Go better together! Curious story today in the Guardian, "Brains of rats connected to allow them to share information via internet" by Ian Sample (Feb 28, 2013). The internet part of it seems pretty gimmicky, not sure why that's important, and it's a little unclear to me what is really going on here. The substantive portion is described like this:
The scientists first demonstrated that rats can share, and act on, each other's sensory information by electrically connecting their brains via tiny grids of electrodes that reach into the motor cortex, the brain region that processes movement.So it sounds like impulses from one rat, which were generated upon a certain movement, were sent in some format into the other rat's brain, into its motor cortex. That in turn seemed to influence the movements/'decisions' of the receiving rat.
The rats were trained to press a lever when a light went on above it. When they performed the task correctly, they got a drink of water. To test the animals' ability to share brain information, they put the rats in two separate compartments. Only one compartment had a light that came on above the lever. When the rat pressed the lever, an electronic version of its brain activity was sent directly to the other rat's brain. In trials, the second rat responded correctly to the imported brain signals 70% of the time by pressing the lever.
Remarkably, the communication between the rats was two-way. If the receiving rat failed at the task, the first rat was not rewarded with a drink, and appeared to change its behaviour to make the task easier for its partner.
Some questions I have about this - (1) how much of a learning period was involved? 2) how many notable movement/decision options did the receiving rat actually have? 3) was there some timing boundary within which the rat had to take action to be seen as successful communication? 4) what was the success rate? Maybe it's all answered in the paper.
For me it raises the question of whether essentially any patterned impulses received by certain brain areas could be successfully 'interpreted' - and to what level of discrimination. In this case the receiver may be doing little more than using the reception as a timing signal to make a movement, but perhaps it can go deeper than that.
The article ends with a good reminder that there's plenty we don't know in this area:
Very little is known about how thoughts are encoded and how they might be transmitted into another person's brain – so that is not a realistic prospect any time soon. And much of what is in our minds is what Sandberg calls a "draft" of what we might do. "Often, we don't want to reveal those drafts, that would be embarrassing and confusing. And a lot of those drafts are changed before we act. Most of the time I think we'd be very thankful not to be in someone else's head."(H/t to twitterers @pourmecoffee and @neurophilosophy)
Update: Here's another report from NYT: "One Rat Thinks, and Another Reacts"