First micro-structure atlas of the human brain completed
October 23, 2012
European scientists have built the first atlas of white-matter microstructure in the human brain in a project called CONNECT (Consortium of neuroimagers for the non-invasive exploration of brain connectivity and tracts).
The new atlas combines 3D images from the MRI scans of 100 brains of volunteers. To achieve this, the scientists developed advanced diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods providing unprecedented detail and accuracy.
Currently, biomedical research teams around the world studying brain science rely on a brain atlas produced by painstaking and destructive histological (tissue examination) methods on the brains of a few individuals who donated their bodies to science.
The new atlas simulates the impossible process of painstakingly examining every square millimeter of brain tissue (of which there are around 100 million per brain) with a microscope, while leaving the brain intact.
The key novelty in the atlas is the mapping of microscopic features (such as average cell size and packing density) within the white matter, which contains the neuronal fibers that transmit information around the living brain. The results of the project provide new depth and accuracy in our understanding of the human brain in health and disease.
The atlas describes the brain’s microstructure in standardized space, which enables non-expert users, such as physicians or medical researchers, to exploit the wealth of knowledge it contains. The atlas contains a variety of new images that represent different microscopic tissue characteristics, such as the fiber diameter and fiber density across the brain, all estimated using MRI. These images will serve as the reference standard of future brain studies in both medicine and basic neuroscience.
The project will dramatically facilitate and promote future research into white matter structure and function. Historically in neuroscience, the vast majority of research effort has been invested in understanding and studying gray matter and neurons, while white matter has received relatively little attention.
This owes largely to the lack of effective research tools to study white matter, even though it comprises about half the volume of the brain. The new MRI methods that were developed in CONNECT allow researchers, for the first time, to visualize the micro-structure of the living brain over the whole brain.
This opens new realms in our understanding of our most complex organ. In the future, the project members intend to use the technology they have developed to study the dynamics and time dependence of the micro-structure in white matter. For example they will search for a trace that a cognitive task imprints on white matter microstructure, encoding new experiences in the wiring of the brain.
Another future direction is to characterize and understand micro-structural changes caused by different neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s or schizophrenia, to develop better diagnostic procedures for these and other devastating conditions.
The work relied on groundbreaking MRI technology and was funded by the EU’s future and emerging technologies program with a grant of 2.4 million Euros. The participants of the project, were drawn from leading research centers in countries across Europe including Israel, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Denmark, Switzerland and Italy.
The project investigators met in Paris, after 3 years of research, to announce the conclusion of the project and present a report (open access PDF) of their findings.

Comments (13)
by Rob Hunter
Perhaps the best way to understand the significance of “white matter” is to view it as a means of giving “context” to gray matter neural function.
by John Middlemas
What use is that scan if nobody will ever understand how it works. It’s too complex. The problem is not insufficient computer power or a doubling every two years, these things are irrelevant. The problem is UNDERSTANDING. You will not understand yourself – that is a contradiction. Someone on a higher level is needed to understand someone on a lower level. It’s obvious we will never get there. Listen to David Deutsch when he says a breakthrough in Philosophy is need rather than exponential power doublings. You will not solve the intelligence problem by brute force. Get Real. I think Raymond is leading us all up the garden path (not intentionally).
by Jon
Do you have any statistics, data, measurements, anything at all to support that theory?
Sticking by the mainstream materialistic scientific view, with increased scanning capabilities; we can eventually see what happens in the brain on a quantum-physical level. Knowing the functioning of the constituent parts will give us insight in the functioning of the whole. Improved scanning and reading techniques are already bringing us tangible results, see the article on the brain-signal-reading headband and the dream&thought-reading equipment that are used in labs for testing.
Philosophically speaking, there is also no inherent reason why we fundamentally couldn’t understand ourselves. Regardless, we’ll discover whether that is true in practice soon enough.
by Editor
Yes, there is no evidence to support such an hypothesis. Add “Technology will never help us understand the brain” to the posters on the wall that are about to fall down.
by John Middlemas
It’s not so much evidence you need but foundations. What are the foundations that might lead us to believe AGI is possible? There are none at all. The only foundations you have are “I think therefore I am”, “There is experience”, “There is seeing and hearing”, etc etc. Those things are beyond doubt and everything else is assumption. For example you must assume you see a real tree because you might be a “brain in a vat” and there are no real trees at all. Bladerunner movie is also similar with false memory implants.
In short, we cannot know where intelligence comes from. It may be that a certain group of neurons has a wireless interface to some electrical energy field that is where the majority of the intelligence lies. So the study of neurons and brain wiring is fruitless.
My “theory” is as good as Ray’s since neither have a shred of evidence to show where the source of intelligence is.
by Jon
Mr. Kurzweil wrote several well-argumented & researched books on the subject. I have yet to find anyone to bring a counter-argument even half as solid and well thought out. I’m actively looking though, I like my ideologies to be challenged.
I am not interested in absolute, irrefutable truth as to the nature of reality. I’m just looking at a probability distribution, and thus I have a problem with your following statement;
__
“It may be that a certain group of neurons has a wireless interface to some electrical energy field that is where the majority of the intelligence lies. So the study of neurons and brain wiring is fruitless.”
—
This is possible, but it’s highly unlikely. It’s far more likely that our intelligence is just an emergent property of a physical brain. We have that brain. We know we can express some forms of decision making digitally. We can express more of such forms with greater capability every year. Hence if this trend continues, we’ll end up simulating all a biological brain can do, if not more, and better.
To say the study of neurons and brain wiring is “useless” sounds very rash and just downright ill thought out to me. We seek knowledge, not merely absolute truth.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love for us to have some form of meta-conciousness or whatever, it sounds fascinating. But it would require a whole new level of complexity that doesn’t seem necessary in explaining the mind. Merely because it could possibly be more complex does not mean we should assume it is so. Occam’s Razor and all that.
by John Middlemas
Does anybody have any evidence to support the counter theory? After 50 years of AI there has been zero progress towards AGI as Deutsche says. There is your evidence – 50 years of failures. They thought they would have super intelligence many times in the past but it never happened. Read Minsky on this.
By the way the idea of stats, data, etc supporting theories is also a suspect idea. One can argue that not theory but practice is the only way to proceed in science. My comment is based on practice not theory.
by Karl Simanonok
Philosophy has no answers to anything, only questions, and only science can answer the question of consciousness. This mapping project appears to be a significant forward step as it opens up the ‘black box’ of the brain quite a bit more than previously. However the answer to consciousness I believe is already out there, it just hasn’t risen to the level of ‘public’ consciousness yet — see http://light.simanonok.com to understand how biophotons may be organized to form a Nexus (connection point) allowing consciousness to inhabit us.
by Bri
I must admit that I don’t like responding to these type posts. I feel the desire to share my experiences, but I’m greeted with skepticism and scorn. I really wish I was in a position to speak with more authority, and actually help solve this debate. Unfortunately I’m finding it difficult to find serious researchers that will explore my claims. Consciousness is independent of the body. It can inhabit inanimate objects, even to the point of influencing them. We’ve all heard about spirits making things move. I’ve e perienced this from this side. By this I mean that while I’m alive, I’ve affected things at a distance, actually since early childhood. After forty plus years trying to understand what is happening, I’ve come to the conclusion that what we see is not real. It is something that all consciousness makes appear real. It’s really more of a holodeck. Infinite consciousness is the controller that orchestrates it. As you let go of your attachment to the you that you think you are, you start to become part of the rest of what is.
by eldras
I agree we’re on accelerating trajectories and it is obviously impossible to guess what breaking development will speed this. Aim is simulation from scan observations of any given brain fro corrective, including anti-aging, medicine.
1. This was done slowly on living people: it will be much faster and routine for people and in greater depth & complexity.
2. Constant imaging over a course of time is needed with the brain and body (they’re intrinsic) and external stimulants which are likely to be complex.
3. Drug/chemical bio-interactions with brain and body considered need to be done.
by don
I think that eldras is correct the CNS and the PNS are one machine. Both need to be mapped and imaged together to get to the whole. But we are gettng closer.
by melajara
This will be invaluable to map neural circuits in vivo.
As Ray keeps saying, I’m pretty confident we are engaged in a similar accelerating returns path as we did with the Human Genome Project.
Brains in silico (or rather in graphene) sounds rather plausible circa 2030.
by GAUSS
The connectome cometh.