Monkeys exhibit a paradoxical decrease in performance in high-stakes scenarios.

In high-stakes situations, people sometimes exhibit a frustrating phenomenon known as "choking under pressure." Usually, we perform better when the potential payoff is larger. However, once potential rewards get too high, performance paradoxically decreases-we "choke." Why do we choke under pressure? An animal model of choking would facilitate the investigation of its neural basis. However, it could be that choking is a uniquely human occurrence. To determine whether animals also choke, we trained three rhesus monkeys to perform a difficult reaching task in which they knew in advance the amount of reward to be given upon successful completion. Like humans, monkeys performed worse when potential rewards were exceptionally valuable. Failures that occurred at the highest level of reward were due to overly cautious reaching, in line with the psychological theory that explicit monitoring of behavior leads to choking. Our results demonstrate that choking under pressure is not unique to humans, and thus, its neural basis might be conserved across species.

Dynamical constraints on neural population activity.

The manner in which neural activity unfolds over time is thought to be central to sensory, motor, and cognitive functions in the brain. Network models have long posited that the brain's computations involve time courses of activity that are shaped by the underlying network. A prediction from this view is that the activity time courses should be difficult to violate. We leveraged a brain-computer interface (BCI) to challenge monkeys to violate the naturally-occurring time courses of neural population activity that we observed in motor cortex. This included challenging animals to traverse the natural time course of neural activity in a time-reversed manner. Animals were unable to violate the natural time courses of neural activity when directly challenged to do so. These results provide empirical support for the view that activity time courses observed in the brain indeed reflect the underlying network-level computational mechanisms that they are believed to implement.

Phenoxodiol treatment alters the subsequent response of ENOX2 (tNOX) and growth of hela cells to paclitaxel and cisplatin.

Phenoxodiol is an experimental anticancer drug under development as a chemosensitizer intended to reverse multidrug resistance mechanisms in ovarian and prostate cancer cells to most standard cytotoxics. The putative molecular target of phenoxodiol is a cell-surface, tumor-specific NADH oxidase, ENOX2 (tNOX), with phenoxodiol having no apparent effect on the constitutive form of this enzyme ENOX1 (CNOX). Using ENOX2 as the target, this study was conducted to explore the temporal relationship between phenoxodiol and paclitaxel or cisplatin in achieving chemosensitization in HeLa cells which are relatively resistant to both paclitaxel and cisplatin. Sequential addition of phenoxodiol and paclitaxel or phenoxodiol and cisplatin showed greater inhibition of HeLa cell ENOX1 activity and growth compared to adding the drugs simultaneously or individually. In parallel, a similar chemosensitizing response of phenoxodiol for cisplatin was observed. ENOX1 was not affected and trans-platinum had no effect. With spent media from phenoxodiol-treated cells sensitivity was enhanced to both paclitaxel and cisplatin if the cells were first pretreated with phenoxodiol. Similar results were obtained with ENOX2-enriched preparations stripped from the surfaces of phenoxodiol-treated cells. In keeping with a speculative prion model, it seems as though the ENOX2 "remembers" the phenoxodiol and "teaches" other ENOX2 molecules to respond to paclitaxel and cisplatin as if phenoxodiol were still present.