Revisit SfN annual meeting programming you enjoyed or missed year-round.

Material below summarizes the article Synaptic Connections of Aromatase Circuits in the Medial Amygdala are Sex Specific, published on May 29, 2020, in eNeuro and authored by Addison Billing, Marcelo Henrique Correia, Diane A. Kelly, Geng-Lin Li, and Joseph Bergan. Highlights Aromatase-producing cells in the mouse medial amygdala receive input originating from sensory cells in the vomeronasal organ that express a single class of receptors known to detect chemicals that convey information about the age, sex, and breeding condition of other mice. We did not observe sex differences in the intrinsic electrophysiological properties of aromatase-producing cells in the medial amygdala; however, we found a robust anatomical sex difference in the number of synapses that connect the accessory olfactory bulb – and thus the vomeronasal organ - to these cells. Males have nearly an order of magnitude more of these synaptic connections than do females, an anatomical difference that could play a role in shaping sex differences in social behaviors mediated by the medial amygdala.

In 1971, at the very first plenary session of the newly formed Society for Neuroscience (SfN), Vernon Mountcastle delivered his keynote address as the first SfN president. He took stock of the great achievements of the 1960s, which led to the formation of SfN, and looked forward to how this new group would shape neuroscience and society in the years to come. Now, as we mark the 50th anniversary of the society's founding, SfN's Trainee Advisory Committee (TAC) took on the same task — below and in their Journal of Neuroscience article, The Next 50 Years of Neuroscience — reflecting on a foundation of astounding work and predicting what the next 50 years will hold. Separated by time and space, Mountcastle's words echo in the hearts and minds of the newest generation of scientists.

This resource was featured in the NeuroJobs Career Center. Visit today to search the world’s largest source of neuroscience opportunities. For over 40 years, Nick Ingoglia researched the presence and function of RNA in growing axons. Now retired from a career in neuroscience, Ingoglia has been working toward writing a novel, Madame Lasagna and the Dead Frog, that combines neuroscience research with the fictional lives of a diverse group of characters. In this interview, Ingoglia shares how he incorporates his research experience into his writing, what he hopes audiences take away from his novels, and tips for scientists looking to explore a writing career.

Using molecular, anatomical, and electrophysiological approaches, Sebnem Tuncdemir found that two types of interneurons form transient connections while integrating into their proper positions within the developing brain and that these ephemeral circuits are necessary for the correct assembly of the cerebral cortex. For her outstanding PhD thesis, Tuncdemir won the Nemko Prize in Cellular or Molecular Neuroscience in 2016. Here, she shares more about her research and offers advice for grad students.

In this panel discussion, neuroscientists from the United States, South Africa, Korea, Argentina, France, and Croatia share what it will take to counteract bias in their region. The goals of the discussion are to: Determine region-specific challenges in increasing diversity and fighting bias. Identify solutions to these challenges that have been implemented or are being implemented. Share best practices between regions to create a community and move forward as a global initiative. Speakers Keynote speaker: Tracy L. Bale, University of Maryland, USA - IBRO President & Member of the ALBA Board of Directors Africa region: Fleur Howells, University of Cape Town, South Africa Asia/Pacific region: Jinju Han, KAIST, Korea Latin America region: Amaicha Depino, CONICET-University of Buenos Aires, Argentina - Young IBRO Committee member Europe region: Anne Beyeler, University of Bordeaux - INSERM, France - ALBA Ambassador The event was chaired by Zeljka Krsnik, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Croatia – Young IBRO Committee Chair & Member of the ALBA Board of Directors

Material below summarizes the article Functional Connectome Analyses Reveal the Human Olfactory Network Organization, published on May 29, 2020, in eNeuro and authored by T. Campbell Arnold, Yuqi You, Mingzhou Ding, Xi-Nian Zuo, Ivan de Araujo and Wen Li. Highlights Smell is borne out of a network of interconnected regions that are distributed across the brain. The larger odor processing network consists of three smaller subnetworks, which serve different functional purposes. Segregation of subnetworks helps to insulate the different functions and facilitates olfactory perception.

The following is an excerpt from a commentary in the Journal of Neuroscience, Recognizing Team Science Contributions in Academic Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure, that originated from two Neuroscience 2019 Professional Development workshops (watch them here and here). Read the full commentary here. The vision of a scientist as a lone investigator reaching an epiphany is a widely cherished narrative. Consistent with this ideal, single author papers were frequent 50 years ago, when the Society for Neuroscience started. However, the basic and translational questions and the public health challenges being addressed in current neuroscience research are increasingly interdisciplinary and multidimensional, and so the vast majority of significant studies require a team of investigators, working together collaboratively. This trend is evident in the increased number of authors per citation and the rapid expansion of collaborative grants. Unfortunately, academic culture has not yet caught up with the direction of the science. Hiring, promotions, and peer review tend to credit the first and last authors, with little consideration that the work required an entire team. At the 2019 SfN annual meeting, there were two workshops addressing team science. One workshop highlighted the challenges in team science for trainees, while the other focused on ways in which academic leaders could change our procedures to address the disconnect between overly narrow attention to individual first and last authorship in hiring, promotion, and tenure versus the collaborative nature of current research. This Commentary distills the ideas and recommendations brought forth by these workshops, to advocate for changes in academic recognition.

Since I was a child, I’ve had two passions: science and storytelling. For the vast majority of my career, I’ve pursued the former. I majored in neuroscience at Smith College and went on to earn my doctorate at Northwestern University. I recently completed my postdoctoral training at Columbia and will soon open my independent laboratory in the Department of Physiology and Membrane Biology at the University of California Davis. Sounds like a typical climb up the academic ladder, right? Yet despite this traditional career trajectory, my passion for storytelling was ever-present. After nearly a decade as a scientist, I decided to combine it with my longstanding commitment to science education as a children’s book writer. My debut science adventure series, The Magnificent Makers, was recently published by Random House Children’s Books. As I delved into the world of writing for kids, I discovered four key aspects of my scientific training that were directly applicable to my journey as an author.

Despite the vivid experience of homogeneous vision, our visual system is inherently endowed with highly inhomogeneous structures. Although the temporal characteristics of visual responses vary with eccentricity, the connection between this variation, the speed of visual processing, and its underlying neurophysiological mechanisms remains a topic of debate. Here, we performed simultaneous recordings of high-precision gaze positions and EEG activity to investigate how foveal and perifoveal stimulations impact reaction times (RTs) and visual evoked potentials (VEPs). Volunteers discriminated the position and orientation of a U-shaped figure with the aperture facing either upward or downward. Stimuli were presented briefly (50 ms) either in the foveola (0.33°) or perifovea (6.5°), to the right or left of the fixation point. Stimulus size in the perifovea condition was adjusted according to the cortical magnification factor (stimulus size: 0.2° and 0.75° for the foveola and perifovea conditions, respectively). ...