Baby brain scanner photo

Discuss

13 Responses to “Baby brain scanner photo”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Resistance is futile.

  2. Phikus says:

    Apparently it works especially well on plastic children (and those with a lot of fiber in their diet.)

  3. apoxia says:

    My physics friend told me a few months back of the myriad imaging techniques popping up all over the place. He was rather scathing – but then again he is a true MRI researcher.

  4. woid says:

    So when they say “tissue” that includes the skull? I’ve always thought of my skull as opaque. Like a box. With the tissues inside, ready to pop up one at a time.

    Personally, I would be happy to let someone shine a light inside my head.

  5. sad dolls says:

    SAD for the DOLLS

  6. onemonkey says:

    ‘shining a light’ isn’t really the whole story,

    we do this kind of research in my lab. and of course, ‘shining a light’ is how we describe it to parents but, in fact the light in NIRS, (near infrared spectroscopy is created with laser beams.

    We fire freakin laser beams through babies heads, and people let us get away with it. I love my job!

  7. Brainspore says:

    Don’t most new babies come with a Firewire 800 port?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Natalie Portman (!) published a paper using this relatively new technique to study what might be happening in the frontal cortex when babies learn object permenance – the concept that an object that has been hidden from view does not (gasp!) simply cease to exist.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12202098

    -Alex

    • Anonymous says:

      Let’s be clear, it does, in fact, “cease to exist” for you, the observer. Better think about this some more

    • tedsmithsr says:

      I wrote this in prior without my username and am repeating; sorry.
      It is, in fact, true, a la Natalie P, that the “object”, to which we’re so seemingly attached, does “cease to exist”, as far as the observer is concerned. This isn’t philosophy 101 but rather just good 20th century science. Somewhat hard to “argue” because the object can’t be “considered” with out an observer. Thanks, Ted

  9. Anonymous says:

    Natalie Portman, of course, being “Hershlag N” in that paper. And also, by “published”, I mean “was a non-trivial author”. She’s not the main author, and presumably any attention given to how clever she is for being on the paper must really annoy the main author, Abigail Baird.
    -Alex

  10. bklynchris says:

    Yes, but does it detect autism?

  11. Lobster says:

    Or those plastic children with lots of fiber-optics in their diet…

Leave a Reply