What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
87 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+85bogus.
Nerves clearly run on electro-chemical stimulation. If that wasn't the case, regulating neuro-transmitters and trans-cranial magnetic stimulation would do nothing. That doesn't mean that vibrations have no role. But it's incorrect to say "not electricity."
The biggest thing that's understudied IMO is the magnetic field effect from all that electrical activity. Just as circuit designers work to minimize electrical fields in smaller and smaller circuits, our brains may have evolved to actually use that "leakage" for an entirely separate channel of communication. - dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27So our nerves are really just a series of tubes, and the anesthetics work by clogging the tubes?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27@john, I didn't say there was no acoustic effect. I don't know. I just said it's wrong to say there's no electrical one. And I'm also pointing out that we know that when there are electrical signals, there are magnetic fields. My guess is that we evolved to use those, rather than damp them out.
On the anesthetic-solubility in oil test, which seemed like a big deal in the article, I'd ask if the relative solubility might have some bearing on their transmission through certain cell membranes (membranes are bi-lipid layers; oils are lipids, ergo...). In other words, simple explanations are usually preferable.
It's also wrong to think of these effects as "as series of tubes" as Ted Stevens might say. A lot of neural activity is actually about _suppressing_ expression of adjacent neurons, not channeling energy downstream. - Renton, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20Yes, that's right. Our nerve system isn't like a truck you can just pile stuff on.
- Alphabet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17So this is the reason why loud annoying people gets on my nerves.
- Cobainy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17I am sorry to be the 'dupe Nazi', but this story managed 840 diggs
http://digg.com/health/Controversial_New_Idea_Nerves_Transmit_Sound_Not_Electricity
All he did was swap 'controversial' for 'shocking' - Anpheus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Yeah, this flies in the face of decades of research on electrical activity in the brain and the successful integration of integrated circuits with neurons. Yes, computer scientists and brain surgeons got together and have already successfully demonstrated integrated circuits connected to neurons, and work is now being done on using those neurons to perform computations.
- knulpm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I see a lot of confusion on this thread so I want to clear somethings up.
"thought painkillers just worked by flooding the axon terminals with the neurotransmitters they usually release, making them temporarily ineffective at transmitting a signal from one nerve cell to another"
What it sounds like you're describing here is the mechanism of action of succinylcholine, whic is not an anesthetic but a depolarizing muscle blocker. In this case, it binds to the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor on muscles (nerves fire the neurotransmiter acetylcholine at the muscle which causes it to trigger). Succinylcholine does this so powerful it causes the muscle/recpetor to "fatigue" (after a bit of twitching) and get stuck in the off position. It's not an anesthetic, more a paralytic, but it used in surgery. For various reasons that take a while to get into, it's no longered a prefered agent for paralysis. Insteant derivatives of curare toxin are now used a lot more (pancuronium, rocuronium) which bind the same receptor, but are instead just straight up antagonists. So they just block acetycholine from binding and don't turn anything on.
"Anesthetics don't bind to all receptors, they bind very specifically to one site on the GABA(A) receptor. That's what makes them effective. If a drug doesn't do that, it is not considered an anesthetic."
This isn't entirely true. The GABA receptor is, in fact, a very important receptor because Benzodiazepines and barbituates do in fact bind to the GABA receptor, as well as other non diazepine sleeping aids that are big on teh market like Ambien and Lunesta now. These do have sedating effects, but not as much pain control aspect of anesthesia. However, binding GABA is not the common method of action of all anesthetics.
Local anesthetics don't bind GABA at all. In fact they bind the "fast" sodium channel which is the originator of the action potential initial depolarization in the action potential. These are the classics novacaine, xylocaine, bupivicaine anesthetics. Cocaine in fact, does this as well, but also has other actions we'll come to later.
"Drugs CAN come in different shapes and sizes but all still bind to the same biological target. Cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamine, ritalin, and adderol are all differently shaped molecules, but they all bind to the same biological target - the dopamine transporter."
Some more confusion here. First, not all drugs bind to the same biological target, but what I think your'e saying is that they believe there is a common pathway of addictiveness using dopamine receptors, which is in fact true.
What is not true is that all those drugs bind dopaminergic receptors. Just a quick run down.
Cocaine - we discussed one of it's earlier actions before, but it also has an important action in that it prevents reuptake of epinephrine/adreniline, and dopamine. Now epi/adrenaline is famous for the fight and flight response, that's why people who are coked out have so much agitation, their eyes get big, etc. But the dopamine is what causes the addiction. Instead of releasing more dopamine or binding to its receptor, it causes the dopamine you DO release to linger longer (sorta like how Prozac causes serotonin from being retook up). And thus it has more of an effect.
Amphetamines/Ritalin/Adderol: Very similar to cocaine in effects, but instead of preventing reuptake, they principally cause more RELEASE from the presynaptic synapse of the chemicals I described above. Similar effects, different modus operandi. Ritalin and Adderol have similar effects, in that they work by increasing activity in the areas of the brain that work in keeping focus and attention. Thus, you give a drug to a hyper kid that makes a select part of him MORE active, but calms him down. Some people say these drugs also prevent reuptake, but I was always taught that wasn't as important as their release, but with the way things going in medicine, I wouldn't be surprised if opinion has or will change.
Ecstacy/MDMA is direvative of amphetamine, but people think it may also bind serotonin receptors to give it's extra hallucinogen and mood effects (I think).'
Okay, one last thing is general anesthetics, stuff like nitrous gase, halothane, and the fluranes, the stuff you inhale and knock you out. Well, THIS is where the article hits. We still don't know. And really I'm not a good enough biophysicist to even ATTEMPT to understand this article. But basically we know they work because they DO diffuse into the lipid of membranes and seem to have some effect. It's been batted around for years if they work more on GABA, or maybe they involve the glutamate NMDA/AMPA receptors, or maybe some whole mess of them. It's one of those embarassing areas of science we really haven't figured out yet that your doctor won't tell you about unless you ask him point blank. So, I don't know if I believe this article because I'm not smart enough to understand all it's implications, but I think if it IS true, it'll be a special "model" that only works for certain drugs and not a unifying theory of neurology. Sort of like how relativity is helpful for looking at big things and quantum theory is good for looking at small in physics, but they don't mix well. We may end up with a "lipid wound wave" theory for some drugs and the electrical action potential for others. I dunno.
Sorry if that was awfully long but I hate what I'm supposed to be studying now and wanted to talk about something a bit more fun and interesting. - calvmari, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8well there's your problem, none of the stories have BREAKING in front of them.
- iknoritesrsly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8buried as a dupe.
- AmishRefugee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I thought painkillers just worked by flooding the axon terminals with the neurotransmitters they usually release, making them temporarily ineffective at transmitting a signal from one nerve cell to another. Unless what I was taught in high school was complete *****, it has happened before...
- cherrick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5There was a similar story a couple months ago. If it's the same theory, then it's not correct to say that electrical currents aren't responsible for nerve communication. If I'm remembering correctly, axonal communication would still be electrical. They are only proposing that sound is responsible for communication within the cell body. Still, it's a fringe idea until they can come up with emprical evidence, but it's sensationalism to claim that they're trying to overturn currently held theories on how the nervous system operates, not to mention a straw man.
- lntrigue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@entropyman
if you're interested in the fields created by the brain, check out event-related potentials. i've researched with professors on this a bit, it's an interesting approach. it stems from the idea that when a neuron activates the polarization of that cell changes, creating a mini electrical/magnetic field. Because most neurons' cell bodies are contained in the cortex, the aggregated fields from all the cell bodies in an activated/deactivated state of an area of the cortex can be measured from the skull's surface near that area using conductivity gel and very sensitive sensors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-related_potential
sorry if i have some of the theory behind it wrong, i was only in charge of squirting gel and hooking up the 128 sensors to these poor undergrad's gelled-up heads.
it was cool to see their brain waves in real-time on the computer though. im in ur brainz reading ur thotz - cnycompguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It's the sudden over-stimulation, not a direct action on the nerve pathways.
"Dazzler" medium intensity lasers which are used much to the same end as flashbangs, but in different situations use light.
Next you'll be saying that nerves must communicate through light pulses. - djvchris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I always thought it was just a horrifically loud noise (overstimulation of the auditory nerves) and overwhelming burst of light (overstimulation of the photopigments/optic ganglia) that did it..but okay.
- johndi, on 10/11/2007, -14/+18I don't think we should discount their idea so quickly. It could work like the piezoelectric effect where electricity can produce vibrations and vibrations can produce electricity. Regenerative breaking is another example of a reversible process, taking advantage of the fact the electric motors can also act as generators. Are they right or wrong? I don't know, but the idea is interesting.
- Bega, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4sodium potassium pump = run by ions. so silly.
- rejoined, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@Aeaus, check out his screen name. He is so true to his screen name.
Totally unrelated, irrelevant post. - BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@sonicm
Ahem, and what do you call electric shock exactly? How about loss of consciousness? How about electro-therapy of mental patients that is pretty much a closed-skull labotomy? Are you saying electicity has no effect at all?
Though, I also have a problem with weister42's theory.
Sound has multiple frequencies. Not all of them can be heard. Not all of them will have the destabilizing effect. During WW2 in some of concentration camps Nazi's experimented with low-fequency wave generators in an attempt to drive prisoners crazy. According to records sound did have effect on people's behaviour.
Frequency makes a big difference when it comes to effects. Notice how base travels further than high pitch noise. It also overcomes obstacles better, as it is able to resonate through them. Same with Amplitude Modulation rado waves vs. Frequency Modulation spectrum.
Car's stereo speakers output 20Hz-20kHz. That's a pretty narrow range. There is no mention in the article as to what frequencies the inner-nerve sound waves would be. They would be travelling through liquid, so different rules would apply as to how they respond to sounds affecting us through the atmosphere.
The theory is interesting. It explores the pain killer loophole.
Temperature affects liqud properties, that's for sure, but electrical conductivity happens to be one of them. The main reason our bodies are 36.6 degree celsius is cause that is the temperature at which reversible chemical reaction keeps our body at neutral acidity necessary for blood's oxidation process. By same token, acidity in nerves could affect electrical resistance.
I am in favour of the electrical theory, but I would still like to hear an explanation of the painkiller effect. That's where the theory falls short. - weister42, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Bogus. By their theory extreme levels of sound should disrput my nerves and make me go crazy, but I can sit in my hatchback with bass reaching up to 148.8 dB and I'm still perfectly normal.
- rejoined, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You bury it as inaccurate without giving any explanation, unlike 'EntropyMan' above.
Probably that is why you are getting digged down.
Though I admit, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and Digg Up or Digg Down stories or articles you dont like or agree with. - mAineAc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3good thing this made it to teh front page again, Nothing like old news over and over.
http://digg.com/health/Controversial_New_Idea_Nerves_Transmit_Sound_Not_Electricity - Plinkotic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3*****. Everyone knows pain is transmitted by sin. Sin and Gravy!
- AttackingHobo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@sonicm
Well I don't know this for a fact, but I think what you are talking about is static electricity. Static electricity like its name implies are electrons that are not moving in an object. It is usually high voltages, with extremely low current. The hairs stand up on end, because each hair is negatively charged from the electrons, and they repel each other.
The reason that the nerves don't go all crazy, as you thought they would, is because the static electricity is not moving through a person, but when it gets discharged it can make your muscles twitch for a split second.
If you want to have your muscles go crazy, get a disposable camera charge up the flash, open the camera and start grabbing at the cameras main board. You will get electrocuted, your muscles will twitch a lot, it will hurt, and you heart could stop. The same effect is achievable by sticking two butter knives in an electrical outlet. - rossmcd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Since olive oil is similar to the lipid molecules that make up nerve cells, Jackson and Heimburg started questioning the generally accepted belief that anesthetics block electrical pulses by fitting themselves into pain receptors on cells. That seems next to impossible, they said, because anesthetic molecules come in many shapes and sizes, and it's difficult to imagine that they all happen to physically fit into all receptors."
Several problems in their reasoning.
Anesthetics don't bind to all receptors, they bind very specifically to one site on the GABA(A) receptor. That's what makes them effective. If a drug doesn't do that, it is not considered an anesthetic. Drugs CAN come in different shapes and sizes but all still bind to the same biological target. Cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamine, ritalin, and adderol are all differently shaped molecules, but they all bind to the same biological target - the dopamine transporter.
Their There are a great many drugs that are *very* lipophilic (dissolve well in oil), but do not bind to the GABA(A) receptor - and do not serve as anesthetics. One very common example would be THC, the compound in marijuana. Extremely lipophilic, but even at incredibly high doses it is not an anesthetic. - BigglesPiP, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is complete bollocks, we know exactly how drugs effect the nervous system, it's in GCSE biology for ***** sake.
- darkstar949, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@djvchris - I'm with everyone else in that the nervous system is primarily an electrical system; however, I wouldn't be surprised if something comes out in a few years that anesthesia works in part by changing some property of how the nervous system operates that isn't entirely related to the electrical current. This is in part due to the fact that is has been shown that acupuncture can have some of the same effects as anesthesia without chemicals.
- knulpm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I apologize, I misread "transporter" as "receptor" in your paragraph and again when I misquoted it. I regret my error.
- sonicm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@weister42
But according to current theory, wouldn't passing an electric current through a person should make him/her start seizuring and going crazy? Apparently instead their hair just stands up and things like that, could anybody explain that to me? I've always wondered but no one was ever able to give me a real answer. - Aeaus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Maybe true if they used this guy as a test :)
- Yage2006, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This was already posted on digg before. And it is inaccurate.
- rossmcd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Some more confusion here. First, not all drugs bind to the same biological target, but what I think your'e saying is that they believe there is a common pathway of addictiveness using dopamine receptors, which is in fact true.
What is not true is that all those drugs bind dopaminergic receptors. Just a quick run down."
I didn't mean to imply that all drugs of abuse bind to the same biological target - but the ones that I listed (cocaine, ecstasy, meth, ritalin, adderol) DO in fact bind to the dopamine transporter. (which is not a receptor).
Most of those drugs also bind tightly to other monoamine transporters - in addition to just dopamine's. Cocaine actually has a higher affinity for the serotonin transporter than it does for the dopamine transporter, even though the dogma is that its effects are primarily dopaminergic. Go figure. - Willface, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is old news. I've been reading digg for a while and people have complained about old news before but I never really paid much attention until now, when I realized it first hand. This theory is a year old. There's even a prosthetic hand based loosely on this idea. They created an electrically powered hand that is signaled by the "noises" that muscles make while contracting. While I realize this says that muscles are triggered by sounds, it is still old news.
Sorry folks "Wired" dropped the ball, and another digg power user raised up something that was probably posted when it was news but since they didn't have enough "friends" the story never got dugg up.
Go ahead, bury me. - Fragalishus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ senseigmg
Sounds like someone hit a nerve. - yermon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2as someone who looks at electrical signals in the brain on a daily basis, this ***** is so logically flawed, I nearly pooped my pants. That neurons are not transistors is NOT VERY SURPRISING. humans designed electrical circuits; evolution didn't have the copper lying around to wire us up with some OR gates.
- Willface, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2YAY! someone else who understands science as opposed to blindly following their favorite magazine's "new" article.
- Quidam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So I spent an entire semester in college memorizing the nervous system and electrical signals for NO reason!? I want 4 months of my life back please.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2'Most people know that nerves work by passing electrical currents from cell to cell.'
Amazing what people "know". I learned in high school over 20 years ago that axons transmit electricity along their length, but across the gaps at the end (synapses), they transmit the information from cell to cell via chemical neurotransmitters, not by electricity. This is (among other things) why nerves don't transmit info at anywhere near the speed of light (speed of electricity).
The sound thing is interesting, and may very well be the answer along the axon instead of electricity, but the other info presented by the article is clearly wrong. - kurtu5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Oops meant to give you a negdigg. Oh well. The sounds from muscles that you described, have nothing to do with this theory. Unless you meant the sounds from the neurons that drive muscles.
- kurtu5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1NAND, you can do everything you need to do with NAND gates. OR gates? Nope, only Or operations.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Quid
Probably not. This is still a fringe theory with no empirical evidence. Besides, when would it actually be useful to know how the nervous system operates, unless you plan on a career in biology or neurology. - kurtu5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1sound in vacum? Comeon, unless you somehow think the virtual particle density is high enough to propagate density waves.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They can overturn a century of observation and evidence for the Hodgkin-Huxley theory of nerve stimulation?
- BigglesPiP, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Also, sound would travel VERY fast though a body, yet reactions times are slower than the speed of sound, nerve impulses do about 60ft/sec.
- GnuTzu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3...picking up good vibrations...
This is shocking considering that people have been stimulating nerves with electricity for quite a while now.
But, if they can pin this down, maybe they can come up with a transducer that will convert your favorite music into an analgesic.
Then you might find your doctor asking you if you prefer Handel or Blue Cheer. - jonnyeh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A skeptical look at the claim in the article:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=62 - chewitt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1***** wired and their popup ads... my browser had a giant orange verizon ad that i couldn't even close
- resinoth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1These are ***** biologists.
- kurtu5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ok since this is a dupe, I paste my comments from a similar sound question in the old dupe.
Cyber where did you learn about sound? You got it wrong on several points.
First, why is sound in water not "clear". Whatever you mean by clear.
Fact, effective sound propagation of materials is directly related to their bulk modulus(how hard it is to squeeze something).
Fact, sound propagation in metals is extremely efficient. In water its not a good and in air its even worse.
Using combinations or materials, any acoustic "scientist" can create sound guides to channel and/or amplify sounds. For example, given air and brick, one can make a concert hall where sound is directed at the seated audience from the musicians. In the human ear, there is also a combination of materials that channel sound to the sensitive hairs inside the cochlear snail structure. Those hairs encode their movements into nerve pulses to the brain. Due to the way the cochlea is layed out, each section has different frequencies channeled to it, thus we can hear tones.
Now as to the action potential being sound? Well that is interesting. The action potential works by molecular pumps, that pump ions outside of the cell. The ions want to get back inside to neutralize the charge difference between the inside and the outside. But they can't because the pumps go one way. However, other gates in the cell wall open up when their neighbors open, so a gate on one end of the cell gets opened and then ions start flooding back into the cell. The neighbor gates open and you have a cascade of K+ ions running back into the cell along its length. Rinse repeat, the ion pumps, pump K+ back outside and the cell is primed for another firing.
So how could sound affect this? Well, I dunno. But neurons' electric properties are simply not just electrons moving along the skin of a conductor, but a complex dance of large ions entering and exiting molecular machines floating in a colloidal cell membrane. So perhaps sound has a role. -
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is