Monthly Archives: January 2014

Height Perception Eyewitness tools

Leave a reply

After high school, I worked in a tobacco store. The store was in a moderately busy area in a city with high crime. The owner of the store had been robbed in the past and he had installed security measures to deter crime and help identify criminals. One of the devices that was installed was an adhesive-backed strip that indicated height along the doors. “Height markers are used in banks, police departments, retail markets and medical institutions” to help eyewitnesses gauge the height of suspects (http://www.usbanksupply.com/index.cfm/go2/view/pID/779/n/height-markers-for-banks). Why do these strips work? How do people judge height?

According to the textbook, the perceptual system takes depth into account to help people more accurately perceive the size of objects that are far away (Goldstein, 2008, p.53). People judge size based on a person or thing in relationship to the surrounding environment (Goldstein, 2008, p.53). But how we perceive things is a mixture of what our receptors show us combined with “expectations, intent, and effort” (Clerkin, Cody, Stefanucci, Proffitt, Teachman, 2009, p. 382). What does this mean for the perception of height during robberies?

Forensic sociologist Dr. Rosemary Erikson, stated that the reason height strips were seen as necessary was that clerks frequently overestimate the height of criminals when giving descriptions (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/09/17/height_strips_in_convenience_store_what_are_they_for_.html). “Anyone can look tall when they’re pointing a gun at you” (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/09/17/height_strips_in_convenience_store_what_are_they_for_.html). Fear is thought to create biases in visual perception potentially associated with the anxiety of events such as robberies and assaults (Clerkin, Cody, Stefanucci, Proffitt, Teachman, 2009, p. 381).

The reality of the height marker is that it works more as a deterrent then an identification tool. Employers are responding to extensive studies by training their employees to deter would-be robbers by making eye contact and establishing a relationship (Alitzio and York, 2007, p.27). After a robbery is in progress, clerks are most often trained to cooperate and give whatever they can and not appear to attempt to identify assailants (Alitzio and York, 2007, p.27). Surveillance cameras can record a suspect’s height and description more accurately, watching them run out the door is no longer advisable (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/09/17/height_strips_in_convenience_store_what_are_they_for_.html). If fact, it is most likely that the height strips are now positioned in reference to the camera and not the clerk.

The way that humans perceive the height of individuals involves the data that stimulates their receptors, the context, and the knowledge and expectations of the perceiver (Goldstein, 2008, p.53). In cases of stress, anxiety, and fear, humans have a tendency to fail or inaccurately judge heights. In stores, height markers were believed to help eyewitnesses more accurately gage the height of suspects. In reality, these height strips function as a deterrent more than a perception aid.

 

Sources:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/09/17/height_strips_in_convenience_store_what_are_they_for_.html

http://www.usbanksupply.com/index.cfm/go2/view/pID/779/n/height-markers-for-banks).

Clerkin, E. M., Cody, M. W., Stefanucci J.K., Proffitt, D. R., Teachman, B.A., 2009, Imagery and Fear Influence Height Perception, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, ISSN 0887-6185, 2009, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 381 – 386.

Altizio, A., York, D., 2007, Responses to the Problem of Robbery of Convenience Stores, Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 49, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Processing Language with Modern Technology

Leave a reply

How our brain processes language has always fascinated me, that’s why I was glad in Chapter 1 of our text we learned more about the process the brain goes through when it hears language.  Language has been around for millions of years, but it’s only until recent decades that scientists have begun to understand the brains processes related to language development. 

Early pioneers such as Paul Broca and Carl Wernicke proposed that the frontal lobe and temporal lobe had something to do with language and speech production.  Broca found that patients with speech difficulties had trouble expressing themselves but no trouble understanding what people were saying to them.  Broca’s belief was that the frontal lobe had something to do with this deficit (Goldstein, 2011).  Wernicke found that his patient’s speech was fluent and grammatically correct, but tended to be incoherent.  They also showed an inability to understand speech and writing.   He was of the belief that there was damage to the temporal lobe (Goldstein, 2011).  Further studying would prove difficult since most experiments were done through autopsy.  Replicating on animals would be just as difficult since no other species has a speech system quite like man. 

Modern technology has aided considerably in our efforts to understand how our brain processes language.  The introduction of event-related potential (ERP) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (ƒMRI) we have been able to narrow down that the left hemisphere of our brain dominates language processing in 96% of people (Dubuc, n.d.).  The remaining 4% were right hemisphere dominate.

But the technology doesn’t stop there and neither does the research.  Researchers are using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and found that the arcuate fasciculus in humans is much larger and projects further that it does in monkeys, leading them to hypothesize that we may have language while other creatures don’t because our brains are simply better connected.

dti

DTI Machine – Courtesy of Google Images

Intra-Cranial Electrophysiology (ICE), where electrodes are placed on the brain, to show Broca’s area is involved in both hearing and producing speech (Kain, 2009).  This technique has to be performed on exposed parts of the brain so I will spare you the photos that I found; they are not for the faint of heart.  Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is where coils are attached to the head to measure magnetic fields produced by the brain’s electric activity.  They found that while processing simple two word phrases, neither Broca’s or Weinicke’s areas are involved.  Rather, the left anterior temporal lobe (LATL) and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) showed increased activity (Bemis & Pyllkkanen, 2011).

meg MEG – courtesy of Google Images

With the advances in technology, the possibility of more research into how the brain processes language are endless.  This is really a neat field of psychology, complex at times but really interesting.  I hope our course continues to touch upon the advantages of technology and what it can provide the field of psychology.

References:

Bemis, D., Pyllkkänen, L. (February 23, 2011). Simple Composition: A Magnetoencephalography Investigation into the Comprehension of Minimal Linguistic Phrases. In Rare Procedure Documents  How the Human Brain Computes Language. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/8/2801.full

Dubuc, Bruno. (n.d.). Broca’s area , Wernicke’s area, and other language-processing areas in the brain. In The Brain From Top to Bottom. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_10/d_10_cr/d_10_cr_lan/d_10_cr_lan.html.

Goldstein, E. B. (2011). Cognitive Psychology. (3 ed., pp. 33-34). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Kain, Debra. (October 15, 2009). UC San Diego News Center. In Rare Procedure Documents Howthe Human Brain Computes Language. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/health/10-09Brocas.asp.

Mindfulness

Leave a reply

Time Magazine recently published an article entitled The Art of Being Mindful.  It describes the basic foundation and benefits of a new approach aimed at alleviating present day anxiety and hecticness.  This method has been termed Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and requires that the individual become more aware of the workings of his or her mind.  In this article I identified many topics that have been discussed thus far in this course.  These include the computer analogy, interaction between perception and action, plasticity, and bottom up processing.

The article begins with an in depth description of an exercise that the author did while participating in her MBSR course.  She was asked to eat a snack, but to do it mindfully paying attention to each step of the process.  She took time to notice the feel of the fruit on her skin, its wrinkled and glossy appearance, its texture, and then finally its taste.  This exercise had the purpose of teaching individuals to think about one event at a time, or as we learned, serially just like a computer.  By slowing down and breaking up common activities into a series of steps, the two processing streams in her brain are decelerated and thus easier to appreciate individually.   In looking at the raisin the author was perceiving information about the appearance of the raisin and identifying it as a raisin. She therefore was using the what pathway of the temporal lobe. When she moved her hand toward her she had to position her hand at the correct angle to deposit it into her mouth.  As in the letter example in the text, she was using the where pathway of the parietal lobe. Once finally in her mouth, she could eat the raisin by initiating the action of piercing it with her teeth with the correct amount of force as determined necessary though her previous perceptions of the chewiness of the raisin.

The article then goes on to discuss some speculation as to why MBSR is effective.  It addressed how scientists have discovered that the brain is not fixed, but has the ability to change throughout the lifetime.  In the article, this concept is presented as neuroplasiticiy. A neat analogy is made that describes the mind as a muscle that with exercise (MBSR uses meditation) can be strengthened. This same idea is presented in the text as experience dependent plasticity. The Greeble example pinpoints the idea that as the brain adapts to stimuli the brain becomes better equipped to react to those new environmental cues.

At the end of the article, the author recounts the final exercise of the course.  She and the other participants were asked to walk around a park for thirty minutes with out any purpose. The goal was to become more aware of external stimuli, and to simply be present.  The author shares that by not being preoccupied by other tasks or worries that she noticed many new sights and sounds.  It was interesting to think of how much the world has to offer when we are able to isolate our bottom up thinking and not make assumptions or judgments based on our prior knowledge.  By just wandering about the author was able to perceive new stimuli that the top down means of thinking obstructed during prior visits.  Memories of past events that occurred in the park did not pop up into consciousness and judgments on running, running shoes, or exercise did not take effect when the jogger ran beside her.  The author was mindful of the events that were surrounding her.

After reading this article and thinking about what we have learned I found myself questioning my own opinion of MBSR and the workings of the mind.  From the information that has been discussed, the brain to me is a complex organ that thrives off of multi-tasking.  In all the examples of MBSR course exercises, there was a common theme of passiveness.  Compartmentalizing actions and brain processes allowed the participants to first hand appreciate the intricate set of operations that we usually take for granted.

Bibliography:

Goldstein, B. E. (2011). Cognitive Psychology (Third Edition ed.). Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth.

Pickert, Kate. (2014). The Art of Being Mindful. Time Magazine. (Vol. 183, No. 4, pp. 42-46).

 

 

 

 

 

Demon Hill - Science Friday

Demon Hill: Perceptual Conflicts

Leave a reply

Optical illusions have always been intriguing to me so, this week’s lesson on perception was really fascinating.  As I was reading all of these images of optical illusions I had seen before were popping into my head.  I realized I could apply what I now know about the way neurons deliver perception to just about every optical illusion I’ve ever seen.  For an optical illusion to work it needs to trick the mind into experiencing something that isn’t there or not experiencing something that is there.

I scoured the Internet for a reputable source that would demonstrate a difference between perception and reality.  I kept finding photos of sidewalk art.  They were impressive but they only twisted our perception in two dimensions.  During several rounds of searches I kept seeing a YouTube video of an illusion that worked in three dimensions (Science Friday, 2012).

Step Into an Optical Illusion

The illusion, called Demon Hill, is a room that is canted on two different axes.  It’s designed to put a person’s senses at odds with what they know to be true about the room.  I’m still trying to wrap my own brain around the way top-down and bottom-up processing work together.  But, what I think is happening to people who visit the room experience is that they are experiencing conflict between several bottom-up processes and then a conflicting top-down process is thrown in for good measure.

If you were to stand in this room, your physiology would send sensory data to your brain about your surroundings. Your sense of equilibrium would tell you that the room is tilted but your visual [bottom-up (Goldstein, 2011)] and experience with normal rooms [top-down (Goldstein, 2011)] would tell you that the floor of the room has to be parallel with the ground.  We can see this expectation most clearly when the subject in the video tries to pour water into a glass.  He expects that the pull of gravity will be perpendicular to the floor of the room despite his knowledge that the room is canted.

The more I study psychology, the more it changes the way I look at the world.  I tend to think much more about what I’m experiencing and how other people are behaving.  I know that because of this lesson alone I will be much more aware of differences in what I’m perceiving and reality.

Bibliography

Goldstein, B. E. (2011). Cognitive Psychology (Third Edition ed.). Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth.

Science Friday. (2012, October 12). Step Into an Optical Illusion. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from SciFri Channel on YouTube.com: http://youtu.be/1BMSYXK4-AI

Science Friday. (2012, October 12). Step Into an Optical Illusion. Image retrieved January 29, 2014, from ScienceFriday.com: http://www.sciencefriday.com/video/10/12/2012/step-into-an-optical-illusion.html

The Human Brain Versus The Computer

Leave a reply

Computers are said to work much like the human brain in that both systems access and configure information in stages. First, input is received, next the input is processed, then the information is stored to memory, it is then configured, and lastly output is created. Thanks in part to many psychologists that introduced us to this theory that the two are very similar much research has been devoted to assessing whether computers are capable of artificial intelligence, that is, “making a machine behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving” (McCarthy, Minskey, & Shannon 1955).  Indeed through much scientific advancement in the technological world over the past century computers have shown that they do, in fact, possess the propensity to behave human like in their processing. However, although computers have been designed to accomplish this, they still have limitations in their human like capabilities.

Specifically, the Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA) that requires humans to decipher letters and/or numbers in order to prove they are not bots is a key indicator that computers are unable to function at the capacity of the human brain. Two important human processes will be compared and contrasted with a computer’s in identifying their differences. These qualities refer to ventral and dorsal processing as well as bottom up and top down processing. Dorsal processing can be related to bottom up processing. Both involve the acknowledgement of objects and characteristics about them that computers and humans alike can pull from memory (in humans) or a cryptic algorithm (in computers). This means that the information is already there and needs to be acquired. Ventral and top down processing, on the other hand is something that is unique to humans in that is requires associations of actions with these objects and information from experience with them.

In this era of technological capabilities, it is important for companies and businesses to insure the privacy and disclosure of their clients, participants, and employees. The CAPTCHA is a unique interface that requires the user to copy a strand of letters and/or numbers that are slightly tilted, bunched closely together, or seemingly do not make sense as a word. The CAPTCHA was designed to help restrain the occurrences of computer aided programs that could quickly and repetitively present themselves as humans in order to corrupt the process of things such as (but not limited to) access to a survey, setting up a blog, limit the number of times a participant could participate in a set survey, identity theft, etc. These letters and numbers are not like the complicated algorithms that computers have stored in order to compute what the current situation is asking of it and therefore perhaps relies on a more bottom up synthesizing by the computer that cannot be deciphered. (Hannagan, Ktori, Chanceaux, & Grainger, 2012). Because the computer has set algorithms associated with numbers and letters, it is unable to configure what this set of construed letters and/or numbers is. Humans possess not only the basic ability to process these symbols from their dorsal and bottom up processing but also have the stimulation from their ventral top down processing in order to make sense of different positioning of said symbols. Letter by letter reading can only be done by the elementary reserve of the dorsal processing system, whereas given a slant or moderate spacing, the ventral processing system takes over the analyzing of the word ( Cohan, Dehaene, Vinckier, Jobert, Montavont, 2007). This stimulation in the brain that relies solely on the ventral processing system in decoding the string of deformed symbols that the dorsal processing system would recognize under normal conditions lays the groundwork for the assessment that computers do not function exactly as the human brain.

Although research previously conducted has illuminated the differences in the computer and brain processing debate, much work had been done in an effort to see that computers are able to “crack” this ventral processing dilemma. Much gains have been made in the area but the question still remains whether or not computers will ever be able to pull on experiences and expectations from previous algorithms or whether a new algorithm that is pulled from a bank of stored ones tells it how to decode this stream of letters. Either way, as it stands now, humans still have a measurable trait of processing that a computer has yet to achieve thanks to this top-down ventral processing that builds on the brain’s more elementary dorsal bottom up processing that computers have yet to establish.

Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Vinckier, F., Jobert, A., & Montavont, A. (2007). Reading normal and degraded words: contribution of the dorsal and ventral visual pathways. NeuroImage 40 (2008) 353–366

Hannagan, T., Ktori, M., Chanceaux, M., & Grainger, J. (2012). Deciphering CAPTCHAs: what a turing test reveals about human cognition. PLoS One, 7(3) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032121

McCarthy, J., Minsky, M.L., & Shannon, C.E. (1955). A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence. Downloaded from http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html

 

The Mind, the Machine

Leave a reply

One’s mind is a very powerful yet mysterious object.  What does it do?  What makes the brain control the mind?  These are some questions that have plagued many researchers for centuries.  While there are many theories about the mind, there are not very many ways to directly study it.  As time progresses there are more discoveries and theories about one’s mind, but how do we know if these theories are valid?

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” was first quoted in 1972 by the United Negro College Fund and has been used many times since it was first introduced nearly thirty years ago.  (http://www.adcouncil.org/Our-Work/The-Classics/United-Negro-College-Fund).  This brings up many important questions.  I have always wondered what the mind is and how it helps us function.  The brain is the central organizing unit and controls all of our daily functions, but how does the mind help us make decisions?  Does the mind control the brain or does the brain control the mind?  In my personal opinion there is a significant difference between the brain and the mind.  The brain may control our daily functions, but I think a separate part of the brain is the mind which helps us make our daily decisions.

The mind may be a part of the brain but it has a very unique characteristic specific to each individual.  I guess you could call the mind our moral system or the driving force behind our emotions.  The brain on the other hand is the driving force behind each of us and performs functions common to each individual.  The brain may contain neurotransmitters and have specialized areas to perform different functions, but what drives us and motivates us in our minds.  I feel that our drive comes from our mind and what we want to achieve.  Many people have significant problems with their brains, but does that necessarily mean that their mind is problematic too?  I think not.

There are many new techniques that can help determine brain disorders and areas functioning within the brain.  If the mind is specific to each individual how can we determine if the mind is functioning properly?  I realize that it is believed that the brain controls our emotions, but I believe there is another driving force, a machine per say, that drives us stronger than the brain possibly can.  I believe there is a particular part of the brain that drives us, motivates us, and helps with decision making.  I have many friends, including myself, who either have learning disabilities or brain disorders, but somehow we are able to eventually function.  I have had episodes to where my brain does not want to function properly but my mind won’t shut down.  How does this happen?  My person belief is that they are separate entities that both have specialized functions.  I think until we have a true grasp of the mind we will not know how it performs or why it performs.

The mind is a powerful yet mysterious object.  It is directed by the brain but it has “a mind of its own.”  In my personal belief I believe that the brain, in general, controls the mind, but many times the mind helps control the brain.  Until we can discover the many mysteries of the mind we cannot get a good grasp of what it is.  Hopefully one day we will be able to study the mind alone, as its own entity, and see what its true function is.

How Fear Alters Perception

Leave a reply

How Fear Alters Perception

I found the topic of perception the most interesting out of the topics that had been discussed thus far, but I was interested in knowing how the accuracy or normality of our perception can change depending on the stimuli.  I went to reddit.com/r/psychology and searched for articles on perception.  An interesting articles that appeared in the results was “Phobias alter perception, German researchers say.”

In our lesson on perception, we learned of bottom-up processing and top-down processing.  In bottom-up processing we are taking in stimuli from the environment in the form of environmental energy through our sense organs.  Our sense organs then transform this environmental energy into action potential.  This action potential is sent to our brains where it is processed.  In top-down processing, we gain information from our experiences, knowledge, and expectations.  This information is used to help process the external stimuli.  With these processes combined, our brain can smoothly process both internal and external stimuli to help us understand and interact with the world.

The article I read was a summary of findings from a study that considered the individual differences of human perception.  The control group had no phobias and the test group suffered from arachnophobia.  The researchers found that phobia-related stimuli can alter the way that the brain processes vision (Osterath, 2014). This is significant because it helps to demonstrate what is occurring in the brain of someone with a phobia, which can further influence how treatment for their phobia is developed and applied.  One of the tests (and the one that specifically relates to these findings) that the psychologists performed was a test that showed two pictures at the same time.  According to the researchers, the brain cannot see two different pictures at the same time (Osterath, 2014).  Essentially, this means that we (subconsciously) make a decision on which picture to process first.  In the test, one of two pictures was a series of colored triangles; the other image was either a spider or a flower, alternating.  The test subjects pressed a button on which image they saw on the screen.

The researchers found that the Arachnophobe group processed the image of the spider almost twice as often as those in the control group (Osterath, 2014).  With these results, the researchers can hypothesize that fear and emotion play a large role in what stimuli the brain chooses to perceive.  The researchers believe that the amygdalae may be directly connected to the brain’s visual processing center.  This would mean that your brain will not let you miss something that you are afraid of, probably an evolutionary defense mechanism that went awry in the brains of those suffering from phobias (Osterath, 2014).  Researchers have yet to confirm this connection; this is speculation.

The results of this study can be a tool in understanding our lesson on perception.  Not only do we use bottom-up processing, but we use top-down processing.  So, while our brain is perceiving this image of a spider, it is using top-down processing to connect the spider with feelings and emotions of fear and distress.  Our brain knows we are afraid of it, and can use this top-down processing to communicate this with the body and let the body take the next steps (fight or flight).  With these findings, another door is opened in the research field of cognitive psychology and neuroscience.  We can hope that next someone will study the link between the amygdalae and the brain’s perception centers.  One of the most common mental health disorders is a phobia.  With more research concentrated on the things we are afraid of are perceived in the brain, we can help improve daily life with those who suffer from this disorder.

 

References

 

Osterath, B. (2014, January 09). Phobias alter perception, German researchers say. Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/phobias-alter-perception-german-researchers-say/a-17345676?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

Computers Vs The Brain

Leave a reply

Computers Vs. The Brain

            In lesson 1 of this course we came upon a topic of computers and Cognitive Revolution. When computers first started to come about in different places like a University, researchers began to wonder the similarities of computers and the mind. How can the computer work similar to the mind? Both may be very different but do have a similar way of processing and storing information.

            The computer uses a binary code in order to store information that is processed and to also output information to the screen or to an outside source. The computers code is made up by programmers and so there is limited amount of information that can be processed and stored. But, the information that is programmed into the computer can be used to make a program work, to save data, and to output information for example, by printing (Goldstein, 2011).

            The mind uses a similar operation for processing and storing information for immediate use of later use. This information may not come from a code made up of programmers but comes from the environment and personal experiences. The brain stores the information in our memory to retrieve later (Goldstein, 2011).

            The computer and the brain have a similar operating system if put in a tech term. After searching the internet for an article on the mind and computers and how they may be similar I found an article from Psychology Today called, “Is the Brain a Computer?” by Berit Brogaard and Kristian Marlow. This article argues that the brain is like a computer because the brain functions with an input-output system like a computer does. But it is argued that, the similarity may not be the same computer in which we operate with on a regular basis but much like the computers system. The author argues that the brain does not necessarily run on digital system like a computer does because digital systems run on sequences of data with comes from a numbers programmed into the computer. The brain is run without programmed sequences but it does function like a computer in steps that involve input, responses, processing, storage, and output. This is much like what a computer does when we enter information and are looking to either store the information or output the information we enter (Brogaard & Marlow, 2012).

            The brain does function much like a computer does and because technology is booming research has been more common on this subject. The brain and computer might run in different ways but they operate in a very similar way. Information is entered into both the brain and a computer and is processed to be used then or at a later time. Our brain is very complex and technology is also becoming more and more complex and it is only fair to research their similarities as technology gets more advanced.

Brogaard, B. & Marlow, K. (2012, November 28). The superhuman mind. Is the Brain a Computer , Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/is-the-brain-computer

 Goldstein, B. (2011). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience, 3rd Edition. Wadsworth, Inc.