A UCSF study has revealed new information about how the brain directs the body to make movements. The key factor is "noise" in the brain’s signaling, and it helps explain why all movement is not carried out with the same level of precision. Understanding where noise arises in the brain has implications for advancing research in neuromotor control and in developing therapies for disorders where control is impaired, such as Parkinson’s disease. The new study was developed "to understand the brain machinery behind such common movements as typing, walking through a doorway or just pointing at an object," says Stephen Lisberger, PhD, senior study investigator who is director of the W.M. Keck Center for Integrative Neuroscience at the University of California, San Francisco. Study co-investigators are Leslie C. Osborne, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at UCSF, and William Bialek, PhD, professor of physics at Princeton University. The study findings, reported in the September 15 issue of the journal Nature; are part of ongoing research by Lisberger and colleagues on the neural mechanisms that allow the brain to learn and maintain skills and behavior. These basic functions are carried out through the coordination of different nerve cells within the brain’s neural circuits. "To make a movement, the brain takes the electrical activity of many neurons and combines them to make muscle contractions," Lisberger explains. "But the movements aren’t always perfect. So we asked, what gets in the way" The answer, he says, is "noise", which is defined as the difference between what is actually occurring and what the brain perceives. He offers making a foul shot in basketball as an example. If there were no noise in the neuromotor system, a player would be able to perform the same motion over and over and never miss a shot. "Understanding how noise is reduced to very precise commands helps us understand how those commands are created," says Lisberger, who also is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and a UCSF professor of physiology. In the study, the research team focused on a movement that all primates are very skilled at: an eye movement known as "smooth pursuit" that allows the eyes to track a moving target. In a series of exercises with monkeys in which the animals would track visual targets, the researchers measured neural activity and smooth pursuit eye movements. From this data, the team analyzed the difference between how accurately the animals actually tracked a moving object and how accurately the brain perceived the trajectory. Findings showed that both the smooth pursuit system and the brain’s perceptual system were nearly equal. "This teaches us that these very different neural processes are limited to the same degree by the same noise sources," says Lisberger. "And it shows that both processes are very good at reducing noise." He concludes, "Because the brain is noisy, our motor systems don’t always do what it tells us to. Making precise movements in the face of this noise is a challenge.\ How does "noise" affect a basketball player’s performance
A. [A] It helps him hit the target every time.
B. It makes him a perfect player.
C. It makes him miss the shot sometimes.
D. It allows him to follow the brain instruction.
查看答案
Questions 14 to 16 are based on the following talk on the colleges for the deaf in the US. You now have 15 seconds to read Questions 14 to 16. How much does an international graduate student pay at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf
A. [A] $33,000 a year.
B. $28,000 a year.
C. $12,000 a year.
D. $20,000 a year.
World leaders met recently at United Nations headquarters in New York City to discuss the environmental issues raised at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.The heads of state were supposed to decide what further steps should be taken to halt the decline of Earth’s life-support systems.In fact,this meeting had much the flavour of the original Earth Summit.To wit:empty promises,hollow rhetoric,bickering between rich and poor,and irrelevant initiatives.Think U.S. Congress in slow motion. What does the author say about the ordinary people in the Third World countries [A] They are beginning to realize the importance of environmental protection. [B] They believe that many children are necessary for prosperity. [C] They are reluctant to accept advice from the government. [D] They think that earning a living is more important than nature conservation.
Almost obscured by this torpor is the fact that there has been some remarkable progress over the past five years—real changes in the attitude of ordinary people in the Third World toward family size and a dawning realisation that environmental degradation and their own well-being are intimately,and inversely,linked.Almost none of this,however, has anything to do with what the bureaucrats accomplished in Rio.
B. Or it didn’t accomplish.One item on the agenda at Rio,for example,was a renewed effort to save tropical forests.(A previous UN-sponsored initiative had fallen apart when it became clear that it actually hastened deforestation.)After Rio,a UN working group came up with more than 100 recommendations that have so far gone nowhere.One proposed forestry pact would do little more than immunizing wood-exporting nations against trade sanctions. An effort to draft an agreement on what to do about the climate changes caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases has fared even worse.Blocked by the Bush Administration from setting mandatory limits,the UN in 1992 called on nations to voluntarily reduce emissions to 1990 levels.Several years later,it’s as if Rio had never happened.A new climate treaty is scheduled to be signed this December in Kyoto,Japan,but governments still cannot agree on these limits.Meanwhile,the U.S. produces 7% more CO2 than it did in 1990,and emissions in the developing world have risen even more sharply.No one would confuse the“Rio process”with progress.
C. While governments have dithered at a pace that could make drifting continents impatient,people have acted.Birth-rates are dropping faster than expected,not because of Rio but because poor people are deciding on their own to reduce family size.Another positive development has been a growing environmental consciousness among the poor.From slum dwellers in Karachi,Pakistan,to colonists in Rondonia,Brazil,urban poor and rural peasants alike seem to realize that they pay the biggest price for pollution and deforestation.There is cause for hope as well in the growing recognition among business people that it is not in their long-term interest to fight environmental reforms.John Browne,chief executive of British Petroleum,boldly asserted in a major speech in May that the threat of climate change could no longer be ignored.
Questions 17~20 are based on the following talk. You now have 20 seconds to read Questions 17~20. According to the speaker, how do some pesticides get into ponds
A. [A] They are applied to aquatic weeds by fish farming.
B. Amphibians release them from their skin.
C. Irresponsible dispose of them in ponds.
D. They are washed into ponds by the rain.
Questions 11 to 13 are based on a passage on plastic tax. You now have 15 seconds to read Questions 11 to 13. How did plastic industry respond to Lalonde’s petition
A. [A] They don’t think it will impact their production.
B. They support the idea of plastic tax.
C. They feel anxious that people won’t pay for bags.
D. They argue that tax is not the ultimate solution.