4 ms·
The negativity in this thread is really a shame. I would expect better from HN. > This particular MR image, though, was not made for diagnostic purposes, nor e
by knowaveragejoe 11y ago
The negativity in this thread is really a shame. I would expect better from HN.
> This particular MR image, though, was not made for diagnostic purposes, nor even really for science. No one, to my knowledge, had ever made an MR image of a mother and child. We made this one because we wanted to see it.
> To some people, this image was a disturbing reminder of the fragility of human beings. Others were drawn to the way that the two figures, with their clothes and hair and faces invisible, became universal, and could be any human mother and child, at any time or place in history. Still others were simply captivated by how the baby’s brain is different from his mother’s; it’s smaller, smoother and darker—literally, because there’s less white matter.
- smoyer 11y agoI'd be really interested to see the difference in the brain activity when they're "embracing" versus when they're placed separately in the scanner.
- irremediable 11y agoNot sure how much you know about neuroimaging, but in case you don't know, it might be worth my pointing out that this is a structural image -- i.e. it doesn't measure "brain activity" in any way, only brain shape. The same scanner could take functional BOLD measurements, of course.
- smoyer 11y agoI know next-to-nothing about neuroimaging (and I didn't even stay in a Holiday-Inn Express last night). I was wondering why there were no bright patches like other MRIs I've seen - thanks for the explanation.