What is a visual expert? [Cognitive Daily]

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

Last week, we presented research by Miranda Scolari’s team about visual expertise and visual short-term memory. Their conclusion: “experts” don’t have a larger visual memory capacity than non-experts, they just have the ability to process more details. Scolari’s team was working under the assumption that all humans (or at least all the students in their experiment) are face-recognition experts. It’s true: we’re amazingly good at recognizing faces we’ve seen before. Think how much easier it is to remember a face you’ve seen than it is to remember the name that goes with the face. But surely we can be visual experts in other types of objects besides faces, right? Otherwise Scolari’s study would apply to faces and nothing else. To find out, a team led by Kim Curby did a similar study, using car experts instead of face experts. They tested 36 volunteers on their knowledge of cars by showing them photos of cars from two different years; they had to say whether the cars were they same or different model. The highest scorers were the experts, and the lowest scorers were “novices.” Curby’s memory-test was similar to the example I showed you last week: Take a look at this quick video. You’ll see a set of six small images, arranged in a circle, for 1 second. Then the screen will go blank for 1 second. Finally, one image will reappear in the place of one of the first six pictures. Your job: indicate whether the final image is the same or different as the image that originally appeared in that same spot. Click here to view the movie (QuickTime required) But there were a few differences. First, Curby’s team asked viewers to repeat a pair of numbers like “7 2″ while they watched the video. Second, half the time the viewers saw faces, and half the time they saw cars (both of which sometimes appeared upright, and sometimes upside-down). Finally, viewers saw the images for varying lengths of time: either 0.5 seconds, 2.5 seconds, or 4 seconds, instead of the 1-second viewing time in my example and the Scolari et al. study. Here are the results for faces: Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Read the original post: 
What is a visual expert? [Cognitive Daily]

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

‘Social Networking Increases Cancer Risk’ – I Salute the Debunkers!

February 26, 2009 in Blogs, PsyBlog by PsyBlog

Debunkers, I salute you! When I came across this Daily Mail headline last week… How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer …I simply let out a low moan without bothering to read any further. I assumed it was the usual sensationalist rubbish that frequently passes for the media reporting of science. Nowadays, for good or ill, I take it for granted that almost any science story appearing in the newspapers or on TV will be at best misleading and at worst just plain wrong. So, what else is new? Click, flip, turn the page, forget about it… Context uncovered But soon I was brought back to this story again. It was later in the week, thanks to the stalwart work of Vaughan at Mind Hacks , that I happened to discover that it wasn’t just the journalist who’d been quoting research without contextualising, it was the author of the original paper as well. It seems that Dr Aric Sigman’s paper ( PDF ), published in the journal Biologist, really does suggest that social networking online is associated with a higher risk of cancer. Crudely put Sigman cites research showing that using the internet can lead to loneliness, and loneliness has also been associated with increased cancer risk. Voila, there’s your media-friendly scare story. What the newspaper coverage doesn’t tell you is what Mind Hacks clearly does: that this research is, as Vaughan puts it, ‘appalling’. Sigman, it seems, has strung together a couple of correlations then drawn an extremely speculative conclusion from them. The correlation between internet use and loneliness isn’t even accurate – there’s plenty of correlational evidence that shows the exact opposite: that internet use actually decreases loneliness. Heroes and villains The heroes and villains in this little story are clear. Villain status firstly has to be accorded to Sigman for spouting this tosh in the first place. The Daily Mail and BBC News – and probably loads of other outlets – do their familiar job of passing on whatever seems likely to catch the attention of the visceral masses, without providing any perspective for understanding this information. Again, villain status. Mind Hacks are our heroes once again, along with John Grohol over at Psych Central who also points to the inadequacies of Sigman’s article and its subsequent reporting. Praise should also go to the NHS blog Behind The Headlines – a guide to science that makes the news – who weigh-in with a thoughtful response . Winner of my newly inaugurated ‘ Gurning Scientist Award’, though, has to go to Dr Ben Goldacre of Bad Science who appeared on Newsnight opposite Sigman to help expose the ‘research’ for what it is: scary speculation. The praise for Goldacre has been particularly fulsome in regard to the facial expressions he pulls while Sigman is talking. Here’s the video : Salute the heroes I tell you all this partly out of guilt. When I first started PsyBlog I wanted to help correct the awful coverage of psychology I read in the mainstream media, but it turned out that PsyBlog didn’t evolve in that direction. Of course I still come across barmy reporting of psychological science on a regular basis; this usually makes me wring my hands, feel a bit guilty, then write about some classic psych studies instead. Thankfully, though, I’m feeling a lot less guilty in recent years. In the response to Sigman’s article I saw the number of people prepared to fight back against misinformation in both the research and reporting of psychological science. And this is not the first time or the first scientific field – not by a long way. I only pick a few examples mostly from psychology blogs because that’s closest to home – there are many others doing fantastic work (like Professor David Colquhoun’s Improbable Science ) Ironically an aspect of what Sigman thinks is giving us cancer, is what I believe is giving us real debate, and ultimately a better stab at the truth. Thank goodness for the people who are prepared to take the time to do the debunking. I salute you – long may you continue to open our eyes! » See also: Eight Ways The Media Distorts Psychology [Image credit: michal_hadassah ]

See original here: 
‘Social Networking Increases Cancer Risk’ – I Salute the Debunkers!

MAGI-1 Modulates AMPA Receptor Synaptic Localization and Behavioral Plasticity in Response to Prior Experience

February 26, 2009 in Blogs, Plosone - Neuroscience by PLSOne - Neuroscience

It is well established that the efficacy of synaptic connections can be rapidly modified by neural activity, yet how the environment and prior experience modulate such synaptic and behavioral plasticity is only beginning to be understood. Here we show in C. elegans that the broadly conserved scaffolding molecule MAGI-1 is required for the plasticity observed in a glutamatergic circuit. This mechanosensory circuit mediates reversals in locomotion in response to touch stimulation, and the AMPA-type receptor (AMPAR) subunits GLR-1 and GLR-2, which are required for reversal behavior, are localized to ventral cord synapses in this circuit. We find that animals modulate GLR-1 and GLR-2 localization in response to prior mechanosensory stimulation; a specific isoform of MAGI-1 (MAGI-1L) is critical for this modulation. We show that MAGI-1L interacts with AMPARs through the intracellular domain of the GLR-2 subunit, which is required for the modulation of AMPAR synaptic localization by mechanical stimulation. In addition, mutations that prevent the ubiquitination of GLR-1 prevent the decrease in AMPAR localization observed in previously stimulated magi-1 mutants. Finally, we find that previously-stimulated animals later habituate to subsequent mechanostimulation more rapidly compared to animals initially reared without mechanical stimulation; MAGI-1L, GLR-1, and GLR-2 are required for this change in habituation kinetics. Our findings demonstrate that prior experience can cause long-term alterations in both behavioral plasticity and AMPAR localization at synapses in an intact animal, and indicate a new, direct role for MAGI/S-SCAM proteins in modulating AMPAR localization and function in the wake of variable sensory experience.

View original here: 
MAGI-1 Modulates AMPA Receptor Synaptic Localization and Behavioral Plasticity in Response to Prior Experience

Birth of a Moth [Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)]

February 18, 2009 in Blogs, Developing Intelligence by ScienceBlog

tags: Saturnia albofasciata , emerging moth , insect metamorphosis , nature , streaming video A male Saturnia albofasciata moth emerges from its cocoon in this time lapse video. The cocoon was partially cut away to observe development and movement and doesn’t seem to bother the moth. After the moth emerges, he expands his wings by pumping his body fluid into them. The music is “The Voice” by Technician. [1:11] Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

See the original post:
Birth of a Moth [Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)]

Avatar of BrainAndBehaviour

by Vaughan

Love and immortality

February 14, 2009 in Blogs, Mind Hacks by Vaughan

We have a burning instinct for life and yet we know, ultimately, that we will die. We fear the one thing we cannot escape. The question ‘why live?’ has preoccupied thinkers from the alpha to the omega of human history, but only relatively recently have we considered the question of ‘how’ – how do we live with this fear, this knowledge of our own demise? We recognise love as our companion and protector and we now think that it may even shield us from death itself, at least while we’re alive. ‘Terror management theory’ sounds oddly militaristic to the modern ear, but it was never intended to makes us think of politics. It was developed by psychologist Sheldon Solomon and his colleagues to help explain how we live with existential angst. The theory suggests we have various ways of keeping the fear of death out of our conscious mind, and of understanding what makes our life meaningful. Traditionally, researchers have focused on the effect of a social element – how we feel we fit in to our culture’s ideas about what makes a meaningful life, and a personal element – how we feel about ourselves, but more recently psychologists have been focusing on love as one of the most important ways of managing our existential fears. Love beyond life is a constant poetic theme, and yet these are not simply poetic theories, they have been drawn from empirical research. Never afraid to strip the poetry from the profound, cognitive scientists have labelled their most important existential paradigm ‘mortality salience’. It involves reminding people of death – an experimental memento mori – and numerous studies have found that simply focusing people on their time-limited lives changes how they think and behave. One of the most reliable effects, is that being reminded of death makes us more socially minded – more likely to want to be physically close to others, more likely to want to have children , but also more likely to support the norms and stereotypes of your own social group. A group of Israeli psychologists were inspired to wonder whether love might protect us against our fear of death, and whether our anxieties motivate us to seek out love. In an ingenious 2002 study , they found that reminding people of their demise increased their self-professed romantic commitment, that thinking about a committed relationship reduced the effects of morality salience on harsh social judgements, and that thinking about the end of a relationship increased thoughts of death. A year later, they reviewed research on love and death and came to the conclusion that close relationships help us manage the anxiety of mortality, partly through the strength of the bond, but partly through the fact that romantic partnerships give us a symbolic way of transcending death – as families provide a way for our contribution to ‘live on’ after the final curtain. These studies are some of the first on what has been called ‘experimental existential psychology’ that seek to understand how we manage our lives in the face of the unknown. But the fact remains that we will die, and hopefully, we will love. Perhaps we have no profounder response. Link to ‘The existential function of close relationships: introducing death into the science of love’. Link to PubMed entry for same.

Read more:
Love and immortality

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

Deaf Signers Feel Words On the Tip of their Fingers

February 12, 2009 in Blogs, PsyBlog by PsyBlog

Memory can be frustrating. No doubt you’ll have experienced the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon: when despite knowing a particular word (often a name or place), it just won’t come out of your mouth. But did you know that deaf people using sign language experience this phenomenon, except in their case the word isn’t on the tip-of-the-tongue, but on the tip-of-the-fingers? A minority of sign language theorists had thought the tip-of-the-fingers state might be unlikely because meaning in sign language (semantics) is much more closely associated with the form of the language (the ‘phonology’). For example it appears harder to forget the word for Switzerland in sign language because the sign for it in American Sign Language (and British Sign Language) traces out the white cross on the Swiss flag. Most theorists don’t buy this argument, however, and in work published in Psychological Science by Thompson et al. (2005) , researchers found good evidence that deaf signers do experience tip-of-the-fingers states just like speakers. In the research deaf signers were asked to put names to faces, cities and countries. Sure enough signers quite frequently reported knowing the name of the famous person, city or country, but being unable to completely remember the sign. In fact signers could often remember most of the sign, but not all of it. Individual signs are composed of four different components: the shape of the hands, where the hands are, how they move, and how they are oriented. About half the time signers could remember three of these four components, but the final component eluded them – this was most frequently the movement of the hand(s). This is similar to the experience in spoken language of being able to remember part of a word, or its length, still without being able to retrieve the whole thing. Theoretically this supports the idea that semantics (meaning) and phonology (the sign) are separate in sign language just as in spoken languages. But the similarities between sign language and spoken languages shouldn’t be taken too far. For example American Sign Language is not just a mimed version of English, it has its own syntax and grammar. Indeed British Sign Language is very different to American Sign Language and, according to QI: The Pocket Book of General Ignorance a deaf American will find it easier chatting to native deaf signers in Paris than in Britain. For deaf signers, then, rather than Britain and America being two nations divided by a common language, they are two nations divided by two completely different languages. » Find out more about the psychology of memory . [Image credit: sinosplice ]

See more here:
Deaf Signers Feel Words On the Tip of their Fingers

Seven Questions for Harville Hendrix

February 12, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

The Seven Questions project welcomes the perfect guest for Valentine’s Week: Dr. Harville Hendrix, author of the international bestseller Getting the Love You Want and founder of Imago Relationship Therapy. Harville Hendrix (Ph.D. University of Chicago), in partnership with his wife, Helen Lakelly Hunt, Ph.D. created Imago Relationship Therapy and co-founded  Imago Relationships International, an international non-profit organization that offers training, support and promotion of the work of 2000 Imago therapists in 30 countries. Harville lectures, offers therapy intensives and workshops for couples internationally. Harville and Helen have authored nine books on intimate relationships, including Getting the Love You Want: A Guide for Couples , an international bestseller, Keeping the Love You Find: A Personal Guide and Giving the Love that Heals: A Guide for Parents . Their books are published in over 57 languages. Hendrix produced a PBS documentary on relationships, he’s appeared on numerous television shows (seventeen times on Oprah , winning for her the "most socially redemptive" award for daytime talk shows) and radio shows, and has been written up in numerous newspapers and magazines internationally. Now he can add PT Blogs to his resume. So what is this Imago stuff, and why is it so popular? The complete theory is a multifaceted model explaining attraction, conflict and healing within intimate relationships. Imago is Latin for image, as in the composite image of early childhood caregivers. According to  Hendrix , it is "the image of the person who can make me whole again." We find partners who help us complete the unfinished business of childhood. Our adult relationships and struggles feel familiar because they remind us of our primary caretakers. These relationships present us with the opportunity to heal past wounds and find deep relational fulfillment. But it’s an opportunity, not a guarantee. Hendrix writes: Our unconscious need is to have our feelings of aliveness and wholeness restored by someone who reminds us of our caretakers. In other words, we look for someone with the same deficits of care and attention that hurt us in the first place. So when we fall in love, when bells ring and the world seems altogether a better place, our old brain is telling us that we’ve found someone with whom we can finally get our needs met. Unfortunately, since we don’t understand what’s going on, we’re shocked when the awful truth of our beloved surfaces, and our first impulse is to run screaming in the opposite direction. (from Imago website ) Well, this popular theory has millions running to bookstores and thousands of therapists flocking to conferences to become certified Imago therapists. Supporters of the theory and technique tend to be passionate clinicians and clients who’ve experienced its effectiveness. Even Paul’s therapist on In Treatment uses Imago. It’s everywhere. Dr. Hendrix wins the Seven Questions award for Most Succinct Answers ( David D. Burns wins Most Elaborate). I appreciate how Dr. Hendrix boldly states his ultimate goals for therapy (Q4) and doesn’t sugar coat the hardest part of being a therapist (Q5). Enjoy the short and sweet answers from a modern master in the world of couples therapy, and happy Valentine’s Day. Seven Questions for Harville Hendrix: 1. How would you respond to a new client who asks: "What should I talk about?" Since I only see couples, I ask them to describe their dream relationship, what kind of marriage they would have if it were "perfect." 2. What do clients find most difficult about the therapeutic process? Surrendering their self rejection/hatred and letting themselves be accepted and loved. . 3. What mistakes do therapists make that hinder the therapeutic process? Allowing clients to spend most of their time processing negative feelings about themselves and others and spending too much time exploring the traumas of their childhood. 4. In your opinion, what is the ultimate goal of therapy? To surrender the judgmental mind, achieve sustainable connection with others and become loving of others and oneself. 5. What is the toughest part of being a therapist? Staying awake when clients are disassociating. 6. What is the most enjoyable or rewarding part of being a therapist? Terminating a couple who has achieved sustainable connection and unconditional love for each other. 7. What is one pearl of wisdom you would offer clients about therapy? The healing and wholeness which effective therapy facilitates is in the service of love. © 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.

More: 
Seven Questions for Harville Hendrix

Diet Soda [The Frontal Cortex]

February 11, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

One of the perverse pleasures of spending too much time in airports is getting to people watch. I put on my “anthropologist from Mars” glasses and pass the time by staring at strangers, watching what they eat, read and how they struggle to nap in uncomfortable positions. This morning, while waiting on a very delayed plane in the Portland airport, I watched a woman perform yoga by the gate. But if I really were an anthropologist from Mars I’d be most puzzled by something else that people in airports do: drink lots of diet soda. I write this in the San Francisco airport, where I’m sitting on a bench with five other people, all of whom are sipping some sort of beverage with artificial sweetener in it, from Diet Snapple to Pepsi One. This is a bizarre ritual, no? We’re deliberating duping our tongue, enjoying the illusion of sweetness without the thing that the sweetness is supposed to represent: metabolic energy. What I find most ironic about these diet colas is that there’s good evidence that fake sugar actually leads to weight gain. Consider this recent paper in Behavioral Neuroscience, which found that rats fed artificial sweeteners gained more weight than rats fed actual sugar: Animals may use sweet taste to predict the caloric contents of food. Eating sweet noncaloric substances may degrade this predictive relationship, leading to positive energy balance through increased food intake and/or diminished energy expenditure. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were given differential experience with a sweet taste that either predicted increased caloric content (glucose) or did not predict increased calories (saccharin). We found that reducing the correlation between sweet taste and the caloric content of foods using artificial sweeteners in rats resulted in increased caloric intake, increased body weight, and increased adiposity, as well as diminished caloric compensation and blunted thermic responses to sweet-tasting diets. These results suggest that consumption of products containing artificial sweeteners may lead to increased body weight and obesity by interfering with fundamental homeostatic, physiological processes. There’s also some tentative evidence of the same effect in humans: Splenda is not satisfying–at least according to the brain. A new study found that even when the palate cannot distinguish between the artificial sweetener and sugar, our brain knows the difference. At the University of California, San Diego, 12 women underwent functional MRI while sipping water sweetened with either real sugar (sucrose) or Splenda (sucralose). Sweeteners, real or artificial, bind to and stimulate receptors on the taste buds, which then signal the brain via the cranial nerve. Although both sugar and Splenda initiate the same taste and pleasure pathways in the brain–and the subjects could not tell the solutions apart–the sugar activated pleasure-related brain regions more extensively than the Splenda did. In particular, “the real thing, the sugar, elicits a much greater response in the insula,” says the study’s lead author, psych ia trist Guido Frank, now at the Univer sity of Colorado at Denver. The insula, involved with taste, also plays a role in enjoyment by connecting regions in the reward system that encode the sensation of pleasantness. The essential lesson is that the brain doesn’t like being tricked. When you give us sweetness without the caloric energy, we end up craving calories more than ever. Read the comments on this post…

More here: 
Diet Soda [The Frontal Cortex]

The Instinct Diet

February 11, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

"I almost die for food, and let me have it!" As You Like It by William Shakespeare How do we lose weight and keep it off? This is a big, big topic, and one that I’ll be covering piece by piece in this blog. So let me first tell you who I am and why this topic is mine. In my professional life I’m a professor of nutrition and a professor of psychiatry at Tufts University and have spent the last 17 years doing research on weight loss and how to make it work for real people in the real world. On a personal level, I was an overweight kid, had a mother who loved us with food, and was 55 pounds overweight in my 30′s after a difficult pregnancy. Researching weight has been my way to bring all the pieces of my life together. Like many people who struggle with control over what they eat, I’ve gained and lost, and gained and lost again, so I know the struggle up close. But I also know how to win on a personal level – I’ve been weight stable for the last 15 years, and with the help of things I’ve learned in my research program have achieved this without giving up the wonderful pleasures of food, comfort food and all the rest. I also love food – I was a chef in a French bistro and worked as a private chef as well, before becoming a researcher – and think that good food, comfort food and all the rest are legitimate, normal pleasures which should not be made hostage to weight control – indeed I believe that we can’t win our personal battle with weight unless we enjoy what we eat and stay satisfied. I’m also the author of the just-published The Instinct Diet, which has been endorsed by more leading obesity scientists than any diet book ever-including researchers who’ve never before been able to agree on the same recommendations. People who struggle with their weight report that the main reasons they give up on a diet are because they miss eating foods they love, they are hungry all or most of the time, and then hit a plateau and can’t get any further. So the central challenge in weight control is this: how do we cut calories while staying satisfied and eating things we enjoy? If we can do this, there is no reason we can’t gain permanent control over our weight! So let’s start with hunger control. I know that most everyone thinks that they have other problems as well, but in my experience really good hunger control 24/7 makes it much easier to deal with just about every other issue (such as emotional eating and craving, which I will cover in a future blog). In psychiatric terms of peeling the onion, hunger control is the outside layer – you can’t uncover other stuff until you get rid of it. And the good news here is that the diet wars of past years really are over. Really! Research studies are showing quite conclusively that there isn’t just one way to deal with hunger, there are at least 4 ways to put together a meal or snack to get satisfied on fewer calories. Eating the right foods isn’t the only way to control hunger (more on this later), but all of the following items are great for hunger control, and if you include 2 or more of these in each meal and each snack you will probably notice a rapid improvement in how satisfied you feel: • High fiber foods (such as high fiber cereals, legumes, green vegetables); • High protein foods (such as lean proteins like chicken breast, white fish, tofu); • High volume foods (such as green salads and vegetable or bean soups); • Low glycemic index carbs (such as legumes, again, and also wheat berries, barley, low carb breads, and non-starchy fruits). What if you don’t like these things? Practice (especially when you are hungry) and some good recipes are the key to growing enjoyment. Here is my favorite after-dinner cure for both hunger and late-night munchies. Think of it as the best diet medicine rather than an indulgent dessert, and enjoy! Chocolate Cereal Dessert ½ cup very high fiber cereal such as Original Fiber One, All Bran Extra Fiber or Trader Joe’s High Fiber Cereal 1 square (10 grams) chocolate of your choice 1% milk to serve, about 1/3 cup Optional: 2 drops mint essence, or a handful of frozen raspberries Place the chocolate on top of the cereal and microwave until the chocolate just melts, about 30 seconds. Mix the cereal and chocolate together really well. Add the milk and serve (preferably while you put your feet up and relax). Dr. Susan Roberts is professor of nutrition and professor of psychiatry at Tufts University and author of The Instinct Diet . © 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 rest here:
The Instinct Diet

Darwin’s Touch: Survival of the Kindest

February 11, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Two hundred years ago on February 12, Adam Gopnik writes in Angels and Ages: A Short Book About Darwin, Lincoln, and Modern Life , two pebbles — Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln — were dropped into the sea of life. Their ideas and forms of eloquence have redirected the currents of humanity. One current of Darwin’s thought is well-known. His theory of evolution by natural selection would require new genesis stories about the origins of life forms, less arrogant notions about man’s place in the great chain of being, and a rethinking of our species as one in flux—and with rather hairy relatives. Less well-known is a second current of Darwin’s thought — his conception of human nature. Think of Darwin and "survival of the fittest" leaps to mind, as do images of competitive individuals — collections of selfish genes — going at one another bloody in tooth and claw. "Survival of the fittest" was not Darwin’s phrase, but Herbert Spencer’s and that of Social Darwinists who used Darwin to justify their wished-for superiority of different classes and races. "Survival of the kindest" better captures Darwin’s thinking about his own kind. In Darwin’s first book about humans, The Descent of Man , and Selection In Relation to Sex from 1871, Darwin argued for "the greater strength of the social or maternal instincts than that of any other instinct or motive." His reasoning was disarmingly intuitive: in our hominid predecessors, communities of more sympathetic individuals were more successful in raising healthier offspring to the age of viability and reproduction — the sine qua non of evolution. One year later, in The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals , Darwin countered creationists’ claims that God had designed humans with special facial muscles to express uniquely human moral sentiments like sympathy. Instead, drawing upon observations of his children, animals at the London zoo, and his faithful dogs, Darwin showed how our moral sentiments are expressed in mammalian patterns of behavior. In his analysis of suffering, for example, Darwin builds from pure empirical observation to a radical conclusion: the oblique eyebrows, compressed lips, tears, and groans of human suffering have their parallels in the whining of monkeys and elephants’ tears. To be a mammal is to suffer. To be a mammal is to feel the strongest of Darwin’s instincts — sympathy. The expression of sympathy, Darwin observed, was to be found in mammalian patterns of tactile contact. Inspired by this observation, Matthew Hertenstein and I conducted a recent study of emotion and touch that was as much a strange act of performance art as hardheaded science. Two participants, a toucher and touchee, sat on opposite sides of a barrier that we built in a laboratory room. They therefore could not see nor hear one another, and could only communicate via that five digit wonder, the hand, making contact on skin. The touchee bravely poked his or her arm through a curtain-covered opening in the barrier, and received 12 different touches to the forearm from the toucher, who in each instance was trying to communicate a different emotion. For each touch, the touchee guessed which emotion was being conveyed. With one second touches to the forearm, our participants could reliably communicate sympathy, love, and gratitude with rates of accuracy seven times as high as those produced by chance guessing. Sympathetic touches are processed by receptors under the surface of the skin, and set in motion a cascade of beneficial physiological responses. In one recent study, female participants waiting anxiously for an electric shock showed activation in threat-related regions of the brain, a response quickly turned off when their hands were held by loved ones nearby. Friendly touch stimulates activation in the vagus nerve, a bundle of nerves in the chest that calms fight-or-flight cardiovascular response and triggers the release of oxytocin, which enables feelings of trust. Research by Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney reveals that sympathetic environments — those filled with warm touch — create individuals better suited to survival and reproduction, as Darwin long ago surmised. Rat pups who receive high levels of tactile contact from their mothers — in the form of licking, grooming, and close bodily contact — later as mature rats show reduced levels of stress hormones in response to being restrained, explore novel environments with greater gusto, show fewer stress-related neurons in the brain, and have more robust immune systems. Were he alive today, Darwin would likely have found modest delight in seeing two of his hypotheses confirmed: sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch. Darwin, the great fact amasser that he was, would no doubt have compiled these new findings on sympathy and touch in one of his many notebooks (now a folder on a laptop). He may have titled that folder "Survival of the kindest." © 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.

More here: 
Darwin’s Touch: Survival of the Kindest