http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220143224.htm
I read the article
“Dragonflies Have Human-Like Selective Attention’”, which introduces a new
discovery on the field of cognitive science.
Selective attention is fundamental to humans' ability to select and
respond to one sensory stimulus in the presence of distractions,
which has so far only been demonstrated in primates. But this discovery shows the first evidence
that an invertebrate animal has brain cells for selective attention. In the experiment, a tiny glass probe with a
tip that is only 60 nanometers wide has been used, which is 1500 times smaller
than the width of a human hair. Using
the tiny probe, the researchers have discovered neuron activity in the
dragonfly's brain that enables this selective attention. They found that when
presented with more than one visual target, the dragonfly brain cell 'locks on'
to one target and behaves as if the other targets don't exist.
“Once the
dragonfly has selected a target, its neuron activity filters out all other
potential prey. The dragonfly then
swoops in on its prey -- they get it right 97% of the time,” Dr Wiederman says,
who have been studying insect vision for many years.
This is the first
direct demonstration of something akin to selective attention in humans shown
at the single neuron level in an invertebrate.
The insect brain is simple and accessible, future work may allow
scientists to fully understand the underlying network of neurons. This is great, because we can then copy it
into intelligent robots and other machine.
It’s unexpected to
find something so sophisticated in lowly insects from a group that's been
around for 325 million years. And if the
neuron for this function is presence, there must be a corresponding DNA, which
may also help the analyzing of DNA.
Overall, I think
this article explain well on the result and impact of the experiment. However, the details of how to use the tiny
probe and how they observed that dragonflies have 97% accuracy rate, are more
attractive to me. I also like the way
the author gives examples, for instance, “1500 times smaller than the width…”,”
Imagine a tennis player having to pick out a small ball…”,etc. I think it’s a very fascinating scientific
article and I look forward to further application of the discovery.
Mike Minoli 1/2/13
ReplyDeleteBIO IH Comment
MY classmate Xiao reviewed the article, “Dragonflies Have Human-Like Selective Attention.” This is very interesting to me, because I have an interest in human like behavior in other animals, as previously stated in other comments. I liked this article for three reasons. First being that it was an interesting article. This time, I tried reading the article and then the review. Xiao did a great job of summarizing the article. Finally, I liked Xiao’s response it was similar to what I would have wrote if I were reviewing this article. Maybe Xiao could work on trying to shorten the summary a little bit for next time. It was a little too long and unattractive in that sense, to us short attention spanned teenagers. Another thing that Xiao could work on for next time is bridging ideas in between paragraphs. One fact that really impressed me was the fact that Dragonflies have been around for 325 million years. Overall, Xiao did a great job.
Xiao reviewed the article “Dragonflies Have Human-Like ‘Selective Attention’”, and the article and review were both very interesting. I thought that Xiao did a very good job of summarizing the article and making it easy to make sense of. I also thought that she presented a lot of the most interesting facts that the article said, such as how small the probe that was used was. I thought she also provided a very interesting point by saying that she looks forward to the application of this discovery; this is bound to be something very interesting and it will probably have a profound impact.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Xiao made a very interesting and thorough review, there were a couple of things that she could have done to improve her review. I thought that her summary had a lot of paragraphs, and I think it would have been nice if she could say pretty much the same stuff, but merge some of the paragraphs. Another thing was that I was very confused about the link in the middle of the review, since it just led to a nonexistent page.
I thought that there were many interesting facts in this article, many of which I had not known previously. One of these was that scientists were able to produce such small probes, being 1500 times smaller than the width of a human hair.
My classmate Xiao reviewed the article, “Dragonflies have human-like selective attention” I found this article review very interesting. I think Xiao did a great job because she uses a very good vocabulary. She also presented the article in a very interesting, clean, and concise ways. I also think her format very well done and interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with the article is the information is a little vague, and the ideas are hard to understand. Also the process by which the experiment was done seems a little complicated and I’m not sure exactly how it worked.
But the review was very good and there were many interesting facts. But I found it very interesting that the Dragonfly’s have a similar part of their brain to Humans.
My classmate Xiao reviewed the article, “Dragonflies have human-like selective attention” I found this article review very interesting. I think Xiao did a great job because she uses a very good vocabulary. She also presented the article in a very interesting, clean, and concise ways. I also think her format very well done and interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with the article is the information is a little vague, and the ideas are hard to understand. Also the process by which the experiment was done seems a little complicated and I’m not sure exactly how it worked.
But the review was very good and there were many interesting facts. But I found it very interesting that the Dragonfly’s have a similar part of their brain to Humans.
Nicole Semenyuk
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Biology D
7 September 2016
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220143224.htm
After reading Xiao’s review of the article “Dragonflies have Human-like Selective Attention” there are a few points that I particularly liked. The first one would be her quick explanation of selective attention, “Selective attention is fundamental to humans' ability to select and respond to one sensory stimulus in the presence of distractions, which has so far only been demonstrated in primates. But this discovery shows the first evidence that an invertebrate animal has brain cells for selective attention.” This sentence not only defines selective attention, but also shows why this article is so important. Xiao clearly stated that selective attention was only known to be seen in primates, bringing the question, “Why does a dragonfly demonstrate it?” This leads to the second aspect, where Xiao explains why a dragonflies selective attention is so important. Xiao states that the study of an insect’s brain would lead to the full understanding of the network of neurons. “This is great, because we can then copy it into intelligent robots and other machine.” She not only explained it’s importance to scientists, but also provided an example to make it more understandable for the reader. The final aspect that was well written by Xiao is her second reason for the importance of an insect’s brain. Xiao writes, “And if the neuron for this function is presence, there must be a corresponding DNA, which may also help the analyzing of DNA.” I enjoyed the adding of a second reason since the more beneficial something seems, the more it will stick with someone. She ends up providing two strong reasons for the importance of an insect’s brain, convincing the reader that this is in fact a significant discovery.
Something that could use improving, however, is Xiao’s conclusion. Her conclusion seems rushed and unfocused. She begins by complimenting the article, but spends the rest of the paragraph talking about the specific examples like “observed that dragonflies have 97% accuracy rate” and “Imagine a tennis player having to pick out a small ball…” Although it is nice to know her favorite part of the article, having a full summary would have a greater impact on the reader. Another aspect that could use work is the transitioning between paragraphs. Xiao changes to different points with no notice. For example the third to fourth paragraph transition. “This is great, because we can then copy it into intelligent robots and other machine. It’s unexpected to find something so sophisticated in lowly insects from a group that's been around for 325 million years.” She goes from one beneficial reason to another, with no transition sentence which can leave the reader lost for a few seconds. An easy solution for this would be to add a transitioning sentence such as, “Another beneficial factor for understanding an insect's brain is…”
Overall Xiao’s article was the main factor in attracting me to her review since I have always had a curiosity to the human brain. Her review was a pleasant read, especially all of the surprising facts she included, such as a dragonflies accuracy rate of landing on a selected target, and the fact that dragonflies have been around for 325 million years. This review has really given me a greater curiosity to the similarities of the brains of all living things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteXiao Huang’s review of the article "Dragonflies have human-like 'selective attention'" was very well written, with three aspects in particular standing out. It is written in a way that the reader can clearly understand the point of both the article and her critique of it, with enough details used throughout to make it understandable without being overwhelming. Secondly, Xiao includes specific quotes from the article to allow the reader to see a scientist’s perspective of the issue. Finally, Xiao did a great job of summarizing the article, including enough information to give a good sense of what the article was about.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are two things that could be improved about this review. Although the summary was good, I think it took over the review in a way, with too much information given in comparison to the other aspects of the paper. It could be improved if more information was given about the relevance of the article, and the summary was shortened slightly. Additionally, the way the paragraphs were broken up was slightly confusing. I think if some of the paragraphs were combined, or connections were made between the ideas in each paragraph, then the review would be easier to understand.
I thought this article and review were both very interesting, and full of facts that I had never heard of before. I found it fascinating that scientists could conduct such in depth experiments using a device 1500 times smaller than the width of a human hair!
Tommy Purdy
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Honors Biology I
7 September, 2016
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220143224.htm
Xiao’s review of “Dragonflies Have Human-Like Selective Attention” is well written in many ways. One good aspect is how in detail she went about how the experiment was done to learn about dragonflies attention. Xiao explains, “a tiny glass probe with a tip that is only 60 nanometers wide has been used, which is 1500 times smaller than the width of a human hair.” By adding this, Xiao makes the review a lot more interesting because he goes in depth about how the experiment was done. This detail made reading his review made it a lot more interesting. Another good aspect of her review is explaining why this discovery is so surprising. Xiao says, “It’s unexpected to find something so sophisticated in lowly insects from a group that's been around for 325 million years. And if the neuron for this function is presence, there must be a corresponding DNA, which may also help the analyzing of DNA.” By adding this, Xiao helps the reader understand the significance of the discovery and its important in the future of science. Another good aspect is how Xiao quotes a science expert on the subject. Xiao quotes “‘Once the dragonfly has selected a target, its neuron activity filters out all other potential prey. The dragonfly then swoops in on its prey -- they get it right 97% of the time,’ Dr Wiederman says.” The quote from an expert makes the reader have more belief and amazement because even experts in this are amazed to see dragonflies have human like selective attention.
There were also certain parts of Xiao’s review that could be worked on. Xiao definitely could have spent more time on the conclusion. It was short and felt like Xiao spent little time on it. Xiao repeats herself in it such as saying “dragonflies have 97% accuracy rate,” which she had already said in the review. Also, the conclusion felt very directed. There were two facts she thought were interesting and then she she goes on to say whether she liked it or not. Xiao could improve her conclusion by explaining in greater detail the things she liked and also explain in better detail why she liked the article. Another aspect that could have been better would be a shortened summary of the article. It makes up about 40% of the whole review which leaves little room for the explanations, conclusion etc. Xiao summarizes useless things such as how the “brain cell 'locks on to one target.” Xiao could have fixed this issue by taking out the useless parts and adding more into the conclusion and other parts.
Overall however, I did find that Xiao’s review was quite interesting. I never would have thought that dragonflies selective attention would be interesting but I was wrong. I chose this because I thought that the idea of somehow dragonflies having any similarity to humans interested me and I wanted to know more. I never would have thought that an animal very different from a human can have any similarities to us. This topic of animals being similar to humans interests me and I would like to know more.
Tommy Purdy
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Honors Biology I
7 September, 2016
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220143224.htm
Xiao’s review of “Dragonflies Have Human-Like Selective Attention” is well written in many ways. One good aspect is how in detail she went about how the experiment was done to learn about dragonflies attention. Xiao explains, “a tiny glass probe with a tip that is only 60 nanometers wide has been used, which is 1500 times smaller than the width of a human hair.” By adding this, Xiao makes the review a lot more interesting because he goes in depth about how the experiment was done. This detail made reading his review made it a lot more interesting. Another good aspect of her review is explaining why this discovery is so surprising. Xiao says, “It’s unexpected to find something so sophisticated in lowly insects from a group that's been around for 325 million years. And if the neuron for this function is presence, there must be a corresponding DNA, which may also help the analyzing of DNA.” By adding this, Xiao helps the reader understand the significance of the discovery and its important in the future of science. Another good aspect is how Xiao quotes a science expert on the subject. Xiao quotes “‘Once the dragonfly has selected a target, its neuron activity filters out all other potential prey. The dragonfly then swoops in on its prey -- they get it right 97% of the time,’ Dr Wiederman says.” The quote from an expert makes the reader have more belief and amazement because even experts in this are amazed to see dragonflies have human like selective attention.
There were also certain parts of Xiao’s review that could be worked on. Xiao definitely could have spent more time on the conclusion. It was short and felt like Xiao spent little time on it. Xiao repeats herself in it such as saying “dragonflies have 97% accuracy rate,” which she had already said in the review. Also, the conclusion felt very directed. There were two facts she thought were interesting and then she she goes on to say whether she liked it or not. Xiao could improve her conclusion by explaining in greater detail the things she liked and also explain in better detail why she liked the article. Another aspect that could have been better would be a shortened summary of the article. It makes up about 40% of the whole review which leaves little room for the explanations, conclusion etc. Xiao summarizes useless things such as how the “brain cell 'locks on to one target.” Xiao could have fixed this issue by taking out the useless parts and adding more into the conclusion and other parts.
Overall however, I did find that Xiao’s review was quite interesting. I never would have thought that dragonflies selective attention would be interesting but I was wrong. I chose this because I thought that the idea of somehow dragonflies having any similarity to humans interested me and I wanted to know more. I never would have thought that an animal very different from a human can have any similarities to us. This topic of animals being similar to humans interests me and I would like to know more.