alisa-vlasenko.bsky.social
The final larval stage of a neuroscientist.
I create hallucinations in mice to (hopefully) restore vision in humans.
Systems neuroscience of learning and visual neuroprosthetics at Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg, DE.
Soup-centric🤫
48 posts
105 followers
183 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Sorry, I donate to orgs like the white helmets and WCK. wck.org/news/gaza-6-21
comment in response to
post
It's not non-mindfulness for sure 😄
comment in response to
post
Never have I ever thought that I would be feeling bad for the US scientists. Somehow I thought the US science would suffer least from any kind of global crisis and even serve as a safe haven for less fortunate scientists. But here we are 🥲
comment in response to
post
Oh, the sensory substitution (specifically, the works of Bach-y-Rita and Eagleman) got me into neuroscience in the first place back when I was not even considering a non-clinical career path for myself. I totally see the usefulness of what you’re doing and I think we both have our place ☺️
comment in response to
post
Those people you are talking about are probably salespeople by nature and have little to do with science (or government efficiency).
comment in response to
post
*optogenetic😅
comment in response to
post
I didn’t mean that in a competitive way, I have seen lots of examples of amazing collaboration in terms of research and combinations in terms of clinical approach, both outlined/planned and already implemented. But the feeling that I don’t really fit was definitely there😅
comment in response to
post
csng.mff.cuni.cz/research.html
And this group is,among other amazing things, building a model to predict,to which extent exactly this would be possible if we could really drive activity in specific neurons whose orientation preference we would have known (sorry if I am not making sense,conf fatigue)
comment in response to
post
This is my loose dumbed down interpretation of this paper. I really don’t think that ontogenetic stim is that different, perceptually, from estim. If anything, I hope it to achieve even greater control over the perceptual nature of the stimulus.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
comment in response to
post
Cool, gonna check it out!
comment in response to
post
👏 👏 👏
I think I was too late to see you in person, but cool work(or at least I find it very interesting even as an invasive methods person)!
comment in response to
post
It also means changing the PhD theses on the fly cause their time is running out and they still need to finish somehow.I am not saying it's the same everywhere,but in biomed the money and human workforce are far from being used efficiently and it needs mending before advertising Europe 4 scientists
comment in response to
post
Research in EU is…waiting 1.5 years for your animal license to be approved and thus wasting tens of thousands of € on
- keeping up the colony of animals just sitting around;
- paying the salaries of those involved in the project you’ve planned while they are waiting.
comment in response to
post
I think it's a very appropriate line to flirt with PhD students struggling with their writing
comment in response to
post
Hi Onions, I am very happy that you got on that NYU mailing chain. You are very cute!
comment in response to
post
It’s a Japanese pancake with extra puff!☺️
comment in response to
post
Image source: www.reddit.com/r/RATS/s/QDo...
comment in response to
post
Rats don’t do loaf; they turn into pancakes
comment in response to
post
Thank you! Much appreciated!
comment in response to
post
🫶
comment in response to
post
Thank you! I have experienced something in this spirit in my previous career (I come from medicine): old docs are experienced, but young docs are, on average,more attentive despite (or owing to) lack of experience. I hope I won't have to back off.
comment in response to
post
Hi Dr. Monica, this ain't much, but neither is a mouse brain (to most people):
www.lin-magdeburg.org/research/res...
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
comment in response to
post
I needed this reply. Thank you!
comment in response to
post
It's based on methods I am using, in an area I have been working on, so it is likely something I can handle. I will probably contact the editor. Thank you!☺️
comment in response to
post
they might turn to us petty PhD students as their last resort. I was addressed as Mrs. so it doesn't seem to be a mistake of some sort. Is it okay to try? Would you be okay with a student being one of your reviewers?
comment in response to
post
To give you an idea about the lifespan of intracortical electrodes,the Utah array data here suggests that they usually survive for several years, not decades. Before conducting human trials on Neuralink,we should have obtained a similar amount of data to ensure its safety.
doi.org/10.1088/1741....
comment in response to
post
Both got better since then. I think surface electrodes are a better current decision for clinical use. The intracortical electrodes should be improved in terms of their biocompatibility. And they are being worked on globally. It's just too soon.
comment in response to
post
As far as I am aware, the absolute record of human brain implants stayed for 36 years. It had surface electrodes. The materials were so crude it got twisted, but histology did not show neural cell death even during extended pressure. The main issue was the materials and the placement precision.
comment in response to
post
Meanwhile, we already have good data on surface electrodes: they don't cause that much damage to the cortex in the long run, and when placed at least above pia mater cerebri (a soft, thin membrane surrounding our brain), they cause much less inflammation.
comment in response to
post
Despite the potential benefits of intracortical electrodes in clinical settings, our current inability to address neuroinflammation and cell loss renders them unsuitable for use. It is imperative that we continue to improve them further. Otherwise, we would have had implants since the 1970s.
comment in response to
post
They never published anything on tissue changes around the electrodes. In all fairness, all intracortical electrodes share this issue, including one of the most well-studied electrode arrays - the Utah array. However,we have massive amounts of data on this array, both in human and non-human primates
comment in response to
post
According to what we saw in their weird presentations, the procedure of implantation excludes the chance of safe explantation later in life without pulling on the glial "scar tissue" around the electrodes and thus dealing immense damage to the implanted tissue
comment in response to
post
According to their FAQ, it's quadriplegia, paraplegia, vision loss, hearing loss, the inability to speak, and/or major limb amputation (affecting above or below the elbow and/or above or below the knee). They also say the need for MRI is a disqualifier, so the device is not MRI-safe.
comment in response to
post
The trial is not registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, so there's no transparency. The patients are recruited with a 2-page brochure neuralink.com/pdfs/PRIME-S... and the list of diseases and states that qualify is unusually wide for a pilot study.
comment in response to
post
This post is very appreciated, thank you!
comment in response to
post
🌿 🟢 🍄📷