s “massively parallel,” meaning networks of neurons are working simultaneously to solve a great number of problems at once. Traditional computing platforms, no matter how fast, operate sequentially, meaning each step must be complete before the next step is begun. Boahen works at the forefront of a field called neuromorphic engineering, which seeks to replicate the brain’s extraordinary computational abilities using innovative hardware and software applications. His laboratory’s most recent accomplishment is a new computing platform called Neurogrid, which simulates the activity of 1 million neurons. Neurogrid is not a supercomputer. It can’t be used to simulate the big bang, or forecast hurricanes, or predict epidemics. But what it can do sets it apart from any computational platform on earth. Neurogrid is the first simulation platform that can model a million neurons in real time. As such, it represents a powerful tool for investigating the human brain. In addition to providing insight into the normal workings of the brain, it has the potential to shed light on complex brain diseases like autism and schizophrenia, which have so far been difficult to model. The proven ability to simulate brain function in real time has, so far, been underwhelming. For example, the Blue Gene/Q Sequoia supercomputer’s simulation took over 1,500 times longer than it would take the brain to do the same activity. Cheaper brain simulation platforms that combine the computing power of traditional central processing units (CPUs) with graphical processing units (GPUs) and field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) to achieve results comparable to the Blue Gene are emerging on the market. However, while these systems are more affordable, they are still frustratingly slower than the brain. As Boahen puts it, “The good news is now you too can have your own supercomputer. The bad news is now you too can wait an hour to simulate a second of brain activity.” When you consider that the simulations sometimes need to be checked, tweaked, re-checked and run again hundreds of times, the value of a system that can replicate brain activity in real time becomes obvious. “Neurogrid doesn’t take an hour to simulate a second of brain activity,” says Boahen. “It takes a second to simulate a second of brain activity.” Each of Neurogrid’s 16 chips contains more than 65,000 silicon “neurons” whose activity can be programmed according to nearly 80 parameters, allowing the researchers to replicate the unique characteristics of different types of neurons. Soft-wired “synapses” crisscross the board, shuttling signals between every simulated neuron and the thousands of neurons it is networked with, effectively replicating the electrical chatter that constitutes communication in the brain. But the fundamental difference between the way traditional computing systems model the brain and the way Neurogrid works lies in the way the computations are performed and communicated throughout the system. Most computers, including supercomputers, rely on digital signaling, meaning the computer carries out instructions by essentially answering “true” or “false” to a series of questions. This is similar to how neurons communicate: they either fire an action potential, or they don’t. The difference is that the computations that underlie whether or not a neuron fires are driven by continuous, non-linear processes, more akin to an analog signal. Neurogrid uses an analog signal for computations, and a digital signal for communication. In doing so, it follows the same hybrid analog-digital approach as the brain. In addition to its superior simulations, it also uses a fraction of the energy of a supercomputer. For example, the Blue Gene/Q Sequoia consumes nearly 8 megawatts of electricity, enough to power over 160,000 homes. Eight megawatts at $0.10/kWh is $800 an hour, or a little over $7 million a year. Neurogrid, on the other hand, operates on a paltry 5 watts, the amount of power used by a single cell phone charger. Ultimately, Neurogrid represents a cost-effective, energy-efficient computing platform that Boahen hopes will revolutionize our understanding of the brain. For more information about this project, check out Dr. Boahen’s website.

neurosciencestuff:

Energy Efficient Brain Simulator Outperforms Supercomputers

In November 2012, IBM announced that it had used the Blue Gene/Q Sequoia supercomputer to achieve an unprecedented simulation of more than 530 billion neurons. The Blue Gene/Q Sequoia accomplished this feat thanks to its blazing fast speed; it clocks in at over 16 quadrillion calculations per second. In fact, it currently ranks as the second-fastest supercomputer in the world.

But, according to Kwabena Boahen, Ph.D., the Blue Gene still doesn’t compare to the computational power of the brain itself.

“The brain is actually able to do more calculations per second than even the fastest supercomputer,” says Boahen, a professor at Stanford University, director of the Brains in Silicon research laboratory and an NSF Faculty Early Career grant recipient.

That’s not to say the brain is faster than a supercomputer. In fact, it’s actually much slower. The brain can do more calculations per second because it’s “massively parallel,” meaning networks of neurons are working simultaneously to solve a great number of problems at once. Traditional computing platforms, no matter how fast, operate sequentially, meaning each step must be complete before the next step is begun.

Boahen works at the forefront of a field called neuromorphic engineering, which seeks to replicate the brain’s extraordinary computational abilities using innovative hardware and software applications. His laboratory’s most recent accomplishment is a new computing platform called Neurogrid, which simulates the activity of 1 million neurons.

Neurogrid is not a supercomputer. It can’t be used to simulate the big bang, or forecast hurricanes, or predict epidemics. But what it can do sets it apart from any computational platform on earth.

Neurogrid is the first simulation platform that can model a million neurons in real time. As such, it represents a powerful tool for investigating the human brain. In addition to providing insight into the normal workings of the brain, it has the potential to shed light on complex brain diseases like autism and schizophrenia, which have so far been difficult to model.

The proven ability to simulate brain function in real time has, so far, been underwhelming. For example, the Blue Gene/Q Sequoia supercomputer’s simulation took over 1,500 times longer than it would take the brain to do the same activity.

Cheaper brain simulation platforms that combine the computing power of traditional central processing units (CPUs) with graphical processing units (GPUs) and field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) to achieve results comparable to the Blue Gene are emerging on the market. However, while these systems are more affordable, they are still frustratingly slower than the brain.

As Boahen puts it, “The good news is now you too can have your own supercomputer. The bad news is now you too can wait an hour to simulate a second of brain activity.”

When you consider that the simulations sometimes need to be checked, tweaked, re-checked and run again hundreds of times, the value of a system that can replicate brain activity in real time becomes obvious.

“Neurogrid doesn’t take an hour to simulate a second of brain activity,” says Boahen. “It takes a second to simulate a second of brain activity.”

Each of Neurogrid’s 16 chips contains more than 65,000 silicon “neurons” whose activity can be programmed according to nearly 80 parameters, allowing the researchers to replicate the unique characteristics of different types of neurons. Soft-wired “synapses” crisscross the board, shuttling signals between every simulated neuron and the thousands of neurons it is networked with, effectively replicating the electrical chatter that constitutes communication in the brain.

But the fundamental difference between the way traditional computing systems model the brain and the way Neurogrid works lies in the way the computations are performed and communicated throughout the system.

Most computers, including supercomputers, rely on digital signaling, meaning the computer carries out instructions by essentially answering “true” or “false” to a series of questions. This is similar to how neurons communicate: they either fire an action potential, or they don’t.

The difference is that the computations that underlie whether or not a neuron fires are driven by continuous, non-linear processes, more akin to an analog signal. Neurogrid uses an analog signal for computations, and a digital signal for communication. In doing so, it follows the same hybrid analog-digital approach as the brain.

In addition to its superior simulations, it also uses a fraction of the energy of a supercomputer. For example, the Blue Gene/Q Sequoia consumes nearly 8 megawatts of electricity, enough to power over 160,000 homes. Eight megawatts at $0.10/kWh is $800 an hour, or a little over $7 million a year.

Neurogrid, on the other hand, operates on a paltry 5 watts, the amount of power used by a single cell phone charger.

Ultimately, Neurogrid represents a cost-effective, energy-efficient computing platform that Boahen hopes will revolutionize our understanding of the brain.

For more information about this project, check out Dr. Boahen’s website.

superjails:

exformational:

superjails:

crystals reblogging my sherlock yaois

B)

a while ago i used to respond to peoples’ posts like a week later because i queued everything

now i respond to peoples’ post like a week later because i only go beyond my limited dashboard like once a week

crystal likes sherlock yaois

i am tumblr tumblr is me

(via brofriends)

protip never create an ethics club because everyone will assume they know what the debate will degrade into because they are stupid and assume things and think that the truth doesn’t resist simplicity and it makes me angry when i try and no one cares >:(

superjails:

crystals reblogging my sherlock yaois

B)

a while ago i used to respond to peoples’ posts like a week later because i queued everything

now i respond to peoples’ post like a week later because i only go beyond my limited dashboard like once a week

tommilsom:

The TAKE ME OUT EP, FOUR NEW SONGS BY TOM MILSOM is now available for pre-order on iTunes!*

Maaaaan i’m so excited for you to hear this. Three of the songs are brand new and really good! One of them’s been floating around tumblr for like a month and is also really good!

The track listing is:

  1. Let’s Begin Again, a fun song with TRUMPETS
  2. Humans, a cute song about ANTHROPOLOGY
  3. A Face For Memories, a spooky song with a COOL BASSLINE
  4. Take Me Out, the future smash of the summer, I HOPE

You’ll be seeing more of this v. soon, the video for Take Me Out’s gonna be being put on my YT channel and I’m probably gonna upload A Face For Memories to here for you to listen to because im so proud of it

I’m really driving for people to buy this EP, because the more people buy it, the more promotion I can do for my upcoming album Organs, and I’m really keen for Organs to get to as many people as possible. The EP’s priced cheap for a while (£1.79!) so please:

  1. reblog this post
  2. click here and pre-order it (or here for US iTunesif you’re in the US)
  3. tell everyone you know about it, haha

It’ll be actually released on May 27th, by which time hopefully enough people will have pre-ordered this to push Take Me Out into the charts and get some attention on Organs. It’s so much strain to not put them all up on tumblr right now, but i’ve gotta focus my attention! So please, click here to pre-order on iTunes!*

*or on iTunes US!

oh no i love tom milsom

BUY HIS EP