THE FABGEO

E-Marketer / Entrepreneur - Mexico, Europe -
Sticky Post

neurosciencestuff:

Brain implants: Restoring memory with a microchip

William Gibson’s popular science fiction tale “Johnny Mnemonic” foresaw sensitive information being carried by microchips in the brain by 2021. A team of American neuroscientists could be making this fantasy world a reality.

Their motivation is different but the outcome would be somewhat similar. Hailed as one of 2013’s top ten technological breakthroughs by MIT, the work by the University of Southern California, North Carolina’s Wake Forest University and other partners has actually spanned a decade.

But the U.S.-wide team now thinks that it will see a memory device being implanted in a small number of human volunteers within two years and available to patients in five to 10 years. They can’t quite contain their excitement.

“I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime,” said Ted Berger, professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. “I might not benefit from it myself but my kids will.”

Rob Hampson, associate professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest University, agrees. “We keep pushing forward, every time I put an estimate on it, it gets shorter and shorter.”

The scientists — who bring varied skills to the table, including mathematical modeling and psychiatry — believe they have cracked how long-term memories are made, stored and retrieved and how to replicate this process in brains that are damaged, particularly by stroke or localized injury.

Berger said they record a memory being made, in an undamaged area of the brain, then use that data to predict what a damaged area “downstream” should be doing. Electrodes are then used to stimulate the damaged area to replicate the action of the undamaged cells.

They concentrate on the hippocampus — part of the cerebral cortex which sits deep in the brain — where short-term memories become long-term ones. Berger has looked at how electrical signals travel through neurons there to form those long-term memories and has used his expertise in mathematical modeling to mimic these movements using electronics.

Hampson, whose university has done much of the animal studies, adds: “We support and reinforce the signal in the hippocampus but we are moving forward with the idea that if you can study enough of the inputs and outputs to replace the function of the hippocampus, you can bypass the hippocampus.”

The team’s experiments on rats and monkeys have shown that certain brain functions can be replaced with signals via electrodes. You would think that the work of then creating an implant for people and getting such a thing approved would be a Herculean task, but think again.

For 15 years, people have been having brain implants to provide deep brain stimulation to treat epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease — a reported 80,000 people have now had such devices placed in their brains. So many of the hurdles have already been overcome — particularly the “yuck factor” and the fear factor.

“It’s now commonly accepted that humans will have electrodes put in them — it’s done for epilepsy, deep brain stimulation, (that has made it) easier for investigative research, it’s much more acceptable now than five to 10 years ago,” Hampson says.

Much of the work that remains now is in shrinking down the electronics.

“Right now it’s not a device, it’s a fair amount of equipment,”Hampson says. “We’re probably looking at devices in the five to 10 year range for human patients.”

The ultimate goal in memory research would be to treat Alzheimer’s Disease but unlike in stroke or localized brain injury, Alzheimer’s tends to affect many parts of the brain, especially in its later stages, making these implants a less likely option any time soon.

Berger foresees a future, however, where drugs and implants could be used together to treat early dementia. Drugs could be used to enhance the action of cells that surround the most damaged areas, and the team’s memory implant could be used to replace a lot of the lost cells in the center of the damaged area. “I think the best strategy is going to involve both drugs and devices,” he says.

Unfortunately, the team found that its method can’t help patients with advanced dementia.

“When looking at a patient with mild memory loss, there’s probably enough residual signal to work with, but not when there’s significant memory loss,” Hampson said.

Constantine Lyketsos, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at John Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore which is trialing a deep brain stimulator implant for Alzheimer’s patients was a little skeptical of the other team’s claims.

“The brain has a lot of redundancy, it can function pretty well if loses one or two parts. But memory involves circuits diffusely dispersed throughout the brain so it’s hard to envision.” However, he added that it was more likely to be successful in helping victims of stroke or localized brain injury as indeed its makers are aiming to do.

The UK’s Alzheimer’s Society is cautiously optimistic.

“Finding ways to combat symptoms caused by changes in the brain is an ongoing battle for researchers. An implant like this one is an interesting avenue to explore,” said Doug Brown, director of research and development.

Hampson says the team’s breakthrough is “like the difference between a cane, to help you walk, and a prosthetic limb — it’s two different approaches.”

It will still take time for many people to accept their findings and their claims, he says, but they don’t expect to have a shortage of volunteers stepping forward to try their implant — the project is partly funded by the U.S. military which is looking for help with battlefield injuries.

There are U.S. soldiers coming back from operations with brain trauma and a neurologist at DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is asking “what can you do for my boys?” Hampson says.

“That’s what it’s all about.”

(via emergentfutures)

good:

Happy Tuesday, y’all.

Thanks, Kate



TED Conference - Golden Circle essence by Simon Sinek

The recent troubles faced by Groupon shows us that you don’t make business in the largest market in the world whithout a sound and well planned strategy. China now represents 385 millions users, a fifth of the Internet users worldwide. A “must be” market for any international company.

The Super Bowl Ad from Feb11 made lots of people angry in China and marked the begining of Groupon’s troubles. Groupon clearled lacked common sense:

“The people of Tibet are in trouble, their very culture in jeopardy”

The video was broadcasted nationwide and internationally through video sharing plateforms. I can imagine the kind of reactions the Chinese had. When i was studying in Shanghai, i mentioned a few time the situation of Tibet with local Chinese. For them there is nothing to discuss. Tibet has always been and will always be part of China. To locals, the Chinese government is bringing modernity and education to the “peasants of the west”. This is a all positive transition to (most of) them.

In marketing terms, it makes sense to mention Tibet. There is a lot of Tibetan supporters in the USA that would find interesting to enjoy exotic food and agree to the statement that the “People of Tibet are in trouble”. But the campaign was launched without understanding and measuring its global impact. You cannot say that the people of Tibet are in trouble in China cause this is very insulting to Chinese. There have a very different understanding of the situation and this is something that has to be respected if you intend to make business there. If not, Chinese would start hating you, along with your brand and what you represent. This is what is happening to Groupon.cn

TUANBAO.com (Groupon China) is not doing so well despite massive investment, international experience and entering the market through GaoPeng.com The very dense Chinese market has already more that 100 significants actors

So Groupon is having a hard time penetrating the Chinese market, along with the other Big G company, Google.

Google is outpassed by Baidu that now enjoys a 70% market share in China.

So what is really the problem?

1/ The cultural problem

The Feb11 Super Bowl ad hurt thousands of Chinese. The marketing guys behind this probably never tought of the millions of people that could be exposed to it. In China you don’t mess with Taiwan neither with Tibet. You don’t need to mention it and to discuss it. It’s a cultural thing and we, westeners, shouldn’t judge Chinese for receiving a different approach to education neither we should  use it as a marketing argument. I remember once a Chinese telling me: “We do not support and agree with International Human Rights because we never wrote it”. The differences between the West and the East are often under estimated. 

2/ The Lack of adaptation and the copy paste phenomena

When Google launched its services in China they also tought that Chinese would adapt to Google instead of Google adapting to China. The homepage of Google.cn is a simple translation of the normal Google.com. There is not a real adaptation of Google’s services to the market. The western and eastern way of thinking can be sometime very oposite. You don’t tranlate a web page, you adapt it, you have to re-think everything single aspect of your plateform. 

It took almost 2 years for Google to organise search in Chinese, while Baidu was already way more advanced. Google who is at the forefront of inovation in the western world is still strugling to catch up with Baidu in China. 

3/ Structural problem

From my experience in big american companies (MS), there is a marketing decision process issue and a lack of understanding locally. This is what companies such a Groupon and Google are facing. They do try to adapt, using local actors but in most american companies, the decision takers are in the headquarters in their office, in the USA. The don’t brainstorm neither consult smaller markets.  

They do an excellent job locally but often miss global understanding.  This is a very straight forward anglo-saxon aproach: it’s a “Let’s do it” instead of a “Let’s re-think it” or a “Let’s start over”

There is a real problem evaluating the consequences of Marketing campaigns launched internationally. It doesn’t make sense for marketers in the US to take decision for the Chinese market neither it does for them not to brainstorm with other countries while launching a campaign with international exposure.  

4/ Lack of understanding of local policies

In China you have no access to Youtube, Twitter or Facebook. In 2009, Google was about to stop its operations and in 2011 accused the Chinese goverment for suporting hackers looking over the Gmail accounts of people classified as “Problematic”

So the chinese goverment can close your service and even ban your songs but you have to deal with it. You don’t fight the government. Especially in China it’s above everything. For every service banned, there is a successful Chinese alternative. RenRen or 51.com  allow you to connect with you friend just like a Facebook does 

So making business in China is probably harder that it’s commonly thought. Also in retail the French giant Carrefour is struggling those days. Chinese people are proud and they do prefer local companies. The right option is probably to expand your business making locals think that your company is 100% under the control of Chinese.

The French Touch in cuisine or fashion works well along with the American lifestyle in China. They love the NBA and would definitely buy the new fragance from Channel. But if you go mass market in retail or services, you have to act and think just like if you were Chinese. Adapting is not even the solution, you have re-start over your business.

@thefabgeo

gplus.to/fabgeo

fabiengeorjon@gmail.com