Natalie Portman, neuroscientist

Every once in a while, you run across celebrity profiles that attempt to demonstrate that not all celebrities are as dumb as fenceposts. You'll read about the fact that, for example, Brad Pitt is deeply engaged by architecture, or that David Duchovny almost finished his literature PhD, or that Christy Turlington studied Eastern philosophy at NYU.
But I think I've just stumbled upon the single most impressive bit of celebuscholarship yet: "Frontal Lobe Activation during Object Permanence: Data from Near-Infrared Spectroscopy". In this paper -- published in a 2001 issue of the journal NeuroImage -- a group of scientists conducted a pioneering bit of brain-scanning. They took a bunch of infants and used near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) to try and probe their mental activity during "object permanence" tests.
Object permanence is, of course, our ability to know that an object still exists even after it's been hidden from sight. Theorists have argued for years about precisely when an infant develops this ability. The advent of brain-scanning techniques in the 90s offered tantalizing glimpses into mental activity; but it was always hard to scan the brains of infants because most brain-scanning takes place in MRI tubes -- and it's impossible to get an infant to hold its head still inside a tube while subjecting it to funky little mental tasks. (Actually, it's pretty much impossible to get an infant into a tube without it totally freaking out, let alone holding its head still.)
So the group of scientists in NeuroImage decided to try NIRS instead. NIRS is very cool new technology: Basically, you put a bunch of near-infrared lights up against your head and shine them directly down into the skull. The light penetrates a few millimeters, much the way that if you hold a flashlight flat against your hand you can see the light penetrating your skin. Since your frontal cortex is quite close to the surface of the skull, the near-infrared light actually hits it and bounces off. It's possible to scan the reflected light and infer how much blood activity -- and thus mental activity -- is taking place inside the frontal cortex, on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis.
But here's the thing: Since all you're doing is strapping a bunch of little lights to somebody's skull, it would be -- the NeuroImage team theorized -- possible to finally peer into the brains of small infants. And sure enough, it worked! They produced the first functional images of infant brains, cracking open a glimpse at the emergence of "object permance" in a baby's brain. As they concluded in their paper:
NIRS is a harmless, noninvasive technique that uses no ionizing radiation or contrast agents, does not require the subject to be lying quietly in a scanner, and makes no noise. Therefore, NIRS is particularly well suited to repeated use in neuroimaging studies of infants and children.
Who was on this crack team of scientists? It was led by Jerome Kagan -- a Harvard professor who is a pioneer in infant developmental psychology -- but it also included Thomas Gaudette, Kathryn A. Walz, David A. Boas ... and the Harvard grad student Natalie Hershlag.
Natalie Hershlag, of course, is better known as Natalie Portman.
I have to say, that's pretty awesome. An Academy-Award-nominated actress who is also a brain scientist. You can download a copy of the paper here if you want.
Posted by Clive Thompson at January 04, 2008 10:27 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1708
I assume you know all about Hedy Lamarr?
Posted by: priceyeah at January 5, 2008 4:18 AM
And don't forget your own mention of Winnie Cooper,
math wiz.
Posted by: jason at January 5, 2008 7:57 AM
Posted by: tomp at January 5, 2008 12:43 PM
Posted by: Clive at January 5, 2008 2:31 PM
Your oven can burn a roast without so much as glancing it with an "ionizing" ray. It's using IR. Plus didn't bona fide federal regulatory officials used to concern themselves over microwave oven and cell phone emanations? Well, we're only talking about babies.
Actually, I expect the experiment had to pass some serious scrutiny for safety, but safety is hardly a non-issue in contemplating whether you can expect soon to buy a personal home device that employs this principle and enables you a useful and reliable inference before the commercial's over or your baby's brain boils.
Not to mention, it's just like an actress to publish a pretty picture. Neuroimage papers don't have an impact factor good enough even for rat bedding. Typical Lucasian movie-star science, and I'm not referring to Stephen Hawking in "A Brief History of Time."
Posted by: MT at January 6, 2008 7:33 PM
Portman's Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman) also notes that her 1998 high school paper on the "Enzymatic Production of Hydrogen" was entered in the Intel Science Talent Search.
Posted by: RichM at January 6, 2008 11:22 PM
Hey MT, I think the near-infrared they were using is pretty harmless -- because I've had it used on myself! I actually got subjected to brain-scanning lie-detection test using NIRS back in 2003, using basically the same architecture ... they put a headband on my skull that shone small NIR lights inwards.
Then again, maybe it really did cook my brain and I just haven't noticed, heh.
RichM, yes, I noticed that too. She's pretty hard-core!
Posted by: Clive at January 7, 2008 9:48 PM
"Then again, maybe it really did cook my brain and I just haven't noticed, heh."
There's also the possibility the device was a con--like those tinfoil hats that researchers of the paranormal swear by. You did consider the 50/50 odds they'd have had just guessing whether you were lying?
Posted by: MT at January 8, 2008 1:50 AM
Also it's probably hard to lie staring into the face of Natalie Portman. Any reporter might have succumbed.
Posted by: MT at January 8, 2008 1:53 AM
Posted by: Clive at January 9, 2008 5:40 PM
Post a comment
I assume you know all about Hedy Lamarr?
Posted by: priceyeah
at January 5, 2008 4:18 AM
And don't forget your own mention of Winnie Cooper,
math wiz.
Posted by: jason
at January 5, 2008 7:57 AM
The Erdos-Bacon number ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdos-Bacon_number ) is a fun way of exploring the intersection between celebrity and science.
Posted by: tomp
at January 5, 2008 12:43 PM
Priceyeah, indeed, I've blogged about Lamarr previously! She's awesome.
Jason, yes, I immediately thought of Cooper again.
tomp, excellent!
Posted by: Clive
at January 5, 2008 2:31 PM
Your oven can burn a roast without so much as glancing it with an "ionizing" ray. It's using IR. Plus didn't bona fide federal regulatory officials used to concern themselves over microwave oven and cell phone emanations? Well, we're only talking about babies.
Actually, I expect the experiment had to pass some serious scrutiny for safety, but safety is hardly a non-issue in contemplating whether you can expect soon to buy a personal home device that employs this principle and enables you a useful and reliable inference before the commercial's over or your baby's brain boils.
Not to mention, it's just like an actress to publish a pretty picture. Neuroimage papers don't have an impact factor good enough even for rat bedding. Typical Lucasian movie-star science, and I'm not referring to Stephen Hawking in "A Brief History of Time."
Posted by: MT
at January 6, 2008 7:33 PM
Portman's Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman) also notes that her 1998 high school paper on the "Enzymatic Production of Hydrogen" was entered in the Intel Science Talent Search.
Posted by: RichM
at January 6, 2008 11:22 PM
Hey MT, I think the near-infrared they were using is pretty harmless -- because I've had it used on myself! I actually got subjected to brain-scanning lie-detection test using NIRS back in 2003, using basically the same architecture ... they put a headband on my skull that shone small NIR lights inwards.
Then again, maybe it really did cook my brain and I just haven't noticed, heh.
RichM, yes, I noticed that too. She's pretty hard-core!
Posted by: Clive
at January 7, 2008 9:48 PM
"Then again, maybe it really did cook my brain and I just haven't noticed, heh."
There's also the possibility the device was a con--like those tinfoil hats that researchers of the paranormal swear by. You did consider the 50/50 odds they'd have had just guessing whether you were lying?
Posted by: MT
at January 8, 2008 1:50 AM
Also it's probably hard to lie staring into the face of Natalie Portman. Any reporter might have succumbed.
Posted by: MT
at January 8, 2008 1:53 AM
Ahahhaa!
Posted by: Clive
at January 9, 2008 5:40 PM