An exciting finding has been made by scientists as they have discovered that the human brain contains structures and shapes that may have up to eleven dimensions.
Neuroscientists welcome the findings stating: “We have found a world that we had never imagined before.”
With the help of Mathematical methods of algebraic topology, scientists have fond structures and multidimensional geometric spaces in human brain networks.
According to scientists, a new study has demonstrated that the human brain contains structures and shapes that may have up to 11 dimensions.
Experts have previously stated how Human brains are estimated to contain a staggering 86 billion neurons, including several connections from each cell expanding and connecting in every possible direction, producing a super-vast cellular network that SOMEHOW makes us capable of thought and consciousness.
Now, an international team of researchers gathered around the Blue Brain project has obtained results that have never before been observed in the world of neuroscience, according to the research written in the journal Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience.
Scientists managed to locate structures in the human brain that display a multi-dimensional universe, revealing the very first geometric design of neural connections and how they react to different stimuli.
Researchers utilized in-depth computer modeling methods in order to understand how human brain cells can adapt themselves in order to carry out extremely complex tasks.
Scientists made use of mathematical models of algebraic topology in order to describe different structures and multidimensional geometric spaces in human brain networks.
In the study, scientists note how structures are formed at the same time that they are interlaced in a “unity” that creates a precise geometric structure.
Henry Markram a neuroscientist and director of Blue Brain Project in Lausanne, Switzerland said in an interview: “We have found a world that we had never imagined before. We’ve uncovered tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. However, in some networks, we even discovered structures with up to 11 dimensions.”
As explained by scientists, every single neuron within our brain can interconnect to an adjacent one, in a particular way in order to form an object with intricate connections. Interestingly, the more neurons join in with the clique; the more dimensions are joined to the object.
With the help of algebraic topology, experts were able to model the structure within a virtual brain, produced with the aid of computers. Later, experts carried out tests on real brain tissue to verify the results.
After researchers included stimulus into the virtual brain tissue, they found that cliques of progressively HIGHER dimensions compiled. They discovered that in between these cliques were empty spaces like holes or cavities.
Ran Levi from Aberdeen University, who worked on the paper, said in an interview with WIRED:
“The presence of high-dimensional cavities when the brain is processing information indicates that the neurons in the network respond to stimuli in a remarkably organized manner.”
“It is as if the brain responds to an inducement by constructing then smashing a tower of multi-dimensional blocks, starting with rods (1D), planks (2D), cubes (3D), and then more complex geometries with 4D, 5D, etc. The sequence of activity throughout the brain resembles a multi-dimensional sandcastle that has the ability to materialize out of the sand and then disintegrate.”
Furthermore, experts note that while shapes that are three-dimensional in nature have height, width, and depth, the objects uncovered by experts in the study don’t exist in more than three dimensions in our REALITY. However, mathematicians used to define them may contain as much as 5, 6, 7 or up to 11 dimensions.
Professor Cees van Leeuwen, from KU Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview with Wired: “Outside of physics, high-dimensional spaces are commonly used to represent complex data structures or conditions of systems. For example, the state of a dynamical system in state space.”
“The space is simply the combination of all the degrees of freedom the system has, and its state represents the values these degrees of freedom are actually assuming.”
To advance cognitive theory, researchers must be able to parse the performance of a task into its significant mental stages. In this article, we describe a new method that uses functional MRI brain activation to identify when participants are engaged in different cognitive stages on individual trials. The method combines multivoxel pattern analysis to identify cognitive stages and hidden semi-Markov models to identify their durations. This method, applied to a problem-solving task, identified four distinct stages: encoding, planning, solving, and responding. We examined whether these stages corresponded to their ascribed functions by testing whether they are affected by appropriate factors. Planning-stage duration increased as the method for solving the problem became less obvious, whereas solving-stage duration increased as the number of calculations to produce the answer increased. Responding-stage duration increased with the difficulty of the motor actions required to produce the answer.
|Anderson J. R., Betts S., Ferris J. L., Fincham J. M. (2010). Neural imaging to track mental states while using an intelligent tutoring system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 107, 7018–7023. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Anderson J. R., Betts S. A., Ferris J. L., Fincham J. M. (2012). Tracking children’s mental stages while solving algebra equations. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 2650–2665. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Anderson J. R., Fincham J. M. (2014). Extending problem-solving procedures through reflection. Cognitive Psychology, 74, 1–34. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Anderson J. R., Fincham J. M., Yang J., Schneider D. W. (2012). Using brain imaging to track problem solving in a complex state space. NeuroImage, 60, 633–643. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Anderson J. R., Lee H. S., Fincham J. M. (2014). Discovering the structure of mathematical problem solving. NeuroImage, 97, 163–177. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Buckner R. L., Andrews-Hanna J. R., Schacter D. L. (2008). The brain’s default network: Anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 1–38. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Churchill N. W., Yourganov G., Strother S. C. (2014). Comparing within-subject classification and regularization methods in fMRI for large and small sample sizes. Human Brain Mapping, 35, 4499–4517. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Coltheart M. (2013). How can functional neuroimaging inform cognitive theories? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 98–103. Google Scholar Link|
|Cox R. W. (1996). AFNI: Software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. Computers and Biomedical Research, 29, 162–173. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Cox R. W., Hyde J. S. (1997). Software tools for analysis and visualization of fMRI data. NMR in Biomedicine, 10, 171–178. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Friston K. J., Fletcher P., Josephs O., Holmes A. P., Rugg M. D., Turner R. (1998). Event-related fMRI: Characterizing differential responses. NeuroImage, 7, 30–40. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Glover G. H. (1999). Deconvolution of impulse response in event-related BOLD fMRI. NeuroImage, 9, 416–429. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Grabner R. H., Ansari D., Reishofer G., Stern E., Ebner F., Neuper C. (2007). Individual differences in mathematical competence predict parietal brain activation during mental calculation. NeuroImage, 38, 346–356. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Just M. A., Cherkassky V. L., Aryal S., Mitchell T. M. (2010). A neurosemantic theory of concrete noun representation based on the underlying brain codes. PLoS ONE, 5(1), Article e8622. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008622 Google Scholar CrossRef|
|Mayer A. R., Dorflinger J. M., Rao S. M., Seidenberg M. (2004). Neural networks underlying endogenous and exogenous visual–spatial orienting. NeuroImage, 23, 534–541. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Norman K. A., Polyn S. M., Detre G. J., Haxby J. V. (2006). Beyond mind-reading: Multi-voxel pattern analysis of fMRI data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 424–430. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Pereira F., Mitchell T., Botvinick M. (2009). Machine learning classifiers and fMRI: A tutorial overview. NeuroImage, 45, S199–S209. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Pyke A., Betts S., Fincham J. M., Anderson J. R. (2015). Visuospatial referents facilitate the learning and transfer of mathematical operations: Extending the role of the angular gyrus. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 229–250. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline|
|Sternberg S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315. Google Scholar CrossRef|
|Yu S.-Z. (2010). Hidden semi-Markov models. Artificial Intelligence, 174, 215–243. Google Scholar CrossRef|