I see what you did there…a (very) brief history of imaging the brain: blood, BOLD and fMRI

For many patients we can discover – or discount – physical causes of neurological problems ‘in real time’ with a range of imaging and other measurement techniques. Neuroimaging techniques are mainly children of the 20^th century, and their development is ongoing in the 21^st, but their roots stretch back through the 19th century. For example, photography and its ability to reproduce an enduring ‘objective’ image had a major impact when it was introduced and that extends to the study of the brain.

Origins of ‘neuro’ imaging in 19th Century photography: discussing pioneers and pitfalls with Francesco Nonino (M.D, Neurology)

But a ‘normal’ camera operating in the visible (to us) spectrum  of light can only see what is directly in front of it. Exposing a brain so you can see what is going on inside it carries risk. This means that – outside of an autopsy – doing so is only ever going to be justified in a small number of people. A way to investigate the structure and operation of the brain in a non-invasive way was needed.

I see what you did there…a (very) brief history of imaging and the brain: EEG and MEG

I see what you did there…a (very) brief history of imaging the brain: X-rays to CT scans

I see what you did there…a (very) brief history of imaging the brain: MRI

I see what you did there…a (very) brief history of imaging the brain: PET and SPECT

Like MRI in general, functional MRI depends on differences in magnetic properties that are linked to physiology. The functional bit refers to the fact that MRI can be sensitive to something other than brain structure, like the types of scans covered in the posts linked above. fMRI is sensitive to brain activity. By ‘activity’ in this case we mean something different than the electrical or magnetic fields produced by neurons as measured, via fewer intermediary steps, by EEG or MEG. Activity in fMRI is not directly about neural activity, but about blood.

I see what you did there…a (very) brief history of imaging and the brain: EEG and MEG

Popular myths about scientific topics – like ‘you only use 10% of your brain’ – thrive in the confusion of how much and how clearly we understand the relationships between our brains, experiences and behaviour, and in ignorance of how we know these things.

Late 19^th/early 20th century pioneers in neurology (a branch of medicine dealing with disorders of the nervous system) made major strides with techniques like the ‘anatomo-clinical method’ – the close, regular and ongoing observation of patients, followed-up over years, connecting behavioural and physiological abnormalities – and direct electrical stimulation of the brain.

Your Brain Through…History: the nonsense “you use 10% of your brain’’ trope that won’t die, and why (1)

Your Brain Through…History: the nonsense “you use 10% of your brain’’ trope that won’t die, and why (3)

I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you: electricity and power, the stuff of life and death

The latter, in particular, sits at an inflection point – where expanding knowledge about the brain met new technical/medical capabilities. These days for many patients we can discover – or discount – physical causes of neurological problems ‘in real time’ with a range of imaging and other measurement techniques. Though their roots go back through the 19^th century and beyond these techniques are mainly children of the 20^TH century (not to mention the 21^st). Given the range of methods, and their ongoing development, I’m not even going to attempt to be comprehensive. Instead, I’m going to aim for an overview of methods and to give a taste of their impact.

Overview of milestones in the history of neuroscience and imaging, from [1]

Your Brain through…History: Mums Ask The Best Questions (neuroscience’s biggest hits)

We have the technology: detecting electrical and magnetic fields from the brain

Electrophysiology

The means to generate electricity and ask Very Important Questions (what happens when I do THIS?) using electrical stimulation, led to major advances in understanding the functional organisation of the brain. It also motivated the search for ways to measure electrical activity generated by the body itself [2].

I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you: electricity and power, the stuff of life and death

Stop me if you’ve heard this one (or xkcd got to you first): The name of the monster isn’t Frankenstein. It’s Adam, maybe.

That’s not the only difference between what’s actually in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly’s classic text, and the representation and accepted meaning of her creation in popular culture. A lumbering, groaning oaf? Try an loquacious autodidact who’s agile and strong and a big fan of Plutarch, Goethe and Milton. Those two neck bolts? The necromantic jump-leads are a cinemeatic invention of early film versions , there because in film-land Lightening Can Do Anything. In the book, the monster’s creator (who is called Frankenstein) discovers how to transfuse the stuff of life into inanimate matter. But the nature of the stuff is left ambiguous.

Why is Johnny 5 alive?