Kenna Hughes-Castleberry is science communicator at JILA and editor-in-chief of their journal, Light & Matter. She is also a freelance science journalist. Her beats include quantum technology, artificial intelligence, diversity within the tech industries, animal intelligence, corvids and cephalopods. Her work has been featured in various publications, including Scientific American, New Scientist, Discover Magazine, Ars Technica, Nature Biotechnology, Astronomy Magazine, Leaps Magazine, Hakai Magazine, ChemistryWorld, Physics.org, Colorado Magazine, Inside Quantum Technology, The Debrief and more. She sits on the board of the Science Writers Association of the Rocky Mountains (SWARM) and teaches science writing to graduate students at JILA.
Kenna Hughes-Castleberry
Contributing writer
From this contributor
Number-associated neurons help crows link values to symbols
Comparable neurons also exist in primates, which shared a common ancestor with crows more than 300 million years ago, suggesting that the ability to “count” evolved independently in the two lineages.
Number-associated neurons help crows link values to symbols
Explore more from The Transmitter
Reconstructing dopamine’s link to reward
The field is grappling with whether to modify the long-standing theory of reward prediction error—or abandon it entirely.
Reconstructing dopamine’s link to reward
The field is grappling with whether to modify the long-standing theory of reward prediction error—or abandon it entirely.
Dopamine and the need for alternative theories
Some experimental findings are inconsistent with the dominant model of reward prediction error, highlighting the need for alternative testable and falsifiable models for dopamine function.
Dopamine and the need for alternative theories
Some experimental findings are inconsistent with the dominant model of reward prediction error, highlighting the need for alternative testable and falsifiable models for dopamine function.
Does a new theory of dopamine replace the classic model?
My answer would be no, but the model poses challenges that will sharpen our understanding of dopamine and learning.
Does a new theory of dopamine replace the classic model?
My answer would be no, but the model poses challenges that will sharpen our understanding of dopamine and learning.