Category: Behavior/Psychology Page 20 of 28

A screenshot of the Airport Scanner game, with a suitcase containing two dynamite sticks. Courtesy of the Mitroff Lab and the Kedlin Company.

You’re at the airport waiting to pass through security and board your flight. The security agent stops the person in line ahead of you: there was a full water bottle in his carry-on bag. He throws out the bottle and proceeds through the airport. Later that evening, you see that person’s face on the news, for having pulled out dynamite on their flight. Why did the TSA agent overlook the dynamite?

A team of researchers at Duke led by Dr. Stephen Mitroff is using a cell phone game to provide answers to this and other questions about airport baggage screenings. Last year, they reported that luggage screeners are likely to miss extremely rare illegal items. In a new study which will appear in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Dr. Mitroff’s team once again leverages the power of big data to address a different issue: what happens when a carry-on suitcase contains multiple illicit items?

Baggage screening is an example of what cognitive scientists refer to as visual search: attempting to locate a target among a crowded visual display. Many laboratory studies have demonstrated that when more than one target is present in the display, people are less likely to find additional targets once they have spotted a first target. One possible reason for this “subsequent search misses” phenomenon is that people become biased toward searching for targets that match the first target. That is, a baggage screener who finds a water bottle might enter “water bottle” mode and be unprepared to see dynamite. This theory is most likely to hold in situations with large and unpredictable sets of targets – which is precisely why it has been difficult to test in the lab, where the relatively small amount of trials that subjects can perform has limited the possible target numbers and frequencies.

A smartphone game called Airport Scanner circumvents this problem. In the game, players act as TSA agents and view X-ray images of carry-on luggage, earning points for correctly tapping illegal items. More than 200 possible illegal items can appear, and each bag can contain between zero and three illegal items among up to twenty legal items. The game is available as a free download from the Kedlin Company, who share the data with the Mitroff lab. They have now collected close to two billion trials (bags searched) from over seven million people, which would take centuries to collect in the lab.

Using these data, Dr. Mitroff and his colleagues were able to make an important discovery about subsequent search misses. When two identical targets are present in a bag, it is more likely that both will be found than when two different targets are present. In other words, if someone first spots a water bottle, it is more likely that they will also find a second item if it is a water bottle than if it is dynamite.

This result supports the theory that finding a visual target biases a person’s perceptions. We become better prepared to find another instance of the same item, rather than a different item. According to Dr. Mitroff, “Knowing this fact can help create search environments and standard operating procedures to overcome this priming effect.”

NIH Getting Serious about the BRAIN

By Karl Bates

On October 9, 2014

In Behavior/Psychology, Biomedical Engineering, Neuroscience

The NIH’s mapping initiative called BRAIN has been likened to a moon shot.

By Kelly Rae Chi

The federal government’s BRAIN Initiative to chart the neural connections in the human brain and explain how its diverse and ever-changing cells make us who we are has been compared to landing a person on the moon.

Last summer the National Institutes of Health (NIH) described its vision as a 100-plus-item list of deliverables, proposed budgets and milestones. Last week, the NIH awarded the first round of seed money toward those goals — $46 million — some it for Duke scientists.

And this week, Gregory Farber, director of the National Institute of Mental Health’s Office of Technology Development and Coordination, visited Duke to talk about the timeline for the decade-long initiative.

Duke scientists in the audience peppered him with questions about how he sees it evolving.

“What I learned in Greg Farber’s talk is that the BRAIN Initiative offers a serious –and I mean serious — ten-year plan to catalyze game-changing discoveries in understanding the human brain, and in doing so, provide new treatments for disorders, like Alzheimer’s disease, that can rob us of our very humanity,” said Michael Platt, director of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences.

BRAIN stands for ‘Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies.’ It’s all about technology, and it will cost a pretty penny for its public and private partners. Fiscal Year 2014’s $46 will develop a “parts list” for the brain and probe neural circuitry in a variety of ways. And that’s only the start.

The initiative is expected to begin in earnest in 2016, take five years for tool development and five more to apply those tools to study humans wherever possible.

“We have a strong sense that we want to see these tools have clinical applications in the not-too-distant future, but I’m being careful not to define ‘not-too-distant’,” Farber told a room full of neuroscientists, many of them working on human brain imaging.

Allen Song is a professor of Radiology, Neurobiology, Psychiatry and Biomedical Engineering.

In the audience was Allen Song, professor and director of the Duke-UNC Brain Imaging Analysis Center and among the first scientists awarded NIH BRAIN funds. He is leading a team that will further develop and validate a human brain imaging technique dubbed ‘NEMO,’ for Neuro-Electro-Magnetic Oscillations.

The hope is that NEMO, and other ‘next-generation’ brain imaging advances supported with the initiative, will help solve some of the limitations of today’s technologies. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), for example, measures changes in the levels of oxygenated blood in the brain. It’s an indirect way of seeing neural activity, and it comes with a several-second delay.

Used with traditional MRI scanners, NEMO will more directly tune into neurons, which naturally create waves of electrical activity in the brain at specific frequencies.

For example, “if this technology works, we can tune our machine to listen to the 10-Hertz oscillation in the brain as a result of neuron firing,” Song said. Then, by driving neurons into specific oscillations at different times and during different tasks, the scientists may be able to resolve the brain in better spatial and temporal detail.

Song said that although he’s excited and confident, he already feels the pressure of a tight timeline for the project. It won’t be possible to finish it in the three-year timeframe. Even with continued funding, at the end of 12 years, “we don’t know where we will be,” he said.

Still, Song and his colleagues were all smiles as they filed in for Farber’s talk. “It’s a thrill to see Allen Song and his colleagues win support in the first round of BRAIN grants to develop the next generation in human brain imaging technology,” Platt said. “I’m confident Duke neuroscience will figure prominently in the BRAIN Initiative, given our focus on interdisciplinary innovation and collaboration.”

No actual cartoon fish will be used in the NEMO project.

Artistic Anatomy: An Exploration of the Spine

By Olivia Zhu

On October 8, 2014

In Behavior/Psychology, Biomedical Engineering, Medicine, Science Communication & Education, Visualization

By Olivia Zhu

How many times have you acted out the shape of a vertebra with your body? How many times have you even imagined what each of your vertebrae looks like?

On Wednesday, October 1, Kate Trammell and Sharon Babcock held a workshop on the spine as part of the series, Namely Muscles. In the interactive session, they pushed their audience members to gain a greater awareness of their spines.

Participants assemble vertebrae and discs of the spine

Trammell and Babcock aim to revolutionize the teaching of anatomy by combining art, mainly through dance, and science. They imagine that a more active, participatory learning style will allow students from all backgrounds to learn and retain anatomy information much better. Babcock, who received her Ph.D. in anatomy from Duke, emphasized how her collaboration with Trammell, a dancer and choreographer, allowed her to truly internalize her study of anatomy. The workshop participants, who included dancers and scientists alike, also reflected a fusion of art and science.

Trammell observes the living sculptures of thoracic vertebrae

To begin the exploration of the spine, Trammell and Babcock had participants close their eyes and feel models of individual vertebrae to gain tactile perception. Trammell and Babcock then instructed participants to make the shape of the vertebrae they felt with their bodies, creating a living sculpture garden of various interpretations of vertebrae–they pointed out key aspects of vertebrae as they walked through the sculptures.

Finally, Trammell and Babcock taught movement: in small groups, people played the roles of muscles, vertebrae, and spinal discs. They worked on interacting with accurate movements (for example, muscles only pull; they cannot push) to illustrate different movements of the spine.

Interactive illustration of a muscle pulling vertebrae

To complete the series, Trammell performed Namely, Muscles, choreographed by Claire Porter, on October 4^th at the Ark.

Duke Shaking up Basal Ganglia Research

By Karl Bates

On October 8, 2014

In Behavior/Psychology, Neuroscience

By Kelly Rae Chi

Duke brain scientists are shaking up their field’s understanding of a part of the brain called the basal ganglia that’s sort of a crossroads for many important functions.

A simplified map of the pathways domamine and serotonin travel to the basal ganglia, the snail-shaped structure in the middle of the human brain.

A simplified map of the pathways dopamine (blue) and serotonin travel to the basal ganglia, the snail-shaped structure in the middle of the human brain.

Basal ganglia signaling is involved in movement, learning, language, attention, and motivation. But this centrality also makes it challenging to figure out how it works, said Henry Yin, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke, and a member of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences.

As healthy mice collected food pellets delivered into a cup once per minute every minute for two hours. Yin’s team was recording the electrical activity of neurons projecting to and from the basal ganglia.

Henry Yin is an assistant professor in Psychology and Neuroscience.

Naturally, the mice picked up food less often as they became full and some of the cells that use dopamine to signal reward showed less activity.

But other dopamine cells became more active.

In a paper describing these experiments , Yin’s group proposed that the cells’ activity reflected not reward but what the animals are physically doing.

This was new and Yin became curious. Was there a direct relationship between movement and dopamine activity?

Using a different experimental setup with cameras and pressure pads, Yin’s group quantified mouse movements while recording neural activity. “What happens is that whenever there’s movement, (there are phases of) dopamine activity,” Yin said to a room full of fellow neuroscientists during a recent seminar at Duke.

Putting the mice on top of a “shaker,” a piece of lab equipment normally used to gently shake tubes and dishes full of liquids, they found individual dopamine neurons responded to specific directions the mouse was tilted on the shaker. The same was true for nearby neurons that signal using GABA, an inhibitory chemical in the brain.

Using additional methods for tracking motions of freely moving mice, the group has discovered specific sub-populations of neurons that respond to different aspects of movement, especially movement speed and acceleration.

The researchers have also created transgenic mice whose dopamine neurons can be stimulated using light. Turning on these neurons makes the mice move.

Yin is working on publishing these results, but he said there’s a lot of resistance in the field. His work appears to be directly challenging the dogma that dopamine is linked to reward. He says it might actually be involved in generating movements.

“Let’s say you’re drinking coffee and that’s a reward,” Yin said. “I record your neural activity, and it’s correlated with coffee. You might say it’s a coffee neuron. But that’s not true unless you can measure the movement kinematics and rule out other possible correlations. What we’re seeing is that, with no exceptions, the phasic activity of DA neurons is always correlated with movement.”

Yin’s work also challenges theories about why people with Parkinson’s disease, whose dopamine cells degenerate, often have trouble initiating movement, or they move more slowly than they mean to.

“If you’re a doctor, a neurologist, what you study is the rate model. That’s the textbook description,” Yin said. The gist of the rate model is that the basal ganglia is constantly putting the “brakes” on behavior, and when its neurons settle down, that allows for movement. Parkinson’s patients can’t initiate movements, it’s thought, because their basal ganglia output (more specifically, the rate of firing in the inhibitory output neurons) is too high, producing excessive braking.

In contrast, according to Yin’s work, at least four different types of basal ganglia output neurons are adjusting behavior dynamically and continuously, to shape the speed and direction of movement.

When the activity of these neurons is constant, it reflects a stable posture, Yin said. So he argues that the problem with Parkinson’s patients is not that their basal ganglia output is too high, but that this output is stuck in firing mode. The downstream brain areas required for postural control don’t get the right commands.

Nicole Calakos is an associate professor of neurology.

“Henry’s studies are really exciting because we’ve thought about this circuitry in one way for a very long time and his findings really cast a new light on those interpretations,” said Nicole Calakos, M.D., Ph.D., an associate professor of neurology. “I treat patients with Parkinson’s disease and other diseases that involve this circuitry. It is interesting to consider this alternate view to explain the problems my patients face in doing their day-to-day activities.”

Calakos’ own research focuses on how learning alters signal processing by the basal ganglia, and how the signaling goes awry in brain diseases such as obsessive-compulsive disorder. Duke researchers are finding compelling links between different behavioral states and specific long-lasting patterns of activity in the basal ganglia.

Duke Neuroscientist Teaching about This Week's Nobel

By Karl Bates

On October 7, 2014

In Behavior/Psychology, Faculty

By Kelly Rae Chi

Talk about great timing!

Jennifer Groh, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke, is launching a Coursera course next week and a book next month — both devoted to the topic of the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine which was awarded Monday.

This year’s Nobel went to three scientists who discovered the neurons responsible for our brain’s form of GPS, crucial for our ability to navigate a complex and changing world. And that’s the topic of Groh’s work, “Making Space: How the Brain Knows Where Things Are.”

The cover of Jennifer Groh’s new book.

In 1971, John O´Keefe of University College London had shown that certain neurons in the hippocampus — a brain area known for its role in memory — are active only when a rat is in certain spot in its environment. O’Keefe called these neurons ‘place cells.’

In 2005, May-Britt Moser and Edvard Moser, partners in both marriage and science at the Norwegian University of Science & Technology in Trondheim, described a region near the hippocampus in which cells became activated in a unique grid-like pattern as an animal moved through its environment. They dubbed them ‘grid cells.’

“O’Keefe and the Mosers made a discovery that I find endlessly fascinating — that a brain network closely tied with memory is extremely sensitive to one’s location in space,” Duke’s Groh said. “This suggests that our movements through the world play a role in helping us remember.”

Jennifer Groh is a professor of Psychology and Neuroscience.

“Once you know this, you see the implications everywhere,” said Groh who is also a member of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences. “For example, when you go to a college reunion and are roaming your old haunts, long dormant memories come flooding back.”

Groh’s new book, Making Space: How the Brain Knows Where Things Are, explains more about how our brains convey a sense of location and direction. In it, Groh makes the case that such spatial processing is inextricably tied to our ability to think and remember.

Her openly available Coursera course based on the book, “The Brain and Space,” starts Monday, October 13. To celebrate the Mosers and O’Keefe winning the prize, she made her lecture on the place cells available on YouTube.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocm81AkkXSw?rel=0]

Can Research Help Students Avoid Bad Decisions?

By Karl Bates

On August 15, 2014

In Behavior/Psychology, Faculty, Guest Post, Medicine, Students

By Kelly Rae Chi

Of all the freshman arriving at Duke next week — coming from far and wide to take challenging courses, navigate new living arrangements, make and break friendships — who will thrive?

What is it about a person that gives him or her the ability to cope with the stress of college better than somebody else?

Duke researchers are examining the student experience to better understand how and when to prevent substance abuse problems.

That’s what a small crowd of basic researchers and clinicians wondered aloud this week during a Grand Rounds mini-retreat introducing Duke’s new Center On Addiction and Behavior Change (CABC).

In particular, the CABC and affiliates are interested in the mental health issues students bring to campus, what happens when they get here, and what can be done at the institutional level to steer them toward healthful choices.

Last year, trustees of The Duke Endowment approved a $3.4 million, four-year grant to help Duke and three other schools toward this goal. The CABC’s charge is to study prevention, early intervention and treatment of addiction with an eye toward public policy development and community outreach at Duke.

The center’s co-director Timothy Strauman, a professor of psychology and neuroscience, said 30-40% of students enter college having been diagnosed with a mental health issue. Many attack life on campus with a “work hard, play hard” attitude, to their possible detriment, he added.

The question is whether the university can change the student experience to prevent maladaptive behaviors, like binge drinking, that have become all too common on college campuses. Researchers attending the mini-retreat offered a range of suggestions for helping students thrive, from changing or eliminating fraternities, to incorporating resilience themes into student orientation activities, to pairing students with mentors.

“The goals of CABC are not just about research and patient care, it’s also about re-engineering how the university works,” Strauman said. “If we can do that, we will have been a success.”

More broadly, the CABC, administered by the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, aims to better understand addiction and behavior disorders through basic and translational research and to convert that knowledge into prevention, early intervention and treatment. With CABC, Duke is poised to improve the health of the community, said the center’s co-director Edward Levin, a Duke professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

The student resiliency project is just one way forward: The center also hopes to integrate services with employee health, and participate in other forms of local outreach.

To accomplish these goals, researchers from a range of research areas in addiction and behavior are now meeting to brainstorm and share resources. At the mini-retreat, for example, John Looney, M.D., a physician in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, shared his expertise as director of Duke’s Consortium for the Study of the American College Student. He also invited the CABC and other researchers to access the program’s survey database about college students (largest of its kind in the world), which includes data on substance abuse.

Interfaith Groups Build Bridges Praying Together

By Karl Bates

On June 26, 2014

In Behavior/Psychology, Guest Post, Students

By Eric Ferreri, News & Communications

Organizations are turning to prayer to help bridge differences among employees, according to a new study involving a Duke University graduate student.

The study finds that interfaith group prayer serves as a “bridging cultural practice” within multi-faith groups studied by three researchers including Brad Fulton, a PhD student in Duke’s sociology department.

Interfaith prayer builds bridges if diversity is acknowledged and accepted. (iStock photo)

The study, published this month in the American Sociological Review, consists of data from a national study of multi-faith community organizing groups.

Interfaith group prayers took place in about 75 percent of the diverse gatherings analyzed over two years. Those prayers are considered a “bridging cultural practice,” a way to help people of disparate backgrounds find common ground.

Fulton acknowledged that prayer doesn’t work for all groups or organizations. But bridging practices aren’t just religious in nature. Some could involve food, sports or other activities. And he believes organizations that focus on the similarities of their people but ignore differences aren’t realizing the full benefits of diversity.

“It is risky to simply assume that people from diverse backgrounds will automatically work well together,” he said. “More diversity tends to correspond with more challenges. But organizations tend to be more effective when they engage, rather than avoid, the varied backgrounds represented in their workforce.”

Fulton is one of three co-authors of the paper along with Ruth Braunstein of the University of Connecticut and Richard L. Wood from the University of New Mexico.

Primary funding for the national study was provided by Interfaith Funders, along with secondary grants from the Hearst Foundation, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Religious Research Association, the Louisville Institute, and Duke University.

Duke Researchers Cited for Their Influence

By Karl Bates

On June 13, 2014

In Behavior/Psychology, Business/Economics, Cardiology, Chemistry, Environment/Sustainability, Faculty, Global Health, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics

We are the champions, my friend.

By Karl Leif Bates

A new compilation of the world’s most-cited scientists just released by Thomson Reuters (our friends from March Madness), shows that 32 Duke researchers are in the top one percent of their fields.

There are 3215 most-cited scientists on the list, so perhaps that makes Duke the one percent of the one percent?

Most-cited means a particular paper has been named frequently in the references by other papers in that field.

And that “is a measure of gross influence that often correlates well with community perceptions of research leaders within a field,” Thomson Reuters says. The database company admits their study methodology does favor senior authors who have had their papers out there longer, but there are quite a few younger Duke researchers in this list too.

From the Medical Center, the tops in citations in clinical medicine are cardiologists Eric Peterson, Robert Califf, Christopher Granger, and Eric Magnus Ohman. Michael Pencina, a biostatistician at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, is also most-cited in clinical medicine.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Nobel laureate, biochemist, and father of the G-protein coupled receptor Robert Lefkowitz made the list in pharmacology and toxicology.

Barton Haynes and David Montefiori of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are listed in the microbiology category.

Medical School basic scientist Bryan Cullen of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology was cited in microbiology.

In psychiatry/psychology, A. John Rush, the vice dean for clinical research at Duke-NUS School of Medicine in Singapore, made the list, as did Richard Keefe, Joseph McEvoy of psychiatry and Avshalom Caspi, and Terrie Moffitt of Psychology & Neuroscience in Arts & Sciences.

Also from Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, Ahmad Hariri and HonaLee Harrington of Psychology & Neuroscience also made the list in psychiatry/psychology. Benjamin Wiley was oft-cited in Chemistry, James Berger and Ingrid Daubechies in mathematics, and plant biologists Philip Benfey, Xinnian Dong and Tai-Ping Sun in the category of plant and animal science.

Sanford School of Public Policy Dean Kelly Brownell is on the list in general social sciences, along with Arts & Sciences sociologist James Moody and nutrition researcher Mary Story of community and family medicine and the Duke Global Health Institute.

Nicholas School of the Environment researchers Robert Jackson and Heather Stapleton were cited the environment/ecology category.

From the Pratt School of Engineering, David R. Smith was cited in the physics category and Jennifer West in materials science.

The economics and business category includes Dan Ariely along with his Fuqua School of Business colleagues Campbell Harvey and Arts & Sciences economist Tim Bollerslev.

The Thomson Reuters analysis is based on their Web of Science database. This is the first time it has been done since 2001, when there were 45 Duke names on the list (including five that appeared again this time), but the methodology has changed somewhat.

UPDATE – There’s now a full PDF report from Thomson Reuters for download – http://sciencewatch.com/sites/sw/files/sw-article/media/worlds-most-influential-scientific-minds-2014.pdf

Seeing may not be perceiving—the neurobiology of perception

By Olivia Zhu

On March 26, 2014

In Animals, Behavior/Psychology, Lecture

The elephant-nosed electric fish

By Olivia Zhu

Larry Abbott argues that sensation is not perception. In a lecture presented on March 25^th to the Department of Neurobiology at Duke, Dr. Abbott, of the Center for Neurobiology and Behavior at Columbia University, presented his model of integrated perception.

Dr. Abbott went into particular depth about how an organism can tell itself apart from its surroundings. Though we may take it for granted, self-identification is extremely important in many instances: for example, when a young, male zebra finch learns how to sing by copying his tutor, he must be able to distinguish his own song from other birds’ songs in order to properly listen to it and refine it.

Dr. Abbott studies self-perception in elephant-nosed electric fish. Electric fish have an organ in their body that sends out strong electric pulses. However, the fish also have a sensory organ to detect electric pulses from potential prey, which are several orders of magnitude lower than their own signals. Their own electric fields should diminish their sensitivity to external electricity; this interference, though, is prevented because their electricity-generating organ sends impulses to the sensory organ to inform it when it is firing. Essentially, the fishes’ neural circuits are tuned to cancel out the input they receive from their own electric pulses.

Ultimately, Dr. Abbott claimed that when you look at your friend, you’re not exactly seeing your friend: your mental image is a product of various mental manipulations of the original sensory input your brain receives. His mathematical, model-based approach attempts to redefine the way in which we view ourselves and our relation to the world.

Jane Austen and Game Theory

By Olivia Zhu

On March 25, 2014

In Behavior/Psychology, Lecture, Mathematics, Science Communication & Education

Attendees played Regency Era card games involving game theory before the talk

By Olivia Zhu

“It is a great deal better to choose than to be chosen.” –Jane Austen, in Emma.

Jane Austen — novelist, romantic, and social critic — can now add another title to her repertoire: game theorist.

This role has been bestowed upon her by Michael Chwe, a game theorist in the Department of Political Science at UCLA and author of the book Jane Austen, Game Theorist. Chwe claims that Austen acts as a social scientist by setting up a theoretical framework for game theory in her novels. In his talk to a lively crowd well-versed in Austen’s works on March 25^th, Chwe explained Austen’s uncanny emphasis on choice, preference, and strategic thinking.

Chwe’s illustration of Jane’s choices and commensurability analysis in Pride and Prejudice

According to Chwe, Austen does not attribute actions to random variables, but rather to careful consideration of all alternatives. For example, Fanny Price in Mansfield Park chooses to refuse Henry Crawford’s offer of marriage after weighing her options; she does so entirely out of personal preference. Similarly, a major tenet in game theory is that the individual chooses what she wants to do without much consideration past her own wishes. Chwe said that Austen places a criticism on game theory here, when Fanny’s uncle, Sir Thomas, chastises Fanny being selfish instead of marrying Henry for the family’s financial security.

Chwe also introduced the game theory concept commensurability, in which negative factors are literally subtracted from positive factors in a decision to produce a single number of utility. He stated that Austen’s language, including phrases such as “finely checkered” happiness, “two

Chwe’s playful histogram of Elizabeth Bennet’s quantification of emotion.

pleasures, however unlike in kind,” and “on the whole, no cause to repine,” clearly illustrate Austen’s intent to quantify emotions for commensurability.

Finally, Chwe pointed out the bounty of strategic thinking, another element of game theory, present in Austen’s novels. Austen does not portray calculation as unnatural or cold, he says. She mentions the word “scheme” 126 times, “contrive” 54 times, “foresight” 49 times, and “calculate” 41 times. Her strong, female characters often pride themselves on their ability to anticipate others’ actions.

Chwe concluded that though there is no direct evidence that Austen infused game theory into her novels, she clearly explores the concept of choice in her work.

Following the people and events that make up the research community at Duke

Category: Behavior/Psychology Page 20 of 28

Why Airport Scanners Catch the Water Bottle but Miss the Dynamite

NIH Getting Serious about the BRAIN

Artistic Anatomy: An Exploration of the Spine

Duke Shaking up Basal Ganglia Research

Duke Neuroscientist Teaching about This Week's Nobel

Can Research Help Students Avoid Bad Decisions?

Interfaith Groups Build Bridges Praying Together

Duke Researchers Cited for Their Influence

Seeing may not be perceiving—the neurobiology of perception

Jane Austen and Game Theory