Epilepsy investigated non-invasively using Elecroencephalography (EEG) and Magnetoencephalography (MEG)

poste

Volume conductor modeling of the human head for electroencephalography (EEG) used in epilepsy

poste

Departed Pleasures

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-ps/1044/thumbnail.jp

Prefrontal and posterior parietal contributions to the perceptual awareness of touch

Which brain regions contribute to the perceptual awareness of touch remains largely unclear. We collected structural magnetic resonance imaging scans and neurological examination reports of 70 patients with brain injuries or stroke in S1 extending into adjacent parietal, temporal or pre-/frontal regions. We applied voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping to identify brain areas that overlap with an impaired touch perception (i.e., hypoesthesia). As expected, patients with hypoesthesia (n = 43) presented lesions in all Brodmann areas in S1 on postcentral gyrus (BA 1, 2, 3a, 3b). At the anterior border to BA 3b, we additionally identified motor area BA 4p in association with hypoesthesia, as well as further ventrally the ventral premotor cortex (BA 6, BA 44), assumed to be involved in whole-body perception. At the posterior border to S1, we found hypoesthesia associated effects in attention-related areas such as the inferior parietal lobe and intraparietal sulcus. Downstream to S1, we replicated previously reported lesion-hypoesthesia associations in the parietal operculum and insular cortex (i.e., ventral pathway of somatosensory processing). The present findings extend this pathway from S1 to the insular cortex by prefrontal and posterior parietal areas involved in multisensory integration and attention processes

From student to expert in a week

It can be challenging to effectively impart higher education content to students. We experienced such difficulty in a lecture series with invited senior scientists presenting their area of Biotech research. Instead of a vivid exchange with the expert, we observed limited and restrained student contributions. In qualitative interviews with these students we learned that they perceive their knowledge disparity as too big and the fear of being embarrassed by asking “stupid” questions obstructed their participation. This let us to radically rethink the course design resulting in our own interpretation of flipped classroom, peer learning and student empowerment. We designed an engineering course that focuses on providing master students with the best possible environment to gain theoretical knowledge in a new field within a limited time period (currently: six weeks - six topics) aiming to empower them in these topics by acquiring new knowledge on their own. Based on seed questions and tag words, students conduct background research and create a team presentation for an invited field expert, thereby getting prepared for a subsequent indepth discussion with the expert. The current layout is the product of an iterative process over the course of five years, and several rounds of fine-tuning within each year, based on extensive student and instructor feedback. Students particularly appreciate the positive in-course atmosphere with a focus on growth-mindset, the strong experience in teamwork, being taken seriously, and making contact with field experts and frontiers of current knowledge

Departmental seminar series and journal club with enhanced learning outcomes

Listening to scientific presentations and reading scientific literature are core activities of any scientist, and frequent components of students' curricula. When employing these activities in teaching, finding the right balance between student instruction and autonomous learning is important for best learning outcomes and teachers’ workload. We here present our course design for a coordinated lecture series and journal club, that finds this balance by leveraging modern learning concepts in a digital environment. Participating students were tasked to read a landmark scientific paper every week ahead of a lecture by a scientist with practical experience on the topic of that paper, often an author of that week’s paper. Students then had to hand in written answers to three questions probing their understanding of the topic and the paper. In a subsequent seminar, activating questions were discussed by the students in break-out rooms and then answered by randomly chosen students in class, followed by a broad discussion that included the homework questions. Students gave weekly feedback on their learning progress and experience, and the course was then dynamically adapted accordingly. This yielded a course with largely increased course capacity, reduced teachers’ workload, and substantially enhanced learning outcomes, qualitatively and quantitatively compared to previous implementations of the course