7th International Summer School of Neuroengineering

The Dynamical Response Properties of Cortical Neurons

In silico strategies to simulate neuronal structures

Coffee Break

Neuronal excitability given parametric variation

Lunch

Systems neuroscience framework for experimental brain dynamics research

The role of neural oscillations in shaping information routing and processing: insights from computational approaches

Coffee Break

First poster session

Closing the Neuro-Electronic loop

Highly Integrated CMOS Microsystems to Interface with Neurons at Subcellular Resolution

Coffee Break

Neuropixels: Fully integrated silicon probes for high-density recording of neural activity

Lunch

Novel electrophysiological tools for neuroengineering

A perturbational approach to non-invasively measure brain responses to direct stimulation: estimating excitability, effective connectivity and complexity

Coffee Break

Second poster session

School dinner

Innovative neuroprosthetics to treat neuronal injuries: from in vitro to in vivo studies

/

tbd

Coffee Break

Brain functions, through the lens of electrical stimulation

Lunch

Pratical activities

Practical laboratories with in vitro and in vivo set-up

Connecting a man and machine by speaking the common language of electrons and ions

Revealing pathological sleep-like activity in awake, brain-injured brains

Despite being active and reactive, the brain of most severely brain-injured, non-communicating patients is blocked in a low-complexity state. Indeed, as revealed by recent electrophysiological studies in unconscious patients diagnosed with an Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome (UWS), previously known as Vegetative State (VS) cortical networks fail to engage into complex interactions when directly perturbed (Casali et al., Science Translational Medicine 2015; Casarotto et al., Annals of Neurology 2016). Why is this so? We hypothesized that the cerebral cortex of UWS patients is pathologically bistable, as in physiological non-REM (NREM) sleep. According to this hypothesis, cortical circuits in UWS patients would tend to fall into periods of neuronal silence (OFF-periods) when directly perturbed, preventing the build up of complex interactions, which is a theoretical prerequisite for consciousness. To test this hypothesis we employed TMS/EEG in low-complexity UWS patients. In these patients TMS evoked simple slow waves, which strongly resemble the ones evoked in NREM sleep (Rosanova et al., Brain 2012). The analyses of TMS/EEG measurements in the time-frequency and phase domains revealed a significant suppression of high-frequency EEG oscillations associated with a slow, positive-to-negative sleep-like response to TMS and a short-living phase locking. These results indicate that cortical circuits in low-complexity VS/UWS patients invariably fall into an OFF-period, which never occurred in healthy awake subjects. Most important, the occurrence of TMS-evoked cortical OFF-periods terminated the build up of complexity within cortical circuits and eventually resulted in low levels of the Perturbational Complexity Index (PCI), a metric that is based on TMS/EEG measurements and is specifically designed to measure cortical complexity. Overall, our findings strongly suggest that due to cortical bistability structurally preserved portions of the cerebral cortex of most UWS can react to a direct perturbation, yet do not engage into global complex interactions.Interestingly, we have found similar results when applying TMS/EEG in perilesional areas of patients affected by cortical strokes. However, in these patients, who are fully conscious, TMS/EEG revealed the occurrence of OFF-periods that remain local and do not affect overall brain complexity.Neuronal and network mechanisms sustaining sleep-like cortical bistability in UWS and stroke will be discussed as well as critical methodological aspects to reliably apply TMS/EEG in brain-injured patients.

Coffee Break

Temporal correlations in the brain

Best poster award & student presentation

End of the School

Conclusion

In ricordo del Prof. Vincenzo Tagliasco

Ricorderanno Vincenzo Tagliasco il Prof. Luigi Rossi Bernardi (già Presidente del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) per due mandati consecutivi negli anni '80 e '90), il Prof. Luigi Donato (già Direttore dei due Progetti Finalizzati del CNR sulle Tecnologie Biomediche - anni '70 e '80), il Prof. Fabio Pistella (già Direttore Generale dell'Enea, già Presidente del CNR e già Presidente del CNIPA), il Dr. Domenico Laforenza (Direttore dell'Istituto IIT del CNR di Pisa), l'Ing. Franco Malerba (primo astronauta italiano e già Addetto Scientifico per l'Italia all'OCSE a Parigi, il Prof. Ing. Salvatore Gaglio (Ordinario di Ingegneria Informatica all'Università degli Studi di Palermo, prima cattedra di Informatica, Intelligenza Artificiale e Robotica Antropomorfa nella   Regione Autonoma Siciliana), il Prof. Ing. Riccardo Manzotti (Associato di Filosofia Teoretica presso l'Ateneo IULM di Milano) e il Dr. Enrico Pedemonte (giornalista, già corrispondente dagli USA a inizio anni 2000 per l'Espresso).

In ricordo del Prof. Vincenzo Tagliasco

Years ago, in his office at the University of Genoa in Italy, Vincenzo said I would have to accomplish the task of writing on him some day, as due by any good fellow to his master professor. He was dramatically right in his prediction. Here I am — making an effort to perform what I consider an impossible mission — namely, summarize my sentiments as well as the scientific community’s debt to Vincenzo Tagliasco. Given his many-faceted rare personality, well known by his colleagues throughout the world, I can only express a few emotions and perceptions while writing about my direct experiences with him from a human and scientific point of view, not necessarily in the correct temporal sequence. This write-up is intended to summarize, as succinctly and eloquently as possibly, my feelings and my profound esteem for Vincenzo Tagliasco. Here, I mention him simply by his first name and surname. After death, it is no longer necessary to identify a person by his academic or official title, such as Doctor or Professor. Death, one may say, is an event in life that equates all human beings in the face of what may be considered a mystery by itself and a mystery beyond. As far as I can remember I first met Vincenzo when I was a student at the Engineering School of the University of Genoa in 1972. What impressed me at the very start was his enthusiastic approach to life, particularly with regard to initiating and establishing relationships with young students. He would encourage them to embark on the most ambitious task for a human being, namely to utilize their ‘‘fresh’’ brains to tackle the problem of extending some frontiers of the existing fund of knowledge — not merely as a curiosity-driven process but as something capable of yielding ‘‘value’’ in any possible form, such as a contribution of a social, economic, or political nature. Since then, as testified by his own will to become a professor of bioengineering, a then non-existing discipline in Italy, he used his enthusiasm to convince people that the new knowledge acquired by research would achieve its culmination only if employed to generate ‘‘value’’.The second thing that impressed me was his immense trust in his co-workers. He would mention several researchers at the most prestigious international meetings in order to promote their names while assigning himself a secondary position. The incredible result was that many of his national and international colleagues were mentioned in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and European Union (EU) tables dealing with research, development and innovation. The third outstanding feature was his ‘‘maniacal’’ professionalism, as manifested by the painstaking attention he gave to the infinitesimal details of his work: experimental data, statistics, citations, a text, the use of a word, the placing of a comma in the text of a scientific paper or an official document for research-policy makers. He was a true professional in the field of research. He left nothing to chance and yet he looked like an actor spontaneously performing a scene.We all knewthat such effects were endorsed by a lot of careful and intentional effort. The fourth striking aspect of Vincenzo’s personality and work was his ability to integrate creativity and actual achievements. This included his predictive visions for science and technology. He loved to be called an engineer — a person with the ability to construct a functioning device or system by using his ‘‘ingeniousness’’. He was not excessively concerned with whether one exactly understood why a given systemwas working: the value of a product lays in its usability. In his view of life, function took precedence over structure. I could say a lot more about Vincenzo. However, I think the best way to honour him would be to call him a constructor of science as well as technology. In fact, he constructed— or moulded—the lives of many who had the good fortune to knowhim and work with him. The word ‘‘constructor’’ is derived from the Latin words ‘‘cum’’ + ‘‘sto’’ + ‘‘ruo’’, i.e. ‘‘to make stones roll in order to build something that stands up’’: a very apt description of Vincenzo because he was one of those few individuals who could make others ‘‘stand up’’ after they had ‘‘rolled their minds together’’ with his.

Prof. Francesco Beltrame