Wednesday Round Up #41

This week it’s simple – top picks, the brain, and anthropology.

Top of the List

Mo Constandi, Brain’s Response to Fear Is Culture-Specific
Neurophilosophy covers research by Joan Chiao on the differing fear reactions of Americans and Japanese—facial expressions and amygdala reactions unite! Or rather, you fear what you know…

Women in Science, Open Laboratory 2008 Submissions
The best of 2008 science blogging either written by women or relevant to women.

Sean Malin, Itsy Bitsy Auctions
You too can bid on bats! Well, bat names. And check out more from this ND student’s blog, Open Economics. I did, and found this post on David Harvey, an author whose work I admire, as well as entire lecture by Harvey on The Enigma of Capital

Neuronarrative & Ars Psychiatrica
My two new favorite blogs. Just recently Neuronarrative has an interview with Jonah Lehrer on art, neuroscience and decision making; the post Brains Run Better Unleaded on lead poisoning and IQ loss, and the joy of doubt with the writer Jennifer Michael Hecht

At Ars Psychiatrica we find On Psychiatric Overdiagnosis, on psychiatry’s losing its way through its “war on mental illness” approach; an eclectic year in music; Joni Mitchell, Wallace Stevens, and theories of the early earth; and Lugubrious Lucubrations on intriguing parallels between psychiatrists and pain specialists.

Brain

Sean Mackey, The Science of Pain
Podcast over at Scientific American from the Stanford expert

Continue reading “Wednesday Round Up #41”

Chimps with Photographic Memories

Chimpanzees can routinely beat the best humans at instant memory recall. Here’s the blurb:

Ben Pridmore ranks in the number two spot for worldwide memory competitions, can memorize the order of a full deck of cards in only 30 seconds, and regularly memorizes numbers up to 400 digits long. But in a test performed by the British television program “Extraordinary Animals,” Pridmore’s performance fell far short of that of a seven-year-old male chimpanzee named Ayumu.

Imitating the format of a scientific study in which Ayumu had formerly participated, both human and chimpanzee watched a screen on which five numbers were displayed briefly before being replaced by white boxes. They then had to touch the blank boxes in the order of the numbers they had formerly displayed.

When the numbers were shown for only a fifth of a second, Ayumu still scored 90 percent correct; Pridmore’s score, on the other hand, was only 33 percent.

But in this video, you can see that the chimps take it up to 9! (No, not 11, that only happens in Spinal Tap.)

There is an entire YouTube bio on Ayumu, where you can also see more of the memory training. You can even try the memory game yourself! It’s freakin’ hard!

Here’s the reference for the 2007 article on chimp working memory by the Japanese researchers Sana Inoue and Tetsuro Matsuzawa. Or you can cheat, I’m sorry, help yourself to opened access and get the whole pdf.

For more on their and other Japanese scientists’ work, check out their home institution, the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University.

Round Encephalon

The 60th version of Encephalon rounds up the best mind/brain blogging over at GrrlScientist. A well-organized version, ranging from parrots to body images, with plenty and plenty of interesting reads. Since this version is also over at GrrlScientist, with her passion for birds, I also have to link to all the great images and info on the spectacular birds of Colombia, including the elusive smiling bird and even one of Grrl’s own parrots.

Comment from Greg: This Encephalon is especially strong on sexual difference in the brain (and sex development in the brain) and delinquency and aggression.

The latest Grand Rounds is now up over at Sharp Brains, and brings us the week’s medical blogging. The sections on training, mental health, and attitudes are all great, with plenty more health-related materials besides.

The Encultured Brain – Part Two on the San Francisco AAA Conference

The question of What is neuroanthropology? arose for me in thinking about the Encultured Brain session. This query harkens back to Naomi Quinn’s comment that we lack a common language. I think a common language will come; at this point I am more focused on agreement about the endeavor itself. So what is it?

Is neuroanthropology the consideration of neurobiological mechanisms, within a biocultural framework, as Ryan Brown approaches his work?

Is it the critical take on neuroscience, a frequent theme on this blog? Or going further, and building frameworks through evolution or culture to provide critical input to the human sciences?

Is it somewhere more in the middle, the synthesis of neuroscience and anthropology while examining problems like balance and autism, as reflected in the work of Greg Downey and Rachel Brezis?

Is it the focus on questions like theory of mind, intersubjectivity and dissociation, psychological phenomenon that can be illuminated through the combination of neuroscience and anthropology?

Is it work like Peter Stromberg and Cameron Hay’s that focus on experiential and behavioral phenomena through interdisciplinary ethnography?

Continue reading “The Encultured Brain – Part Two on the San Francisco AAA Conference”

Grief, Ghosts and Gone

“The dead stay with us,” writes Vaughan Bell in this week’s Scientific American. His piece Ghosts Stories: Visits from the Deceased touches on the embodied memories that come back, dream-like, hallucinogenic, after the death of a loved one.

He opens with the work of Carlos Sluzki, a psychiatrist who has focused on family therapy and author of the recent Transcultural Psychiatry article Saudades at the Edge of Self and the Merits of Portable Families (scribd online version here). Amidst magical realism and a dwindling social network, an elderly Mexican American patient comes to speak with Dr. Sluzki. Samotracia, previously diagnosed as an atypical schizophrenic, tells Sluzki of her physical ailments first, and then comes her story in anecdotes. The mother of four children, two boys and two girls, she lost both boys years before, the first to gang violence, the second to AIDS. But her sons have returned to vist her in recent years, often in the evening, and they would laugh and joke and sometimes make mischief and she would scold them.

Sluzki, in his discussion, speaks of how in non-European cultures “out there” and “in here” merge more easily. I might say, what difference does “out” and “in” make to a neuron, save as a culturally informed perception, shaped by other people and language and ways of being. Samotracia has created a portable family for herself, even as Sluzki worked to increase the physicality and interaction of her present social network. He did so, as he says, through “understanding each other in the frame of her history.”

Vaughan Bell uses the senses to mediate between out and in. In Ghost Stories he writes, “for many people [the dead] also linger in our senses—as sights, sounds, smells, touches or presences.” People remember so vividly that they can, like Samotracia, speak with the lost loved one. Bell urges us to dwell more seriously on this phenomenon:

Despite the fact that hallucinations are one of the most common reactions to loss, they have barely been investigated and we know little more about them. Like sorrow itself, we seem a little uncomfortable with it, unwilling to broach the subject and preferring to dwell on the practicalities—the “call me if I can do anything,” the “let’s take your mind off it,” the “are you looking after yourself?”

Writers, not anthropologists or psychiatrists, have dwelled on grief and loss and our senses and imagination. Joan Didion describes the aftermath of her husband’s sudden death in The Year of Magical Thinking and writes, “We might expect that we will be prostrate, inconsolable, crazy with loss. We do not expect to be literally crazy, cool customers who believe that their husband is about to return and need his shoes.”

And in the magical realism tradition, Isabel Allende gave us the multi-generational saga The House of Spirits.

“I write, she wrote, that memory is fragile and the space of a single life is brief, passing so quickly that we never get a chance to see the relationship between events; we cannot gauge the consequences of our acts, and we believe in the fiction of the past, present, and future, but it may also be true that everything happens simultaneously–as the three Mora sisters said, who could see the spirits of all eras mingled in space (p. 432).”

Bell ends his Scientific American piece writing, “Only a minority of people reading this article are likely to experience grief without re-experiencing the dead. We often fall back on the cultural catch all of the “ghost” while the reality is, in many ways, more profound. Our perception is so tuned to their presence that when they are not there to fill that gap, we unconsciously try to mold the world into what we have lived with for so long and so badly long for. Even reality is no match for our love.”

But it is not always so. Sometimes reality is too powerful, too terrible. Love cannot match it. A dear friend of mine whose child died wishes love could, because it burns so deeply in her heart. Her son does return in her memory and senses. But his death, the absolute incontrovertibility of that, is always there. He is gone, never to return.