use https for features.
text: sort by
tags: modified
type: chronology
hide / / print
ref: -2011 tags: HiLo speckle imaging confocal boston university optical sectioning date: 02-19-2019 06:18 gmt revision:2 [1] [0] [head]

PMID-21280920 Optically sectioned in vivo imaging with speckle illumination HiLo microscopy

  • Ah, brilliant! Illuminate a sample with a speckle pattern from a laser, and use this to optically section the data -- the contrast of the speckle pattern shows how in focus the sample is.
    • Hanece, the contrast indicates the in-focus vs out-of-focus ratio in a region.
  • The speckle statistics are invariant even in a scattering media, as scattering only further randomizes an already random laser phase front. (Within some limits.)
  • HiLo microscopy involves illuminating with a speckle pattern, then illuminating with standard uniform illumination, resulting in a diffraction-limited optically sectioned image. PMID-18709098
  • Algorithm is :
    • Take the speckle image and subtract the uniform image δI\delta I
    • Bandpass δI\delta I
    • Measure the standard deviation of the δI\delta I to get a weighting function C δs 2C^2_{\delta s}
    • Debias this estimate based on sensor..
    • Generate low-passed image from the weighted uniform image, LP[C δsI u] LP[C_{\delta s} I_u] , and high-pass from the difference HP=1LPHP = 1 - LP
    • Resultand image is a weighted sum of highpassed and lowpassed images.
  • Looks about as good as confocal.
  • Cited by...

hide / / print
ref: life-0 tags: education wikinomics internet age college university pedagogy date: 06-11-2009 12:52 gmt revision:0 [head]

Will universities stay relevant? and the rest of the wikinomics blog

  • Idea: for universities to remain relevant, they will have to change their teaching styles to match the impatient and interactive internet-raised generation.
  • Notable quotes:
    • [College students today] want to learn, but they want to learn only from what they have to learn, and they want to learn it in a style that is best for them.
    • In the old model, teachers taught and students were expected to absorb vast quantities of content. Education was about absorbing content and being able to recall it on exams. You graduated and you were set for life - just “keeping” up in your chosen field. Today when you graduate you’re set for say, 15 minutes. (heheh)
  • What matters now is a student's capacity for learning. Hence colleges should teach meta-learning: learning how to learn.
  • My opinion: Universities will not die, they are too useful given the collaborative nature of human learning: they bring many different people together for the purpose of learning (and perhaps doing research). This is essential, not just for professional learning, but for life-learning (learning from other's experience so you don't have to experience it). Sure, people can learn by consulting google or wikipedia, but it's not nearly as good as face-to-face lectures (where you can ask questions!) or office hours, because the teacher there has some idea what is going on in the student's mind as he/she learns, and can anticipate questions and give relevant guidance based on experience. Google and Wikipedia, for now, cannot do this as well as a good, thoughtful teacher or friend.

hide / / print
ref: Darmanjian-2006.01 tags: wireless neural recording university Florida Principe telemetry msp430 dsp nordic date: 04-15-2009 20:56 gmt revision:1 [0] [head]

PMID-17946962[0] A reconfigurable neural signal processor (NSP) for brain machine interfaces.

  • use a Texas instruments TMS320VC33 200MFLOPS (yes floating point) DSP,
  • a nordic NRF24L01,
  • a MSP430F1611x as a co-processor / wireless protocol manager / bootloader,
  • an Altera EPM3128ATC100 CPLD for expansion / connection.
  • uses 450 - 600mW in use (running an LMS algorithm).


[0] Darmanjian S, Cieslewski G, Morrison S, Dang B, Gugel K, Principe J, A reconfigurable neural signal processor (NSP) for brain machine interfaces.Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 1no Issue 2502-5 (2006)

hide / / print
ref: notes-0 tags: Duke Licensing patents university royalty royalties intellectualproperty date: 10-12-2007 17:41 gmt revision:4 [3] [2] [1] [0] [head]

What I have learned about licensing & Duke (or really, licensing at universities in general), in no particular order:

  • Licensing fees split up: 50% to the inventors, 10% to the lab, 10% to the department, 30% to the dean
    • The 50% inventors' fees are split up based on what is determined fair by the inventors themselves, or if that fails, by the Office of Licensing & Ventures (OLV) itself. If there are several patents in a licensing, then it is split between patents based on relevance / contribution, then between each of the inventors. Royalties are split in the same way.
    • The OLV & patent's budget is indirectly paid through these licensing fees.
  • Universities are granted ownership of any intellectual property developed by graduate students & other employees under federal funding through the 1980/1984 Bayh-Dole Act. Universities assume ownership of IP developed through privately funded work, though there is no one law for this.
    • Graduate students are considered employees under the law, hence IP retained, even if no formal contract was signed.
  • Even if an independent inventor (e.g. me) files a invention disclosure form to Duke in good faith, and upon investigation the OLV agrees that the claim of independence is supported, this does not prevent future litigation.
    • If the fields of invention and research overlap, as is probably true for me, then OLV & Duke are likely to protest (money is at stake, after all).
  • Patents require a servicing fee every 3-5 years - have to learn more about this!
  • Almost certainly want a patent on a device. without it, it is very easy to steal :/
    • Can patent software 'ideas' or 'methods' that have utility, but not the actual software. The text of the software is copyrighted, like a book.
  • If a patent has people on it who were not involved in the invention, the patent can be legally contested and voided. Conversely, if the patent does not have all the inventors on it, then it can also be contested by an outside party, and voided.
  • Duke will pay the legal fees for patents & writing up a licensing contract
    • Duke will also pay the fees to patent in other countries (where the patenting fees are much higher), depending on market.
      • The European Union has no centralized patent office - patents must be filed in each country and translated to & from the official language. The legal and translation fees & time spent on this can be very high, so usually companies only file in a few largest markets, if at all.
    • Concerning the named inventors on a patent, above, Duke determines who is involved usually by asking the PI, without delving into the internal politics of a lab. This may or may not be an issue.
  • Typical licensing fees $25k - $1M, depending on what is being patented.
  • Duke can revoke the licensing agreement if the company is not using it / making progress within a period specified by the licensing contract, e.g. 6 - 9 months.
  • Duke typically licenses multiple patents at a time to startups; startups typically need more than one patent.
  • Duke typically pursues non-exclusive licenses on biological models (e.g. Gouping Feng's OCD mouse), and exclusive licenses on devices (like this, i suppose)
    • In some fields, device licensing is exclusive to a field - e.g. one company licenses for Parkinson's application, another for Alzheimer's, etc.
  • Once a patent is licensed to a company, it typically becomes gradually 'diluted' as the company & employees invests more in the idea/technology. If the initial royalty level was 5%, and the company makes significant changes & improvements, then the company will re-negotiate the royalty percentage.
    • Oftent the licensing agreement specifies the maximum amount of dilution / the minimum royalty level, as ultimately the university was involved in the first step to commercialization, without which anything else could have happened.
  • Similarly, if the company licensing University IP needs to give a certain royalty percentage to another patent holder & cannot remain solvent without decreasing University share, then the company and University will negotiate a lower royalty rate.


  • Everything is fluid & up for negotiation, depending on the desires and situations of each of the parties.
    • Typically, the university and inventor are on the same side, but that is not true for me.
  • Need a lawyer to navigate the maze!