Now You See Him, Now You Don’t

January 27, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

When you’re mute and paralyzed and hooked up to machines and you didn’t used to be this way, people treat you differently. They don’t want to, and they might tell themselves they aren’t, but they do. They see only the helpless flesh, those hands and feet that someone else put into position for you — and you know and they know that anyoneat all could put your limbs into any position at all, could put them into a silly pose or a humiliating pose, and you couldn’t fight back. Most who see you in this state, even your loved ones, see only the flesh. First, they cry. Then as the days and weeks pass they start talking around you, and/or about you, as if you weren’t there. Some address you directly, but they appear nervous and even embarrassed as they do, enunciating as if you were a child. A relative of mine, whom onlookers see as a motionless 250-pound hillock under a floral-patterned sheet, is learning this right now, to his horror, day by day. A year ago, when he was only thirty, Jake had a brainstem stroke. He collapsed at work; colleagues who found him on the floor called 911. Jake was not expected to survive. According to the National Stroke Association, only 10 percent of strokes occur in the brainstem, which connects to the spinal cord and controls automatic functions such as breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, swallowing, and sleep patterns. Most such strokes are fatal. Jake’s wife, Ashley, rushed to the hospital and found him comatose. Doctors told her to expect the worst. And did the worst occur? That depends on what you consider "the worst." To Ashley, "the worst" meant death. But to some of those close to Jake and Ashley, "the worst" meant life: that is, life spent in a coma, or — if Jake ever awoke — as the quadriplegic that his doctors declared he would be: a sweet, smart, funny young man who could swallow only via machine, immobilized forever with what neurologists call "locked-in syndrome," a fully aware mind inhabiting a fully inert body. (Locked-in syndrome, for which there is no cure, gained notice in recent years after French journalist Jean-Dominique Bauby suffered a brainstem stroke that left him utterly paralyzed but for one eyelid. Using that eyelid, Bauby dictated his memoir, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly ; it became a bestseller and was made into a film last year.) Some folks seemed to feel that, for his own good, Jake was better off dead. Ashley was overjoyed when Jake regained consciousness a week or so after the stroke. The couple made eye contact and she squeezed his hand. He couldn’t squeeze back, but she knew he longed to. Ashley spent every possible hour at the hospital. She talked to Jake. She brought him an iPod filled with his favorite music — Coldplay, Gigi D’Agostino, Maroon 5. She placed one earbud into Jake’s ear, the other in her ear, clasped his hand and danced by his bedside. The first time she did this it was, she wrote in her blog that day, "the best dance of my life." After five months in the hospital, during which he experienced several emergencies that required brain surgery — part of his forehead was removed, then replaced with a plastic prosthetic — Jake was transported to a rehab center. Soon he’ll move into a cottage on his parents’ property, specially outfitted for his needs. Three people are required to turn Jake in bed. He makes rough sounds which only Ashley can interpret, and even then only a fraction of the time. He cannot register emotions, cannot frown or smile. A former executive, once the life of every party, he has been rendered largely invisible — a sensation that other disabled people have told me they share. And from this realm, stuck in such a literal way, from the mind that sees while some fail to see it, comes a message posted on Ashley’s blog, dictated to her via sounds and hand signals: "I am doing OK. Therapy has really helped me. I never thought I would eat again but it is going to happen. Last week I had ice cream twice and I loved it. I have some movement back in my right hand which was totally unfeeling and I am filled with hope recently at my many small improvements. Thank you for keeping me in your thoughts. My family is building me a place to live and my dad works very hard every day to get it done. And my mom makes food and drink for all the workers. I love my wife and my family and my friends. "Love, Jake." © 2009 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Read the original: 
Now You See Him, Now You Don’t

Single neurons have RAM-like activity [Neurophilosophy]

January 27, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

In his epic poem Visions of the Daughters of Albion , William Blake asks: “Where goest thou O thought? To what remote land is thy flight?” More than two centuries later, memory remains as one of the enduring mysteries of neuroscience, and despite decades of intensive research using modern techniques, we still have no answer to the questions posed by Blake. Traditionally, memory has been regarded as consisting of several distinct processes or storage systems. Short-term memory (sometimes referred to as working memory) stores information that is required for the task at hand, but is severely limited in its capacity and duration. Long-term memory serves as a relatively permanent store of information, and information from the short-term store can be transferred to it by the process of rehearsal. This distinction still holds true, but most of the research to date has focused on long-term memory. The prevailing view is that memories are encoded over long periods of time by the strengthening of connections in distributed networks of nerve cells, and we now have some understanding of the underlying mechanisms. However, very little is known about how nerve cells encode information for short periods of time. Now researchers have identified a cellular memory mechanism whereby single neurons in the prefrontal cortex of mice can maintain persistent activity for short periods of time, much like a computer’s random access memory (RAM), which temprarily stores data to improve the machine’s performance. They suggest that this mechanism underlies working memory, and that their findings may lead new treatments for drug addiction,  and other conditions in which working memory and decision-making processes are disrupted. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

See original here:
Single neurons have RAM-like activity [Neurophilosophy]

Facial sensations modulate speech perception [Neurophilosophy]

January 26, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

What sensory cues do we rely on during the perception of speech? Primarily, of course, speech perception involves auditory cues – we pay close attention to the sounds generated by the speaker. Less obviously, the brain also picks up subtle visual cues, such as the movements of the speakers mouth and lips; the importance of these can be demonstrated by the McGurk effect , an auditory illusion in which the visual cues accompanying spoken words can alter one’s perception of what is being said.  Integration of these auditory and visual cues is essential for speech perception. But according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , the process involves more than meets the eye and ear. The new research shows that the perception of speech sounds can be modified by stretching the skin on the face; it suggests that the brain integrates tactile sensations as well as audiovisual cues during speech perception, and leads to the surprising conclusion that the somatosensory system can influence the processing of speech sounds. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

View original here: 
Facial sensations modulate speech perception [Neurophilosophy]

Obama and Stereotype Threat [The Frontal Cortex]

January 26, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

The NY Times reports on a fascinating new study showing that Obama’s election has improved the test scores of African Americans, at least in this one very small study which has yet to undergo peer-review: Now researchers have documented what they call an Obama effect, showing that a performance gap between African-Americans and whites on a 20-question test administered before Mr. Obama’s nomination all but disappeared when the exam was administered after his acceptance speech and again after the presidential election. The inspiring role model that Mr. Obama projected helped blacks overcome anxieties about racial stereotypes that had been shown, in earlier research, to lower the test-taking proficiency of African-Americans, the researchers conclude in a report summarizing their results. “Obama is obviously inspirational, but we wondered whether he would contribute to an improvement in something as important as black test-taking,” said Ray Friedman, a management professor at Vanderbilt University, one of the study’s three authors. “We were skeptical that we would find any effect, but our results surprised us.” Claude Steele, a professor of psychology at Stanford, has pioneered the study of this psychological effect, which is known as stereotype threat . (I talk about stereotype threat in my book in the context of explaining why athletes choke under pressure.) When Steele gave a large group of Stanford sophomores a set of questions from the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), and told the students that it would measure their innate intellectual ability, he found that the white students performed significantly better than their black counterparts. This discrepancy⎯commonly known as the achievement gap⎯conformed to a large body of data showing that minority students tend to score lower on a wide variety of standardized tests, from the SAT to the IQ test. However, when Steele gave a separate group of students the same test but stressed that it was not a measure of intelligence⎯he told them it was merely a preparatory drill⎯the scores of the white and black students were virtually identical. The achievement gap had largely been closed. According to Steele, the disparity in test scores was caused by an effect that he calls “stereotype threat”. When black students are told that they are taking a test to measure their intelligence, it brings to mind, rather forcefully, the ugly and untrue stereotype that blacks are less intelligent than whites. (Steele conducted his experiments soon after The Bell Curve was published. But the same effect also exists when women take a math test that supposedly measures “cognitive differences between the genders,” or when white males are exposed to a stereotype about the academic superiority of Asians.) The Stanford sophomores were so worried about being viewed through the lens of a negative stereotype that they performed far below their abilities. If this study is replicated – and that’s a big if – it would be tangible proof of this historic moment, evidence that change has filtered all the way down from the White House to the individual mind. Via Andrew Sullivan Read the comments on this post…

See the original post here: 
Obama and Stereotype Threat [The Frontal Cortex]

The Superbowl of Mind Control

January 18, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Squarely in the midst of the ‘is television mind control’ discussion is my very favorite medical emergency of the past 50 years. In 1997, 700 Japanese kids had near simultaneous epileptic seizures. And those were just the ones who were rushed to hospitals-so those are the only ones we heard about. Really, it could have been thousands. Japan’s version of the CDC went crazy. Seven hundred kids, simultaneous seizures, no clues. So weird it almost seems like television. Turns out it was television-or sort of. The reason for the seizures was later to be determined to be a program that aired an amped-up version of Pokemon. The crazy flashing lights is what did those kids in. And the power to induce changes in the brain that severe-yup, that’s what’s coming out of the box in our living rooms. University of Chicago psychologist Mihaly Csikszsentmihalyi and Rutgers University director of media studies Robert Kubey also figured this out when they used EEG technology to monitor brain waves during TV viewing. What they discovered is that TV viewing effectively acts like a narcotic-inducing both relaxation and passivity. If viewing continues this leads to drowsiness which later becomes depression which gives way to further reasons not to leave the couch. This is what we call "the cycle of addiction." But there is something of a difference (though often hard to detect) between addiction and mind-control. One is a choice, a difficult one perhaps, but a choice. The other, especially in its most effective form, removes the possibility of that opportunity before we even notice. This brings me once again to sports-or, sports journalists at least. Bill Simmons, the wry ESPN columnist, recently wrote a piece on erroneous sport’s predictions- it was sort of a over-the-top lifetime anti-achievement review. About two pages long and packed with media references. He goes from "The Longest Yard" to Ryan Seacrest faster than you can say Alfred Hitchcock-which he also says. There are a long couple of graphs devoted to his watching of the four-part Karate Kid marathon, in between watching playoff football. There are video games references and commercial references and Tony Bennet references. The whole piece is one giant admission that this guy does almost nothing but watch TV. And that’s on top of all the other TV he has to watch simply to be a sportswriter-which, as a sportswriter, I can tell you is considerably more than physically possible. And Simmons isn’t alone. Tune into almost any sports radio show and they’re filled with TV talk. Same thing with their television cohorts. Sports journalism has become de-facto advertisement for the rest for television, a shame since the thing that makes sports so wonderful is they’re one of the only forms of spontaneous entertainment left. Also, because sports is an on-going conversation, people who love sports also love listening to people talk about sports. And the people who talk about sports are also talking about how their lives are built out of television-which is fine way of giving the rest of us permission to do nothing but watch television. It’s really the most effective kind of propaganda-the kind we want to hear. Not all that much different from McDonald’s selling hamburgers to stoners. And considering that TV is now considered a public health catastrophe, just about as unhealthy.           © 2009 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Continued here: 
The Superbowl of Mind Control

Drugs and stimulating environments reverse memory loss in brain-damaged mice [Not Exactly Rocket Science]

January 18, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

You swallow the pill. As it works its way through your digestive system, it slowly releases its chemical payload, which travels through your bloodstream to your brain. A biochemical chain reaction begins. Old disused nerve cells spring into action and form new connections with each other. And amazingly, lost memories start to flood back. The idea of a pill for memory loss sounds like pure science-fiction. But scientists from the Massachussetts Institute for Technology have taken a first important step to making it a reality, at least for mice. Andre Fischer and colleagues managed to restore lost memories of brain-damaged mice by using a group of drugs called HDAC inhibitors, or by simply putting them in interesting surroundings. They used a special breed of mouse, engineered to duplicate the symptoms of brain diseases that afflict humans, such as Alzheimer’s . The mice go about their lives normally, but if they are given the drug doxycycline, their brains begin to atrophy. The drug switches on a gene called p25 implicated in various neurodegenerative diseases , which triggers a massive loss of nerve cells. The affected become unable to learn simple tasks and lose long-term memories of tasks they had been trained in some weeks earlier. Fischer moved some of the brain-damaged mice from their usual Spartan cages, to more interesting accommodation. Their new cages were small adventure playgrounds, replete with climbing frames, tunnels and running wheels, together with plentiful food and water. In their new stimulating environments, the mice returned to their normal selves. Their ability to learn improved considerably, and amazingly, seemingly lost memories were resurrected. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Read more: 
Drugs and stimulating environments reverse memory loss in brain-damaged mice [Not Exactly Rocket Science]

Halucinate Without Drugs – AKA Fun With Neuroscience [Culture Dish]

January 17, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

I’m speaking at the ScienceOnline09 Conference in Durham, NC, today so I have little time to post, but I wanted to throw up this fun thing from the Boston Globe to keep everyone occupied while I’m away: “DO YOU EVER want to change the way you see the world? Wouldn’t it be fun to hallucinate on your lunch break? Although we typically associate such phenomena with powerful drugs like LSD or mescaline, it’s easy to fling open the doors of perception without them: All it takes is a basic understanding of how the mind works.” Try for yourself here .  I particularly like the rubber hand trick. Read the comments on this post…

Read more from the original source:
Halucinate Without Drugs – AKA Fun With Neuroscience [Culture Dish]

Life as a Guinea Pig: The Pain Study [Neurotopia (version 2.0)]

January 15, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

Over my years as a grad student, I’ve been a guinea pig for more than a few research studies. Most of the people leading the studies are fellow grad students (I’m never involved with the work at all), and it’s good to help them out. A lot of times the studies are kind of cool (like that one with caffeine and the brain). And Sci has a dream. One day, I really want to see a picture of MY BRAIN in an fMRI scan on the cover of Science. Ok, I won’t be too picky. I’ll take J. Neuroscience. Honestly, I’d probably take Brain Research. Seriously, that would make me so geekily proud. I would ask for a copy, and get it printed out big, and frame it on my wall. “THIS is your brain on SCIENCE!” But I’ll admit, I’d probably participate a lot less if I didn’t get paid. I know, I know, I’m bad. I shouldn’t sell myself to science for money. But we grad students are poor. My cat needs food, and I really prefer to feed my little carnivore food that doesn’t contain corn as the first ingredient. I also like eating healthy food once in a while. So I volunteer. These are not clinical trials for drugs or anything. Instead, these are basic research studies where they need human volunteers to see how the brain and body works. And then of course, there’s the certain amount of machismo. And that’s where the get to my current study, which my fellow grad student has graciously given me permission to blog. The pain study. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

See the original post here: 
Life as a Guinea Pig: The Pain Study [Neurotopia (version 2.0)]

Correcting an Error about Dopamine Signaling [Pure Pedantry]

January 14, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

I caught this article in O magazine by fellow ScienceBlogger, Rebecca Skloot of Culture Dish . The article isn’t bad. It is about why people have trouble overcoming unproductive habits like trouble exercising.  But I want to correct something she says that is inaccurate. Dopamine has a primary role in the signaling reward, and this is a point made in her article. But she also says : Dopamine teaches your brain what you want, then drives you to get it, regardless of what’s good for you. It does this in two steps. First you experience something that gives you pleasure (say, McDonald’s french fries), which causes a dopamine surge. Some of that dopamine travels to the area of your brain where memories are formed and creates a memory connecting those fries with getting a reward. At that point, in sciencespeak, the fries have become “salient.” And when you’re exposed to something that’s salient, you may think, “That’s bad for me, I shouldn’t,” but your brain registers, “Dopamine jackpot!” Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Read more:
Correcting an Error about Dopamine Signaling [Pure Pedantry]

Monkeys categorize objects in the same way as humans [Neurophilosophy]

December 30, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

Being so closely related to our own species, monkeys serve as important model organisms, and have provided many insights into the workings of the human brain. Research performed on monkeys in the past 30 years or so has, for example, been invaluable in the development of brain-machine interfaces . Monkeys have also contributed a great deal to our understanding of the visual system -  our primate cousins were the subjects in many of the classic experiments of Hubel and Wiesel , which showed that the primary visual cortex contains neurons that are responsive to edges and bars moving in specific orientations. Yet, little is known about higher order visual processing in the monkey brain. For example, do monkeys categorize objects in the same way as we do? A new study by an international team of researchers addresses this question, and shows that the brains of monkeys and humans do indeed use a common code for categorizing objects in a hierarchical manner.  Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Read the original post:
Monkeys categorize objects in the same way as humans [Neurophilosophy]