Designing - Rohit Unnam - Carnegie Mellon

So, when we were testing our code with all of the sensors and curcuit boards attached to the drone, we noticed a very troubling problem. Not only was the drone too heavy, it was just too messy. There were wires sticking out that frequently got caught in the propellers, random items attached to the body to help balance the weight of the drone and it frankly just looked really bad. So, I took it upon myself to design our own custom frame that would better facilitate our needs. This is the frame that they are currently using at the lab. Below is a picture of it.

There are 4 slots on the front, sides and back of the circle for the different sensors that we are using and slots to mount the circuit board and custom blade guard we have. In the end, we dropped about 70g of weight which increased flight time from 7 minutes to 15 minutes. It also helped keep the wires much more ruley.

Lesson in practical engineering - Rohit Unnam - Carnegie Mellon

So, Mr. Butzke, our project leader, took us out to teach us about 3D modeling, 3D printing and laser cutting. He showed us the laser cutter they had on campus as well as the 3D printer and the entire array of machines they had on campus for students to use. He gave us a tutorial on using CAD/3D modeling software which sparked my interest in the next portion of our project. Unfortunately, my phone was not working that day so I do not have any pictures for you.

Coding - Rohit Unnam - Carnegie Mellon

My first part of the project was coding. We needed a flight controller that would translate code commands into commands that the AR.drone would understand. We did this by utilizing the ARdrone_autonomy open source packages which did the translation part. All we needed to do was make a custom plugin that could understand the code that we were trying to use. It sounds a lot easier than it actually was. It took us about 2-3 weeks to finish this portion of the code. After we finished that part, things got a lot more slow. There wasn't much to do and the World Cup was airing so no one was really working, as you can see in the picture of us watching the USA vs Germany game.

After the World Cup was over we finished the collision_avoidance package and then began our testing, during which I found some major problems with the design of the drone...

Starting at the lab - Rohit Unnam - Carnegie Mellon

The first few weeks at the lab were mostly just orientation. I was introduced to the people in the lab and got to hear about all the cool stuff they were working on. Some were working on programming new algorithms to more efficiently path plan for various tasks, some were working the the PR2 robot and applying their planning algorithms to different tasks, and so many more that I can't list. My group however, was working with the commercial AR.drone. The 4 of us were the only ones doing that so we were pretty much our own sub-lab. Below is a picture of the other two interns in our group. We I asked about how to program the PR2 and they demonstrated by trying to get the $400,000 robot to shoot a nerf gun...

On the left is Ellis and on the right is Sam. They were pretty cool and knew a lot about programming and taught me a lot.

Rohit Unnam - Search Based Planning Lab - Carnegie Mellon - Lab Summary - Week 1

The first few days at the lab were somewhat slow as my team leader, Jonathon Butzke wasn't going to be at the lab until the second week. But, I got to meet all the people at my lab and see what kind of stuff they were working on. There were people working on a whole variety of things from getting a robot to maneuver a picture frame through a picture frame, to getting a robot to deliver drinks to desks in the lab. The people in the lab are extremely experienced. Most of them are Grad students, some graduated some interns from other colleges. My team head was a former air force pilot. There was even someone who went to the same middle school as me (Princeton Day School).

Here's a picture of the group:

]

There are about 10 others who don't work directly in the lab but are a part of (including the PI himself).

Chris Oh Week 6 - Gabrieli Lab, MIT

    On Monday of my final week, I had a meeting with Zhenghan to discuss my last five days at the lab.  She had suggested that I look at the ANOVA results and the OLS Regression results to look for any statistical significance or patterns.  She also recommended that I compile all the plots and regression results into one sheet on notebook viewer, which allows me to publish all my work this summer on a http address.  Because she was going to Netherlands that weekend for a conference, she wanted me to just work on my poster after I finished all of these things.

   After plotting all the language scores with the average durations and the five syllable durations, I took the OLS Regression for each plot to look at the p-values.  None of the 34 graphs had p-values lower than the confidence level (p=.05), but one came very close to it.  The p-value from the plotting of five syllable durations and the test scores from a test called CTOPP-2 Blending Words is 0.088, which was just slightly above the confidence level.  The Blending Words task measures the ability to synthesize sounds to form words, which similar to the Nonword Repetition task.  The plot showed that the subjects with higher score in CTOPP-2 Blending Words task took lesser time responding to 5 syllable words.  There was no correlation with the average durations, suggesting that the difference in the ability to formulate words showed up only when longer words were presented.  The OLS Regression also revealed that the coefficient of determination is 0.182, which suggests approximately 42.7% predictability.  

   The ANOVA results for the average durations for each syllable showed no signficance with the p-value of 0.456, which exceeds the confidence level by much.  

Average durations for each syllable:

5 Syllable Durations and CTOPP-2 Blending Words scores:

For all the graphs and regression data, visit: http://nbviewer.ipython.org/gist/chris0705/5f521a3ac296343a9595

Shivani Gupta- Week 7 and 8- Reddy Lab

Shivani Gupta- Week 7-Reddy Lab

                Because our BirA-YY1 cloning didn’t work, I had to redo the procedure. I started with the original double digest, where I digested BioID (BirA- Myc plasmid) which is our vector and PcDNA6-YY1with BamHl and Pmel.  I then ran the samples on a .8% agarose gel to verify the digest. Because both segments were the correct sizes, I then ran the samples on a SYBR safe gel so I could then isolate the fragments with the appropriate sizes, and then isolate the DNA from the gel slices. After the gel isolation, I ligated the two fragments together and then transformed my ligation reaction with competent DHalpha cells. I then plated them on amp plates and grew tem over night. About 25 colonies grew on the YY1 plates and none grew on the vector plates, which was a good sign. Then next day I picked 24 colonies and grew them on LB and amp overnight and started the mini preps the next day. Unfortunately, after I did the restriction digest verification, while the samples did cut, the sizes were way off then what they were supposed to be. The bands were supposed to be at 1808bp and 5961bp,but as you can see, the bands are closer to 6000 and 8500 bp.

This week, we also continued with the BirA-L2B fusion. Before we could start the maxi prep, we first had to cut Fugw plasmid with PacI and EcoRI and then did a plko gfp puro (and NEO) and BirA-L2B ligation and transformation. Fortunately, lots of colonies grew on the two vector and insert plates, and none on vector only, so next week, we will then do the mini preps for them and a diagnostic restriction digest to verify the cloning was successful.

                During my last week in the lab, we finished the mini preps for the L2B. I mainly spent the week working on my poster and troubleshooting with Jen, my mentor, as to why the BirA-YY1 fusion was still unsuccessful. On Friday, my lab held a pizza lunch for me and gave me a thank you card! Overall, this was a great experience, and I am so glad I chose to do my EXP at this lab. 

Alex Baum- The Cohen Lab- CHOP/UPenn- Week 8

Hi everyone this is Alex and this was my last week at the Cohen Lab at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. I had the most amazing eighth week!

On Monday Dr. Crider came to visit and it was great! Thank you so much Dr. Crider! We went to lunch close to the UPenn campus and it was really nice to hear about everyone’s research and summer experiences. The one-minute delays are still long and I was in the lab from 9 until 4 every day this week finishing them but I ended up getting really great results!

I met with my graduate student on my last day to discuss the results I gathered from the T-maze and how to analyze all of the data. I copied and pasted all of the numbers onto an excel chart and I am going to compare numbers from the no-delays, 30 second delays, and 60 second delays using T-tests and standard deviation. Because the data is so simple, it can be analyzed in many different ways.

My set of mice was labeled F group. There were A, B, C, D, and E groups before my group. Two UPenn undergraduate students did the same research as me for two of the groups before me but Colin and Dr. Cohen did not trust their data because their results were off and because they did not handle the mice well. I was told on my last day that he completely trusted my data because I was so careful with my data collection and because I was better than the two undergraduate students with handling the mice.

I have to calculate the T-values for each set of data to determine whether or not the data I have gathered is scientifically relevant. They want there to be a bigger difference in memory between sham and injured animals in the lab. My research was to see if there is a scientifically relevant difference in memory of sham mice between 30-second and 60-second delays. Dr. Cohen and Colin both asked me to work in the lab next year and I think that I might! They said that I would be able to perform surgeries next year!

Sophie Kennedy: B.I.O.S. Week 5

For my final week in Sam’s lab it was definitely the busiest one. For starters, Kevin was away all week- making our lab feel nearly empty but also giving the three of us a lot more work to do! Lea started her certification process and dove a few days that week while Annie and I caught up in the lab. It’s a funny feeling to leave people working in the lab and go diving; it was nice to see others doing it as well. Most of the week I continued collecting growth data pictures for Kevin’s maps and also collected and settled the planula from the porites. This week was exceptionally busy because of all the settling we needed to do in addition to all the growth and settlement checks. We were definitely caught off guard that the corals did not spawn in as high of numbers as the previous month. Sam thought this could be because they spawned quite a large amount in June. Our wet lab had also had a flooding problem that week, so we could have lost a lot of planula if the water was high enough to allow the planula to float out of the mesh containers.

Also this week Sam asked me to present what we do in our lab to all the other interns. I wish I could have presented our data but since Kevin and Annie presented before me, it would have been too repetitive.  I was happy to even have the opportunity to practice my presenting skills. Taking the pictures and videos that I had collected over the 5 weeks I was at B.I.O.S., I combined them into a short video. I wanted to speak during the presentation however, an intern the previous week used a video to present her data and that was what all the others raved about. So I went with a video instead. Listening to the other presentations really helped me understand what can grab the audience’s attention so I am looking forward to showing the future EXP students some tricks and my video!

Lab selfies 

Porites astreoides

Dr. Sam swimming to get the boat

Jada Myricks- Chaiken Lab- Week 6 08/18/14

Week 6 Final Week at the Chaiken Lab

This is my final week at the Chaiken lab. I saw a very interesting presentation from a graduate student at the lab on how the cholesterol that makes up the lipid membrane on HIV was influenced when treated with various peptide triazole entry inhibitors. Even though his results were unexpected he figured out a new approach for his experiment when he opened up the floor for questions.

This week was shorter because I had a doctor and dentist appointment scheduled for the last two days so my last day was on Wednesday. I worked on my poster and watched Charles try to figure out what is wrong with the KR-13 we were using.

It was a valuable experience being in a real professional lab setting. I learned so much! When I entered the lab all of the equipment was foreign to me and I felt a little out of my element. Everyone at the lab helped me along and were patient with me. I am so thankful for everyone who has supported me and given this amazing opportunity. I also want to wish the Chaiken Lab a good luck in all their future experiments and endeavors. Their research is going to save a lot of lives.

Here is a picture of my lab (it's a tad outdated, but for the most part its on point)!



Thanks to everyone especially Dr. Peretz and Dr. Crider!
-Jada

Jada Myricks- Chaiken Lab- Week 5 08/11/2014

Week 5 Back to the Drawing Board

Viral Gradient Centrifugation and p24 ELISA plates

Since our previous work wasn't as successful we are going to repeat the same processes in hopes that our results will be more predictable. We began the with the viral gradient centrifugation. I established a gradient using two liquids of different densities One was at 20% and the other at 5%. I began to fill the centrifuge tubes slowly with the 5% and then little by little added the 20% liquid. This produces a steady increase from 5% to 20% by adding a higher concentration in increments until it reaches the 20% concentration. After 12 tubes of these gradients were made I moved to pipeting the virus just on the surface of the liquid so that it wouldn't mix before centrifugation. I loaded all 12 of the tubes in the centrifuge and let them spin for 2 hrs.

After the centrifuge I took out the tubes and removed the first two layers of liquid. These first two levels would most likely not be useful because they would almost entirely just be virus that didn't distribute throughout the tube. Next I pipeted just below the surface of the solution and filled the wells on the plate making sure I kept track of which levels I added to each well. It was really important that I didn't pipet too far down in the tube because that would disrupt the gradient and then the tube could not be used.

Then these plated samples were put into the freezer overnight for the p24 ELISA plates I would be doing. It is best to have them sit overnight because you want as many of the viruses as possible to stick to the ELISA plates for a clearer reading.

The next day I did the usual ELISA process. I block all sites not occupied by virus with BSA. After that I added the primary antibody and that was placed on the shaker of 1 hr. After that I went off to lunch with Dr. Crider and Alex!!!!! Yum :)

Then I did 3 washes to rid the plate of any thing besides what was to be detected. Then I added the secondary antibody which is conjugated to an enzyme. This enzyme produces a colormetric detection when its substrate is added to the sample. I put the results in the plate reader and this is what I got! This is a much better reading than the one before, but there are some mysterious inconsistencies that need to be figured out.

In the rows with the green corners are the averages of each set and then by column the are grouped by kind. They should be similar from top to bottom and should dwindle from left to right excluding the last two columns which are controls. So while this assay shows a slight trend there must be something going on with the KR-13 molecule itself and not just the virus.

Thanks!
-Jada

Jada Myricks- Chaiken Lab- Week 4 08/04/14

Week 4

The results were not what was expected at all. There must have been multiple errors along the way because there was only one set of assays that showed any kind of trend! After some error analysis we concluded it was most likely due to the heavy washes and the abuse that the viruses endured during the gradient concentration procedure and ELISA. These procedures can prematurely destroy the virus and then it cannot be detected in the final step of the assay which gives the colormetric detection. Below are the results of the 2f5 epitope ELISAs which showed the most promising results despite the large margins of error.

In this assay ist seems that as the concentration of KR-13 increases so does the absorbance relative to the control. This means that HIV was inhibited more at higher concentrations of the KR-13 molecule which supports how effective it may be.  Next week we will have to go back and repeat the previous experiments beginning with the baseline assay of p24 which will cancel out any infectivity being attributed just to the number of viruses in the sample.

Thanks!
-Jada

Caroline Casey - Week 10 - Complex Systems Group: Lab Presentation, 'Donut Day,' and Continuing my Project - University of Pennsylvania

This week was very eventful! On Monday, I prepared to give my presentation on my project at the lab meeting. It was an amazing experience, I received a lot of helpful input from the other lab members. Monday was also my 'donut day,' I brought in homemade cookies for the lab members during the lab meeting and they all loved them!

On Tuesday, I worked on identifying the differences in the community structure between the interference and non-interference groups. I computed a z-Rand score for the community assignments for the two groups and got a score of 0.0180. This result is very good, it means that the community partitions of the two groups are significantly different from each other. I was very excited by that result. I then went on to plot the community assignment of each node onto brain surface plots, where the nodes were colored according to community assignment. I continued working on that on Wednesday.

Thursday was my last day physically being in the lab, however, Dr. Bassett and I met and decided I would continue working on my project throughout the school year. I am very excited to continue with the research. I will be touching base with her every week or so to discuss the progress of my project. We also discussed the new paths we plan to take in my project. We decided to dig further into the differences between the interference and non-interference groups. We think that focusing on using those two groups is better than the four scenarios I was working with previously because we don't have to explain how learning is involved in the process. After we discussed the new path I will take, I realized that the 'paper' I was writing before is more like a collection of all the steps I took, a lot of steps that we won't mention in the actual paper we will send for submission. We will be writing the true paper as we explore more and start to see more results. Dr. Bassett and I had a very nice conversation where she told me that I am seeing what true science is like because we we are exploring many different paths in order to get the results we want and we are forced to think critically about every step. My project is difficult to see results in immediately because we are looking for a very specific sub-network that predicts the interference effect. Dr. Bassett said that we should eventually have enough information to write a paper and she also told me that she would be using my project and results in her grant proposal later in the year. I am so happy to know that I will be helping the lab in this way! At the end of the meeting I asked Dr. Bassett if she could write my college recommendation and she said she would be very happy to write one for me.

Although I am sad that my time in the lab is over, I am very excited to continue working on my project throughout the year. The prospect of having my own research published is amazing! This experience in the lab was eye-opening and made me realize how I really want to continue with research in the future. I really enjoyed getting to know the lab members and learning what it is like to be in a lab.

Chris Oh Week 5 - Gabrieli Lab, MIT

On Monday, I had a brief meeting with Zhenghan to discuss further analyses of the data.  She introduced to me some advanced statistical terms such as OLS Regression and ANOVA that I can use for data analysis.  She also suggested that I try plotting graphs that look at the correlation between the out-of-scanner phonetic scores and the average duration of just the 5-syllable words.  At the end of the meeting, I asked Zhenghan if I could get a chance to observe a scan this week, and she said I could come to a scan on Thursday.  For most of the week, I spent most of my time trying to familiarize myself with the statistical concepts that Zhenghan had mentioned.
Excited to observe a scan for the first time, I came to the lab on Thursday morning to hear that the scanner we had reserved was shutdown due to technical difficulties.  The scan was postponed to the following day.
On Friday, there was a lab meeting at noon primarily due to a new member of our lab.  After a series of brief announcements from Dr. Gabrieli, the new postdoc gave a presentation on her research.  Her topic was functional specializations of emotion and memroy processing using MEG.  Although I couldn't understand everything from the presentation, the topic was fascinating.  Around quarter to three, I had a meeting with Dr. Gabrieli.  It was my first formal meeting with him, and I was initially a bit intimidated by his imposing stature.  But soon, he turned out to be very, very friendly and funny.  We briefly discussed my work so far at the lab, and he thanked me for all the hours I put in for the research.  We then moved on to talk about several other topics.  Shortly after the meeting, I went to the first floor where the imaging center is to meet with Zhenghan for the scan.  Madlyn, another high school intern, volunteered to be our participant as it was her last day at the lab.  For Josh, the new technical assistant taking over for Michelle who is leaving in a week, it was his first scan.  Before we got into the scanning room, Madlyn had to fill out a form to make sure she doesn't have any metal in her body and Josh brief explained to her the task.  Then we got into the scanning room, and the amount of prep work before the scan stunned me.  Before we began the task, we had Netflix on for Madlyn so we can get a rough scan of her brain.  Then, we started the functional scan.  Because the new scanner did not have a microphone, we did not conduct the Non-word Repetition and the only task for Madlyn was syntax task, where she pressed left or right button depending on the correctness of the phrase presented to her.  After the three trials of syntax task, we turned on Netflix again while we took Diffusion Tensor Imaging, or DTI.  As Josh was still going through the learning process, Michelle and Zhenghan's hints and instructions taught me so much about brain scans.  The task only took about 5 to 10 minutes, but the time we spent in the scan room was almost 2 hours due to much prep work and post-scan work.
It was probably the best moment I have had at the lab so far.  Here are some pictures from the scan:

Josh preparing the machine before the scan

The scanner that we used

During the syntax task

Caroline Casey - Week 9 - Complex Systems Group - University of Pennsylvania

This week, I spent a majority of my time preparing for the PowerPoint presentation on my project that I will be giving to the lab group on Monday, August 18.

On Monday of this week, I completed finding all the interference values from the ANOVA of the four scenarios with the before, within, and after scanning session movement times that I started working on last week. I then plotted the distribution of the interference values. The distribution was not normal (not much of a surprise since the ANOVA values from the original pre-post scanning session data were not normal either). I then began finding interference values from the difference between the movement times at the two time points for the four scenarios, for each of the 20 subjects (pre-scanning session 2 movement time - within scanning session 2 movement time, and so on). If the value from the difference is negative, then the subject has interference, if the value is positive, then the subject does not have interference. This took a while, I continued this process through Tuesday. Monday, we also had our weekly lab meeting where two undergrads presented their work in the lab this summer. The presentations were very interesting, one undergrad spoke about networks in materials, specifically sand. I enjoyed learning about how networks can be applied to fields besides neuroscience.

The interference values distribution using interference values from the ANOVA. This is the third scenario: ANOVA between pre-scanning session 3 and within scanning session 3.

The interference values distribution using interference values from the difference between the two time points. This is the third scenario: difference between pre-scanning session 3 movement time and within scanning session 3 movement time.

Tuesday, I completed finding the interference values from the difference between movement times at the two time points for the four scenarios, all 20 subjects. I then plotted the distribution of the values for the four scenarios. These plots were much more normal than the ones from the ANOVA interference values. I spent the rest of the day adding and editing my paper with my new findings. I also found out on Tuesday that Dr. Bassett was not going to be in the office for the rest of the week. I created and sent her a  PowerPoint of the work I completed since our last meeting.

On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, I worked on my paper, read more relevant papers, and worked on the PowerPoint that I will present on Monday, August 18. I am excited to present my work to the lab and hear what suggestions and ideas the lab members have about my project. I cannot believe that I only have one more week in the lab, I am both sad and surprised that that my experience is already almost over. I hope to continue working on my project throughout the school year, finding more results and finishing the paper. This has been an amazing experience so far!

Jada Myricks- Chaiken Lab- Week 3 07/28/14

 Week 3

This week we did about 6 different ELISAs to test whether epitopes on the virus were available after being treated with the KR-13 molecule. The KR-13 binds to the surface of HIV to a glycopprotein called gp120. This binding leads to the eventual lysis of the virus thus disabling it. It is important to figure out what the molecule is doing exactly ,beside binding to gp120, to cause the virus to lyse. So we test whether other epitopes on the virus are exposed or covered with the KR13 molecule.

Diagram of an HIV virus with a clear representation of gp120.

ELISA  is the perfect procedure to test whether an epitope is free or occupied. This assay is used to detect if a particular protein or antibody is present and how much of it there is in a sample. After a series of antibody binding, an enzyme will bind to a substrate producing color. This color can then be detected and measured to yield data for how much of a particular protein or is in a given sample. By changing which antibodies are used in the experiment you can detect different proteins. Thus we tested six different sites on HIV to see if the KR13 molecule was interacting there.

This is a picture of an ELISA plate. You can clearly see the colormetric detection. Thus this result tells us that the samples at the top had free epitopes to bind to.

Next Week we will be analyzing the results.

-Jada

Alex Baum- Cohen Lab Week 7- CHOP/UPenn

Hi everyone it is Alex and this is the end of my seventh week at The Cohen Lab! One more week to go! This week was actually pretty exciting! It all started Monday when I went to Abramson for some more Resse's peanut butter chips because I was running out and needed some for the maze. I went to ask Colin how I could get some more and to my surprise he was gone for the week! So, my grad student was not around this week which ended up being fine because most of my research is done by myself in the other building anyway. I also wanted to ask my PI if he would be around next week when  Dr. Crider would visit my lab so I went to his office but he was not there. This is not surprising because he is usually really and at meetings. I then emailed him asking him if he would be around the day Dr. Crider would be visiting and he told me that he would unfortunately not be in the lab from August 1st until August 9th. He will be gone my last week in the lab so I knew that I would have to thank him for allowing me to work in his lab on Thursday. 

On Tuesday, I started the one minute time trials for the maze and I have discovered that they a lot more work than the 30 second and no delay timed mazes. I do not know what to do with the minute I spend waiting for the choice trial. I want to be productive but I do not know what I can do in one minute without being distracted. Colin told me that he listens to talks with headphones when he ran the maze so I listened to a bunch of Ted Talks about psychology while I waited for the choice trials. On Wednesday I did not listen to anything because I wanted to focus on my work. The one minute trials feel different than the other trials I have been doing because they are a lot longer. I am researching with 6 mice and each mouse does 10 trials a day so I am waiting for a 60 minutes or more each day. However, I do enjoy running the maze and I am learning a lot about animal behavior and memory.

On Thursday, I thanked my PI for allowing me to work in his lab this summer. He has never had a long-term high school student work in his lab and he said that I did a great job! He said that he would love to write a recommendation for me and offered me a job for next summer! Next week is my last week in my lab and I am really excited to analyze the results from the 8 weeks I have been working in the lab.

Caroline Casey - Week 8 - Complex Systems Group: Finding the Distribution of Interference Values and Looking at Plateaus - University of Pennsylvania

This week was eventful and exciting, as every week is! I did some back-tracking with my project this week in order to be sure I can prove why I completed certain steps in the paper. After speaking with Scott and Nicholas last week, Dr. Bassett and I had new ideas for how to move forward with my project.

On Monday, I finished looking at the distributions of the interference values using the two different sets of interference values. Last week, I combined the interference values (from the ANOVA) into two sessions in order to have 40 subjects and then divide the 40 subjects into 2 groups based on having interference or not having interference. I completed that step by using a significance test. However, Dr. Bassett wasn't sure that it was the right method, she thought that I might need to use a median split. So, in order to be sure, I emailed Scott and Nicholas a PowerPoint of what I completed and asked what they suggested. They thought using a significance test would be the best option. They especially wanted me to use the interference values from the difference between pre and post movement time because it seemed to follow a normal distribution. Dr. Bassett and I were now certain that the results from Friday were correct. 

I then decided to make the community structure I identified two weeks earlier clearer by coloring the nodes on the brain plots more distinct colors, so the difference between the communities was more obvious. I also colored all nodes that were the only node assigned to that community (singletons) grey, so as to get a better understanding of the larger communities. It took me a while to figure out how to threshold the singletons to make them all grey and how to make the communities more distinct colors, but I figured it out in the end. We also had our weekly lab meeting on Monday where a post-doc in the lab, Marcelo spoke about his research.

This is the brain plot for one scenario (edges from the correlation of interference session 2 and scan 1) with the nodes colored more distinctly. Grey nodes (hard to see) are the singleton nodes.

Nicholas, one of the researchers I spoke with last Friday sent an email on Tuesday about the plateau results for the motor learning experiment. We decided it would be a good idea to identify whether subjects did or did not have interference when they reached the movement time plateau (no change in movement time greater than 0.25 ms) in order to identify if there was a trend. Attached to the email was a paper, which is not published yet, about the experiment and how the plateau results were found. Nicholas also attached the results from the plateau, including when subjects reached the plateau (which scanning session), which was the most important information in the data he provided. I spent Tuesday reading the paper, looking at the data, and analyzing the results.

On Wednesday, I continued looking at the plateau results and compared those results to whether or not a given subject did or did not have interference. I used the difference between pre and post movement times as the interference values to compare to the plateau results because when looking at the distribution of the interference values, those values gave the most normal distribution. No trend was noticed, there was a mix and the results seemed inconclusive. 

The next steps involved looking at the community structure between the two groups in order to see if the structure was different. I completed this step in order to justify that there truly is a difference between the two groups (interference and no interference), it was a necessary step to prove in the paper that the structures are different. Dr. Bassett wanted me to use the interference values from the ANOVA because it more accurately combined the two sequences and found interference values. I worked on going through all the steps: correlation, finding significant edges, permutation test, creating a network, completing 100 optimizations of the community assignments, modular allegiance matrices, and finally consensus partitions for the two groups. I completed these steps the rest of Wednesday and into Thursday.

I had the consensus partitions of the two groups completed by Thursday afternoon, and there seemed to be a difference in the community structures of the two groups (which is a good sign). Dr. Bassett then sent me the movement times of each subject for the two sequences for before each scanning session, during each scanning session, and after each scanning session. The ultimate goal was to analyze the distribution of the interference values for four scenarios, which are described below. I spent the rest of Thursday thinking through how to manipulate all the data. First, I had to find the interference values for the four scenarios for each subject. The four scenarios involved an ANOVA between: pre-scanning session 2 and within scan 2, within scan 2 with post-scanning session 2, pre-scanning session 3 and within scan 3, within scan 3 and post-scanning session 3. I then needed to separate the data for each subject, each sequence so as to make it compatible for the ANOVA. Next, I needed to complete a repeated measures ANOVA for the four scenarios for each subject. This is very tedious, but necessary work. I spent all of Friday working through these steps. 

Although I have been here for many weeks, I feel like there is still so much that needs to be done in order to truly have a complete understanding of what causes interference and in order to identify a sub-network that can predict who is susceptible to the interference effect. I hope that within the next two weeks I will be able to accomplish a lot more in moving my project forward. I find this research very exciting and interesting and I am learning so much in the process! I am particularly excited about all the applications my research has like the military, test-taking, and sports. The military is a good example because someone could perform well in practice, but in battle, if that person is susceptible to the interference effect, his/her performance could drop dramatically, which is dangerous for the individual as well as the group. I have developed a deep appreciation for network science and really enjoy the discovery that is involved in research!

Pieter de Buck - Week 6 - Duke University

Hi everyone, my name is Pieter and this is my 6th week at Duke.

This week I have started using my own data with my processing scripts. I did this because that meant that I was able to set my own simulation parameters such as beam energy, projectile and target particle and something called the impact parameter. This can be a single number or a certain range of numbers, and it defines the separation of the centers of the two nuclei in femtometers. In the picture below the with of the orange blob is the impact parameter. For my data I used a range from 0.5 to 3.75. I set the input parameters such that they corresponded with the conditions for this RHIC experiment.

I chose to use a fairly large sample size for my purposes, I simulated about 4000 collision events, which took at least 16 hours even on the powerful computer that Duke provided me with. When my research group wants to simulate data for use in scientific papers, they run the simulation in parallel on many different computers, to gain as much precision as possible. I then adapted my scripts to be able to read from multiple files and stitch everything together. This was quite straightforward and allowed me to work on the interpretation of the data very quickly.

Since Dr. Bass left for a trip, I started working with Dr. Nahrgang again. She told me that because of my script she found out that she should not have decreased the precision of the simulation in order to save disk space. In the data it would sometimes occur that two numbers were rounded too early, and thus result in division-by-zero errors. We have started working on new ways to interpret the data, and I will be able to talk about that next week.

I have increased the user-friendliness of my scripts. I added thorough comments, explaining each part of the program. Also the program now reads from an input file, instead of having to define all the parameters inside the program, much like the actual collision software, and allowing for automated running of the script. My research group also created an online repository for each of our scripts, allowing for easy troubleshooting and sharing. Think of it as google docs for programs.

Pieter

Chris Oh Week 4 - Gabrieli Lab, MIT

To start the week off, I had a meeting with Zhenhan on Monday to discuss the data analysis.  She showed me the programs on Python I would use and explained to me some statistical terms that would help me plot graphs.  She also recommended a course on Statstical Analysis on Coursera.  She asked me to plot graphs using the data I have collected (Average response time per each subject and per each syllable group) and data of out-of-scanner phonetic test scores of the subjects, which she sent to me briefly after the meeting.
For the rest of Monday and all of Tuesday, I looked through the Internet researching on differnet ways to plot graphs using Python as well as listening to some of the lectures on Coursera.
On Wednesday morning, I was able to graph a boxplot of the average response time for each syllable group with error bars.  At noon, I attended the weekly reading group for undergraduates and high school students.  Due to low attendence (there were only 3 students including me), Sara, the speaker, and the three of us had informal discussions on the papers she sent out the week before.  The papers she assigned to us were ones that were getting media attention this summer.  There were three papers: one about dogs, one about TV and one about food.  The paper about dogs was about an ongoing experiment where the researchers were able to train some dogs to go into the fMRI machine for brain scans.  A striking finding in the experiment was that the caudate nucleus in dogs was very similar in function and structure to the one in humans.  In humans, the caudate plays a key role in anticipation of things that we enjoy or desire.  In dogs, according to the experiment, the caudate activation was increased in response to hand signals indicating food and smell of familiar people.  The second article was about TV, where researchers used EEG and later fMRI to observe the neural response to TV shows and Superbowl commercials.  According to the paper, the researchers were able to use their subjects' neural response to predict the response of mass audience.  They used Twitter activity and Nielson ratings to measure the response of the general audience.  The last article was about food cravings.  It talked about how some people have more trouble resisting food desires due to low activation in the Inferior Frontal Gyrus, mostly in charge of self-control.  After the discussion, we were supposed to go to the fMRI room for fMRI demonstration, but the other two students who were there had other committments, so the demonstration was postponed.
On Thursday, I was able to plot scatter plot and best line of fit using the out-of-scanner behavioral data that Zhenghan sent me to see the relationship between average duration and phonetic abilities.
On Friday, I looked through the links that Zhenghan had sent the previous day to help me with data analysis, and attended the undergraduates' poster session.  Some of them were almost impossible for me to understand with my background, but many of them were very interesting.  For example, one of the presenter's research was similar to the poster I made for the spring poster session.  She was looking to isolate a part of the brain that is activated when presented a familiar word. When she was pointing at the figures showing the areas that were shown to activate when the subjects' saw a familar word and I pointed out that the area was left inferior prefrontal cortex near Broca's area (the area of the brain which was the main focus of my proposal and poster), she was surprised by my observation and was even more stunned when I told her that I was only a high school student with almost no background in Neuroscience.  I stayed for the full two hours had was able to have chats with almost all of the presenters.
I have also scheduled a meeting on Monday with Zhenghan to discussd further analysis of the data.

Picture of the poster session:

Winston Kung - Week 7 (7/21 - 7/25) - Silverman Lab, Columbia University

Hi there, I'm Winston and this is my EXP Summer Lab Research Experience thus far:

I can't believe my last week is already here.  Time at my lab this summer really did fly by, and I am honestly astonished at how quickly my last day crept up on me.

Every morning of this week I attempted to go to both butcher places and get a rabbit head for the lab member who asked me for one the previous week.  Unfortunately, however, it seemed that every day of the week, both butcher places had something that would not allow me to get a rabbit head.  The second place had run out of rabbits for the entire week on Monday since someone came before I did and bought them all.  The first place was closed for Monday and Tuesday and did not had any on Wednesday and Thursday.  When Friday rolled around, I was simply told not to even make the effort to go again.

On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, I managed to finish analyzing the data for the rest of the four rabbit OCT scans.  By Tuesday or Wednesday, I became much faster and much more efficient with the data analysis program after I learned various different tricks and keyboard shortcuts.  I was able to finish one head per day.  On Thursday, I returned to working on the ultrasound scans and was able to get the majority of them done.  When my last day on Friday rolled around, I was already pretty close to finishing all 200 scans.  My PI, who had returned from his hiatus, had additional requests for me regarding the ultrasound scan data.  The last day (which was only until around 2 PM) was more work than I anticipated it to be.

At around 2, I handed in the key to my lab that I had received during my second week at the lab and certain odds and ends that I had received from them over time (such as a metro card to get rabbit heads).  I guess that's when it really hit me that I was actually going to leave the lab.  I was sad to leave, but also happy that I had been so productive in the time that I was here.  My PI remarked that it was probable that we would be able to make at least one ARVO (Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology) abstract that we could present at a national conference sometime within the next year.  Just before we left to go meet my parents for a "farewell lunch" that we had planned earlier, they gave me a Columbia University Medical Center T-Shirt as a souvenir which I really appreciated.  It read "Be nice to me.  I might be your doctor someday."

Perhaps someday!

Winston Kung - Week 6 (7/14 - 7/18) - Silverman Lab, Columbia University

Hi there, I'm Winston and this is my EXP Summer Lab Research Experience thus far:

Because we couldn't get a rabbit on Friday, I tried to get a rabbit again today.  As my luck would have it, the butcher's place was not open for some reason.  Fortunately, however, I was prepared.  I talked to people in my lab and found another butcher's place.  Although it was much farther than the first butcher's place, and much more unsanitary, it got the job done at the end of the day.  I was able to get a white rabbit's head and cross-link the corneas.  This fourth rabbit is going to be the last rabbit I use in my cross-linking procedure.  I've collected enough data for all intents and purposes.  What lies in store for me is to begin analyzing the data I collected from the all the scans I took.  My PI plans to teach me how to do this tomorrow.

As expected, the data analysis phase of this research project is quite repetitive.  Furthermore, we gathered quite a bit of data, so it's a large quantity of repetitiveness to chug through.  Consequently, it's taking me quite a while to get through just one rabbit eye/cornea.  At the rate I'm going at right now, I will probably be able to finish one whole rabbit head in two work days.  Unfortunately, my PI is going away on Wednesday for some sort of conference, and won't be back until Friday of next week, my last day at the lab.  In preparation for this, he taught me how to analyze the ultrasound data that we collected as well.  We took 200 scans per eye for one patient, and he had expressed his hope that I would be able to get at least 200 scans done by the time he got back.  So I have to finish the rabbit OCT scan analysis as well as the ultrasound analysis.  I have my work cut out for me.

On Wednesday, I tried analyzing as much of the ultrasound scan data as I could, since I was less familiar with this process than the OCT scan data analysis process.  This was the second to last day I would see my PI so I wanted to make sure I had everything down before he left.  Luckily, the data analysis process was not too complicated, and I only ran into one problem with the data analysis software coding which my PI soon fixed.

The last two days of the week, I spent working on the rabbit OCT scan data analysis.  By the end of this week, I had finished the entire first rabbit head.  I also started the second rabbit head, but the amount that I had completed for the second rabbit head was practically negligible.  Towards the end of the work day on Friday, one of the members of my lab asked me if I could go back to the butcher's shop on Monday to see if I could get a rabbit for one of her experiments.  She said she gets queasy easily and preferred to not go herself if she could help it.   It was totally fine for me and I was glad to be relied upon.