The Science of Magic

It has been a while since the first few days of class but in doing research for our papers, I began to think back to those first few lessons. We learned a lot about perception and illusory tricks which got me interested in the idea of the brain and exactly how magic works. I was led to this article:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/07/22/40176.aspx

and the abstract for the study which the article is about can be found here:

http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(08)00177-0

Researchers at Durham University believe that magic holds the key to a better understanding of human cognition and perception. Data is taken from the three different types of magic: misdirection (controlling a viewer's attention), illusion (distorting a viewer's perception), and forcing (influencing a viewer's choice). Using these areas of magic, they developed various tricks that would show how the mind worked. These findings were then compared to other scientific research. In one experiment, subjects watched a video of a misdirection trick in which a magician makes a cigarette and lighter "disappear." The subjects' eye movements were recorded as they watched, revealing that although many saw the items being dropped into the magician's lap the likelihood of them actually perceiving it was quite low. These observations directly relate to research in vision studies which says that we are only consciously aware of a small portion of what we see. It was most interesting to me how the researchers hope to use their findings. By understanding how people think and act better, they hope to make improvements in human computer interfaces. Understanding what holds a person's attention has very practical uses especially in today's ultra-competitive market and using magic to help this understanding is a very clever solution to an everyday challenge.

Brain Imaging to reveal movies in our mind

In a recent experiment from the Gallant Lab at UC Berkeley, scientists used brain imaging (fMRI) and computational models to decode and reconstruct people's dynamic visual experience (in this case, Hollywood movie trailers). This technology, however, can only reconstruct movie clips that people already viewed. However, the implication of this experiment is that this could be done with dreams and memories. Decoding brain signals generated by moving pictures is one of the major hurdles scientist had to overcome. The article claims practical applications such as incites into the brains of non-verbal patients. "Our natural visual experience is like watching a movie,” said Shinji Nishimoto, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral researcher in Gallant’s lab.

While this experiment is particularly related to neuroscience, the most interest aspects for me are the potential abilities to reconstruct dreams and memories. This would enable humans to overcome false memory, distortion, and other problems relating to memory. We could be able to replay memories on Youtube using our smartphones anywhere we are located. This experience would be similar to how we use computers and the internet as spaces that we write down our thoughts and experiences and access them when we forget. This would be especially helpful during trials when false memory may effect an outcome unjustly. The practical claims that the article makes with improvements in this technology are also interesting. Non-verbal patients would be able to speak through past memories and allow us to have a deeper understanding of situations that may have led up to their loss of speech. Since our natural experience is like watching a movie, these videos of memories and dreams could also teach us about how we perceive reality in new and different ways.

Many questions arise related back to our readings we have done so far such as if the family members were shown visual memories of their grandparent's Nazi experience, would they still deny their involvement? Would the false recollections of the O.J. Simpson trial and Challenger news happen if this technology was present? Would people still believe in their actual memories of events or would the visual memories become the sole memory?

Links:

Original article and video: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
Gallant Lab Site with FAQs: https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011
Original Paper: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900937-7?script=true

A Tendency Towards Optimism

I recently came across an article regarding recent research, done in the UK, which showed that in many people (80% of those tested), the brain preferentially processes positive thoughts over negative ones. Of course, that might seem obvious- there's really no mystery as to why we would prefer to remember or accept something positive over something negative. However, in some people, the positive beliefs are maintained even after learning the (negative) truth; in effect, the brain simply rejects the notion that the negative thoughts could be true, and sticks to the positive ones regardless of the reality.

While we'd like to think that we're capable of objectively and logically processing information in order to arrive at an accurate understanding of a situation, our brains themselves might be thwarting the efforts at objective analysis. Most of us have a natural bias in favor of positive news.

Our brain is constantly "testing ... predictions against reality" (Dr. Chris Chambers); in this case, specifically, subjects' brains tested empirical, statistical predictions against their perceived reality, but sided with whichever was more positive.

I would like to see additional evidence for this claim, however, as this study was conducted with only 14 subjects. I do not have doubts about the existence of this tendency, but I'm very curious as to what can be discovered about how or why this tendency developed. Other studies have showed that optimism is good for one's health, and can even contribute to longer lifetimes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8193180.stm), which makes me wonder about optimism's evolutionary benefits; or, possible disadvantages, as unrealistic optimism can hamper risk-assessment. I also think more in-depth research would be necessary to determine the variation of this tendency among different age groups, as instinctive responses to the idea of death, for example, varies greatly over the course of a person's lifetime. I doubt a group of 14 people was diverse enough to represent the various biases inherent in different ages, genders, or cultural groups.

Furthermore, research published in January of this year showed that there had been serious limitations with previous research on unrealistic optimism, and, though the University College of London study was conducted in June of this year, it is not unlikely that their research suffered the same constraints that earlier studies had.

News Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15214080

Abstract (full text- paid access only): http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.2949.html#/author-information

Abstract regarding uncertainty about optimism bias' existence:

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0020997

The Riddle of Experience vs. Memory

In his TED talk, Daniel Kahneman discussed how understanding memory is a key factor to understanding wellbeing and happiness. He explained that we have two selves: the experiencing self and the remembering self. The experiencing self is constantly in the present, where as the remembering self maintains the story of our life through memories of the past. Most moments of the experiencing self’s life are lost; very few are stored by the remembering self.

One of Kahneman’s first anecdotes is quite relevant to our recent class discussions on memory. He told of a man who was enjoying listening to a beautiful concert; his experiencing self was delighting in every minute of the music, until there was a loud screeching noise at the end of the concert, which ruined the whole experience. Kahneman points out that it was not the experience that was ruined, but rather the memory of the experience that was ruined. Only one moment of the concert was unenjoyable, however, it tainted the entire memory.

Another question related to memory that Kahneman asked is: Why do we put so much more importance on memory relative to the importance we put on experience?

Déjà Vu

The other day I went out to dinner with a friend. While we were waiting for food I suddenly had the feeling that all of this had already happened before. As he spoke I already knew what he was going to say and the way his hands moved were all familiar, even the people around us were all the same as some event in the past. I told him I was having Déjà Vu and all this made me think about cognitive psychology. So I looked it up and found that Déjà Vu might be a natural process of the brain or a minor malfunction of the brain. Not a lot has been discovered but there are a few hypothesis's out there that explain the phenomenon. My search brought me to this site.

The author explains that Déjà Vu (or DV) might be caused when the areas of the brain involving memory retrieval and processing are falsely activated. In this moment everything that is perceived seems to be familiar. His observations of subjects experiencing DV describe that the patient claims "to recognize every single detail of a scene, as if comparing it to a photograph, and nevertheless one has no idea how it looks behind one's back or around the next corner". 

Uriah Voth

Testing Prevents Forgetting

This article from The Journal of Memory and Language is quite long, but it's not necessary to read the whole thing. In effect, it's about how testing and providing feedback helps slow the rate at which things are forgotten.

For some of us, this seems counter-intuitive. We study like crazy to pass a test, take the test, and then forget everything immediately. Right?

Well, according to this study, that isn't entirely true. Generally, testing strengthens memory for items that are correctly recalled. The flip side of that is, the things you fail to recall become comparatively weaker. Restudying and retesting can remedy that, and help strengthen recall for those items that were weaker.

What interests me about this is that, as college students, we generally hate taking tests -- for the reason I mentioned before. It seems futile because we will only remember the information for the test and then immediately forget everything, not just the things we got wrong. I wonder why so many of us feel that way, and if it might be more an issue of not being asked to recall the information again. Thinking we've forgotten it because we haven't actively called it up again since.