All Science isn't Good Science

*Note: First of all, I want to apologize profusely for having been away so long for my blog.  I can tell you right now, it wasn't from sheer laziness as would be expected.  In fact my summer was spent working nearly every single day- including through the weekends.  I was hired on by my lab to continue assisting with the data analysis and on days I wasn't there, I worked in Central Market as a cashier.  But now the school year has begun and while I certainly have less free time, I will also have a lot more subject matter to write on.

Maybe this is merely my interpretation, but I believe the first two years of college for a science student are about teaching you "facts" while the second half is devoted to showing how we can get bad "facts" from a poorly designed study.  As a good scientist, one must always examine how the conclusion was reached and whether the experiment is actually sound.  I want to give 2 examples of studies which should not be used in modern science- one because the technology is far out-dated, and the other because of a poor subject selection and subsequent experimental design.

The Tilting Table
The first story I want to tell revolves around the famous psychologist- William James.  He has been quoted for his many insights into memory and cognition though very poetic language.  But did you know he also tried to create the first MRI in the 1890s?

Imagine a man lying on a perfectly flat table which has been balanced beneath him.  James then asked the man to think either about some emotional aspect, or to do a series of logical puzzles.  If this went on long enough, the table would tilt towards the head, as if it had become more heavy. This was the first attempt to understand blood flow as a mechanism for measuring what is being activated.

Keep in mind, this is beyond rudimentary.  It was an extremely clever idea at the time, but has since been outdated with PET scans and fMRIs.  The reason I include it under the heading "bad science" isn't because I'm not impressed with William James.  On the contrary, I find him a fascinating individual.  But I wanted to demonstrate that technology continually advances.  To use outdated technology in a modern experiment can alter the results in a way that is unknown to the experimenter.  The newest technology isn't always the best but we can't use outdated methods if we expect our work to be taken seriously.

The Talairach Brain
Within the past week, I have heard the Talairach brain mentioned at least 3 times and never with any reverence.  And when I learned more about it, I was astounded that anyone would keep it in use as an atlas for modern studies.  Here is, in my opinion, an example of science at its worst.

Talairach is the name of the researcher leading in the creation of this atlas.  An atlas, in neuroscience terms, is a model brain by which you can standardize the areas of activation found using fMRI studies.  It's a template that you lay your own images over to map where you say activation.

Here is an example of a structural scan using an MRI.  I
believe the Talairach model has been overlaid on the original.

But the Talairach model is a terrible choice.  Talairach used only one subject for his template whereas most modern research uses multiple brains which are averaged together to create a model more standard to the population.  The second problem with Talairach was that he used the brain of an alcoholic woman- which by no means has the same structure and function as a normal, healthy brain.  And as if that weren't bad enough, Talairach didn't even scan her entire brain.  He actually just scanned one hemisphere and then flipped it over to create a mirror image.  Normal brains have slightly different function and structure across the hemispheres.  This is a fact that Talairach completely disregarded in favor of ease.

The sad part is there are still some studies today which use the Talairach brain atlas.  Many other atlases have been created since then but the old design persists.  This is why it is important to understand what you are reading in scientific literature and be able to critically analyze it.  Not every published paper is without its faults.  This is an important lesson that I believe the lay public is not enough aware of.

Sometimes I'm Spock

Psychologists and neuroscientists alike are always trying to come up with theories to explain how we experience the world.  And one of our key components is emotion.  Perhaps you're a fan of the Cannon-Bard theory.  It's the typical idea that "I see a bear, process it as a threat, and then my heart rate begins to pick up."

The Dripping Springs Color Guard my senior year of
high school.  What a fantastic family!

I like to think of the time when I first heard that my high school band won State Championships.  I was standing with my fellow drum majors and color guard lieutenant when they finally gave the score and the big trophy to Dripping Springs Tiger Band.  My brain went something like, we won.  We Won. WE WON! And eventually I felt myself begin to bounce on the balls of my feet with glee.  As my brain bathed in dopamine, I jumped and screamed with my bandmates as they stormed the field in jubilation.

But to be honest, the Cannon-Bard theory doesn't really do it for me.  Maybe I'm part vulcan as my family seems to believe.  (I did have very pointy ears as a child....)  But most of my emotion comes after the fact.

Let's take the generic instance (which could apply to many people) of my interactions with a boy.  We hang out, become close friends, and then I start to notice something.  Every time I'm near this boy, I feel a flush in my cheeks.  My heart, just barely noticeable, begins to pump a bit faster.  I started to notice I would cross my legs the same way as him and lean in whenever we were seated across the table.

Taken altogether, I could see that I liked him.  But it took my own physiological reactions to realize it.  I had to physically feel before my emotions would catch up.  This embodies the James-Lange theory.  In other words, we perceive a stimulus, our body starts to physically react, and then our mind interprets those changes as specific emotions.  I tend to see this almost as a Spock hypothesis.  We have to interpret our own emotions to really see what's going on.  Just like the fictional character from Star Trek, I can't always decipher others' reactions, more or less my own.  I wonder if I bleed green? (*Vulcans have copper-based blood so they bleed green)

Live Long and Prosper

But back to the real science.  Current research says the truth is somewhere between these two theories.  It's a mixture, depending on the situation, types of emotions evoked, and other things.  But until I learn anything definitive, I'm sticking with the belief that I'm a relative of Spock.

Attention

You say to your mother "of course I'm paying attention."  But what does that really mean?  In the last few decades, neuroscientists have begun to tackle some of the more difficult behaviors to explain.  And just like the advances in emotion have come a long way from freudian suppositions, our understanding of attention has begun to grow as well.  At least, depending on your definition of attention of which there are many.

Go ahead.  Take a moment to formulate in your mind what the correct definition for attention should be.  Remember you don't want to be too vague but nor can you make it too specific.

Perhaps some of your definitions went like this:
1. Prolonged dedication of neural processes to an external stimuli
2. Information stored in the short term/working memory to be used in current actions
3. Sensory information of which you are consciously aware
4. Using neural processes to monitor the environment for an unexpected outcome
5. The focal center of awareness

All of these definitions have elements we want to intuitively agree with.  However, they also have pieces which don't work in all life situations.  And we're still left with issues such as "is attention a physical or mental process?"

"Can you attend to more than one thing at once and still call it attention?"

"What does it mean to shift your attention?"

My personal favorite definition is that of William James.  He described attention as a spotlight which focuses on that which we are attending to.  Sometimes you can see on the periphery of that spotlight but most of the time you deal with what is in the center of the light.

Famous American psychologist William James.

But basically, I wanted to share today how difficult it can be to define something which we all find intuitive in our daily lives.  Please comment and let us know- What's your definition of attention?