Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 1, 2013 in Free Will and Determinism, Science | 7 comments

Rats’ brains linked together to pass information directly. Mental (well, yeah).

Wow. This is mind blowing. Determinists, or near-determinists (such that quantum indeterminism may be true, but that it does not affect the macro level, and certainly not free will issues), will find this Science Daily article particularly interesting. Rats, and even pairs over thousands of miles distance, have had their brains directly linked in communication to solve puzzles. This really does gie the impression that brains are simply very complex biological computers (do you like that oxymoron?).

Brain-To-Brain Interface Allows Transmission of Tactile and Motor Information Between Rats

Feb. 28, 2013 — Researchers have electronically linked the brains of pairs of rats for the first time, enabling them to communicate directly to solve simple behavioral puzzles. A further test of this work successfully linked the brains of two animals thousands of miles apart — one in Durham, N.C., and one in Natal, Brazil.

Researchers have electronically linked the brains of pairs of rats for the first time, enabling them to communicate directly to solve simple behavioral puzzles. (Credit: Katie Zhuang, Nicolelis Labs, Duke University)

The results of these projects suggest the future potential for linking multiple brains to form what the research team is calling an “organic computer,” which could allow sharing of motor and sensory information among groups of animals. The study was published Feb. 28, 2013, in the journal Scientific Reports.

“Our previous studies with brain-machine interfaces had convinced us that the rat brain was much more plastic than we had previously thought,” said Miguel Nicolelis, M.D., PhD, lead author of the publication and professor of neurobiology at Duke University School of Medicine. “In those experiments, the rat brain was able to adapt easily to accept input from devices outside the body and even learn how to process invisible infrared light generated by an artificial sensor. So, the question we asked was, ‘if the brain could assimilate signals from artificial sensors, could it also assimilate information input from sensors from a different body?’”

To test this hypothesis, the researchers first trained pairs of rats to solve a simple problem: to press the correct lever when an indicator light above the lever switched on, which rewarded the rats with a sip of water. They next connected the two animals’ brains via arrays of microelectrodes inserted into the area of the cortex that processes motor information.

One of the two rodents was designated as the “encoder” animal. This animal received a visual cue that showed it which lever to press in exchange for a water reward. Once this “encoder” rat pressed the right lever, a sample of its brain activity that coded its behavioral decision was translated into a pattern of electrical stimulation that was delivered directly into the brain of the second rat, known as the “decoder” animal.

The decoder rat had the same types of levers in its chamber, but it did not receive any visual cue indicating which lever it should press to obtain a reward. Therefore, to press the correct lever and receive the reward it craved, the decoder rat would have to rely on the cue transmitted from the encoder via the brain-to-brain interface.

The researchers then conducted trials to determine how well the decoder animal could decipher the brain input from the encoder rat to choose the correct lever. The decoder rat ultimately achieved a maximum success rate of about 70 percent, only slightly below the possible maximum success rate of 78 percent that the researchers had theorized was achievable based on success rates of sending signals directly to the decoder rat’s brain.

Importantly, the communication provided by this brain-to-brain interface was two-way. For instance, the encoder rat did not receive a full reward if the decoder rat made a wrong choice. The result of this peculiar contingency, said Nicolelis, led to the establishment of a “behavioral collaboration” between the pair of rats.

“We saw that when the decoder rat committed an error, the encoder basically changed both its brain function and behavior to make it easier for its partner to get it right,” Nicolelis said. “The encoder improved the signal-to-noise ratio of its brain activity that represented the decision, so the signal became cleaner and easier to detect. And it made a quicker, cleaner decision to choose the correct lever to press. Invariably, when the encoder made those adaptations, the decoder got the right decision more often, so they both got a better reward.”

In a second set of experiments, the researchers trained pairs of rats to distinguish between a narrow or wide opening using their whiskers. If the opening was narrow, they were taught to nose-poke a water port on the left side of the chamber to receive a reward; for a wide opening, they had to poke a port on the right side.

The researchers then divided the rats into encoders and decoders. The decoders were trained to associate stimulation pulses with the left reward poke as the correct choice, and an absence of pulses with the right reward poke as correct. During trials in which the encoder detected the opening width and transmitted the choice to the decoder, the decoder had a success rate of about 65 percent, significantly above chance.

To test the transmission limits of the brain-to-brain communication, the researchers placed an encoder rat in Brazil, at the Edmond and Lily Safra International Institute of Neuroscience of Natal (ELS-IINN), and transmitted its brain signals over the Internet to a decoder rat in Durham, N.C. They found that the two rats could still work together on the tactile discrimination task.

“So, even though the animals were on different continents, with the resulting noisy transmission and signal delays, they could still communicate,” said Miguel Pais-Vieira, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow and first author of the study. “This tells us that it could be possible to create a workable, network of animal brains distributed in many different locations.”

Nicolelis added, “These experiments demonstrated the ability to establish a sophisticated, direct communication linkage between rat brains, and that the decoder brain is working as a pattern-recognition device. So basically, we are creating an organic computer that solves a puzzle.”

“But in this case, we are not inputting instructions, but rather only a signal that represents a decision made by the encoder, which is transmitted to the decoder’s brain which has to figure out how to solve the puzzle. So, we are creating a single central nervous system made up of two rat brains,” said Nicolelis. He pointed out that, in theory, such a system is not limited to a pair of brains, but instead could include a network of brains, or “brain-net.” Researchers at Duke and at the ELS-IINN are now working on experiments to link multiple animals cooperatively to solve more complex behavioral tasks.

“We cannot predict what kinds of emergent properties would appear when animals begin interacting as part of a brain-net. In theory, you could imagine that a combination of brains could provide solutions that individual brains cannot achieve by themselves,” continued Nicolelis. Such a connection might even mean that one animal would incorporate another’s sense of “self,” he said.

“In fact, our studies of the sensory cortex of the decoder rats in these experiments showed that the decoder’s brain began to represent in its tactile cortex not only its own whiskers, but the encoder rat’s whiskers, too. We detected cortical neurons that responded to both sets of whiskers, which means that the rat created a second representation of a second body on top of its own.” Basic studies of such adaptations could lead to a new field that Nicolelis calls the “neurophysiology of social interaction.”

Such complex experiments will be enabled by the laboratory’s ability to record brain signals from almost 2,000 brain cells at once. The researchers hope to record the electrical activity produced simultaneously by 10-30,000 cortical neurons in the next five years.

Such massive brain recordings will enable more precise control of motor neuroprostheses — such as those being developed by the Walk Again Project — to restore motor control to paralyzed people, Nicolelis said.

The Walk Again Project recently received a $20 million grant from FINEP, a Brazilian research funding agency, to allow the development of the first brain-controlled whole-body exoskeleton aimed at restoring mobility in severely paralyzed patients. A first demonstration of this technology is scheduled for the opening game of the 2014 Soccer World Cup in Brazil.

  • Richard Edwards

    This is pretty cool but I’m not sure that it says anything about quantum mechanics, determinism and free will. It seems to be about perception and information processing. Our senses don’t have any intrinsic value/reliability in themselves – it is entirely down to how our brains process and interpret that information. Getting “sensory” input from outside the body – even, as in this case, from another brain – can therefore be processed and interpreted effectively. The real head-wrecking question for me is what is the decoder rat actually sensing? I guess it’s like trying to imagine having a tail or a phantom limb. Crazy stuff!

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    It’s tenuous, but the point being that brains are like biological computers, in a simple version of a deterministic approach. The fact that the experimenters see this in terms of a supercomputer…

    I was thinking that, if we took this to a futuristic extreme, we could connect human brains up in this way (is this not in some way similar to the Matrix?).

    On QI, of course, we start moving towards quantum computing, and quantum theories of the brain. 

    The idea, as you say, is that we can be provided sensations which we simply do not have, so we are back to ideas of the Matrix. Are our lives merely a series of inputs that lead to outputs. This is the determinism idea. In my book I reference the notion that animals are situation-action machines, but many claim this is not the case of humans and higher-level animals. I simply posit that we are just very complex situation action machines!

    Thanks for commenting, Richard! Incidentally, I am talking on free will tomorrow night at Soton Uni (a different building) on free will. They are expecting about 20 people. Pop by if you are around!

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

    Actually, I think my dates are wrong and my talk is next Friday. Lucky i checked my email…

  • SmilodonsRetreat

    I can’t wait to learn Kung Fu.

    One of the points was that the brain of the receiving rat was able to form a second mental map for a second set of whiskers… those whiskers just belonged to another rat on another continent.

    Presumably are brains are similarly plastic (at least to a point).  So someone with sufficient focus could (theoretically) create a brain map of some skill or knowledge and then make that downloadable.

    Of course, there very well may be baggage that comes with it.  You might pick up some new religious belief or have a sudden fear of mice.  In fact, the more I think about it, the more it frightens me.  Programmable people.  We can already do this through normal interactions, how much easier would it be with direct access to the brain.

    Accidentally download a virus and become a fanatical suicide robot. 

    Sigh, I read too much science fiction.

  • Richard Edwards

    I think you would still need to learn the skill because there is no inherent link between input and output – we might both see the same words but I suspect our brain gets different signals from our eyes before interpreting them.

    Of course, if you could wire two people together, the “decoder” could probably learn to read their thoughts like learning a new language, which would be cool. You might even be able to have a training system where the “encoder” learnt to think in a specific way to produce signals that were consistently recognised by a computer and converted to text (much like implanted animals and people can learn to control a robotic limb). Even though the thought process would be unique for each encoder, if they could be trained to make consistent output then it could lead to a universal language of thought communication.

    I’m still not sure how this relates directly to free will, though. The decoder rat in the experiment is still making a decision in response to a stimulus. This decision could be the result of “free will” or it could be deterministic. (I happen to be a determinist myself but I don’t think this particular experiment informs on the matter one way or the other.)

  • Richard Edwards

    I’m at a wine tasting next Friday but I hope you have a good talk.

  • http://twitter.com/adair_aaron Aaron Adair

    I’d love the have the ability to “download” knowledge or skills into my brain, but from what is the current paradigm in education that probably can’t work. The currently taught theory is constructivism, and in that knowledge is not simply a thing in the brain but it’s relational to the other memories and beliefs that exist in the mind already. When you learn a fact or skill it is built-in by how it is organized in relation to other beliefs and skills.

    It’s also one of the problems in education where what you learn can seem alien to what you already believe, so when classes are over you either dump that knowledge or have no ability to apply it to anything else. I’m in physics education, and we see this all the time; people revert to their preconceptions of physics even when shown they are not the best model.

    So, I doubt you can put knowledge into a brain like you do a PDF to a thumb drive. But perhaps when we learn more about the brain, we can have something more sophisticated and take account of what other neuron connections exist in there already. But that will probably take generations of research, assuming it’s possible.