David Amaral is distinguished professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis MIND Institute.
David Amaral
Director
Autism BrainNet
From this contributor
‘Prototypical autism’ research is likely a dead end
Efforts to define “frank” or “classic” forms of the condition build on several assumptions that the science has not yet borne out.
‘Prototypical autism’ research is likely a dead end
Questions for Amaral, Halladay: Boosting brainpower
A new network of brain banks aims to collect and disburse tissue donations to U.S. autism researchers.
Questions for Amaral, Halladay: Boosting brainpower
Explore more from The Transmitter
Without monkeys, neuroscience has no future
Research in primate brains has been essential for the development of brain-computer interfaces and artificial neural networks. New funding and policy changes put the future of such advances at risk.
Without monkeys, neuroscience has no future
Research in primate brains has been essential for the development of brain-computer interfaces and artificial neural networks. New funding and policy changes put the future of such advances at risk.
‘How to Change a Memory: One Neuroscientist’s Quest to Alter the Past,’ an excerpt
Part scientific exploration, part memoir, Steve Ramirez’s new book delves into the study of memory manipulation and his personal journey of discovery, friendship and grief.
‘How to Change a Memory: One Neuroscientist’s Quest to Alter the Past,’ an excerpt
Part scientific exploration, part memoir, Steve Ramirez’s new book delves into the study of memory manipulation and his personal journey of discovery, friendship and grief.
Journal retracts two papers evaluating ADHD interventions
Frontiers in Public Health retracted one paper for its “unacceptable level of similarity” to another paper, and the other over concerns about its “scientific validity.”
Journal retracts two papers evaluating ADHD interventions
Frontiers in Public Health retracted one paper for its “unacceptable level of similarity” to another paper, and the other over concerns about its “scientific validity.”