Posts tagged science

It’s a simple but deeply unsettling question. One that scientists are now starting to answer. …meet the scientist who believes he has found the moral molecule and the man who is using this new understanding to rewrite our ideas of crime and punishment. The BBC’s (sensationalized) 4 part series here.

It’s a simple but deeply unsettling question.

One that scientists are now starting to answer. …meet the scientist who believes he has found the moral molecule and the man who is using this new understanding to rewrite our ideas of crime and punishment.

The BBC’s (sensationalized) 4 part series here.

“Hey, whatcha readin’?” series Whenever I answer this question, I’ve either made a fast friend or they back away slowly like I have something contagious. ….Mostly the latter. In the context of MRI, an image is simply not a photograph of the object being scanned. It is a map that depicts the spacial distribution of some property of the atomic nuclei (or spins) within the sample. That property might reflect the density of the spins, their mobility or the T1 or T2 relaxation times of the tissue in which the space reside. -fMRI by Huettel, Song & McCarthy.

“Hey, whatcha readin’?” series

Whenever I answer this question, I’ve either made a fast friend or they back away slowly like I have something contagious. ….Mostly the latter.

In the context of MRI, an image is simply not a photograph of the object being scanned. It is a map that depicts the spacial distribution of some property of the atomic nuclei (or spins) within the sample. That property might reflect the density of the spins, their mobility or the T1 or T2 relaxation times of the tissue in which the space reside.

-fMRI by Huettel, Song & McCarthy.

“Brain research: “watching” the brain as it makes decisions” …seconds before a decision is made, activity in the pre-frontal cortex, part of the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex at the front of the brain, indicates what the result of the decision will be. This is particularly true for quick decisions. “Often, we only establish a reason for what we have done later. We invent it.”  -via Thomas Klausberger from the Centre for Brain Research at the MedUni Vienna  [img]

“Brain research: “watching” the brain as it makes decisions”

…seconds before a decision is made, activity in the pre-frontal cortex, part of the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex at the front of the brain, indicates what the result of the decision will be.

This is particularly true for quick decisions. “Often, we only establish a reason for what we have done later. We invent it.”

 -via Thomas Klausberger from the Centre for Brain Research at the MedUni Vienna 

[img]

We open our eyes and we think we’re seeing the whole world out there. But what has become clear—and really just in the last few centuries—is that when you look at the electro-magnetic spectrum we are seeing less than 1/10 Billionth of the information that’s riding on there. So we call that visible light. But everything else passing through our bodies is completely invisible to us.
Neuroscientist and author David Eagleman, in recent interview with Lifehacker. (via thelavinagency)

"Paved with Good Intentions: Sentencing Alternatives from Neuroscience and the Policy of Problem-Solving Courts"

Abstract:      
Advances in basic and clinical neuroscience will soon present novel options for prediction, treatment, and prevention of antisocial behavior, particularly drug addiction. These hard-won advances have significant potential to improve public health and safety and increase efficiency in delivery of treatment and rehabilitation. Such therapies will undoubtedly find a large portion of their target population in the criminal justice system as long as drug possession remains criminalized.

Improvements, however, are not without risks. The risks stem not only from the safety and side effect profile of such treatments, but also their insertion into a specialized criminal justice and sentencing system of “problem-solving courts” that may be overburdened, overpoliticized, undertheorized, and lacking sufficient checks and balances on institutional competency. While offering substantial therapeutic benefits, such developments might also short-circuit a critical policy discussion about the nature of drug use and its criminalization. 

 - Emily R. Murphy, Standford Law School  [via]

This could be you looking at your brain while you think about your brain- on your cell phone.

I really enjoy a study about free will or consciousness involving EEG. This is not that. But it IS potentially* a fully portable tool that could be used in real-time (for pre-frontal gym type work) and in group settings bringing a “natural element” into brain studies, leaving some of the limitations of a lab setting behind.

The smartphone brain scanner enable complete user mobility and continuous logging of brain activities either for real-time neuro feedback purposes or for later analysis. The user can interact with the 3D brain model on the device using touch gestures and the system allow up to 7.5 hours continuos recording. [via]

Since our “understanding of the neural underpinnings of perception is largely built upon studies that have employed 2-dimensional (2D) planar images” [via], while hooked up to a stationary scanner, having a tool like this (*assuming data analysis & interpretation are reliable) to use outside of a lab, could shed a whole new light on what’s really goin’ on in there. Also? The headset is under $300.00.

ResearchBlogging.org

 Arkadiusz Stopczynski, Jakob Eg Larsen, Carsten Stahlhut, Michael Kai Petersen and Lars Kai Hansen (2011). A Smartphone Interface for a Wireless EEG Headset with Real-Time 3D Reconstruction Lecture Notes in Computer Science DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-24571-8_40

Snow, J., Pettypiece, C., McAdam, T., McLean, A., Stroman, P., Goodale, M., & Culham, J. (2011). Bringing the real world into the fMRI scanner: Robust release from adaptation for 2D pictures but not actual 3D objects Journal of Vision, 11 (11), 71-71 DOI: 10.1167/11.11.71

The ‘just going to leave this here, Product of the Day’: Shut-up Gun ‘Speech jamming gun’ that stops people talking by freezing the brain. The gadget fires a speaker’s words back to them causing them to stutter and then stop talking Delayed Auditory Feedback’ works because the brain does not like hearing the echo of the human voice [via]  But it’s not all bad, seems counterintuitive… but delayed auditory feedback (DAF) has been shown to help people with speech impediments, like stuttering (depending on if it’s neurogenic or developmental). Plus, these guys would appreciate it.

The ‘just going to leave this here, Product of the Day’: Shut-up Gun

  • ‘Speech jamming gun’ that stops people talking by freezing the brain.
  • The gadget fires a speaker’s words back to them causing them to stutter and then stop talking
  • Delayed Auditory Feedback’ works because the brain does not like hearing the echo of the human voice [via]

 But it’s not all bad, seems counterintuitive… but delayed auditory feedback (DAF) has been shown to help people with speech impediments, like stuttering (depending on if it’s neurogenic or developmental).

Plus, these guys would appreciate it.

“I believe connectomes are the meeting ground for nature and nurture. The gene controls how the brain wires up, but experiences also modify the connections of the brain.”- MIT Neuroscientist, Sabastian Seung [via] Most of you have heard of the Human Connectome Project. If not, have a look. Using “state-of-the-art diffusion-imaging scanner” images of neural pathways are collected via a MRI looking machine, which allows scienctists to view connections of the brain “by tracking the passage of water molecules through nerve fibers, giving a more accurate picture of the brain’s structure and its neuronal pathways”. [via] Eventually, the idea is to identify connectopathies (abnormal circuits) then treat with appropriate pharmacology targeted for that area. Above: [via] “White matter fiber architecture of the brain. Measured from diffusion spectral imaging (DSI). The fibers are color-coded by direction: red = left-right, green = anterior-posterior, blue = through brain stem. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Randy Buckner, PhD and the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging.”

“I believe connectomes are the meeting ground for nature and nurture. The gene controls how the brain wires up, but experiences also modify the connections of the brain.”- MIT Neuroscientist, Sabastian Seung [via]

Most of you have heard of the Human Connectome Project. If not, have a look.

Using “state-of-the-art diffusion-imaging scanner” images of neural pathways are collected via a MRI looking machine, which allows scienctists to view connections of the brain “by tracking the passage of water molecules through nerve fibers, giving a more accurate picture of the brain’s structure and its neuronal pathways”. [via] Eventually, the idea is to identify connectopathies (abnormal circuits) then treat with appropriate pharmacology targeted for that area.

Above: [via] “White matter fiber architecture of the brain. Measured from diffusion spectral imaging (DSI). The fibers are color-coded by direction: red = left-right, green = anterior-posterior, blue = through brain stem. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Randy Buckner, PhD and the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging.”

“Talkin’ bout my regulation”: lie detection and memory zapping

It may seem premature to think about regulating certain bio/neuroscience applications that few in the field fully support at this time. This is especially true in the areas of fMRI lie detection and memory erasing, which host issues of reliability and ethics, respectively. In any case, what is over-due is some sort or eclectic round-table or advisory committee representing various disciplines that might like to organize in order to discuss where the bar ought to be set for acceptable standards of these techniques prior to a formal government agency full of policy makers taking the reins.

Henry Greely, director of the Stanford Law School Center for Law & Bioethics would like to see:

… a government approach to at least some of the new brain technology, something along the lines of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which approves new drugs before they can be released to market. Brain imaging lie detectors and pain detectors are two advances he’d put into that category.   [via]

Naturally.  But an FDA-like administration to discern appropriateness of legal evidence? I feel all kinds of Hmmmmmm thinking about that. Moving on to erasing painful memories:

As for Propranolol, Greely anticipates a few cases where witnesses whose memories have been dulled, erased or changed by the drug will make it to court. Prosecutors might claim that providing a rape victim with the drug constitutes tampering with a witness, and that widespread use might make it impossible for them to send rapists to prison. (…) Some hospital emergency departments in clinical trials are asking women brought to the hospital after sexual assaults if they want their memories dampened by Propranolol as a means of avoiding PTSD. 

And it may mess with eye witness identification, which is already unreliable.  So what’s more important: alleviation of possible long-term psychological trauma or prosecution of the offender? 

“The research isn’t stopping, it’s accelerating,” he says. “The knowledge is coming incredibly fast, and not enough people are thinking about this.”  [via]

Giddy-up.

Somehow the concept of making things happen and certain characteristics of resilience are intertwined for me. A short review of the literature suggests we are looking at the neural circuitry of fear and reward when talking about resilience. Of those areas, certain parts like the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) overlap some areas I study in empathy erosion and notions of morality. This may seem counter intuitive, but as Feder et al. report in their paper Psychobiology and molecular genetics of resilience, ”greater capacity for emotion regulation has also been related to stress resilience”. Here’s more: The functional capacity of the brain structures that are involved in the integrated circuits that mediate mood and emotion determines stress resilience, and is in turn reflected in an individual’s psychological make-up. More adaptive functioning of fear, reward, emotion regulation or social-behaviour circuits is thought to underlie a resilient individual’s capacity to face fears, experience positive emotions, search for positive ways to reframe stressful events and derive benefit from supportive friendships. Thus, resilience is an active process, not just the absence of pathology, and it can be promoted by enhancing protective factors. [via] So when I’m thinking about the participants I may test (in this case: sadists), I’m also wondering about the other types of emotional regulation that share the same circuitry- maybe be something there, maybe not. I like to dig around.  I’m told to get ready for some trouble with this study where I’m at now, but I’m still gonna try to make it happen.  [img]

Somehow the concept of making things happen and certain characteristics of resilience are intertwined for me. A short review of the literature suggests we are looking at the neural circuitry of fear and reward when talking about resilience. Of those areas, certain parts like the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) overlap some areas I study in empathy erosion and notions of morality. This may seem counter intuitive, but as Feder et al. report in their paper Psychobiology and molecular genetics of resilience, ”greater capacity for emotion regulation has also been related to stress resilience”. Here’s more:

The functional capacity of the brain structures that are involved in the integrated circuits that mediate mood and emotion determines stress resilience, and is in turn reflected in an individual’s psychological make-up. More adaptive functioning of fear, reward, emotion regulation or social-behaviour circuits is thought to underlie a resilient individual’s capacity to face fears, experience positive emotions, search for positive ways to reframe stressful events and derive benefit from supportive friendships. Thus, resilience is an active process, not just the absence of pathology, and it can be promoted by enhancing protective factors. [via]

So when I’m thinking about the participants I may test (in this case: sadists), I’m also wondering about the other types of emotional regulation that share the same circuitry- maybe be something there, maybe not. I like to dig around. 

I’m told to get ready for some trouble with this study where I’m at now, but I’m still gonna try to make it happen. 

[img]

Current status- Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty by Simon Baron-Cohen Empathy is a universal solvent.   (…)  And unlike the arms industry, which cost trillions of dollars to maintain, or the prison industry and legal system, which costs millions of dollars to keep oiled, empathy is free. And unlike religion, empathy cannot by definition oppress anyone.

Current status- Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty

by Simon Baron-Cohen

Empathy is a universal solvent.  

(…) 

And unlike the arms industry, which cost trillions of dollars to maintain, or the prison industry and legal system, which costs millions of dollars to keep oiled, empathy is free. And unlike religion, empathy cannot by definition oppress anyone.

Mmmm hmm, but how much do you love me?

Using fMRI, neuroscientists measured the neurochemical experience of love in a “love competition”.  The idea is love isn’t a black or white concept where you either love someone or you don’t…it’s about degrees or power. Here, they put several people in an fMRI machine, told them to think about the object of their affection to see who displayed the most activity in the regions associated with love and made a little documentary about it. You can watch a preview here.

Whispery to the giddy 23 yr old: the mild head throbbing may not be love..it’s a common side effect of being in a heavily magnetized, 3-6 Tesla machine & that’s a lot …(a 1 Telsa magnet can pick up a car, FYI).

So we know that “love can elicit not only the same euphoric feeling as using cocaine, but also affects intellectual areas of the brain”.[via]

Although all fMRI studies of love point to the subcortical dopaminergic reward-related brain systems (involving dopamine and oxytocin receptors) for motivating individuals in pair-bonding, the present meta-analysis newly demonstrated that different types of love involve distinct cerebral networks, including those for higher cognitive functions such as social cognition and bodily self-representation. [via]

I wonder how they are able to compare different types of love related emotions (new/passionate vs older/secure), as well as the love they they feel when thinking of the other vs the love they have for other…or as the older lady suggested, the appreciation and love she feels for herself……cited by W. Houston (1985) replicating G. Benson (1977) as the greatest love of all.

WARning to Neuroscientists Britain’s Royal Society recently released a report on the “possible benefits of neuroscience to military and law enforcement”. Areas of concentration are military training, performance enhancement, neuropharmacology or “Botox for the Brain” (to combat fatigue or erase painful memories) and using fMRI for screening or recruiting and other types of task training. This isn’t new and it’s proposed in a positive light to improve military efficiency which translates into a big budget win.   But in nearly the same breath of talking about neural processing research to help facilitate rehabilitation to wounded soldiers (i.e., trauma or prosthetic limbs), using these applications conversely against the enemy is ever so briefly mentioned.  An example of this would be development of neuro-weaponry like chemical or biological weapons, “anesthetic agents” that would modify or incapacitate the central nervous system of the enemy or that could be used in riot control. The report also mentions “the use of devices known as brain-machine interfaces (BMIs), which connects soldiers’ brains directly to military technology, such as drone aircraft and weapons.” [via] So whats the big deal?   “As a scientist I dislike that someone might be hurt by my work,” Vince Clark, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of New Mexico, told the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph. “I want to reduce suffering, to make the world a better place, but there are people in the world with different intentions, and I don’t know how to deal with that.” [via] To which the Royal Society says, buck up (basically), stressing that researchers should just “be aware of the potential uses that your work may put to in the future.” [via]  Prof. Rod Flower, one of the members who chaired the report, suggests these investigations are similar to how GPS was first used by the military and now we are each basically a walking GPS, via cars and cell phones.  The idea that some of the applications above that governments are looking into might one day be so common place is very remarkable, part inevitable and possibly, deplorable. The full report with recommendations - here. [img]

WARning to Neuroscientists

Britain’s Royal Society recently released a report on the “possible benefits of neuroscience to military and law enforcement”. Areas of concentration are military training, performance enhancement, neuropharmacology or “Botox for the Brain” (to combat fatigue or erase painful memories) and using fMRI for screening or recruiting and other types of task training. This isn’t new and it’s proposed in a positive light to improve military efficiency which translates into a big budget win.  

But in nearly the same breath of talking about neural processing research to help facilitate rehabilitation to wounded soldiers (i.e., trauma or prosthetic limbs), using these applications conversely against the enemy is ever so briefly mentioned.  An example of this would be development of neuro-weaponry like chemical or biological weapons, “anesthetic agents” that would modify or incapacitate the central nervous system of the enemy or that could be used in riot control. The report also mentions “the use of devices known as brain-machine interfaces (BMIs), which connects soldiers’ brains directly to military technology, such as drone aircraft and weapons.” [via]

So whats the big deal?  

“As a scientist I dislike that someone might be hurt by my work,” Vince Clark, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of New Mexico, told the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph. “I want to reduce suffering, to make the world a better place, but there are people in the world with different intentions, and I don’t know how to deal with that.” [via]

To which the Royal Society says, buck up (basically), stressing that researchers should just “be aware of the potential uses that your work may put to in the future.” [via] 

Prof. Rod Flower, one of the members who chaired the report, suggests these investigations are similar to how GPS was first used by the military and now we are each basically a walking GPS, via cars and cell phones.  The idea that some of the applications above that governments are looking into might one day be so common place is very remarkable, part inevitable and possibly, deplorable.

The full report with recommendations - here.

[img]