Andrew Huberman· PhD
In other words, it makes that neuron more responsive to input in the future such that it doesn't require so much input. In other words, it takes a neuron that is very unlikely to fire and makes it more likely to fire.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
In other words, it makes that neuron more responsive to input in the future such that it doesn't require so much input. In other words, it takes a neuron that is very unlikely to fire and makes it more likely to fire.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
These are receptors that are on the neuron's surface and normally they don't contribute much to the activity of those neurons. Those neurons are perfectly capable of doing their thing without activation of this NMDA receptor. But when a neuron gets a very strong input, a strong stimulus, that NMDA receptor triggers a number of mechanisms that recruit to the surface of the neuron more other receptors.