Author Archives:

Photographic Memory

1001brainWhen it comes to memorizing, everyone works in different ways. Some like to write and re-write until its engraved in their head, some like to use the classic notecard technique, and some simply rely on what they’ve retained from class. But a rare few possess the sought after skill of a “photographic memory.” Although there are cases where people are able to attain immense amounts of information from small amounts of review time, the truth about photographic memory is that “It’s impossible to recover images with perfect accuracy.” [source] Therefor, photographic memory likely does not exist.

Alan Searleman, professor of psychology at St. Lawrence University, says that the closest thing to a photographic memory is eidetic imagery. Eidetic imagery is “a material picture in the mind which can be scanned by the person as he would scan a real current event in his environment, or as a potent, highly significant stimulus which arises from within the mind and throws it into a series of self-revealing imagery effects.” [source] It is most commonly found in children and is usually lost around age six. There is also voiced concern that the ability to memorize one thing could lead to the lack of memorizing another. For example, a card shark may memorize the order of cards, but could struggle to memorize faces.

The only documented case resembling photographic memory is a study that was conducted by Charles Stromeyer III in 1970. The test was run on a Harvard student, Elizabeth.“Stromeyer showed Elizabeth’s left eye a collection of 10,000 dots. The next day, he showed her right eye a second collection of 10,000 dots. From those two images, her brain melded together a three-dimension image, known as a stereogram.” [source] Since then, scientists have found no new cases to prove that photographic memory is real. The most compelling evidence to date is all anecdotal cases that merely demonstrate the exceptional ability to recall information, which is not strong enough evidence to prove anything. In 2010, researchers from Knox College and Kansas State University showed that “mental representations about photographs aren’t encoded in the same way that the pictures themselves are recalled.” Essentially, since we do not recovery memory and photographs in the same way, a memory can’t really be photographic. [article]

Although there have been articles – paralleling ideas from that of Knox/Kansas– to provide explanations for why a photographic memory is not plausible, few experiments have been run to test this. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the brain it is extremely difficult to retain all information on the brains activity, especially on specific aspects like memorization. An experiment I could think of that would test this matter would be to have a subject view something for an allotted amount of time, and than have them recall it at certain time intervals in the future, perhaps by drawing it out word for word and organizing in the exact format it was show on the original page. Yet, this is subject to many third variables like cheating by reviewing the page.

In conclusion, though photographic memory may seem plausible, especially in cases of people who have indescribably accurate memories, science points to the likelihood that such a thing doesn’t exist. Although we all wish we had this capability, the closest we will ever get is eidetic imagery (which still sounds pretty good to me).


Other Sources:

Society of Neuroscience. (2013, April 17). Is Photographic Memory Real? If So, How Does it Work? Retrieved from http://www.brainfacts.org/about-neuroscience/ask-an-expert/articles/2013/is-photographic-memory-real/

Does Photographic Memory Exist? (2012, December 19). Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-developed-what-appears-to-be-a-ph/

Is There Such a Thing As a Photographic Memory? And If So, Can It Be Learned? (2007, March 12). Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-such-a-thing-as/

“I Know What You’re Thinking…”

dream-680x400“There are several definitions to what dreams are. There is scientific explanation, psychological and even spiritual definitions of dreams. Basically, the answer varies depending on what aspect you want to dwell on.” [source]

Although the world understands the science behind dreaming, it is a concept that still remains mysterious and unexplainable to many. This does not necessary relate to the action of dreaming, but what we dream, and what we do or do not remember from our dreams. Recently, studies have been conducted focusing on the idea of “dream telepathy.” Dream Telepathy is defines as “the purported ability to communicate telepathically with another person while one is dreaming.” [source] The concept first surfaced in 1921, in a psychoanalysis done by neurologist Sigmund Freud. He had no proof of dream telepathy, as neither he nor his patients ever experienced it. Yet, the idea of the phenomenon still baffled him, and he strongly believed “interpreting dreams in this way could provide important insights into the formation of neurotic symptoms and contribute to the mitigation of their pathological effects.” [source]

There have not been many studies conducted testing this theory, but in the ones that have been done results have supported the concept of dream telepathy.

In the mid 1960s, Montague Ullman started a number of experiments to test whether or not people could be “primed to dream about randomly selected material.” [source] Soon after, Ullman was joined by Doctor Stanley Krippner at the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, NY, to further test the hypothesis of whether a subjects dream protocol for any given experimental night would reflect the influence of telepathy:

“The subjects were young adults selected on the basis of their ability to recall dreams and their interest in the experiments The subject’s sleep was monitored electroencephalographically and he was awakened at the estimated end of each REM period to report his dream. An agent or sender spent the night in a separate room attempting to telepathically influence the subject’s dreams by concentrating on the selected target picture at intervals throughout the night, and particularly when signaled that a REM period for the subject had begun. The target, generally an art print, was randomly selected by the agent from a pool of targets in opaque, sealed containers after the subject was in bed. Only the agent was aware of the target chosen for the particular night and he remained in his room throughout the night acoustically isolated from both subject and experimenter. The dream protocols were transcribed from the taped reports. Copies of them, along with copies of the targets used for any given experimental series, were given to three independent judges who assessed correspondences on a blind basis.” [source]

They ran seven different studies based on said criteria, and found that although the ratio of hits to misses could likely be do to chance, there were some nonrandom source of “anomalous resemblance of dreams to targets.”

In another experiment conducted in 2013 by Carlyle Smith, students were shown a photo of another student and asked to try and dream about the problems of said person. There were two studies run, one focused on the health problems of the individual in the photo, and the other the life problems of the individual in the photo. “In both studies, the experimental post-incubation groups had many more “hits” than the controls, a hit being an image or concept in the dream that correlated to real problems of the individual in question.” [source]

All in all, both studies provided clear evidence that telepathic dreaming is highly likely. By comparing brainwaves and using image stimulation experiment were able to analyze similarities that compliment the idea of communications with our dreams. I find this who concept extremely interesting, in that somehow subconsciously we are able to telepathically communicate with people who its possible we may not even know. Unfortunately, there could be third variable contributing to said experiments that could cause for “misses”, like having something else on ones mind that causes them not to dream telepathically, or the pressure to cheat (as has happened in other studies attempting to use facemasks). There is also a probability that it could be due to chance. But regardless, no matter the other variable there is enough proof that the theory cannot be rejected. There are more studies to me done, and more telepathic dreams to be had. Dreams are intricate and in many ways still unexplainable, but there are always experiments further testing their wonders!


 

Four-Eyes and 4x Better

einstein-wearing-glassesWe’ve all heard the dreaded insults commonly targeted at people wearing glasses. From “four-eyes” to “nerd alert” people love to see our frames and call us names. But I have news for all the lame jokesters out there: there is scientific proof that people who wear glasses are smarter.

“It may be that needing glasses is an indicator of knowledge in other ways – glasses may be created by learning. A recent paper found that attaining a higher level of education and spending more years in school were associated with a greater prevalence and severity of myopia – nearsightedness.” [source]

This, along with other studies has proven that glasses may be caused by a higher focus on learning. Scientists have found that in the US, nearsightedness effects more than 42% of the population. Developed Asian countries also reports rates of up to 80%, which parallels the level of the country’s education in comparison to the US. German researchers conducted a study and continued to find comparisons:

“To further analyze the association between myopia development and education, researchers at the University Medical Center in Mainz, Germany examined nearsightedness in 4,658 Germans ages 35 to 74, excluding anyone with cataracts or who had undergone refractive surgery. Results of their work, known as the Gutenberg Health Study, show that myopia appeared to become more prevalent as education level increased:

  • 24 percent with no high school education or other training were nearsighted
  • 35 percent of high school graduates and vocational school graduates were nearsighted
  • 53 percent of university graduates were nearsighted

“Since students appear to be at a higher risk of nearsightedness, it makes sense to encourage them to spend more time outdoors as a precaution,” said Alireza Mirshahi, M.D., lead author of the study.” [study]

imagesThe Proof is in the pudding, nerds really do wear glasses! But that’s not all, people who were glasses are full of perks:

  • A [study] done by the British College of Optometrists found that “one-third of Brits believe that specs make a person look more professional while some 43% of the respondents believe spec wearers look more intelligent. And 40% of the respondents said they’d consider wearing glasses even if they didn’t need them just to up their chances of landing a job.” [source] Due to these findings researchers are led to believe that wearing glasses is possibly an indication that you are more likely to land a job – perk!
  • “Other research shows that people see more pretty awesome traits in glasses-wearers, too” [source] – perk!

All in all, people who wear glasses rock. Call me a nerd, call me four-eyes…you’re two-eyed and average – jokes on you!


 

Continuation of Class Lesson on Vaccines and Autism

Earlier in class this wMMRvaccineeek we discussed the many anecdotes that have lead to the controversial beliefs of the possibility of vaccines causing autism. Although there is not a sufficient amount of evidence to prove that vaccines cause or do not cause autism, many people believe in the possibility, including influential figures varying from doctors and politicians to actresses and socialites. One specific example of a well-known social figure whom has taken action in the Vaccine-Autism Wars is actress and model Jennifer McCarthy.

McCarthy started her autism activism in 2007 after revealing that her son had been diagnosed with autism in 2005, soon after receiving his MMR vaccine. “McCarthy served as a spokesperson for Talking About a Cure for Autism (TACA) from June 2007 until October 2008. She participated in fundraisers, online chats, and other activities for the non-profit organization to help families affected by autism spectrum disorders.” She also released her book: Louder than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism, the same year explaining her personal and family struggles with Ethan and his diagnosis. McCarthy also believes that her combinations of diets, multivitamin therapy, B-12 shots, and numerous prescription drugs helped cure her son of autism [source]. As an influential public figure, Jennifer McCarthy’s activism has been a huge anecdote in vaccine-autism controversy.

Despite McCarthy and many others’ beliefs on the matter, there is no scientific proof that the theory correct. Yet, there is also little science to reject the null hypothesis that it is not causing it. As mentioned in class, there have been studies conducted both in the UK and the US that brought up reason for concern about autism and vaccine relations. Andrew Wakefield’s article published in 1998 described 8 children showing symptoms of autism soon after receiving the MMR vaccine. “Several issues undermine the interpretation by Wakefield and this case series. First, the self-referred cohort did not include control subjects, which precluded the authors from determining whether the occurrence of autism following receipt of MMR vaccine was causal or coincidental. Second, endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not blind, and data were not collected systematically or completely. Third, gastrointestinal symptoms did not predate autism in several children, which is inconsistent with the notion that intestinal inflammation facilitated bloodstream invasion of encephalopathic peptides.” [source] The article goes on to list many other issues, which falsify Wakefield’s information. There were numerous ecological studies [study1, study2, study3], retrospective observational studies [study1, study2, study3], and prospective observational studies [study1, study2] analyzing MMR vaccines, Thimerosal, and the use of too many vaccines, but all were either inconclusive or did not provide enough proof to confirm anything.

In conclusion, the highly controversial Vaccine-Autism Wars are still up in the air. Autism remains a mystery, and vaccines remain highly effective. As you can see, many experiments and studies have been conducted but none have come up with a sufficient amount of proof. I enjoyed further researching the relationship between autism and vaccines, but I still strongly believe that any argument against the use of vaccination is bogus, considering the extremely high success rates vaccines have continually demonstrated.


 

Man’s Best Friend

slide_342603_3545225_freeAs a longtime dog owner, I believe two things: Dogs truly are man’s best friend, and dogs understand humans. Like any dog enthusiast I walk my dog, play with my dog, talk to my dog; and my intuition tells me he definitely understands what I’m saying. But seeing as our intuition is lousy, I decided to dive deeper into the matter.

I started my research on whether or not dogs understand humans on Animal Planet. Animal Planet has reason to believe that dogs can in fact understand humans… somewhat. “It turns out that people who talk to their dogs may be on to something. Studies show that the average dog can understand about 165 different words, in some cases more if you make a point of training them. This includes the basic commands such as “sit,” “stay,” and “go,” as well as a range of other terms, assuming they’re tangible words and not abstract ideas.” They continue to elaborate on how words are not the only part that play a role in canine communication; it also includes the physical activity and daily routines owners share with their pups.

German-Shepherd-Police-DogA Live Science Article, “ Do Dog’s Understand Words or Emotion?” brings into question whether dogs are responding to words, or simply reading emotion. A study cited in the article concluded that dogs can read human communication cues. “Researchers used eye-tracking technology to study how dogs observed a person looking at pots after giving the dogs communicative cues, such as eye contact and directed speech. They found that the dogs’ tendency to follow the person’s gaze was on par with that of 6-month-old infants. The study suggests that dogs have evolved to be especially attuned to human communicative signals, and early humans may have selected them for domestication particularly for this reason, the researchers said.” I was extremely intrigued by the use of eye tracking technology to read communicative signals. It was not an idea that had crossed my mind, but after further reviewing it I thought about my person experience with dogs and how I usually associate their perception of what I’m saying and my emotion through their eyes.

Upon continuing my research, I found a lot of Information of a dog, Rico, famous for knowing 200 words. Researches put Rico to the test in an experiment intended to verify Rico’s understanding in a controlled environment. “To do this, they [researchers] collected 10 items with which Rico was familiar. At the verbal command of his owner, they had him fetch a specific item from a separate room. Rico performed very well at this task, but the researchers wanted to challenge him further. Next, they chose a new item — one that Rico had never seen in his life — and placed it in the room among the familiar items. The owner requested that new item by name and, lo and behold, Rico brought back the new item.” They tested this several times continually adding new items and discovered that Rico returned with the correct 70% of the time. This completely opposes the Live Science study’s use of eye tracking because Rico is set into another room and therefor cannot track through optics. This experiment speaks volumes towards canine-human communication because Rico’s ability to retain the information taught by his owner demonstrates canines understanding of spoken word.

dog-trickAll the information I attained gave me a better insight into a dog’s understanding of humans. Interspecies Communication is a scientific phenomenon that continues to interest researchers everywhere. Human-canine communication ability only brushes the surface of what the full topic has to offer.

All in all, I am glad to have learned that my dog really does understand me and it is not just me being blinded by love for my incredible dog, and I hope that as both species continue to coexist the levels of understand will only grow stronger.


 

Treadmill or Terrain?

LegsLike many college students, I have grown increasingly aware of the reality that is the “freshman fifteen.” So, in an effort to put a stop to the dreaded process, I have vowed to work out as many times a week as my schedule allows. Time and time again I go to the gym, hop on a treadmill, and force myself to run for as long as I can endure it (which, is not very long as I am easily bored by running). Recently, my boredom got me thinking, leading me to a blog worthy question: Is it more effective to run outside or on a treadmill?

Turn’s out, the question of treadmill vs. terrain is commonly debated in the world of running. Active Magazine Argues that running on a treadmill is better for four reasons: It’s a forgiving surface, it’s safer, It allows runners the chance to check and perfect their form, and it offers the option of more enjoyable fantasy workouts. On the other hand Mark’s Daily Apple offers five reasons why running outside is superior: running outside is more enjoyable, A treadmill is too flat and unchanging which does not allow runners to build adaptive joint strength, treadmills change the biomechanics of you run and don’t engage the posterior chain as much as running outside, and running on a treadmill is “easier” and does not offer the beneficial challenges that running outside does. Both articles provide valid arguments for each of their points, which lead me to further my studies for the scientific proof.

The Huffington Post: Science article “To Run Outside or on a Treadmill? A Dilemma Foreign to Forrest Gump” uses multiple scientific studies to decide which option is a better fit based on four separate categories: running pattern, forces and mechanical demand, muscle activation, and energy and speed. A study done by the University Of Delaware shows that runners demonstrated similar running patterns on a treadmill and terrain. Some differences were attributed to change in stride length that is more commonly associated with terrain (over-ground running). This along with a study done by University of Virginia which found that over-ground running “causes increase in peak knee extension and flexion during the swing phase,” lead to the conclusion that treadmill running is a better option for people who wish to develop a running pattern. As for forces and mechanics, treadmill running “reduced peak anterior propulsive forces and medial ground reaction forces (GRFs),” and requires less of a mechanical demand. This lead to the decision that treadmill running is a better option for those with weaker joints (me!) and terrain running is better for those with calf of Achilles strains. This result relates to a study conducted by M. Chung in 2009, which concluded that treadmill running reduces the use of quadriceps and hamstrings while running, which means muscle activation is better when running outside.

Workout

Workout

Overall there is a lot of information provided on the topic, but I was only able to find few experiments that tested the many theories. The study conducted by the University of Virginia had the same group of twenty runners participate in both treadmill and terrain running. Personally, I would suggest taking a large number of test subjects of varying weights and BMIs and put it to the test, where half of the runners run six days a week on the treadmill and the other half run 6 days a week outside with distance increasing each week. My study would be less focused on running patterns and more focused on physical development and joint strength. The continually updated results would be able to give us a better idea of how each effect physical aspects such as fluctuation in BMI and weight, as well as development of bone and joint strength of deterioration of bone and joint strength. So, although strong arguments have been made I do not have a clear idea on which is better, therefor I will likely keep doing what I’m doing until more research is done on the topic. I might be bored when I’m running, but it certainly gets the mind thinking.


 

Elephant Ears

I absolutely love elephants. I don’t want to be one of those “I knew about it first!” people, but I have loved them since I was little, so this is no – just because they are in right now – obsession. My love for elephants has never really gone past admiration and basic information, so when given the opportunity to write about whatever I want (on a science related basis), I thought hey, why not elephants.

Given the appearancIMG_0700e of an elephant, I have always wondered one thing: why are an elephant’s ears so big? Although they are the largest land animals, compared to most creatures, their ears are completely out of proportion to their body. An elephant’s ears are one sixth of their body size, which, in any other instance, would seem ridiculous. (I mean, can you imagine if OUR ears were one-sixth our body size?) The reason behind sure enormity is actually quite fascinating. Because of an elephant’s size and typical environmental climate, it is important for them to stay cool. Their huge ears allow them to release body heat and cycle cold air in. So, an elephants ears are essential their personal air conditioners!

If you look at the inside of an elephant’s ear, there is a spider web like pattern of blood vessels. Elephant ears are very thin, which allows the blood vessels a better exposure to the outside environment. So when the blood flows through these vessels at a warmer temperature than the outside temperature, the heat is released from their body to help them stay cool. This is due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that heat flows from areas of high heat, to areas of low heat. The other aspect of this person air conditioning system is bringing cold air in. Because of the size of their ears, elephants can use them as fans. By flapping their ears that create a light breeze that aids the cooling process. These two amazing aspects of elephant’s ears allow them to cool their bodies up to nine degree Fahrenheit!

Along with air conditioning, elephants also use their ears for better hearing, by using them to funnel sound into their inner ear. They also use them to make threats by extending them and flapping them, making themselves even bigger and more intimidating towards predators (although, elephants have no true predators in the wild). Elephants are truly amazing creatures, and I encourage everyone to further research them. Their huge ears are a small piece of what makes them so unique and beautiful.

Fun Fact: The feature photos are my own work, taken last year on safari throughout different parts of Africa!

Sources:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Turn That Frown Upside Down!

Once Upon a time, a young, forth grade me stomped into the classroom after recess with a huge frown on my face. No one had caused me harm or said anything mean, I was just in a bad mood. Mr. McKenna, my teacher, said “smile, it’ll make you feel better, I promise!” Reluctantly, I turned my frown upside down, and before I knew it I was back about my normal day, happy as a forth grader can be. Here I am, ten years later, and I still try and smile every time I’m feeling down. Yet, despite my many years of experience with this simple tactic, I remain clueless as to why turning up the corners of my mouth can make me feel so much better. So, I plugged a question into the handy dandy Internet: does smiling actually make you feel better?

The answer is yes, and there is quite a story to prove it. In the 1800s, French scientist Guillaume Duchenne studied the emotional expressions of humans and discovered many things, including how to determine a fake smile from a real one (turns out, it’s all about the eyes). This conclusion caused the genuine smile to receive the scientific name, the Duchenne smile. Duchenne’s experiments inspired Charles Darwin, who later suggested that our facial expressions actively influence our mood; also known as the facial feedback hypothesis. The discoveries of both Guillaume Duchenne and Charles Darwin lead one Dr. Zajonc’s to further his research, hypothesizing the effects of facial expression on body temperature. Research shows that the cooler you brain is, the better you feel, and the warmer your brain is, the worse you feel. Zajonc believed that when we change our facial muscles, the biochemical processes would cause a change in body temperature, which would explain the positive emotion that simply faking a smile can cause us to feel.

After finding all this information along with many other hypotheses, I was surprised by the lack of experimentation. But a little more googling, and I found a good one. In one experiment, researches conducted an experiment manipulating the faces of 169 subjects into a natural expression, a standard smile or a Duchenne smile. Some were also asked to smile along with the use of chopsticks. Then, the subjects underwent a serious of stress inducing and multitasking activities while their heart rates were monitored. The results showed that those told to smile had the lowest heart rates while undergoing the activities. Those who were forced to smile using chopsticks also reported lower levels of stress. They concluded that in a stressful situation, even forcing a smile can genuinely decrease stress and make you happier.

All in all, I was happy with what my research had to offer. I learned that my forth grade teacher set me up for a world of success just by telling me to smile. So thank you, Mr. McKenna, and thank you to all the wonderful scientists and doctors who offer a solution to help the world feel a little bit better, even in the worst of times.

Sources:

How Stuff Works

Researcher’s Study

watch me! watch me!

 

Science In Everything

I could save everyone the trouble and respond with the simple answer: I took this course to fill my gen-ed requirement. But that truly isn’t the reason. Yes, I found this course in an effort to fill a requirement but chose it because the concept of science intrigues me.

Unfortunately, in school I learned that there was only one right answer science could provide, and that bored me. I didn’t enjoy physics, or biology, or environmental science (I did enjoy chemistry, but thats because My teacher was funny). Regardless of my horrible experience there is still something about science that kept me going all those years, and when I read the course description for this I felt I finally found a course that catered to my specific interests in the realm of science.

In all honesty my choice not to major in science has a large part to due with my terrible experiences in my high school science classes. I wish I had a better reason, but that’s it. Sad But true. I would however, argue, that in a way we are all science majors. I believe that in some shape or form you can tie every major offered at Penn State, or at any university, to science. It may not seem that way on the surface, but I urge you to think about it a little bit. After all, what’s discovered without a little experimenting?

Here’s some help from National Geographic:  http://press.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/19/science-of-everything/

teacher writing equations on the black board