From SBS:

Scientists have trained monkeys to manipulate a robotic arm solely with brain power, and could soon help amputees and paralysed stroke victims do the same, according to a new study released today.

Watch video here (and here)

Immobilised monkeys with electrode filaments inserted into their cerebral cortex learned in only days to reach out with the free-standing prosthesis, pluck a tasty morsel with a pincer-like claw, and pop it in their mouths.

When the path of the arm - positioned next to the shoulder – was deliberately blocked, the animals simply willed it around the obstacle with their minds, says the study, published in Nature.

"The entire task is now performed with brain control," Andrew Schwartz, the lead researcher and a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, told AFP.

In preliminary experiments, also with Macaca mulatta monkeys, computers assisted with various parts of the task, he explained.

'study findings'

The study's findings are the first reported use of a so-called "brain-machine interface" (BMI) to perform a practical action in three dimensions - in this case feeding oneself - purely via brain control of a computerised arm, noted John Kalaska, an expert on the central nervous system at the University of Montreal.

Strokes, spinal cord injuries and degenerative neuromuscular diseases cripple tens of thousands of people every year, rendering the simplest of actions - opening a door, scratching an itch, drinking a glass of water - frustratingly difficult or impossible.

Those afflicted with the most severe form of paralysis, known as locked-in syndrome, are fully-conscious prisoners inside a body that no longer responds to the most basic of commands.

"These patients are still able to produce the brain activity that would normally result in voluntary movements," explained Kalaska.

"But their condition prevents those signals from either getting to the muscles or activating them," he said in a commentary, also in Nature.

'paralysis hope'

Schwartz's experiments provide the most tantalising hope to date that paralysis victims can one day short-circuit their own nervous system by hard-wiring their brains directly to a computerised robot.

"Hopefully we will be implanting microelectrode arrays (in humans) in the next two years," Schwartz told AFP.

"At that point it should be relatively easy to perform this kind of task," he said.

In the meantime, Schwartz and his team are making improvements on the robotic arm, adding points of articulation in the wrist and hand to the five already built in - three at the shoulder, one at the elbow, and one at the hand.

This does not mean that "neuroprosthetic robots will soon be available at the local rehabilitation clinic," cautions Kalakska, who says several barriers remain before such devices can be easily deployed.

I bet these monkeys are the same ones that do TV programming!

I got the February/March issue of the Scientific American Mind out of the library the other day. It seemed to be chock full of articles that looked interesting, like "Sexuality and Choice" and "Do Animals Really Love you?".

Is being Gay a Choice?

The first article (by Robert Epstein) asked whether or not Being Gay and Lesbian was genetically determined or not. The examples that drove the article were people who once professed to be Gay and Lesbian and now claim (without the pressure or help from the Christian Right) to be happily Heterosexual. Now of course this sort of thing has always been a point of contention. At what point does "genuine" "preference" or "orientation" end, and the pressure to conform to expectations of "normal" begin?

The conclusion of the article seemed to be that there is a continuum of attraction, but that the the people who make up the "exclusively same-sex attraction" make up only about 3 to 7 % of the (presumerably American) population. People who change (and I guess, people who're Bisexual) fall somewhere between that and the other end of the continuum. The thing I like about the article was a comparison between any genetic component of "gayness" and that of being handedness (left, right, or ambidextrous?.

Apparently the amount of trait's variability accounted for by genes is only 0.32, as compared with height (0.84) and head width (0.95), whereas 90% of people seem to be right-handed. The difference is according to the author, that there's a "cultural push" towards right-handedness. The parallel is that there's a similar push for sexuality as well. I like that analogy, as my mother's left-handed. It makes sense to me.

Bottom line of course is that it's not what you get, what you do (or can do) with it. That's why issues like marriage and such are so important to a lot of people, because not allowing same-sex  (and other types of) marriage limits the opportunity for people to make choices about their lives.

Animals and and Feelings

The other article I found really interesting (other than one about mental feedback that was relevant to easing epilepsy) was the one about whether or not animals have feelings.

It might seem obvious that they do, but the author (Klaus Wilhelm) makes the distinction between primary emotions, social emotions, and feelings. Primary emotions include fear, anger, disgust, surprise, sadness and joy (et cetera) - physical signals of the body responding to stimuli. Social emotions might include sympathy, embarrassment, shame guilt, pride envy, jealousy, gratitude, admiration, contempt and indignation. These are all directed at other members of a social group. Feelings apparently come from the analytical mind, and are self-reflections upon emotions, and may come either slow or fast.

So, does Pegasus (my dog) love me? I know he has emotions (he was stubborn and contrary today), and my vanity would say yes, as I love him. But in truth I don't know, I can only guess. Love in this sense seems to be a social emotion, in that it's directed at someone else. Does Peggy have feelings - that is, self-reflection? Once again I can't say, and you only have my word that I have them too.

Interesting distinctions, I think.