What Squids and Frogs Taught Us About How Brain Cells Talk

The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/scishowpsych10211

The study of frogs really helped neuroscience hop forward.

Thanks for the clarification Hank! I also feel responsible for that, it could be a coincidence. Either way I'm proud 😁.

Please enlighten me as to where and how is a thought initiated, to begin the action potential. I want to thank the whole sci show team- and am so grateful for each video y’all produce. Thanks

This would've helped me out so much in my anatomy and physiology class last semester. 😭

Great information... thank you channel...

I really like the cutaways to text where the text is on one side of the screen and the image on the other. V nice and clean 🙏

Great explanation 🎯🎯🎯

2:11 STOP EVERYTHING KRIS GET THE BRAIN CELL!!!

I remember animator Amy Winfrey made a series called Squid & Frog, starring a squid character and frog character. I wonder if she knew about those unique features and association with each other.

Until recently, we only knew how brain signals got from one cell to the next. In a cell, an ion movement gives that part of the cell membrane a different electrical charge, which then moves like a wave down the cell's axon. When it initiates communication with another cell, the membrane opens, allowing sodium to enter and potassium to exit, resulting in an action potential. The action potential allows one cell to signal to another, and sometimes the receiving cell becomes more active, but at other times it's subdued.

And yet, still no Squidfrog. Come on, science. get on it!

I’m sure Kermit and Squidward didn’t enjoy this episode.

Alternative Title: What Squid Game and Frogger Taught Us About How Money Talks

Did you know that Golgi(the smarter of the 2)didn't believe in neuron doctrine.

🧠🦑🧠

I see you trying to slide squid in the title😉

Hi

AND THATS ON ACTION POTENTIAL 💀

I would almost bet money (and I don't gamble) that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Santiago Ramon y Cajal didn't have to justify squat to "oversight committees, research institutions, funders, and publishers." That sort of sensitivity is a recent invention. Have you ever seen what Pavlov did to those dogs? Or think of what Zimbardo did to human beings (the Stanford prison experiment). Or consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. It's all well and good to try to reassure your viewers that NOW we have safeguards and guardrails, but to segue directly into discussion of research from earlier times is inaccurate. Isn't it?