In the article, “Making Mouse Memories,” scientists reactivated certain nerve cells, of a mouse, and made “artificial memories” appear in the mice’s minds. This experiment was for scientist to learn more about and look out for signs of natural memories that occur in the brain or that disrupt other memories. In this experiment, the scientists genetically engineered the mice, being experimented on, so that only nerve cells would activate a particular memory, which forms a molecule. With these molecules, the scientists could reactive those cells later on in the experiment. In this experiment, the mice were first put in a room with opaque white walls and floor with no odor; this acted as the “marked memory,” for the mice. The mice were then, later, put in a room with black and white checkered walls, a gridded floor, and the room had a wintergreen scent to it. The mice were subjected to shocks and they soon learned to freeze in response to being in that room. In some of the lab trials, the scientists reactivated the mice’s’ memory of the white room during a shock session. This made the mouse combine the reactivated memory (of the white room) and the scented room (due to the shock), which forms something called a hybrid memory. In other trials, the mice started to understand what was going on and they would only freeze when scientists put them in the second room, due to the reactivated artificial memory. This experiment “labeled and recreated a fearful memory” for mice by using molecules that were responsive to certain kinds of light, optogenetics. A day after the experiment, in a new room, the mice froze, due to the fear that when light was turned on, it triggered the artificial memory, of the shocking that happened the day before. As the leader of the experiment said, “[the results are] a dramatic way to demonstrate that behavior is actually based on very specific changes in the brain.”
This experiment relates to our lives and humanity because this can improve the studies and knowledge of studies of brains and memory cells. With the technology and all the testing that happened (such as in this experiment), scientists can now learn more about how a mouse’s brain works and their memory, leading to the fact that soon scientists will be able to do the same for humans.
I thought the article, “Making Mouse Memories,” was a very interesting article. I did find it, occasionally, hard to understand, but for the most part, it was pretty straightforward. I thought it was cool to learn about the mind and memory, and this experiment was a cool and interesting way to look at it.
Posted for J. Carroll
Overall, I thought Jamie did a great job reviewing this article. She used simple language that made understanding the content in the article easy. Jamie also did a great job connecting this experiment back to our lives and how this will advance the science needed to further study the brain. Lastly, Jamie’s summary was concise and did not drag on.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Jamie could have improved upon was her summary of the experiment. Although she did a good job of summarizing the basic idea of the experiment, I would have liked to have been given a bit more information on the topic. Other than that, this was a fabulous review!
From this article and summary, I learned about the ideas of artificial memories and how scientists are making advancement in the study of the brain.
Upon finishing my classmates review on the article, “Making Mouse Memories,” I think she did a great job summing up this interesting discovery. One thing I think she did particularly well is the explanation of the experiment and how the mice were tested. This is a very strenuous and extensive experiment and all the steps could be confusing to people. This explanation made it easier to understand. Another thing I think she did well was the incorporation of quotations from the article. This helped relate the article to the review and made certain parts of the article easier to interpret. A final thing I think she did well was presenting how the mice reacted to the different conditions and variables experimented on the mice. There were many different factors that were played in the research and her explanation of all of them made understanding the experiment better easy.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was great, a few things could be improved upon. One thing she could have done better is in condensing the steps and procedures that went on during the experiment as her extensive explanation of what was done, became hard to follow at certain times. A second thing she could have worked on is relating this study to more relevant topics and maybe going into further depth on why this is important to humans. Everything else, however, was phenomenal.
This article was great, as well as the review. There were many new ideas and concepts introduced that were completely new to me. One thing that I learned was that our brains is the same as animal’s brains as they both contain a muscle like memory that will react in similar situations. This makes me curious on what this could possible lead to.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Jamie did a great job reviewing this article. Her review was easy to understand by using not complicated words. she did great job connecting this horrible experiment to our lives and further study for the human brain.
ReplyDeleteAlthough she did a good job of reviewing this article it would be given little more information on the article. From this article and summary, I learned that ideas of making mouse artificial memories and how scientists are thinking how to advancement in the study of the brain.
Core Biology John Flannery
ReplyDeleteComment 4/4/12
I read the review of the article, “Making Mouse Memories”, by my classmate Jamie Carroll. I thought Jamie did a fantastic job really making it clear about how the scientists set up the experiment, and what the mouse was put through to perform this experiment. She made it pretty simple to understand and I could envision the experiment while I was reading the review. Another thing I liked about Jamie’s article is how she used quotes from the article to better portray the experiment. Finally I thought that Jamie’s conclusion brought the whole thing to an end nicely, and she didn’t drag on about the article or the experiment.
Although Jamie did a very nice job reviewing the article, “Making Mouse Memories”, I thought she could have improved in a few areas. I did enjoy reading the description of the experiment, but at some points, it was hard for me to follow. She could have condensed the steps or made the procedure a little less wordy. I would have liked for Jamie to really go in depth about what went on in the mouse’s brain during this experiment. I don’t understand why this happened or what triggers the mouse to learn from its mistakes.
One new thing that I learned by reading Jamie’s review was that a human’s brain and an animal brain are very similar in the fact that we have muscle memory that would react in similar situations. I thought Jamie did a great job reviewing the article and I enjoyed every second of reading it.
I think my classmate Jamie Carroll did a very good job reviewing “Making Mouse Memories.” She did a very good job of explaining the basic parts of the experiment. She also did an excellent job describing the reactions of the mice in the experiment, because they were a little bit confusing at first. Jamie made summarized the article well because she didn’t over explain things and did not make the review too long.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Jamie could have done better was to explain a few more things about the experiment because I still don’t understand the experiment too well. Also, it would have been nice if she included more of the conclusions the scientists made about the experiment.
I learned a lot from this article and review that I would have not known before, like how mice respond to certain environments and pain.
I commented on my classmate Jamie Carroll’s review of her article. There were many things I found to be well presented in her review. One aspect was the way Jamie ordered her first paragraph. I found it easier to understand as a result of this as well. She first explained what the scientists were doing to the mice, why they were doing it, and also how they would do it. After all this was explained, she went on to describe what the scientists did to the mice in the experiment and how the mice reacted to it. It was then explained why the mice reacted the way they did and what the scientists learned from it. Another aspect of the review I found to be presented thoroughly was her summary of the experiment. It seemed to be a relatively complicated article and procedure, so I thought she did a pretty good job explaining it. The last aspect I found to be well presented was how Jamie related the article to humanity and the world today. I agree that scientists can take this information and use it to help out humans as well.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I found the review to be well done, there were a few things Jamie could have improved on to make the review even better. One thing she could have done was to utilize some quotes from the actual article itself. I think I would find quotes throughout the article to only better my understanding of the topic, as they would most likely be coming from top-notch scientists. The only other thing that I felt may have been improved on was her description of what the scientists would be doing and learning from the experiment. I realize the article was most likely difficult so that is why it may have been slightly harder to comprehend. However, this is why I felt the use of quotes would be appropriate.
Lastly, I was impressed by the fact that mice could so quickly adapt once they realized or thought something was going to happen. I also think it is cool what scientists can take from that.
My classmate, Jamie Carroll, did a great job reviewing the article “Making Mouse Memories”. In her review of the article, Jamie did a really great job of helping the reader understand the text, by using language that was simple and easy to understand. Another thing that ties into the above point was Jamie’s use of language that was clear and concise. She never minced her words, and her review was certainly bettered by this. It was easy to understand and fun to read. Lastly, Jamie did a fantastic job of including quotes from the article, concerning the mice and brain exercises. Her use of quotes gave the reader a nice, flowing article saturated with information and fun to read.
ReplyDeleteThere were a couple things Jamie could have improved about this review. While her language was clear, Jamie’s explanations concerning the nature of the experiment did drone on for a little bit too long; became hard to understand at times. A second thing that Jamie could have improved upon was her explanation on why this matters to the world of science and the world itself. While I understood her article, I did not understand what she was keen about on this article. I believe this may have made it slightly harder to explain its importance.
Jamie Carroll did a great job reviewing this article. I was amazed by the mental agility of the mice, and how quickly they could understand what they were supposed to do for the scientists. I also belive that this could seriously effect the animal science and research sector, and am enthralled with the fact that it ay soon benefit humans.
I thought that my classmate Jamie did an excellent job of writing a review of the article “Making Mouse Memories.” She was able to both clearly and concisely explain the main topic of the article which really helped me get an idea of what exactly I would be reading about. In addition, I liked how she put quotes from the article into her review because it added some color to her review. The quotes helped me to further understand what the scientists who completed the experiments wanted to do. Furthermore, I thought that her second paragraph, the opinion paragraph, was very insightful. She made very interesting observations and predictions which took the ideas of the paragraph and applied it to everyday life and related it back to humans all over the world.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Jamie did a great job of reviewing this article there were some things she could still improve on that would make her review even better. While I was reading the first paragraph I got lost and confused a couple times. The experiment which was completed was difficult to explain because there were many details and aspects which needed to be explained. If Jamie had condensed her information and made the summary of the article clearer it would have been easier to read and understand. Additionally, I think that the review could have had smoother transitions. Overall the writing was good but in some places it was a little choppy. Although Jamie could improve on the aspects listed above I think that she did an excellent job reviewing this article.
Before reading Jamie’s review I had never known that scientists could make mice have artificial memories. I also never knew how much of a role scent and color could make in memories.