|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
OPPORTUNITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE FOR FUTURE ARMY APPLICATIONS
Committee on Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
Board on Army Science and Technology
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. W911NF-07-C-0117 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-12740-0
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-12740-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2009927221
Limited copies of this report are available from
Board on Army Science and Technology
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 940
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3118
Additional copies are available from
The National Academies Press
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Cover: Neuronal pathways in BrainBow mice. Neurons in the hippocampus, a brain area involved in memory, are labeled in different colors, with their neuronal outgoing projections pointing to the left. This is the first time so many different neurons have been separately visualized on such a large scale. Courtesy of Jean Livet, Joshua R. Sanes, and Jeff W. Lichtman, Harvard University, 2008.
Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R5
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
COMMITTEE ON OPPORTUNITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE FOR FUTURE ARMY APPLICATIONS
FLOYD E. BLOOM, Chair, Professor Emeritus,
The Scripps Research Institute
RICHARD A. ANDERSON, Professor of Neuroscience,
California Institute of Technology
RONALD R. BLANCK, Vice Chairman,
Martin, Blanck, & Associates
EMERY N. BROWN, Professor of Anesthesia,
Massachusetts General Hospital
JOSEPH T. COYLE, Eben S. Draper Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience,
Harvard University
MARY “MISSY” CUMMINGS, Boeing Assistant Professor, Director of Humans and Automation Lab,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
J. MARK DAVIS, Professor, Director of Psychoneuroimmunology,
Division of Applied Physiology, University of South Carolina
MICHAEL S. GAZZANIGA, Director,
The Sage Center for the Study of the Mind, University of California at Santa Barbara
RICHARD J. GENIK, II, Director,
Emergent Technology Research Division, Wayne State University
PAUL W. GLIMCHER, Professor of Neural Sciences, Economics, and Psychology,
New York University
PETER A. HANCOCK, Provost, Distinguished Research Professor,
University of Central Florida
STEVEN KORNGUTH, Director,
Center for Strategic and Innovative Technologies,
Professor of Pharmacy,
University of Texas
MARTIN P. PAULUS, Professor in Residence,
Department of Psychology, University of California at San Diego
JUDITH L. SWAIN, Executive Director,
Singapore Institute of Clinical Sciences;
Lien Ying Chow Professor of Medicine,
National University of Singapore;
Adjunct Professor of Medicine,
University of California at San Diego
PAUL J. ZAK, Director,
Center for Neuroscience Studies,
Professor of Economics and Clinical Professor of Neurology,
Claremont Graduate University
Staff
ROBERT J. LOVE, Study Director
NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate (through July 2008)
JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Research Associate
ANGELA L. MARTIN, Senior Program Assistant
OCR for page R6
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MALCOLM R. O’NEILL, Chair,
Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vienna, Virginia
ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Vice Chair,
Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut
DUANE ADAMS,
Carnegie Mellon University (retired), Arlington, Virginia
ILESANMI ADESIDA,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
RAJ AGGARWAL,
Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
SETH BONDER,
The Bonder Group, Ann Arbor, Michigan
JAMES CARAFANO,
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
W. PETER CHERRY,
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Ann Arbor, Michigan
DARRELL W. COLLIER,
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (retired), Leander, Texas
JAY C. DAVIS,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired), Livermore, California
PATRICIA K. FALCONE,
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California
RONALD P. FUCHS,
The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
PETER F. GREEN,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
CARL GUERRERI,
Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc., Herndon, Virginia
JOHN J. HAMMOND,
Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Fairfax, Virginia
M. FREDERICK HAWTHORNE,
University of Missouri, Columbia
MARY JANE IRWIN,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park
ELLIOT D. KIEFF,
Channing Laboratory, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts
LARRY LEHOWICZ,
Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia
ROBIN MURPHY,
Texas A&M University, College Station
RICHARD R. PAUL, Consultant,
Bellevue, Washington
EDWARD K. REEDY,
Georgia Tech Research Institute (retired), Atlanta
DENNIS J. REIMER,
DFI International (retired), Arlington, Virginia
JONATHAN M. SMITH,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
MARK J.T. SMITH,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
MICHAEL A. STROSCIO,
University of Illinois, Chicago
JUDITH L. SWAIN,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla
WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT,
Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey, California
EDWIN L. THOMAS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ELLEN D. WILLIAMS,
University of Maryland, College Park
JOSEPH YAKOVAC, President,
JVM LLC, Hampton, Virginia
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
CHRIS JONES, Financial Manager
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
OCR for page R7
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
Preface
The study of the human brain, its capacities, and its diseases remains one of the greatest scientific and philosophical challenges ever undertaken. That said, compiling this report to consider aspects of what has been learned and is being learned about the brain that can be useful to the operations of the U.S. Army has also proven to be extremely challenging. First, the field of neuroscience is so dynamic that significant new findings are being announced almost daily. The ability to define the systems of neurons that are activated as a human learns, practices, and performs mental tasks has allowed impressive integration of the constantly accruing understanding of how neurons use their genes to create proteins that enable them to function together. The ability to correlate brain images with function and behavior has already translated into accelerated programs to develop yet more advanced imaging tools and techniques. I believe, as many others do, that despite the almost constant growth of neuroscience over the past four decades, the future of neuroscience applications will grow at a rate that has not been seen since the birth of microprocessor-based personal computers. It was against this backdrop of a rapidly growing science, and the even more rapidly changing translation of that science into useful applications, that the committee addressed the issues in this report.
Second, along with the growing number of scientists engaged in neuroscience, the scope of neuroscience is also expanding at an ever-accelerating rate—so fast, in fact, that scientists and engineers have difficulty reconciling their perceptions of what is and isn’t included. Several new subdisciplines have been created in the past few years, easily identified by the “neuro-” prefix, linking neuroscience knowledge with valuable applications and technologies both medical and nonmedical. Which of them have proven to be substantive enough to be declared authentic components of applied neuroscience and to be deemed contributors to that future? Yet a third challenge has been to prepare a report that could satisfy and be understood by an audience of both generalists and specialists, as well as by those in the Army who must make the hard decisions on which science and technology to pursue.
The committee examined the basis of new neuroscience-based technologies and the likelihood that they could one day have an impact on Army capabilities. I believe the report provides both a valuable snapshot of the nature of neuroscience today and a well-formulated conceptualization of how its growing number of facets could affect the Army. Although the science is a moving target, actions could be taken now to track the progression of new concepts that will lead to developments with high potential for Army use.
I would like to thank the committee for its hard work in interviewing numerous experts, assessing the pertinent issues, and developing recommendations to address the many demands of its statement of task (see page 9). The committee, in turn, is grateful to the many Army personnel engaged in related research and technology developments for the useful information they provided. We also greatly appreciate the support and assistance of the National Research Council (NRC) staff, which ably assisted the committee in its fact-finding activities and in the production of this report. In particular, I thank Robert Love and his staff, who successfully organized several major meetings in multiple locations. They also maintained a secure central Web forum, where our guests’ messages accumulated, along with remote interviews with people unable to attend our meetings, and through which we wrote, shared our expertises, and developed the consensus for the report we present here. In addition, we also specifically recognize the essential role played by consulting technical writer Robert Katt as he helped us communicate to our intended audiences within the Army the richness of the data and the often subtle nuances of how those data could be used by the Army for its current and future operations.
The study was conducted under the auspices of the NRC Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST), which was established as a unit of the NRC in 1982 at the request of the U.S. Army. The BAST brings broad military, industrial, and academic scientific, engineering, and management expertise
OCR for page R8
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
to bear on technical challenges of importance to senior Army leaders. The Board is not a study committee; rather, it discusses potential study topics and tasks; ensures project planning; suggests potential experts to serve as committee members or reviewers; and convenes meetings to examine strategic issues for its sponsor, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology).
Although the Board members are listed on page vi of this report, they were not, with the exception of any Board members nominated and appointed to serve as formal members of the study committee, asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they review final drafts of the report before its release.
Floyd Bloom, Chair
Committee on Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
OCR for page R9
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Huda Akil, University of Michigan,
Michael Bennett (NAS), Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
John Cacioppo, University of Chicago,
David Dinges, University of Pennsylvania,
Stephen Drew, Science Partners,
Christopher Green, Wayne State University,
Edward G. Jones (NAS), University of California, Davis,
Michael M. Merzenich (NAS), University of California, San Francisco,
Gregory J. Moore, Pennsylvania State University, and
Daniel Schacter, Harvard University.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Dennis W. Choi of Emory University and Richard M. Shiffrin of Indiana University. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R10
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R11
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
Contents
SUMMARY
1
1
INTRODUCTION
8
Study Background,
8
Statement of Task,
8
Study Approach,
9
Report Organization,
10
Chapter Structure,
10
Response to Statement of Task,
10
References,
11
2
NEUROSCIENCE AND THE ARMY
12
History, Scope, and Definition of Neuroscience,
12
Hierarchical Levels of Neuroscience,
13
Neuroscience Technologies,
13
Reliable Biomarkers for Neuropsychological States and Behavioral Outcomes,
16
Army Application Areas,
18
Societal Issues,
19
Ethical Considerations,
19
Cultural Impediments,
20
The Use and Abuse of Socially Sensitive Demographic Categories as Indicators of Neural State and Performance Capability,
20
References,
21
3
TRAINING AND LEARNING
23
Evaluating the Efficiency of Training Regimes and Learning Paradigms,
23
Neuroscience-Based Models of Learning,
23
Subject Populations for Army-Specific Studies of Learning and Training,
24
Individual Capability and Response to Training,
25
Individual Variability in Brain Activity,
25
Identifying Conceptual Change in Individual Learning,
26
Monitoring and Predicting Changes in Individual Performance Efficiency,
27
The Effects of Environmental Stressors on Individual Performance,
27
Soldier Selection and Assessment,
28
Current Enlisted Soldier Selection,
29
Advanced Soldier Selection Tools,
29
Neuropsychological Testing in the Army: The Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics,
30
OCR for page R12
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
Summary: Status of Soldier Selection and Assessment and the Potential for Neuroscience-Based Improvements,
30
Monitoring and Predicting Social and Group Interactions,
31
The Scope of Social Neuroscience,
31
Relevance of Social Neuroscience to the Army,
31
Summary,
33
References,
33
4
OPTIMIZING DECISION MAKING
36
The Sources of Suboptimal Decision Making,
36
Errors in Assessing Relative Risk,
36
Loss Aversion in Decision Making,
37
Making Optimal Use of Individual Variability,
37
Tools for Characterizing Individual Decision Makers,
38
Personality as a Factor in Decision Making,
38
Emotional Reactivity in Decision Making,
39
Emerging Tools: Genetics, Neurohormones, and Brain Imaging,
39
Neuroscience-Related Theories of Decision Making,
39
Belief-Based Decision Making,
40
Intuitive Decision Making and Recognition-Primed Decisions,
42
References,
43
5
SUSTAINING SOLDIER PERFORMANCE
45
Measures to Counter Performance Degradation,
45
Fatigue,
45
Brain Response to Metabolic Stressors,
52
Sleep Deprivation,
53
Pharmaceutical Countermeasures to Neurophysiological Stressors,
54
Brain Injury,
56
Stress Disorders, Including PTSD,
56
Major Depressive Disorder in the Military Context,
58
Resilience,
58
Longer-Term Performance Deficits Linked to Traumatic Brain Injury,
59
Prospective Interventions,
61
References,
61
6
IMPROVING COGNITIVE AND BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE
67
Hours of Boredom and Moments of Terror,
67
Neuroegonomics,
69
Specificity of Brain Signals as Control Inputs to a Brain–Machine Interface,
69
A Pragmatic Approach to Neuroergonomics Applications,
70
Leveraging External Research to Enhance Soldier Performance,
70
Driver Workload Research,
70
NASA Neuroscience Research,
71
Neuropharmacological Approaches to Performance Enhancement,
71
References,
71
7
NEUROSCIENCE TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES
74
Managing the Soldier’s Physical Load,
74
Mission-Enabling Technologies,
75
Field-Deployable Biomarkers of Neural State,
76
EEG-Based Brain–Computer Interfaces,
76
Haptic Feedback Technology for Virtual Reality,
77
Augmented Reality Technologies,
77
OCR for page R13
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
Information Workload Management via Physiological and Neural Feedback (Including Augmented Cognition),
79
Technologies to Optimize Sensor-Shooter Latency and Target Discrimination,
79
Research-Enabling Technologies,
81
Signal Processing Challenges,
81
Fatigue and Sleep Models for Soldiers,
82
Functional MRI and Hardware to Support fMRI Research on Army Applications,
82
Transferring Laboratory Neuroimaging Technologies to Field Applications in the Far Term,
84
Optimal Control Strategies for Brain–Machine Interfaces,
85
Scientific and Technical Barriers to Neuroscience Technologies,
87
Trends in Neuroscience Technology,
87
Cognitive Psychology and Functional Imaging,
87
Targeted Delivery of Neuropharmacological Agents for Operational Purposes,
87
Multimodel Fusion of Neural Imagery and Physiological Data,
88
New Types of Averaging in fMRI,
88
Database Aggregation and Translation for Meta-analyses,
89
Default Mode Networks,
89
Priorities for Army Investment,
89
References,
91
8
LONG-TERM TRENDS IN RESEARCH
93
Trend 1: Discovering and Validating Biomarkers of Neural States Linked to Soldiers’ Performance Outcomes,
93
Genetic, Proteomic, and Small-Molecule Markers,
93
Neuroimaging Techniques,
94
Physiological Indicators of Neural-Behavioral State,
95
Trend 2: Using Individual Variability to Optimize Unit Performance,
95
How the Individual Variability Insight Affects the Army,
96
Neural Correlates for Cultural Differences in Behavior,
96
Trend 3: Recognizing Opportunities from the Vertical Integration of Neuroscience Levels,
96
Trend 4: Gaining New Insights into Adversary Response,
97
A Mechanism for Monitoring Neuroscience Research and Technology,
97
References,
98
9
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
99
Recommendations on Neuroscience Research for Behavioral Science Applications,
99
Training and Learning,
99
Optimizing Decision Making,
100
Sustaining Soldier Performance,
100
Improving Cognitive and Behavioral Performance,
102
Recommendations on Neuroscience Technology Development,
102
Overarching Recommendations,
103
A Mechanism for Monitoring New Opportunities in Neuroscience Research and Technology,
103
Individual Variability as a Future Force Multiplier,
103
APPENDIXES
A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
107
B Committee Meetings
110
C Sampling of Behavioral and Neuropsychological Literature (2001-2007) on High-Performance Athletes
112
D Research on Managing Information Overload in Soldiers Under Stress
117
OCR for page R14
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
Tables, Figures, and Boxes
TABLES
S-1
High-Priority Opportunities for Army Investment in Neuroscience Technologies (Recommendation 14),
2
S-2
Priority Opportunities for Army Investment in Neuroscience Technologies (Recommendation 15),
2
S-3
Possible Future Opportunities (Neuroscience Areas Worthy of Monitoring for Future Army Investment),
3
2-1
Prospective Army Applications for Neuroscience,
19
7-1
High-Priority Opportunities for Army Investment in Neuroscience Technologies (Recommendation 14),
89
7-2
Priority Opportunities for Army Investment in Neuroscience Technologies (Recommendation 15),
90
7-3
Possible Future Opportunities (Neuroscience Areas Worthy of Monitoring for Future Army Investment),
90
FIGURES
2-1
Various noninvasive imaging technologies provide insight into the brain (anatomy) and mind (function),
14
5-1
Schematic diagram illustrating the likely interactions between central and peripheral components of fatigue,
47
5-3-1
Neuronal pathways in BrainBow mice,
60
7-1
Various noninvasive imaging technologies provide insight into the brain (anatomy) and mind (function),
75
BOXES
1-1
Statement of Task,
9
2-1
Computational Processes in the Human Brain,
16
3-1
Predicting Future Behavior in Extreme Environments,
28
3-2
Theory of Mind,
32
5-1
Is Salivary Cortisol a Reliable Biomarker?,
55
5-2
Pharmaco-imaging with fMRI to Predict Drug Effects,
56
5-3
Connectomics and Neural Pathway Degeneration,
60
OCR for page R15
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFAST Alternative Flight Aptitude Selection Test
AFQT Armed Forces Qualification Test
AIM assessment of individual motivation
ANAM Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics
AR augmented reality
ARI Army Research Institute
ASVAB Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
ATP adenosine triphosphate
AugCog augmented cognition
BAST Board on Army Science and Technology
BCAA branched-chain amino acid
BMI brain–machine interface
BOLD blood oxygen level–dependent
CNS central nervous system
CRT cathode ray tube
CSF cerebral spinal fluid
C2V command and control vehicle
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DOT diffuse optical tomography
DSI diffusion spectrum imaging
DTI diffusion tensor imaging
EEG electroencephalography
ERP event-related potential
FDA Food and Drug Administration
fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging
GSR galvanic skin response
HMI human–machine interface
HPA hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal
IED improvised explosive device
LCD liquid crystal display
lfp local field potential
MEG magnetoencephalography
MRI magnetic resonance imaging
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NIRS near-infrared spectroscopy
NMDA N-methyl-D-aspartic acid
NonREM nonrapid eye movement
NRC National Research Council
NSBRI National Space and Biomedical Research Institute
OEM original equipment manufacturer
OT oxytocin
PET positron emission tomography
PFC prefrontal cortex
PTSD post-traumatic stress disorder
PVT Psychomotor Vigilance Test
R&D research and development
REM rapid eye movement
RPD recognition-primed decision
SAT standardized assessment test
SIFT Selection Instrument for Flight Training
T tesla
TBI traumatic brain injury
TMS transcranial magnetic stimulation
ToM theory of mind
TPJ temporoparietal junction
VR virtual reality
OCR for page R16
Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications
This page intentionally left blank.
