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

Students exploring the Innovation Co-Lab

Category: Neuroscience Page 1 of 15

How the body’s own defense system plays a role in Alzheimer’s disease

Sticky post

Carol Colton, a distinguished professor in neurology and pathology and a member of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, is renowned for her groundbreaking research on the immune response’s role in the onset and progression of brain diseases, particularly Alzheimer’s disease (AD). She is a firm believer in using animals such as mice for scientific research, saying that progress in understanding and treating diseases like Alizheimer’s would not be possible without them. With a shorter life cycle than humans, mice can be studied throughout their whole life and across multiple generations. They are also biologically similar to humans and susceptible to many of the same health problems, such as Alzheimer’s. Her work has reshaped our understanding of the brain’s immune system, challenging the long-held notion that the brain is “immune privileged.” 

Carol Colton, PhD, professor of neurology and pathology at Duke

Central to Colton’s research is the role of “microglia,” the brain’s resident macrophages. Once thought to be passive observers in brain immunity, microglia are now recognized as active defenders, crucial in maintaining brain health. Colton’s early studies revealed that these cells not only eliminate harmful substances but also adapt to chronic conditions like Alzheimer’s. In this disease, microglia’s prolonged immune activity disrupts the brain’s metabolic balance, necessitating adaptations in neurons, astrocytes, and microglia themselves. She likens this adaptation to the brain coexisting with a parasite – functional but at a metabolic cost.  

Her research underscores how microglia can initially protect against Alzheimer’s by combating amyloid plaques and phospho-tau proteins but eventually contribute to the disease’s progression as metabolic disruptions intensify.

Colton’s approach integrates physiology and pathology, exploring how changes in normal physiological processes influence disease pathology. Her lab employs a variety of advanced techniques, from cellular microscopy to gene and protein analysis, to map the intricate relationships between brain metabolism and disease. This multidisciplinary approach enables a deeper understanding of how the brain’s unique environment shapes disease progression.

A cornerstone of Colton’s recent work is her discovery of “Radical S-Adenosyl domain 1 (RSAD1),” a mitochondrial protein found at the bottom of the ocean critical to understanding Alzheimer’s. RSAD1 is overexpressed in Alzheimer’s neurons, altering methionine metabolism and mitochondrial function. These disruptions contribute to the disease’s characteristic metabolic imbalance. By developing RSAD1-negative and RSAD1-overexpressing mouse models, her lab provides crucial tools to study the protein’s impact on neuronal and mitochondrial metabolism in the presence of amyloid plaques and phospho-tau.

RSAD1 also appears to be linked to methionine depletion in the brain, which may further exacerbate Alzheimer’s pathology. These findings pave the way for novel therapeutic targets aimed at restoring metabolic equilibrium in the brain.

Colton’s scientific journey is deeply influenced by her family’s academic legacy, particularly her mother, who earned a chemistry degree during an era when women faced significant barriers in science. Inspired by her mother’s determination, Colton is a passionate advocate for women scientists, often emphasizing the importance of diversity and mentorship in STEM fields.

Colton’s work highlights the slow, insidious nature of Alzheimer’s disease, driven by metabolic and immune system changes over decades. By asking fundamental questions, such as whether Alzheimer’s results from the loss of key metabolites or whether microglia contribute to this depletion, her research aims to uncover the mechanisms that underlie the disease and identify strategies for intervention.

In the fight against Alzheimer’s, Colton’s discoveries, particularly those surrounding RSAD1 and microglial activity, are setting the stage for innovative treatments. Her dedication to unraveling the complexities of brain metabolism and immune response solidifies her place as a leader in neurology and pathology, with an enduring impact on the field of Alzheimer’s research.

Post by Lydia Le, NCSSM class of 2026

Invincible Insect Pests Don’t Faze This Researcher

“My passion for what I do saved my life.”

Meet Ke Dong, a biology professor at Duke University. She’s a lover of nature, a great cook, and a Lupus survivor. About 20-25 years ago, she developed Lupus during her research years at Michigan State University. Her time with this autoimmune disease was not kind. “The Lupus brought depression,” she said. 

Fortunately, she was surrounded by amazing peers and her passion: research. Dong’s research focuses on ion channels and their reaction to various toxins and stimuli. These ion channels are incredibly important to the physiology of insects because of their impact on neuronal activity. 

Duke biology professor Ke Dong.

However, her passion didn’t develop from thin air. Dong grew up on a college campus in southeastern China. With both parents leading careers as professors — her father in history and her mother in biochemistry — she had the amazing opportunity to develop her passions early in childhood. 

Growing up, she “had never been afraid of insects” as her mother’s work focused on the development of an increased production rate of silk in silkworms. However, it was the incidents in the area around her that sparked her passion. People in the area were often poisoned from the consumption of insecticides from the rice they were growing. This piqued her interest in toxicology as she was curious about how these insecticides were toxic to the townspeople. 

Combining her fearlessness in the face of insects and her interest in toxicology, Dong has found the best of both worlds.

Dong also loves to dabble in the culinary worlds of a diverse range of cultures. As she travels from country to country, she brings with her the memorable flavors of each dish she tastes. Once arriving back home, she immediately purchases cookbooks from those countries to add to her rolodex of culinary skills. As she reads each recipe on her nightstand, she dreams of ways to introduce various flavors and techniques into her dishes. A creative cook, she has no time for following measurements. Her kitchen is her sandbox and allows her to dance with each flavor in her pot, adding less sugar but a little more salt. 

Dong has been through ups and downs in her life, but there’s nothing that’s going to stop her from her passion: research. 

Post by Eubey Kang, NCSSM Class of 2025

Advancing Immunotherapy for Glioblastoma

Sticky post
Vidyalakshmi Chandramohan, associate professor in neurosurgery and pathology, and member of the Duke Cancer Institute. Credit: Duke Department of Neurosurgery

Duke professor Vidyalakshmi Chandramohan is a pioneering neuro-oncologist whose work is redefining the future of glioblastoma (GBM) treatment. As a researcher in the Department of Neurosurgery at Duke, she is driven by a profound commitment to improving patient outcomes and providing new hope for those battling one of the most aggressive forms of brain cancer.

Her journey into science began with an interest in immunology and oncology, which led her to earn a Ph.D. and conduct postdoctoral research focused on the complex relationship between cancer and immune responses. Her fascination with GBM stemmed from the urgent need to develop innovative treatments for a disease with limited therapeutic options. Today, her groundbreaking research offers new avenues for fighting GBM and improving patient survival.

PET scan showing glioblastoma brain cancer. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Chandramohan’s work is centered on immunotherapy, particularly the development of D2C7-IT, a dual-specific immunotoxin currently in Phase I clinical trials for recurrent GBM patients. This precision medicine approach targets tumors with remarkable specificity, minimizing damage to healthy tissue. Her ongoing research aims to enhance the efficacy of D2C7-IT and expand its potential as a viable alternative to traditional treatments.

For Chandramohan, translating her research into tangible solutions is essential. “Developing a therapy is one thing, but making sure it works in the real world is another,” she says. She is exploring ways to combine D2C7-IT with other therapies to improve treatment outcomes and minimize side effects, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in GBM care.

A critical aspect of her research involves identifying biomarkers that predict patient responses to treatment, enabling personalized therapies. “Personalized medicine is the future,” she believes. “Tailoring treatment to each patient’s unique response will improve survival rates and outcomes.”

Collaboration is at the heart of Chandramohan’s work. She fosters an interdisciplinary environment where scientists, clinicians, and engineers work together toward a shared goal. “No one person can do it all,” she emphasizes. “It takes a community of experts to make breakthroughs happen.”

Despite the challenges of translating research into clinical practice, Chandramohan remains unwavering in her determination. “When our work leads to better treatment options, it reminds us why we do this every day,” she says. Her dedication to improving patient care fuels her optimism for the future of GBM treatment.

Looking ahead, Chandramohan is hopeful that the integration of immunotherapy, precision medicine, and innovative technologies will revolutionize the field of neuro-oncology. “We’re just scratching the surface,” she says, confident in the potential to improve outcomes for GBM patients.

Through her relentless pursuit of excellence, Chandramohan is not only advancing the science of glioblastoma treatment but also inspiring the next generation of researchers to push the boundaries of what is possible in the fight against cancer.

Blog post by Adarsh Magesh, NCSSM Class of 2025


Advancing Care and Research in Traumatic Brain Injury

Sticky post

Meet a trailblazer in the realm of neurocritical care and emergency medicine: Dr. Katharine Rose Colton, MD. Balancing roles as a clinician, researcher, and educator, Colton serves as an Assistant Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery at Duke University. Her dedication to understanding and treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) exemplifies her commitment to improving the lives of patients facing severe neurological challenges.

TBI is a significant public health issue, often resulting from falls, motor vehicle accidents, or sports injuries. It can range from mild concussions to severe brain trauma, leaving patients in comas or with long-term disabilities. While treatments for TBI have evolved, many gaps remain in understanding how to optimize recovery and outcomes. Colton’s work bridges this divide, combining cutting-edge research with compassionate patient care.

Colton’s journey into medicine wasn’t linear. A Canadian native, she initially pursued an eclectic range of interests, including ethnobotany and anthropology, during her undergraduate studies. She pivoted to medicine, taking the MCAT on a whim and earning her M.D. from Duke University School of Medicine.

Her first exposure to TBI occurred during a research year at the University of Maryland’s Shock Trauma Center. A project initially focused on trauma surgery shifted to neurocritical care, igniting her passion for studying brain injuries. “I loved it,” she recalls. “It was a completely different way of looking at medicine.”

Colton’s clinical path led her to a residency in Emergency Medicine at Northwestern University and a fellowship in Neurocritical Care. While she enjoyed the fast-paced decision-making of emergency medicine, she found herself drawn to the intricate details of critical care. “I struggled with letting patients go and handing them off to others,” she says. “I wanted to stay involved and see the whole story unfold.”

Now focused primarily on neurocritical care, Colton dedicates a third of her time to research, primarily on clinical trials targeting severe TBI. She has worked on large-scale, multi-site studies investigating drug therapies and monitoring systems to optimize treatment for comatose patients.

Her approach to research is pragmatic: “I’m a clinician first. I want to know how the things we do today will benefit the patient tomorrow.” For instance, her current trials explore the potential of older, cost-effective drugs previously overlooked by pharmaceutical companies to improve outcomes in TBI patients. These trials adopt adaptive designs, allowing for real-time adjustments based on early results to maximize impact.

Colton is also a strong advocate for personalizing TBI treatment. “TBI is an incredibly heterogeneous condition,” she explains. “We can’t treat a 20-year-old in a car accident the same as a 70-year-old who fell. They have completely different recovery pathways.” Her work aims to identify biomarkers and refine classifications of TBI to develop more targeted interventions.

One of the most memorable cases from Colton’s career underscores her dedication to patient care. A young woman struck by a car in Chicago arrived at the ICU in a deep coma, with little hope of recovery. Months later, to Colton’s astonishment, the patient returned to work and resumed her life. “You just don’t know,” she reflects. “That case taught me the importance of patience and persistence in medicine.”

Colton’s role extends beyond the ICU, often involving interactions with patients’ families during some of their most vulnerable moments. “Families often show incredible grace, even in tragedy,” she says. “It’s humbling to see their resilience and willingness to contribute to research, even when it might not help their loved one directly.”

Despite the challenges of long, emotionally taxing weeks in the ICU, Colton finds fulfillment in both the technical and human aspects of her work. “There’s something beautiful about the physiology — adjusting treatments and seeing how the body responds,” she explains. Yet, she never loses sight of the bigger picture: the patient. “Numbers on a screen don’t matter if we’re not improving their lives.”

Outside of work, Colton enjoys paddleboarding, camping, and spending time with her two young children. Her background in ethnobotany and love for snowboarding reflect her multifaceted personality, blending curiosity, determination, and a deep appreciation for life.

Dr. Katharine Colton is shaping the future of TBI care through her dedication to research, her patients, and the families she serves. Her journey is a testament to the impact of resilience, curiosity, and compassion in medicine.

Written by Amy Lei, NCSSM class of 2025

The Dukies Cited Most Highly

Sticky post

The Web of Science ranking of the world’s most highly-cited scientists was released this morning, telling us who makes up the top 1 percent of the world’s scientists. These are the authors of influential papers that other scientists point to when making their arguments.

EDITOR’S NOTE! — Web of Science shared last year’s data! We apologize. List below is now corrected, changes to copy in bold. We’re so sorry.

Twenty-three of the citation laureates are Duke scholars or had a Duke affiliation when the landmark works were created over the last decade.

A couple of these Duke people disappeared from this year’s list, but we’re still proud of them.

Two names on the list belong to Duke’s international powerhouse of developmental psychology, the Genes, Environment, Health and Behavior Lab, led by Terrie Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi.

Dan Scolnic of Physics returns as our lone entry in Space Science, which just makes Duke sound cooler all around, don’t you think?

This is a big deal for the named faculty and an impressive line on their CVs. But the selection process weeds out “hyper-authorship, excessive self-citation and anomalous citation patterns,” so don’t even think about gaming it.

Fifty-nine nations are represented by the 6,636 individual researchers on this year’s list. About half of the citation champions are in specific fields and half in ‘cross-field’ — where interdisciplinary Duke typically dominates. The U.S. is still the most-cited nation with 36 percent of the world’s share, but shrinking slightly. Mainland China continues to rise, claiming second place with 20 percent of the cohort, up 2.5 percent from just last year. Then, in order, the UK, Germany and Australia round out the top five.

Tiny Singapore, home of the Duke NUS Graduate Medical School, is the tenth-most-cited with 1.6 percent of the global share.

In fact, five Duke NUS faculty made this year’s list: Antonio Bertoletti, Derek Hausenloy and Jenny Guek-Hong Low for cross-field; Carolyn S. P. Lam for clinical medicine, and the world famous “Bat Man,” Lin-Fa Wang, for microbiology.

Okay, you scrolled this far, let’s go!

Biology and Biochemistry

Charles A. Gersbach

Clinical Medicine

Christopher Bull Granger

Adrian F. Hernandez

Gary Lyman

Cross-Field

Priyamvada Acharya

Chris Beyrer

Stefano Curtarolo

Vance G. Fowler Jr.

Po-Chun Hsu (adjunct, now U. Chicago)

Ru-Rong Ji

William E. Kraus

David B. Mitzi

Christopher B. Newgard

Pratiksha I. Thakore (now with Genentech)

Xiaofei Wang

Mark R. Wiesner

Environment and Ecology

Robert B. Jackson (adjunct, now Stanford U.)

Microbiology

Barton F. Haynes

Neuroscience and Behavior

Quinn T. Ostrom

Plant and Animal Science

Sheng-Yang He

Psychiatry and Psychology

Avshalom Caspi

William E. Copeland

Terrie E. Moffitt

Space Science

Dan Scolnic

Wiring the Brain

From tiny flies, Duke researchers are finding new clues to how the brain sets up its circuitry.

In her time at Duke, Khanh Vien figures she’s dissected close to 10,000 fly brains. For her PhD she spent up to eight hours each day peering at baby flies under the microscope, teasing out tiny brains a fraction the size of a poppy seed.

“I find it very meditative,” she said.

Vien acknowledges that, to most people, fruit flies are little more than a kitchen nuisance; something to swat away. But to researchers like her, they hold clues to how animal brains — including our own — are built.

While the human brain has some 86 billion neurons, a baby fruit fly’s brain has a mere 3016 — making it millions of times simpler. Those neurons talk to each other via long wire-like extensions, called axons, that relay electrical and chemical signals from one cell to the next.

Vien and other researchers in Professor Pelin Volkan’s lab at Duke are interested in how that wiring gets established during the fly’s development.

By analyzing a subset of neurons responsible for the fly’s sense of smell, the researchers have identified a protein that helps ensure that new neurons extend their axons to the correct spots in the olfactory area of the young fly’s brain and not elsewhere.

Because the same protein is found across the animal kingdom, including humans, the researchers say the work could ultimately shed light on what goes awry within the brains of people living with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

Their findings are published in the journal iScience.

Khanh Vien earned her PhD in developmental and stem cell biology in Professor Pelin Volkan’s lab at Duke.
Robin Smith
By Robin Smith

Pioneering New Treatments in Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease

Note: Each year, we partner with Dr. Amy Sheck’s students at the North Carolina School of Science and Math to profile some unsung heroes of the Duke research community. This is the second of eight posts.

Meet a star in the realm of academic medicine – Dr. Kyle Todd Mitchell!

A man who wears many hats – a neurologist with a passion for clinical care, an adventurous researcher, and an Assistant Professor of Neurology at Duke – Mitchell finds satisfaction in the variety of work, which keeps him “driven and up to date in all the different areas.”

Dr. Mitchell holds a deep brain stimulation device.

Dr. Mitchell’s educational journey is marked by excellence, including a fellowship at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, a Neurology Residency at Washington University School of Medicine, and an M.D. from the Medical College of Georgia. Beyond his professional accolades, he leads an active life, enjoying running, hiking, and family travels for rejuvenation. 

Dr. Mitchell’s fascination with neurology ignited during his exposure to the field in medical school and residency. It was a transformative moment when he witnessed a patient struggling with symptoms experience a sudden and remarkable improvement through deep brain stimulation. This therapy involves the implantation of a small electrode in the brain, offering targeted stimulation to control symptoms and bringing relief to individuals grappling with the challenges of Parkinson’s Disease.

“You don’t see that often in medicine, almost like a light switch, things get better and that really hooked me,” he said. The mystery and complexity of the brain further captivated him. “Everything comes in as a bit of a mystery, I liked the challenge of how the brain is so complex that you can never master it.” 

Dr. Mitchell’s research is on improving deep brain stimulation to alleviate the symptoms of  Parkinson’s disease, the second most prevalent neurodegenerative disorder, which entails a progressive cognitive decline with no cure. Current medications exhibit fluctuations, leading to tremors and stiffness as they wear off. Deep brain stimulation (DBS), FDA-approved for over 20 years, provides a promising alternative. 

Dr. Mitchell’s work involves creating adaptive algorithms that allow the device to activate when needed and deactivate so it is almost “like a thermostat.” He envisions a future where biomarkers recorded from stimulators could predict specific neural patterns associated with Parkinson’s symptoms, triggering the device accordingly. Dr. Mitchell is optimistic, stating that the “technology is very investigational but very promising.”

A key aspect of Dr. Mitchell’s work is its interdisciplinary nature, involving engineers, neurosurgeons, and fellow neurologists. Each member of the team brings a unique expertise to the table, contributing to the collaborative effort required for success. Dr. Mitchell emphasizes, “None of us can do this on our own.”

Acknowledging the challenges they face, especially when dealing with human subjects, Dr. Mitchell underscores the importance of ensuring research has a high potential for success. However, the most rewarding aspect, according to him, is being able to improve the quality of life for patients and their families affected by debilitating diseases.

Dr. Mitchell has a mindset of constant improvement, emphasizing the improvement of current technologies and pushing the boundaries of innovation. 

“It’s never just one clinical trial — we are always thinking how we can do this better,” he says. 

The pursuit of excellence is not without its challenges, particularly when attempting to improve on already effective technologies. Dr. Mitchell juggles his hats of being an educator, caregiver, and researcher daily. So let us tip our own hats and be inspired by Dr. Mitchell’s unwavering dedication to positively impact the lives of those affected by neurological disorders.

Guest post by Amy Lei, North Carolina School of Science and Math, Class of 2025.

Most Highly Cited: 30 for ’23

It’s that most wonderful time of the year: The official list of Clarivate’s Most Highly Cited Scientists came out this morning.  Scientists all over the world came racing down the stairs in their PJs to see if Clarivate had left a treat under the tree for them.

L-R: Odgers, Scolnic, Dong, Hernandez, Harrington, Smith, Ostrom and Lopes.

Good news – there are 30 Duke names on the list!

Being highly cited is a point of pride for researchers. To make the cut, a paper has to be ranked in the top 1 percent for its field for the last decade. Clarivate’s “Institute for Scientific Information” crunches all the numbers.

Mostly, the names on this year’s list of Duke authors are the usual titans. Oddly, some returning names have changed categories since last year — but that’s okay, they’re still important.

And there are three fresh faces: Cardiologist Renato Delascio Lopes, MD Ph.D., who studies atrial fibrillation; David R. Smith Ph.D. of physics and electrical engineering, who’s a leading light in the field of metamaterials; and Dan Scolnic Ph.D. of physics, who’s measuring the expansion of the universe and trying to figure out the dark energy that apparently drives it.

Five of the Duke names on the list this year are co-authors in the Terrie Moffit and Avshalom Caspi lab, a hugely influential group of psychologists and social scientists. Honnalee Harrington, Renate Houts, Caspi, Moffitt, and UC Irvine professor and Duke adjunct Candice Odgers are studying human development from cradle to grave using two cohorts of life-long study participants in New Zealand and England.

Two other longitudinal scientists, Jane Costello and William Copeland of the Great Smoky Mountains Study, are also on the list.

There are 6,938 highly cited scientists this year, from 69 countries and regions. Several appear in more than one division. The United States still dominates with 38 percent of the honorees, but Chinese scientists are on the rise at 16 percent.

The most highly cited Duke authors are:

Biology and Biochemistry

Charles A. Gersbach

Clinical Medicine

Christopher Bull Granger             

Adrian F. Hernandez      

Renato D. Lopes              

Cross-Field

Stefano Curtarolo

Xinnian Dong    

HonaLee Harrington

Renate Houts   

Tony Jun Huang               

Ru-Rong Ji

Robert Lefkowitz

Jason Locasale  

David B. Mitzi    

Christopher B. Newgard               

Michael J. Pencina    

Bryce B. Reeve                      

Pratiksha I. Thakore       

Mark R. Wiesner              

Microbiology    

Barton F. Haynes

Neuroscience and Behavior

Quinn T. Ostrom                              

Pharmacology and Toxicology

Evan D. Kharasch             

Physics

David R. Smith  

Plant and Animal Science

Sheng Yang He                 

Psychiatry and Psychology

Avshalom Caspi                

E. Jane Costello

Terrie E. Moffitt

Space Science  

Dan Scolnic        

Duke Affiliated:

Cross Field

Po-Chun Hsu – University of Chicago, Adjunct Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Pratt School of Engineering

Candice Odgers, UC Irvine, Adjunct at Duke

Environment and Ecology

Robert B. Jackson, Stanford University, Adjunct Professor of Earth and Ocean Science at Nicholas School of the Environment

William E. Copeland, University of Vermont, adjunct in psychiatry and behavioral sciences, School of Medicine.

How Our Brain Deconstructs A World in Constant Motion

It’s a miracle that people aren’t constantly getting into car accidents.

Whizzing by at 65 miles per hour in a car, the brain rapidly decodes millions of photons worth of information from the eyes, and then must use that information to instantly figure out where it is and where it needs to go. Is that a pedestrian approaching the sidewalk or a mailbox? Do I need to take this offramp or the next one? What color is the traffic light up ahead?

Was it a stop sign? I didn’t notice. (US Marine Corps, via Wikimedia Commons.)

Most motorists, miraculously, get to work or school without a scratch.

After nearly a decade worth of research, Duke scientists have figured out how the brain juggles all of this so effortlessly and tirelessly in a surprisingly inefficient way: by making quick, low-level models of the world to help form a clear view of the road ahead. The new findings expand the understanding of how the brain sees the world, and might one day help clinicians better understand what goes awry in people with psychiatric issues defined by perceptual problems, like schizophrenia.

Most neuroscientists think our brain cells figure out what we’re looking at by quickly comparing what’s in front of us to past experience and prior knowledge. Like a biological detective, they might determine you are looking at a house by using past experiences of neighborhoods you have been in and houses you have lived in. Enthusiasts of this Bayesian theory have long reasoned that these quick, probability-based analyses are what help people see a stable world despite sensory and motor noise from eye movement and constant environmental uncertainties, like a glare from the sun or a backdrop of a moving crowd.

A recent paper in the online journal eNeuro however, suggests neuroscientists have overlooked a simpler explanation: that brain cells are also rapidly decoding a constant stream of information from the eyes using simple pattern recognition, like determining you’re looking at a house from the visual evidence of windows, a tall rectangular opening, and a manicured lawn.

Marc Sommer

“That discriminative model has some advantages because it’s really quick, logical, and flexible,” said Marc Sommer, Ph.D., a professor of biomedical engineering at Duke and senior author of the new study. “You can learn the boundaries between decisions, and you can apply all sorts of statistical pattern-matching at a very low level. You don’t have to create a model of the world, which is a big task for a brain.”

Sommer initially hoped to confirm the general consensus in neuroscience—that the brain builds on a working model of the world instead of recognizing patterns from the ground up. But after putting the Bayesian theory to the test with Duke neurobiology alumna Divya Subramanian, Ph.D., now a postdoctoral researcher at the National Institutes for Health, he’s hoping to extend their newfound results to other processes in the brain.

To ferret out which theory would hold up, Sommer and Subramanian recruited 45 adults for an eye test. Participants looked at a computer screen and were quizzed about where a shape on the screen moved to, or if it moved at all. Throughout the test, Subramanian subtly made movements trickier and less obvious to tease out how the brain compensates when there is increasing uncertainty, from changing the contrast of the shape to the shape itself.

After scoring the eye exams, Sommer and Subramanian were surprised to find that the brain didn’t solely rely on a Bayesian approach.

People scored worse when the visual noise was dialed up, but only when they were asked where the target moved to. Test scores were mostly unaffected with noisier scenes when people were asked if a shape moved on the screen, suggesting that—to the team’s surprise—people don’t always use prior experiences when they are more uncertain about what they are seeing, like our biological detective would.

The team spent the next several years parsing through results and replicating their findings “three times to believe it,” Subramanian said, but it always led them to the same conclusion: for some forms of perception, brain cells stick to low-level patterns to draw conclusions about the world around them.

“You can collect data forever and ever. And at some point, you just realize you have enough,” Sommer said.

Sommer now plans to disrupt the dogma for other sensory systems, like spoken language, to see if beloved theories hold up to the scrutiny of testing.

The hope is that by understanding how the brain solves other perceptual problems, Sommer and others can better understand psychiatric and motor disorders, like Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, or obsessive-compulsive disorder, and develop more effective treatments as a result.

“There are some sub-circuits of the brain that are probably pretty well-understood to be involved with these disorders. That’s a biological description,” Sommer said. “And there’s also neurotransmitter deficits, like lacking dopamine in Parkinson’s. That’s a chemical explanation. But there are very few big-picture, explanations of why people have certain psychiatric or motor disorders.”

CITATION: “Bayesian and Discriminative Models for Active Visual Perception Across Saccades,” Divya Subramanian, John Pearson, Marc A. Sommer. eNeuro, July 14, 2023. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0403-22.2023

Guest post by Isabella Kjaerulff, Class of 2025

Neuroscience Shows Why Sex Assault Victims “Freeze.” It’s Not Consent.

Warning: the following article discusses rape and sexual assault. If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted, help is available.

Image: DreamStudio AI, with prompt “Woman, screaming, sitting on the witness stand in a U.S. court of law, in the style of Edvard Munch’s ‘The Scream’”

“You never screamed for help?”

“Why didn’t you fight back?”

These are questions that lawyers asked E. Jean Carroll in her rape case against former president Donald J. Trump this spring. These kinds of questions reflect a myth about rape: that it’s only rape if the victim puts up a fight.

A recent review of the research, “Neuroscience Evidence Counters a Rape Myth,” aims to set the record straight. It serves as a call to action for those in the scientific and legal professions. Ebani Dhawan completed this work at the University College London with Professor Patrick Haggard. She is now my classmate at Duke University, where she is pursuing an MA in Bioethics & Science Policy.

Ebani Dhawan

Commonly accepted beliefs and myths about rape are a persistent problem in defining and prosecuting sexual assault. The intentions of all actors are examined in the courtroom. If a victim freezes or does not attempt to resist during a sexual assault, perpetrators may claim there was passive acquiescence; that consent was assumed from an absence of resistance.

From the moment a victim reports an assault, the legal process poses “why” questions about the survivor’s behavior. This is problematic because it upholds the idea that survivors can (and should) choose to scream or fight back during an assault.

This new paper presents neuroscientific evidence which counters that misconception. Many survivors of sexual assault report ‘freezing’ during an assault. The researchers argue that this is an involuntary response to a threat which can prevent a victim from actively resisting, and that it occurs throughout biology.

Animal studies have demonstrated that severe, urgent threats, like assault or physical restraint, can trigger a freeze response involving fixed posture (tonic immobility) or loss of muscle tone (collapsed immobility). Self-reports of these states in humans shed light on an important insight into immobility. Namely, that we are unable to make voluntary actions during this freezing response.

An example of this is the “lockup” state displayed by pilots during an aviation emergency. After a plane crash, it’s hard to imagine anyone asking a pilot if they froze because they really wanted to crash the plane.

Yet, quite frequently victims of sexual assault are asked to explain the freeze response, something which is further made difficult by the impaired memory and loss of sense of agency which often accompanies trauma.

The legal process around sexual assault should be updated to reflect this neuroscientific evidence.

THIS MYTH HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES.

The vast majority of sexual assault cases do not result in a conviction. It is estimated that out of every 1,000 sexual assaults in the U.S., only 310 are reported to the police and only 28 lead to felony conviction. That is a conviction rate of less than 3%.

In England and Wales, just 3% of rapes recorded in the previous year resulted in charges. According to RAINN, one of the leading anti-sexual assault organizations, many victims don’t report because they believe the justice system would not do anything to help — a belief that these conviction rates support.

E. Jean Carroll named this in her trial. She said, “Women don’t come forward. One of the reasons they don’t come forward is because they’re always asked, why didn’t you scream? You better have a good excuse if you didn’t scream.”

This research serves as a much-needed call-to-action. By revisiting processes steeped in myth, justice can be better served.

I asked Ebani what she thinks must be done. Here are her recommendations:

  1. The neuroscience community should pursue greater mechanistic understanding of threat processing and involuntary action processes and the interaction between them. 
  2. Activists and legal scholars should advocate for processes reflective of the science behind involuntary responses like freezing, and the inability of victims to explain that behavior.
  3. Neuroscientists should contribute to Police officers’ education regarding involuntary responses to rape and sexual assault.

“I’m telling you: He raped me whether I screamed or not.” – E. Jean Carroll

Post by Victoria Wilson, Class of 2023

Page 1 of 15

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén