Sunday, December 12, 2010

Procrastination: effective strategy or self-sabotage?

Sitting in front of my laptop, sugar-free Red Bull in hand, I stare at a blank Word document. The monotonous blinks of the cursor serve as incessantly rhythmic slaps to the face of my (as of yet nonexistent) productivity. Yes, I have another week before my research paper is due, but wouldn't it be nice if I handed it in more than 60 seconds before its deadline? Eh. I could be watching Arrested Development reruns (there's always money in the banana stand).

Sound familiar?

Like your neighbor's annoying ball of fluff (er, precious pomeranian), procrastination is the deranged pet most college students only wish they could take back to the pound.

So why is it that, despite the myriad minutes we could spend working on our final projects, papers, whatever--we choose to do otherwise?

Many students are convinced they work best under the pressure of a high-stress, time-constrained environment. Others iterate that they work more efficiently as the due date approaches. Many (and here I would include myself) have absolutely no idea why they procrastinate so inconveniently often.

One study recently published in the Journal of Accounting Education quantified the effects of procrastination in an effort to determine whether or not procrastination actually boosts academic performance or not.

Using an objective measure of 'procrastination' (as opposed to the self-reported ones on which many studies rely), students were given a set of online homework assignments. One group was asked to perform the online task early, the other was given directions to begin the assignment 'just-in-time.'

Interestingly enough (or unsurprisingly, depending on your logical progression of thought), the researchers found a positive correlation between an earlier start time and better academic performance. This is taking quality (i.e. intelligence) of the student into account, so that the task performance can be attributed only to the procrastination factor.

If you are, like me, an ardent procrastinator, this news may be shocking, appalling and altogether repulsive. But hey, who said you had to change your study habits now, this late in the semester? I mean...

...there's always tomorrow.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Kids Judge! Neuroscience Fair

The Kids Judge! Neuroscience Fair took place in Houston Hall on December 1st. Ever since was first hosted by Penn in 2004, the fair has been a highly-anticipated annual event. This year, once again, students from local elementary schools came to enjoy a day of neuroscience-filled fun.


At this science fair-esque event, the students were not the ones presenting the projects. In fact, the third and fourth graders were the judges, grading the Penn students' presentations! Penn students used creative means to teach the elementary students about various neuroscience concepts, which the elementary students may have had limited exposure to.


Above: Magic Berries. What is our taste system like?



Students learned about the basic brain structure and the importance of helmets


When we're eating, which sensory signal - the action
potential, CCK, or leptin - reaches our brain first and
tells us that we're full?
The student above above is part of the action potential
team in the relay race, passing down silver balls to
represent action potential propagation.


The students get to see real brains, thanks to the
support of the Biological Basis of Behavior Program!

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Research Opportunity

The Siegel lab is looking for pre-med/pre-grad undergraduate research assistants to help out with several ongoing research projects. Our lab investigates electrophysiological, behavioral, and molecular deficits in mouse models of Schizophrenia and Autism. Undergraduates would work under direct supervision of a MD/PhD graduate student or senior post doc and are expected to become highly independent. Time commitment of 10-20 hours/week which can be done for honors thesis, credit, or work study. Undergraduates would be expected to participate in and take lead on publication of work. Potential projects include:

  • Developing a behavioral task to assess working memory in mouse models of schizophrenia, followed by drug testing
  • Investigation of language lateralization in mice using electrophysiological recordings
  • Characterizing electrophyiological activation of amygdalar activity during social behaviors of mice
  • Development of auditory EEG tasks in mice to predict deficits observed observed in schizophrenia
Previous mouse work and/or experience with signal processing is helpful. Please send a resume to mgandal@mail.med.upenn.edu.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Interview with Dr. Zach!

Dr. Zach is a professor and an advisor in the BBB department who joined the Penn community just this past summer. She currently teaches Intro to Brain and Behavior and Developmental Neurobiology. She is incredibly friendly, readily accessible, and willing to spend a significant amount of time helping students (she personally leads recitation!). She will continue to teach BBB 109 in addition to Drugs, Brain, and Mind (BBB 270) next semester, for those of you who are interested.

Q: Can you give us a brief background about yourself?

Dr. Zach: I was a postdoc at Rockefeller University and I came to here to work as a lecturer. I never actually went to an American school so I learned a lot about American higher education system. I’m from Israel. I’m from suburbs of Tel Aviv but I did my PhD in Jerusalem. I came to New York to do postdoc in Rockefeller and this July I came to Penn.

Q: How have you found the education systems to be different?

Dr. Zach: I think compared to my undergraduate experience in Israel it’s a lot more focused on the experience of the student. Take small loads, take a lot of electives in different fields. When I went to school, you didn’t take any electives in different fields. You can do a minor, double major, but all this, like taking a lot o courses outside your major, is very strong here and it’s a lot of focus about having an enriched experience. I really value this. When I went to college you chose the major, that’s a choice, but once you chose it, there aren’t that many more choices. I also work as an advisor. Learning all the rules of the advising, you see that the policy is to help the students still have free time for extracurricular activities and summer programs abroad, etc. There’s a lot of emphasis of how we’d like a student to be as opposed to what you have to know to get a degree.

Q: How did your interest in neuroscience develop?

A: I always wanted to be a scientist, ever since I was a child. I grew up in a suburban environment. I remember when I was five or six they were showing a pathologist in a courtroom – I guess it was like law and order or something. I thought I would have to work with corpses. I was always fascinated with the concept – the very analytical and methodical approach. So I always kind of knew I wanted to be a scientist but this was before I knew any sciences. It was really the scientific method that I liked. As a teenager, I was really interested in the human mind. So I thought it would be perfect that I would get good biological answers instead of vague answers. I did a double major in Biology and Psychology and PhD in Neuroscience. I learned there are very few answers when you try to be rigorous about it, but I still like the effort. Even when I teach BBB109 I still rethink things that I didn’t study myself. There are many great ideas and approaches.

It’s like that in science in general. If you take biology or preliminary genetics course and then do PhD in it, it crumbles into islands of knowledge in oceans of unclarity. And you learn to focus on things you can progress in. Even when I was a postdoc, I’ve seen portions of oceans turn into islands, of people approaching, giving preliminary questions, and then developing them into better answers. It’s very exciting. I think in very few jobs you get to see a big change in knowledge. Most people’s jobs are probably not very different from 3 years ago. In science it’s very different. Even now, to keep with the work I did as a postdoc is an effort. Because things change and I sometimes hear not even the facts but how they’re organizing the theories. It’s nice to feel that the passing of time is meaningful.

Q: What kind of research have you been participating in?

Dr. Zach: In my PhD, I worked on learning new tasks and changes in the primary motor cortex that follow learning. And it was usually motor tasks and how the primary motor cortex representation changes once you learn something. Not so much memory in long term but how is memory being formed. Immediately after you learn something, there’s a process of consolidation and if consolidation is interrupted, you forget, and if consolidation is good, you retain the memory. So how could we look at consolidation and if you talk about brain activity, how are different neurons changing to enable long-term activation? We already know that representation of body changes with practice, connection between cells changes with practice. But what happens within short few hours time to enable memory is interesting and we studied that.

If you compare the primary motor cortex to the primary visual cortex, our level of knowledge is very different. Regarding the visual cortex, information about organization is a lot more known so you can talk a lot more about changes in the organization. Once you know how it’s supposed to be you can talk a lot more about how it changed, while the other the connections are not as well known so it’s a lot harder to talk about change. Therefore, when I moved to do my postdoc, I wanted to look at the same kind of questions of learning and consolidation but with a higher level of detail. In my PhD, I looked at cell activity. Now I wanted to move to a better perspective and more specific connection at the cellular level. This was more complex so in order to do that I moved to working on visual cortex, where more is known.

Q: How did you tackle the research questions you had?

Dr. Zach: So the methods were a big change for me when I began my postdoc. I moved to a method that is still relatively new, called two-photon microscopy. You use a microscope to track changes in fluorescence. What is special about this technique is the “two-photon: part because you project light on tissue and when two photons of light converge, they change wavelength and the meaning of this is that you can detect changes of one photon, allowing very fine resolution. What we did was, we used viruses with construct that will only be expressed in certain cell types – and what will be expressed are fluorescent molecules. So specific cell types in the brain produce genes that give out specific products and now some are fluorescent and we can therefore track these cells. We looked at the shape of the axons of these cells. We looked at them before and right after learning and then looked at them after every week for two months to see the changes formed and every week to see if they were retained. We trained animals to learn something to see changes in connection between cells and to see if they’re maintained throughout the long period of time.

Q: Have you had any interesting discoveries in your research?

A: There are two sides of the spectrum regarding theories on this matter. One theory is that every cell represents a small region. For example, in the primary motor cortex, a cell will control a small group of muscles computing some small subsets of activity. Other theory is that the cells act together to compute all possible movements. According to this theory, one cell can, in different context, generate different movements. We tried to advocate for a different theory that different cells take on different properties at different times. So for example, if a brain region is responsible for the arm movement and you’re trained to move your hand when you see the color green as opposed to the color red or you’re told to move to a certain sound, the cells in the motor cortex will respond to color green or sound with movement. So system will respond to whatever is important for behavior; they respond to whatever guides movement. But this changes in different contexts. Cells in the primary motor cortex originally didn’t respond to green light but after learning that it guides movement, the cells suddenly respond to green more than red. And if [monkeys] move to another task in which green light is meaningless cells don’t respond at all. If [monkeys] go back to the same task, then cells respond immediately. So we showed that the behavior of cells is dynamic, they represent different things at different times.

Why Babies Are Better Than You (and me)

Sitting in front of your potential future boss, staring attentively into his (or her) eyes, nodding with affirmation--look at you Ms. (or Mr., or Mrs....Mz.?) Hotshot, putting this interview to shame. You are Michael Jordan in the 90's.

Wait. No. No, no no. Stop it. Do NOT open your mouth and yawn. Deep breaths, eyes watering, can't focus and...you give up. Surreptitiously covering your mouth with your hand, you attempt a pose reminiscent of Rodin's Thinking Man (you sly fox, you) and suffer the blow to which so many of us succumb.

Alright, so that was probably a bit (or, you know, a lot) overdramatic, but we've all been there. That moment when a yawn sneaks up on you, and you simply can't suppress it. Whether it was sparked by the sight of someone else yawning, hearing the word 'yawn,' a lack of oxygen or fatigue, all of us experience the phenomenon that is yawning on a daily basis.

Though scientists are still uncertain about the origin of this mysterious biological behavior, a recent study by Ailsa Millen and James Anderson posited that, before age five, we are not susceptible to what scientists call 'contagious yawning.' (the yawns that happen when you hear the word 'yawn' and then yawn--try reading that five times without yawning. Sucker.)

The infants and toddlers tested still experienced a normal pattern of yawning: an increase in the morning, decrease in the afternoon and then another increase just before bedtime. However, when exposed to videos of other people yawning, or when in the presence of their yawning parents, these infants and toddlers did not spontaneously yawn, as many of us would.

So why are adults, but not children, able to catch these allegedly 'contagious' yawns? James Anderson (the same James Anderson referenced above, no less) was quoted by The Telegraph saying this on the subject:

"People who score highly for empathy are significantly more likely to show contagious yawning. What we know from other research is that one part of the brain that continues to develop throughout childhood is the frontal cortex and that the frontal lobe plays a role in social decision making and the ability to empathise...That would tie in with the gradual development of contagious yawning during childhood."

Are you an empathetic victim to this harmless monster? Let us know!

Thursday, December 2, 2010

An Evening with Dr. Stocker

At this year's BBB Society movie night on Tuesday, Dr. Alan Stocker introduced The Prestige with a brief discussion of perception. The Prestige is a great movie about the rivalry between two magicians; the deceit, illusion and plot keep you guessing until the very end. To better understand the science behind the magic, Dr. Stocker discussed the creation of visual illusion and why it is that we can be tricked so easily, things that magicians depend on in their acts. Here is a video he used to demonstrate how awareness is essential to the things we notice (it sure as heck got me!):




Now you know why magicians use beautiful, scantily clad women as their assistants (enter Scarlet Johansson)- slight of hand is easy when the audience is busy drooling over a gorgeous woman!