Welcome to the Gribble Lab
Paul L. Gribble, Ph.D.
[ bio ]
The lab is located in the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada.
The goal of our research is to understand how the brain controls voluntary movement, and how motor learning is achieved. Empirical studies using human subjects as well as theoretical studies using computational models and computer simulations are carried out to test hypotheses about how the brain controls movement.
Read about our research projects on the research page, browse our published work on the publications page, find out who does all the work in the lab on the people page, and see what courses Dr. Gribble is teaching on the courses page. Read our blog here.
Read about joining the lab on the join page.
[ note: we have open positions for the 2009-10 academic year & beyond ]
Filed under: News | Leave a Comment
first fMRI paper published
We have published our first fMRI paper – we examined fMRI activation patterns as subjects observed other people making reaching errors in an externally applied force field (applied by a robot arm)
Malfait N, Valyear KF, Culham JC, Anton JL, Brown LE, Gribble PL. fMRI Activation during Observation of Others’ Reach Errors. J Cogn Neurosci 2009; (in press)
PMID: 19580392
The basic finding is that part of the cortical network that has been shown previously to be involved in processing active reaching errors (when the subject themselves makes a reach error) is also involved when we observe other people making reaching errors.
Filed under: Academia, Experiments, Journal Club, News, Publications | Leave a Comment
Tags: cognitive neuroscience, fmri, neuroscience
6 months with Dropbox
Back in November, fed up with the slow speed and buggy implementation of Apple’s iDisk service via MobileMe, I decided to try Dropbox – a cross-platform (Windows, Mac, Linux) computer-to-computer sync service. In short: it’s amazingly good.
Once installed, Dropbox listens at the OS level for changes to files within your designated Dropbox folder. The instant a file changes (like when you hit “Save” in your word processor) it gets synced to the cloud (Dropbox uses Amazon S3), and then gets “pushed” down from the cloud to any other computer you have Dropbox installed on. Think push-email for your files.
The first time you set it up, it can take several hours to sync all your files up to the cloud … but once that’s done once, subsequent syncs are very very fast.
The other great thing is that Dropbox maintains a history of your files, so that if you want to go back in time to a previous version of a file (e.g. a manuscript) you can. It’s like a cloud version of Apple’s Time Machine.
Unlike Apple’s iDisk service through MobileMe (which is a similar idea), Dropbox is FAST, and stable, and “just works”. I literally never have to think about file sync or backup.
The other nice thing is that it’s cross-platform, so if you have a mixture of Mac / Windows / Linux machines, you can have your Dropbox folder synced on all three, all the time, plus automatic time-history of changes.
Anyway you can tell I really like it and I highly recommend it.
Filed under: Computers | Leave a Comment
Tags: amazon s3, backup, cloud, dropbox, linux, mac, sync, windows
PLoS ONE : Article Level Metrics
Here is a very nice summary of the history of PLoS, the origins and rationale behind PLoS ONE and its approach to scientific review and publishing, and some information about new article-level metrics designed to more objectively assess the “impact” of individual articles.
some excerpts:
PLoS believes that the journal in which an article is published should not be the primary mechanism to determine whether that article will have any worth. Instead, PLoS feels that each article should be evaluated based solely on its own contribution to the literature (and not on some halo effect due to being published in the company of other high-quality articles).
While of some utility as a predictive measure of the average impact of a journal, the Impact Factor has been widely misused to the extent that the careers and grants of many academics are influenced by the Impact Factor of the journals they have published in, and some academics are strongly discouraged from publishing in certain journals unless they have an Impact Factor. Moreover, because of the widespread adoption of the Impact Factor and the fact that a journal with an Impact Factor is liable to enjoy more subscriptions and receive more high-quality submissions as a result, journals and journal publishers have an incentive to promote the Impact Factor due to the potential content- and finance-related benefits that follow. Hence, the system is perpetuated by a combination of academia’s adoption of a poor measure and the industry’s support for that measure because of the commercial benefits it brings.
Although the Impact Factor is widely adopted within academia it is well understood that measurements of this type, applied at the journal level, are far from ideal when attempting to evaluate the scientific contribution of individual articles, or by inference, individual academics.
Filed under: Academia | Leave a Comment
Tags: impact factor, journal, plos, plos one, publishing
This is good news
LaTeX submissions now accepted at PLoS ONE
Good for PLoS ONE. I wish more neuroscience journals would accept LaTeX as well. It’s not like it hasn’t been around for a long time, and it’s not like it isn’t a standard in many other fields. I’m sick of dealing with bugs and crashes in MS Word (a.k.a. MS Turd) / EndNote and now Apple’s Pages and EndNote + Mathtype. Besides, LaTeX documents are all plain ascii files. What could be easier and less of a problem for future compatibility?
Filed under: Journal Club, Publications | Leave a Comment
Tags: bibliography, bibtex, LaTeX, neuroscience, plos, plos one, tex