Archive for September, 2010

Why Tononi is wrong

Sunday, September 26th, 2010

In a recent NY Times article, Tononi chooses to propose a rather sketchily-described “Shannon informational” model to supplant a gamma synchrony model partly on these grounds;

“Dr. Tononi sees serious problems in these models. When people lose consciousness from epileptic seizures, for instance, their brain waves become more synchronized. If synchronization were the key to consciousness, you would expect the seizures to make people hyperconscious instead of unconscious, he said. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/21consciousness.html?_r=1

(more…)

Inter-Brain Synchronization during Social Interaction

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

Guillaume Dumas, Jacqueline Nadel, Robert Soussignan, Jacques Martinerie, Line Garnero. PLoS ONE: Inter-Brain Synchronization during Social Interaction.

Ulman Lindenberger, Shu-Chen Li, Walter Gruber and Viktor Müller. Brains swinging in concert: cortical phase synchronization while playing guitar

(more…)

NYT article on study habits research

Monday, September 6th, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/health/views/07mind.html

Basically, all of the following improve recall:

  • spacing out study time over a longer period of time
  • alternating between multiple topics in one study session
  • studying the same thing in different locations
  • taking a test

In summary, recalling and using knowledge in a variety of contexts helps you remember it.

Re-examining neurosexism

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

My dad brought this interesting book review to my attention: Peeling Away Theories on Gender and the Brain (NYT)

In her book Delusions of Gender (which I have not read though am intrigued to do so), cognitive neuroscientist Cordelia Fine places several modern studies of early differences in brain anatomy/function into a long line of sexist explanations for supposed differences in male and female behaviors.

The basic argument is that there has been no convincing connection made between any measured structural differences (which she argues might not exist) to behavioral differences. Just another case of correlation (maybe) and not causation.

Here’s a description of study that you might already be familiar with and Fine’s take on it:

Dr. Baron-Cohen’s lab conducted research on infants who averaged a day and a half old, before any unconscious parental gender priming. Jennifer Connellan, one of Dr. Baron-Cohen’s graduate students, who conducted the study, showed mobiles and then her own face to the infants. The results showed that among the newborns the boys tended to look longer at mobiles, the girls at faces.

Dr. Fine dismantles the study, citing, among other design flaws, the fact that Ms. Connellan knew the sex of some of the babies. Because it was her face they were looking at and she was holding up the mobile, Dr. Fine says, she may have “inadvertently moved the mobile more when she held it up for boys, or looked more directly, or with wider eyes, for the girls.”

Although I am unsure about the scientific merits, it is refreshing to see a new viewpoint in this debate. It provides some food for thought on this interesting topic:

Summarizing the research, she writes, “Nonexistent sex differences in language lateralization, mediated by nonexistent sex differences in corpus callosum structure, are widely believed to explain nonexistent sex differences in language skills.”

What all this adds up to, she says, is neurosexism. It’s all in the brain.

  • nd categories

  • contact us

    Neurodudes is moderated by Neville Sanjana, Bayle Shanks, and Stephen Larson. Comments that you post might be delayed so that we can tell our software that it's not spam -- however, not all comments are pre-screened so don't assume that we have read them, either. Any money we make off this site is used to pay for hosting, or given to charity; if in the future we pay contributors, we will include reader-authors. None of us are medical doctors so please don't ask for medical advice. Contact us here.