Prepare for science.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455830]

<span class="math">{\bf TL;DR}[/spoiler] Don't be a dick and just read the text.

Magnetic resonance imaging appreciation thread. I’ll be posting a bunch of different techniques that all exploit the principle of magnetic resonance, but first I’ll explain the basics a bit. (note that it’s considerably more complex than explained below, but this is 4chan after all, so hopefully everyone can understand the principles).

So basically the idea is that particles like protons have nuclear spin. When a very strong magnetic field (called the B0 field) is applied, the axis of spin can be aligned with- or a against the field. Because this is a quantum effect, there are no intermediate alignments. The balance between particles aligned with and aligned against is dependent on the strength of the magnetic field. The two types of alignment differ in their energy state, so with an increasing B0 field strength the net energy difference between the total aligned particles also increases.

It is possible to stimulate the nuclei using electromagnetic radiation with a frequency that is proportional to the strength of the magnetic field (the Lamor frequency, which is radiofrequency in magnetic resonance imaging). This adds energy to the particles in the lowest energy state, so that they flip their alignment temporarily. After a very short period of time they flip back, emitting electromagnetic radiation.

[continues]

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455833]

[continued]

In order to get spatial information of where this electromagnetic radiation is coming from, three gradient magnetic fields are sequentially applied, so that space is divided up in blocks (voxels) with their own field strength. Remember that the excitation of the atomic nuclei is dependent on the strength of the magnetic field, so particles within each voxel are stimulated to a different extent, and consequentially emit electromagnetic radiation of a different frequency when the excitation decays. This makes it possible to measure the amount of specific molecules that have magnetic resonance properties (such as protons) within living tissue.

In the next few posts I’ll explain a bunch of different ways of how we can exploit this.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455834]

Because the decay of excitation is dependent upon the surroundings of the nuclei, different types of tissue show a different speed of decay. This makes it possible to image these tissue types. Depending on the pulse sequence and the contrast used (what these terms mean exactly are a bit too complicated to explain here), different tissue types have different grayscale intensities. The image here shows a T1 contrast (of my own brain), which typically shows white matter as white, gray matter as gray, and cerebrospinal fluid as black.

This makes it possible to measure tissue type specific volumes. A technique that’s used to index gray matter volume is called voxel based morphometry (VBM). It provides a measure of cortical volume.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455835]

Because the molecules within the measured space obviously don’t sit still while they’re being measured (they diffuse), the decay signal changes with diffusion not precisely aligned with the gradient field (remember that decay properties are dependent on the magnetic field?). In a space of unrestricted diffusion (such as the ocean), motion is isotropic in all directions. However when diffusion space is restricted (such as in the fibers of white matter) diffusion is relatively anisotropic in one direction. That means signal decay is less strong when the gradient magnetic field is aligned with the fiber tract.

We can exploit this principle by sequentially applying a whole bunch of gradient fields with different directions, and measuring anisotropic diffusion. The data can be used to (probabilistically) reconstruct white matter tracts and their level of coherence (picture related). This technique is called diffusion tensor imaging.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455837]

Remember that the decay of excitation is dependent upon the surroundings. The decay can be caused by spin-spin interactions, but also by local inhomogeneities of the magnetic field. One element that causes such inhomogeneities in particular is iron. It just so happens, the complex which carries oxygen in our blood (hemoglobin) has four iron atoms in it. When oxygen is bound to it, these four iron atoms are bent inwards of the molecule. When oxygen is used (in neural tissue for instance) they are directed outwards, causing a distortion in the local magnetic field, and thus affect the decay properties of the surrounding protons.

We can exploit this principle by measuring not just spin-spin interaction decay, but also decay due to inhomogeneities of the magnetic field. From this we can reconstruct the relative proportion of oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin. This can serve as a measure of neural activity, and thus be used to image in vivo brain function, which is why it is sometimes referred to as functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI in short. Actually BOLD-MRI is a subset of fMRI, which will be explained in the next post.

[Anonymous No.2455840]

MOAR ...

tnx OP ..

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455842]

Protons are the most readily used types of particles that have magnetic resonance properties. However, there are many more types, and every type has its own specific emitted EM spectrum signature. Somewhat recently a number of molecules which have paramagnetic properties have been developed to bind to individual neurotransmitters. Injecting these substances can enables the imaging of specific neurotransmitter function (such as GABA, pic related), with a spatial and temporal resolution which is greater than that of other such techniques, such as positron emission tomography.

(sadly, I don’t have a picture available of this.)

In conclusion, MRI is an extremely versatile technique which enables us to learn a great deal about not just human brain function, but about the entire body (note that the techniques described above are only a subset of the ones available).

I think it deserves some appreciation.

[Anonymous No.2455850]

FUCK YEAH NMR.
*brofist*
Although we are doing material research with it.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455852]

have fun reading

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455858]

Also, DTI is my favorite <3

[i- !LoVeEKpnh2 No.2455860]

bumping a science thread since it looks like there's a horde of schoolchildren on sci today

[Anonymous No.2455861]

physics graduate beginning a job in magnetic resonance in 5 days reporting in

cool thread, op

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455863]

>>2455860
>>2455861
Thanks guys

[Anonymous No.2455864]

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455865]

your loss brah

[Anonymous No.2455868]

>>2455861 here
OP, you should look into what DNP has to offer the world of medical imaging, some interesting stuff there

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455871]

>>2455868
Feel free to add to the thread!

[Anonymous No.2455877]

>>2455871
i don't have time at the moment, but if you are interested checkout http://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5453.full

or just search along the lines of "medical imaging: hyperpolarized contrast agents"

[Anonymous No.2455884]

Do you think 3D real time high detail MRIs will be possible in a 10 years or so?

[Anonymous No.2455889]

>>2455884
they are on the order of magnitude of real time. the reason patients have to wait a week or two is the time it takes doctors to analyse the scans themselves.

do you mean how long until the MRI software will be able to automatically pick up on things that currently takes time for doctors to check over?

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455890]

>>2455877
Awesome. I had actually never heard of this technique.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455894]

>>2455884
Depending on what you would consider high detail, it's already available.

[Anonymous No.2455910]

A+ OP

[Anonymous No.2455928]

my head is not big enough for this information

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455956]

Bump. Didn't do all that typing for nothing :_;

[Anonymous No.2455965]

>>2455889
I mean as in. Completely 3d and moving and shit. Showing the brain activity traversing through different neural paths. Can they already do that?

[Anonymous No.2455974]

It's somewhat disappointing to see the troll threads get 100+ posts within ten minutes, and real science threads (such as the above) get a few interested people, but that interest eventually dies off and before you know it it's at the bottom of page 15.

>somewhat
Scratch that, it's VERY disappointing.
/b/ truly has spread like cancer throughout the website.

Though I'd love to hear more behind the discovery or the physics behind MRI scanning. Anything to educate myself.

[i- !LoVeEKpnh2 No.2455976]

Sorry for what must be a dumb question, but how to NMR scans not trigger the same effects as transcranial magnetic stimulators? Are they so much weaker?

[Anonymous No.2455984]

>>2455974

Eh, /sci/ has always been like that. People don't come here to learn about interesting science, but to flaunt their own intellectual superiority in the safe knowledge that nobody knows they're actually pathetic losers IRL.

That said, fuck year MRI. This is relevant to my interests and possibly future studies.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455993]

>>2455965
Well, the 3D part might be a bit problematic, but real time 2D MRI is certainly available. I think you'll find the following video / article both interesting and weird:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17662-human-sex-from-the-inside-out.html

>brain activity traversing through different neural paths.
This is something for the relatively far future. Using NMR it's possible to track action potentials through very large axons in the leg for instance, but not in real time. In the brain this would be even more complicated because of the vast complexity of the neural architecture involved.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2455996]

>>2455974
I appreciate it :)

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456001]

>>2455976
TMS uses magnetic induction to trigger neural activity. The B0 field of an MRI scanner is a lot stronger than a TMS coil, however it's static. Fast movement through the field could potentially lead to the same type of activation, but in practice that doesn't happen.

[Anonymous No.2456006]

started reading! wish me luck!

bump for science

[i- !LoVeEKpnh2 No.2456009]

>>2456001
Ahh, interesting.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456014]

>>2456009
Does it make sense though? (I'm pretty bad at explaining these things in simple terms, sorry about that)

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456021]

>>2456006
>started reading! wish me luck!
Good luck! Let me know if you have any questions.

[Anonymous No.2456027]

I don't know shit about neuroscience or whatever, but I understood the main idea of each paragraph and let me tell ya, it's pretty interesting.
Thanks for sharing bro.

PS: Yes, DTI seems kinda fun lol.

[Anonymous No.2456029]

>>2455834
>The image here shows a T1 contrast (of my own brain)
wat

how?

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456035]

>>2456027
>Thanks for sharing bro.
No problem!

>>2456029
It's my job. I go in the scanner myself when pilot testing a new behavioral task.

[Anonymous No.2456045]

I have a set of MRI scans of a friend's pelvis... she trusted me with them, so I can't share them here, but it's fucking awesome.

I did my research paper on the MRI... 12 pages of awesome, that's what it was. Pic related, here's the effect of cocaine.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456054]

>>2456045
If I may ask, where did you get the image?

[Anonymous No.2456062]

>>2456054
That image was just from an image search. Why?

[Anonymous No.2456063]

Read every post. Fuck yeah MRI.
>I think it deserves some appreciation.
Well, didn't they get the Nobel prize for developing it?

[Anonymous No.2456066]

>>2456063
>Well, didn't they get the Nobel prize for developing it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lauterbur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mansfield

Yep, they did.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456069]

>>2456062
Ah I see. Well, usually when data is presented overlaid on a whole brain like that you should be suspicious of it. It's a way to mask there is something wrong with the data, because it sort of hides the exact anatomical placement of the activity. The blobs aren't activity directly on the cortex, but also protruding into white matter.

[Anonymous No.2456072]

>>2456066

And also for the development of NMR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Bloch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mills_Purcell

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456078]

>>2456063
>>2456066
Well I guess they did get plenty of appreciation already, but still, fucking awesome :)

[Anonymous No.2456095]

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456096]

>>2456095
Fucking lol. Yeah they can be dangerous if you're not careful.

[Anonymous No.2456106]

>>2456096

DNP guy from a while ago here. What do you operate at, 1-3 Tesla? I do love hearing people (with no scientific education) say things like "magnestism is bad for you". I've stuck my arm and head in the bore of a 14.1 Tesla magnet - i'm yet to turn into Magneto.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456114]

>>2456106
Regular old 3T.
>I do love hearing people (with no scientific education) say things like "magnestism is bad for you".
My mother is one of those people literally afraid of big magnets. She thinks it causes your spiritual energy to be disrupted or something.
>I've stuck my arm and head in the bore of a 14.1 Tesla magnet - i'm yet to turn into Magneto.
Lol, was it a scanner bore, or just a big ass magnet?

[Anonymous No.2456241]

>>2456114
Bruker 500 MHz Magnet (I suppose that qualifies as big-ass)

[Anonymous No.2456242]

>>2456045
stfu and post them

[Anonymous No.2456265]

>>2456095

THAT PICTURE IS OLD AS SHIT

LONG BEFORE SCI

BORING

PENIS

[Anonymous No.2456275]

Research paper fag here again, I got clocked with a line-drive to the eye and got an MRI... they let me see my scans, but they said it was against the rules to show me. Any idea why that might be?

[Anonymous No.2456281]

>>2456275
They might not want you looking at them until a radiologist has looked at them in case you go all hypochondriac on them.

[Anonymous No.2456282]

>>2456275
probably the same reasons they won't show you your full CT/PET scans, only sections which they cut out after the analysis. it's to stop you going "oh whats that?? maybe you should check that out too..."

[Anonymous No.2456290]

>>2456265
It was an epic long thread here on /sci/ you newfag moron

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456325]

>>2456275
I don't know about hospitals, but in research institutions the usual policy is not to show people their scans in case of accidental findings. Sometimes (rarely) actual abnormalities are found, but people often get worried over nothing. So yeah, pretty much this: >>2456282

[Anonymous No.2456334]

>>2456325
are people with larger forehead-ear distance smarter? Ive heard that the frontal parts of the brain are responsible for advanced functions

[Anonymous No.2456344]

>>2456265

Confirmed for post of the year.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456350]

>>2456334
There's probably a correlation there, but it's not necessarily meaningful. To simplify it a bit (a lot), the frontal parts of the brain exert control over the rest. To some extent it modulates functions in other areas of the brain. You could call this advanced, because humans are the species which has the relative size of the frontal cortex, and phylogenetically it is fairly new.

[Anonymous No.2456407]

how to bold?

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456422]

>>2456407
Use LaTeX

[Anonymous No.2456439]

>>2456282

this guy is totally right, but remember if you ask, they have to show you, its the law that you have the right to all your medical information

[Anonymous No.2456472]

I appreciate this thread, thus bump.

[The Doctor No.2456496]

Disappointing lack of research results is disappointing.

[Anonymous No.2456505]

>>2456472
same. we need more of these

[Anonymous No.2456510]

>>2456496
Leave it up to the faggots to discredit a great thread.

[Anonymous No.2456517]

>>2456496
>implying you read it all

[Anonymous No.2456552]

let's keep this shit on the front page

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456611]

>>2456496
This thread was meant to explain the principle of MRI, and to show what can be done with it.

If you want specific research, just ask what you want and I'll look something up.

[The Doctor No.2456724]

How about something of the distinctions between brainhalfs and how they interact?

Supposedly right half is creative and left is logical. It wasn't disproved was it?

Once my class had an excercise. First we we told to draw something. Then we we told to copy it. The latter drawings turned out remarkably worse.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456792]

>>2456724
Sorry, I completely forgot about my thread (just had dinner)

What you're referring to is more a popular science notion. There's no clear distinction between the hemispheres on the basis of logic or creativity. There is some lateralization of functions like language, and spatial reasoning, and I think this is where the idea came from. If you want actual research results you'll have to be a bit more specific.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456845]

bumping one last time and then I'm off

[Anonymous No.2456852]

>>2456290

Epic thread for the troll that trolled you all.

[Anonymous No.2456886]

ACTUAL SCIENCE!!? ON MY /SCI/!? I must be dreaming :3

[Anonymous No.2456887]

I read that Sony had developed extremely high resolution MRI technology a few years back. Possibly several times more accurate than the status quo if I remember correctly.

What is the current state of MRI resolution? When will we be able to observe individual neurons with some degree of accuracy?

[Anonymous No.2456920]

Bumping for justice.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2456956]

>>2456887
Well the spatial resolution of the scanners themselves isn't really the problem. Human MRI goes up to 11 tesla field strength, that gives you <1mm^3 voxels. The problem is the measure of neural activity is indirect, and dependent on blood oxygenation, and thus the local capillary bed. In principle we can distinguish between the cortical layers with the current scanners of only 3T. Even if you'd be able to measure voxels smaller than a cubic micrometer (which is possible with ultra high resolution MRI used on small rodents) that won't really benefit the spatial resolution in locating neural activity.

We'd have to come up with some way of measuring neural activity directly, and non-invasively. Using magnetic resonance this would be pretty difficult.

I'm off now. Thanks to everyone contributing!

[Anonymous No.2456963]

>>2456956
Thank you for the enlightenment CNS.

[Anonymous No.2456987]

This thread... whoa

[Anonymous No.2457009]

>>2456956
> that gives you <1mm^3 voxels
That's not enough.

We need MRI that can see the connectivity and structures of individual neurons and individual synapses. Hell, it should see the structure of membrane proteins for optimal performance.

Why? Mind uploading. Not feasible today, but when exaflop supercomputers start to pop up(2020, in nine years, or less) it will start to be feasible to simulate activity patterns in large brain structures. If we had synapse resolution today we could probably do virtual experimental neuroscience on fly brains, yielding new insights.

[Anonymous No.2457040]

LAtest development in MRI: SQUIDs, or Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices. Basically, supersensitive magnetometers made using Josephson Junctions. Can give current MRI resolutions using the earth's magnetic field in place of the main field (you still need gradient coils, but they can be weaker), or much higher resolutions at much higher refresh rates at existing field strengths.

[Anonymous No.2457094]

>>2457040
lolwat MEG doesn't use magnetic resonance

[Anonymous No.2457118]

>>2457094
Fuck of MEGfag, this is an MRI thread.

[Anonymous No.2457134]

>>2457040
READY FOR TAKEOFF

[Anonymous No.2457140]

>>2457118
blame the guy posting about SQUIDS

[Anonymous No.2457159]

>>2457140
I AM the guy posting about SQUIDs. Yes, they are used in MEG, but their appliance to MRI is not unusual. It's rather common for small sample, often inorganic, MRI (e.g. structural analysis of composite material samples). There's more to MRI than full-body machines in hospitals.

[Anonymous No.2457162]

>>2457094
ololol it's not even an imaging method either

[Anonymous No.2457170]

>>2457159
I stand corrected.

[Anonymous No.2458255]

Let's put this bitch back up on the front page so the amerifags can benefit.

[Anonymous No.2458277]

FUCK YEAH

[Anonymous No.2458294]

You are now aware that MRI is the single most over-used method in all of neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.2458308]

>>2458294
+88 posts? Surprising for an actual science thread.

[Anonymous No.2458314]

>>2458294
with good reason brah... with good reason.

CAPTCHA: giveriv neuronal
how relevant

[Anonymous No.2458338]

ARCHIVE

[Anonymous No.2458354]

Too much reading for the americunts?

[Anonymous No.2458364]

>>2458354
I theory (guess)

[Anonymous No.2458367]

>>2458354
USA: BOOKS ARE FOR FAGGOTS

[Anonymous No.2458444]

tits

[Anonymous No.2458454]

DNPfag reporting in again

>>2456887
pretty much what CNS said, although i deal with powder samples/solutions (NMR spectroscopy, not MRI). given a reasonable sample size, i can detect differences in molecular structure (say for a molecule of 20 proton components) up to a sensitivity of 1:10^9

[Anonymous No.2458965]

I graduated from a pretty good research university with a B.A. in biochemistry in May of 2009.

What would I have to do to become an MRI technician (or whatever they call it)?

[Anonymous No.2459085]

thank you OP. I wish all /sci/ threads were like this.

[Anonymous No.2459236]

Bumping this awesome /sci/ thread.

Thank you CNS

[Anonymous No.2459261]

MIR incress you geting cancer more then 50%.
so unless you have somthing really wroung with you do NOT have one of these done to you.

some if the test comes back - theres a good chance down the road you will have cancer from the MIR test

[Anonymous No.2459280]

posting in an awesome thread.

[Anonymous No.2459367]

>>2456956
Another problem with the MRI is that the temporal resolution isn't so great because it relies on oxygen levels in the brain. It takes time for that oxygen to reach the brain. Even though it's just seconds, that's a long time considering how fast neurons can fire.

[Anonymous No.2459379]

>>2459261

... what?

[Anonymous No.2459501]

Bump for America. I like it here.

[Anonymous No.2459735]

>>2458965

Does anybody want to answer my question?

CNS?

[Anonymous No.2461340]

Let's put this bitch back up on the front page

[Anonymous No.2461347]

>>2459261
lol moron
MRI don't give you cancer... CT scans do because they work with x-rays, but nothing near 50% increased chance

[Anonymous No.2461394]

Toasting in epic bread. Awesome science is awesome

[Anonymous No.2461428]

If I was a mod I'd make this thread a sticky ;_;

[Anonymous No.2461462]

>>2455833
quick question
i thought space wasn't composed of voxels, or that space isn't voxelated, in the sense that information is stored in two dimensions (holographic principle) and not in three dimensions.

[Anonymous No.2461485]

>>2461462
I think OP's gone my friend

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2461722]

Wow this thread went on a lot longer than I expected.
>>2461485
Back again ;)
>>2461462
For all intents and purposes the space we observe is three dimensional. It can be divided up into voxels of local homogeneous field strength manually.
>>2459367
Correct you are. The temporal resolution is probably a bigger drawback than the spatial resolution.
>>2458965
What do you mean by MRI technician? Do you want to fix or design new MRI devises, or do you want to work as a lab technician operating an MRI scanner?

[Anonymous No.2461790]

OP I LOVE YOU THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I SEE THE TECHNIQUE CLEARLY EXPLAINED IN A SHORT AND DIRECT MANNER

please make more of such threads.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2461795]

>>2461790
<3

[Anonymous No.2462046]

ima bumin this shit

[Anonymous No.2462055]

>>2461722
>for all intents and purposes

idiot, it's 'for all intensive purposes.' 'intents' and 'purposes' mean the same thing and that's just redundant, I don't know why this error is so common.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2462074]

>>2462055
English isn't my native language, so lets refrain from calling names shall we? Lets see you learn my language.

Besides:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/for+all+intents+and+purposes
Also, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_all_intents_and_purposes

[Anonymous No.2462095]

>>2462055
>'intents' and 'purposes' mean the same thing
That's the point ignoramus

[Anonymous No.2462120]

>>2462074

I know this isn't the purpose of the thread, but could you perhaps tell me which is more relevant to graduate neuroscience studies, calculus or physics? I really can only take one of them before I graduate and I wasn't sure which looks better for applications and which, if either is actually used.

[Anonymous No.2462121]

OP is a gentleman and a scholar.

[Anonymous No.2462140]

>>2462074
>>2462095
Are you guys seriously going to fall for that? It's the trolling flavor of the month.

[Anonymous No.2462145]

{\bf Intredasting}

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2462154]

>>2462120
Probably physics, but you won't need a whole lot of physics anyway. Chem and biology are the two most fundamental disciplines to master. Only if you want to learn the intricacies of molecular dynamics of electrophysiology, or if you want to learn how to properly use neuroimaging techniques will physics be somewhat useful. Calc can be handy if you want to get into multivariate statistics and such, but all these things are probably for grad-school. I'd say physics, but it really doesn't matter all that much.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2462157]

>>2462121
<3

[Anonymous No.2462178]

>>2462154

Thanks, man. Keep up the good work, your threads are always a pleasure to read.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.2462184]

>>2462178
No problem, and that's good to hear!

[Anonymous No.2462217]

Thank you for this. I am an RT(R) and considering on moving into advanced modalities. I was torn between CT and MR but I think you just sold me!

[Anonymous No.2462361]

bump

[Anonymous No.2462846]

>What are you doing, thread? You're good, you don't belong to page 7.

http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/2011/01/scanning-salmon-smelling-streams.html

[Anonymous No.2463557]

>>2462846
>http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/2011/01/scanning-salmon-smelling-streams.html
Great article. Would read again.

[Anonymous No.2463568]

http://www.jsur.org/ar/jsur_ben102010.pdf
>Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results
That has to be the biggest troll journal out there.

[Anonymous No.2463679]

>>2461722
Yes, I understand that the "fields" may be voxelated, but the amount of information that can be stored in an area is not voxelated.

[Anonymous No.2463935]

>>2455834
>The brain of an anon.
>:O

[Anonymous No.2464081]

[Anonymous No.2464087]

tl;ra
>too long. read anyway

[Anonymous No.2464111]

>>2464081
I can't believe this is the first trollmagnet reference in the entire thread.

[Anonymous No.2464308]

bump

[Anonymous No.2464703]

>>2461722
I mean a lab technician who operates the devices.