Page 1 of 1

Navigating rats with remote control

Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 6:05 am
by C Elegans
A couple of weeks ago, this was in Nature.

Nature 417, 37 - 38 (2002)
Free animals can be 'virtually' trained by microstimulating key areas of their brains.

SANJIV K. TALWAR, SHAOHUA XU, EMERSON S. HAWLEY, SHENNAN A. WEISS, KAREN A. MOXON & JOHN K. CHAPIN*

Procedures used to train laboratory animals often incorporate operant learning paradigms in which the animals are taught to produce particular responses to external cues (such as aural tones) in order to obtain rewards (such as food). Here we show that by removing the physical contraints associated with the delivery of cues and rewards, learning paradigms based on brain microstimulation enable conditioning approaches to be used that help to transcend traditional boundaries in animal learning. We have used this paradigm to develop a behavioural model in which an experimenter can guide distant animals in a way similar to that used to control 'intelligent' robots.

Depending on the site of brain stimulation, an electrical stimulus can act as a cue or a reward. Studies of these phenomena have generally been concerned with functional mechanisms of the nervous sytem5, and little thought has been given to the potential of behavioural paradigms constructed wholly around such focal brain stimulations. We used stimulation of the somatosensory cortical (SI) and medial forebrain bundle (MFB) as 'virtual' cues and rewards, respectively, delivered to freely roaming rats. We imposed behavioural contingencies so that an operator could accurately steer the animal, in real time, over any arbitrarily specified three-dimensional route and over a range of real-world terrains.

We implanted stimulating electrodes into the MFB of five rats; the same animals also received electrodes in the right and left SI whisker representations. We then mounted a backpack containing a microprocessor-based, remote-controlled microstimulator on each animal. This allowed the operator, using a laptop computer, to deliver brief trains of stimulus pulses (80 µA; typically 10 biphasic pulses, each 0.5 ms, 100 Hz, per train) to any of the implanted brain sites from distances of up to 500 m away.

We trained the rats for navigation in 10 sessions, during which they learned to interpret remote brain stimulation as instructions for directing their trajectory of locomotion. In a figure-of-eight-shaped maze, the animals first learned to obtain periodic MFB rewards (0.3–3.0 Hz) by running forwards and turning correctly whenever left- or right-turning cues were issued. These cues were presented as a virtual 'touch' to the left or right whiskers by stimulating their respective cortical representations. We then placed the animals in open environments that lacked the boundaries and fixed choice points of the maze. All rats generalized their responses to their new surroundings, running forwards and turning instantaneously on cue. They moved at speeds averaging 0.3 m s-1 and worked continuously for periods of up to a 1-hour test limit.
<...>
Our results show that 'virtual' learning, involving direct stimulation of the central substrates of cues and rewards, can effectively expand the scope of the operant method. Its chief benefit is its ability to dissociate explicit schedule variables such as cues and rewards from the physical variables that are normally associated with their delivery, freeing learning from the mechanical and parametric constraints that are imposed by particular physical settings. MFB reward stimulation is relatively non-satiating, and animals need not initiate consummatory behaviours to obtain such rewards. As virtual cues and rewards are perceived within a body-centred frame of reference, they may facilitate learning independently of the external environment. It may also be possible to increase the 'bandwidth' of conditionable information by stimulating multiple brain sites, thereby increasing the variety of reactions that can be elicited.
<snip>
What do you think? The researchers are hoping the rats can be used to search for buried vicitims after earthquakes and to search for landmines. Regarding ethical considerations, Talwar (first author and head of the group) said to the BBC that "Our animals were completely happy and treated well and in no sense was there any cruelty involved," he said. "Nonetheless, the idea is sort of creepy. I do not know what the answer is to that."

Personally, I agree with Talwar that the idea of remote controlling living beings by using the brains reward-mechanisms, is sort of creepy even if can save human lives.

Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 6:09 am
by Ode to a Grasshopper
Can't wait for the remote-control-a-rat videogames to start appearing :D .

Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 6:13 am
by Stilgar
Mmmm, a hard topic but where used to that from u.
I personnaly don't have any problems with it when it can save human lives,
just that I din't mind animal experiments when it can save lives.

But they have to be aware that it won't become a atraction to see the rats or something like that.

Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 6:48 am
by C Elegans
The ethical problems I personally see with this are two:

1. The brain reward system, electrically stimulated in these rats, is the same system that makes people (or animals) addicted to drugs. Heroine is a chemical way of stimulating this system, electricity another. So the researchers are in fact making the rats addicted to the electrical stimulation, that's how this learning paradigm works.

2. There is no reason whatsoever why this shouldn't work fine with humans too. The pleasant experience elicited by stimulation of the reward system, can make a chimp with an electronic implant press a button several times a second. It would most likely be the same with humans - it's a very powerful way to modify behaviours.

Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 7:00 am
by HighLordDave
Upon reading the excerpt you provided, C Elegans, I too am worried about this technology's applications for humans. If we want to look for earthquake victims or people trapped under collapsed building, or search for land mines, there is no reason why we couldn't (in the not so distant future) use nanotechnology to build robots which could provide the same services at a comparable, if not lower, cost.

Having just seen Attack of the Clones (where the clones are genetically engineered to be subservient and prone to blindly obeying orders), I worry how brain implants might be used to control people, and this seems to be the first step in that direction. Maybe they can be used to control or modify behaviour in people with mental illness. However, they might also be use to create a soldiers who are immune to pain and who will be used to throw their lives away for someone else's war.

Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 7:12 am
by CM
My 2 cents as i know nothing on the issue. Good for animals if it can save peoples lives though i don't agree with the mental reward bit. Very very bad if applied to humans. I frankly think that since it can be applied to humans with adverse affects, the study should be stopped. Imagine some group like Al-Qaeda getting hands on this technology when it is further developed and can work with humans. This is a definite bad move.

Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 10:12 am
by frogus
I do not value animals much, so I don't have much problem with the anuimals' possible suffering, especially if there are lives to be saved by it...

I am unsure how far this can all go. I am hearing a lot recently about the possibility of 'designing' your babies genetically.. this sounds like about as great a leap as could be made in medicine:
'No, doctor I would not like a child with Downe's please'
It would be great, and the possibility of a crazy arab constructing an evil army of supermen seems unlikely. Equally, would anyone allow the technology to be abused. It's like saying 'Think what could happen if people had guns. Anyone could just *kill* anyone else whenever they wanted!' I'm not sure that the technology is very dangerous, as technology goes. I on't know much about it though.