Trends in ESP Research

Figure 0: Participant in a Ganzfeld Experiment which proponents say may show evidence of telepathy.

This month's TIER features the new new new neuropsi-imaging article by Moulton and Kosslyn (2008).

As described in the Harvard press release,

Neuroimaging fails to demonstrate ESP is real

But researchers note they can't prove a negative
January 3, 2008
Amy Lavoie

Psychologists at Harvard University have developed a new method to study extrasensory perception that, they argue, can resolve the century-old debate over its existence. According to the authors, their study not only illustrates a new method for studying such phenomena, but also provides the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of extrasensory perception, or ESP.

The research was led by Samuel Moulton, a graduate student in the department of psychology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University with Stephen Kosslyn, John Lindsley Professor of Psychology at Harvard... The scientists used brain scanning to test whether individuals have knowledge that cannot be explained through normal perceptual processing.

Oh my. Where to start? What was the motivation for such a study (other than getting media attention or perhaps to be nominated for an Ig Nobel Award)?

Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists. In the present study, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an effort to document the existence of psi. If psi exists, it occurs in the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be more sensitive than using indirect behavioral methods (as have been used previously).

And why, oh why, do the authors assume that psi occurs in the brain? Believers will not be swayed, because extrasensory perception must be extracerebral!!

Who funded such a study? Surely not NIH (one might imagine William Proxmire turning over in his grave). No, the $$ were from the Bial Foundation¹ (Grant 118/02)², whose

main objective is to encourage the scientific study of Man, from both the physical and spiritual perspectives, by honouring, supporting and promoting the work and efforts of all those who seek out new paths along the route of Research, Science and Knowledge.

They've also funded staff members of the Parapsychology Foundation, among a long list of other paranormal (and normal) investigators.³

What were the experimental hypotheses?

In the present experiment, we operationalize the psi hypothesis by asking the following question: Does the brain respond selectively to psi stimuli? By "psi stimuli" we mean stimuli that not only are presented through the usual senses (e.g., visually), but also are presented telepathically (mind to mind), clairvoyantly (world to mind), and precognitively (future to present); by "non-psi stimuli," we mean identical stimuli that are only presented through normal sensory channels. Under the null hypothesis, these psi and non-psi stimuli are one and the same (because the additional aspects of psi stimuli do not in fact exist) and thus should evoke indistinguishable neuronal responses. Under the psi hypotheses, the stimuli are categorically different and should evoke different neuronal responses.

...On the one hand, psi might provide participants with specific, implicit knowledge of stimuli. In this case, we would expect a suppressed brain response to psi stimuli compared to non-psi stimuli... On the other hand, psi might increase participants' attention to stimuli without providing them with stimulus-specific content. In this case, we would expect an enhanced brain response to psi stimuli, given the evidence that attention enhances brain activity. In the present experiment, we tested for suppression effects, enhancement effects, or some combination thereof (with different effects in different brain areas). By hypothesizing merely a difference in activation—without specifying a direction or neuroanatomical locus—we make minimal assumptions about psi and offer the broadest possible test of the psi hypothesis.

Figure 1 (from Moulton & Kosslyn, 2008) A schematic of one trial. In this trial for the receiver, the non-psi stimulus appears first and the psi stimulus second. The third stimulus presentation (feedback) in each trial is always the same as the psi stimulus. The sender sees only the psi stimulus for each trial.

And of course, the results conformed to the null hypothesis...


Footnotes

¹ Bial is a Portuguese pharmaceutical company.

² Title: “Differential Responses to target vs. Non-Target Psi Stimuli: An Event-Related fMRI Study”
Researchers: Prof. Stephen Kosslyn, Dr. Sam Moulton
Institution: Harvard University Psychology Department and NMR Center (USA)

³ Other funded projects include:

Title: "Automated testing for telepathy using emails and telephone calls"
Researchers: Prof. Rupert Sheldrake, Ms. Pamela Smart, Dr. David Luke
Institution: Perrot-Warrick Project, London (UK)

Title: “Mystical experience, thin boundaries, and transhumanation as predictors of psychokinetic performance with a Random Number Generator”
Researchers: Dr. Michael Thalbourne
Institution: Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, University of Adelaide (Australia)


References

Moulton ST, Kosslyn SM. (2008). Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate. J Cog Neurosci. 20:182-92.

Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., "mind reading"), also known as psi. Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists. In the present study, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an effort to document the existence of psi. If psi exists, it occurs in the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be more sensitive than using indirect behavioral methods (as have been used previously). To increase sensitivity, this experiment was designed to produce positive results if telepathy, clairvoyance (i.e., direct sensing of remote events), or precognition (i.e., knowing future events) exist. Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena.

[See also Does ESP exist? (including this comment), and this link for a great accompanying image.]


The five symbols developed by Dr. Karl Zener for use in tests of extrasensory perception.

In the early 1930s, a Swiss psychologist named Zener, a partner of Dr. Joseph Banks Rhine, designed a set of cards bearing five symbols which he felt were sufficiently different from one another that they would be ideal for conducting certain tests, among them extrasensory perception (ESP) tests. These symbols are: circle, plus sign, wavy lines, square, and star.

NeuroPsychoEconomics!

However, NeuroPsychoEconomics is not a new neuroword. Apparently, the Association for NeuroPsychoEconomics gGmbH was

founded in 2004 to bring together scientists and practitioners from economics, management, psychology, and neuroscience.

Here's the info for their next conference, to be held in Munich.

2008 NeuroPsychoEconomics Conference
Neuroeconomics, neuromarketing, and neurofinance - Advancing, Association for NeuroPsychoEconomics

2008 Call for papers

Please be invited to submit a paper to the 2008 NeuroPsychoEconomics Conference in Munich, Germany. The conference will he held from October 9-10, 2008 at the Platzl Hotel, in Munich’s Historic Old Town (Sparkassenstrasse 10, Munich, Germany 80331). Deadline for submissions is July 15, 2008.

The conference theme of 2008 is:

“Neuroeconomics, neuromarketing, and neurofinance - Advancing our understanding of decision making processes”

Manuscripts should combine concepts from neuroscience and/or psychology with problems of business and economics.

. . .

Manuscripts can be written in English or German. The conference language will be English. Manuscripts submitted for the conference must not currently be under review, accepted for publication, or published elsewhere.

More information at http://www.jnpe.org

"Tabloid Language" in Nature Neuroscience

Disco Drosophila

By now, everyone has read about the so-called "homosexual" (actually bisexual) fruit flies (Grosjean et al., 2007):¹

Study finds gay gene in fruit flies

SUMMARY: Scientists have found that a gene can turn on and off homosexual impulses in fruit flies.

Researchers in Chicago have discovered a gene that identifies homosexuality in fruit flies, which can be turned on and off with drugs. David Featherstone, a biologist at the University of Illinois, said that while humans have a similar gene, it has yet to be determined whether that gene has any effect on same-sex attractions in humans.

It's not surprising that the popular press used tabloid terminology to sell the story. But how many of you have seen the highly critical News and Views article by Joel D. Levine in the January 2008 issue of Nature Neuroscience? He calls Grosjean et al. on the carpet for using sensationalistic language, which the editors and reviewers apparently allowed into the final version of the manuscript.

Glia and romance

Drosophila courtship is a complex behavior. A new study shows that glia modulate neurotransmission to influence male preference, but the authors should have resisted the temptation to describe their results in tabloid language.

...In the current issue, Grosjean et al. describe an unexpected role for glial cells in the initiation of male courtship behavior. A mutation that reduces expression of a glial amino-acid transporter causes male flies to court other males with the same probability as females. The authors accordingly named this transporter genderblind. The courtship behavior associated with the genderblind mutation is certainly different from control behavior, but is it really homosexual?
. . .

The study by Grosjean et al. makes an important contribution by calling attention to a neuro-glial element in the circuitry that governs courtship behavior. Furthermore, this study initiates the search for the glutamatergic neurons involved in the processing of courtship pheromones.

Apart from its merits, however, this paper has a serious language problem. Throughout, the authors use the term homosexual to describe the behavior of a male mutant that courts both males and females with equal probability. If anything, these flies might be bisexual, but the data are also consistent with the possibility that genderblind mutants would court anything painted with 7-tricosene...
. . .

...bizarre misapplication of fruit fly research spilling into the public and political arena may well be fostered by scientists' increased use of tabloid language. Yes, the business of science requires communicating effectively, raising money, and indeed a form of advertising, but the language in scientific papers must stick to the facts. My argument is not at all about political correctness. The misuse of a term like homosexual in this and other cases is simply inaccurate, unnecessary, and, in the end, bad for the scientific business.

You have to give the editors some credit, though, for publishing Levine's critique, although it would've been more fun if they let flyingkumquat write the rejoinder instead:

I have had enough of the "OMG You Can Turn Fruit Flies Gay and Then Straight Again" silliness.

Some fishes can change their sex. I don't see people saying, "OMG Fishes Can Change Their Sex, Maybe We Can Too!"

Perhaps a new section of the journal can be called Dish and Bitch...


Footnote

¹ For an excellent summary of courtship in the genderblind mutant, see Bisexual flies and the neurochemistry of behavior. See also Wait for it...Wait for it...It's Teh Gay Gene!


References

Grosjean Y, Grillet M, Augustin H, Ferveur J-F, Featherstone DE. (2007). A glial amino-acid transporter controls synapse strength and homosexual courtship in Drosophila. Nature Neurosci. 11:54-61.

Levine JD (2008). Glia and romance. Nature Neurosci. 11:8-10.

NIH and Physical Sciences Budgets Take a Hit

Sledge hammer hits large mass resting on person.
From: UCB Physics Lecture Demonstrations.

News
Budget blow to US science

Physics takes a hit despite earlier promises.

by Eric Hand

. . .

The spending bill marks the end of the annual budget wrangling in Congress (see Nature 449, 962; 2007). It includes spending for all government departments other than defence, which has already been approved. The final numbers for fiscal year 2008 include what amounts to a 0.5% increase for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), less than one-sixth of the rise that Congress had sought in an earlier, unsuccessful bill. Within the physical sciences, programmes in high-energy physics and fusion are hit particularly hard. "This is probably the worst budget for science that anyone can remember," says Michael Lubell, a spokesman at the American Physical Society in Washington DC. "It absolutely devastates and probably wipes out American high-energy physics."

Nature 451:2-3 (2007).

CERN - the European Organization for Nuclear Research

Sneezing etiquette and the efficacy of masks

Fig 1 (Granville-Chapman & Dunn, 2007). Sneeze without a surgical mask: lateral view.

More fun from the Christmas issue of the British Medical Journal.

Mixed messages
Excuse me!
J Granville-Chapman and R L Dunn review the etiquette of sneezing in surgical masks

Sneezing etiquette and the efficacy of masks in the operating theatre remain a subject of debate. Standard teaching dictates that one must face the wound when sneezing, so that droplets escape backwards, via the sides of the mask. A literature search found no clear demonstration of this principle.

We therefore tested the hypothesis that one should face the wound when sneezing into a surgical mask in theatre.

Fig 3 (Granville-Chapman & Dunn, 2007). Sneeze with a surgical mask: lateral view.

The verdict?

Our photographs show that the most important visible escape of spray comes from below the mask on to the surgeon’s chest. We therefore recommend that surgeons should follow their instincts when sneezing during operations.

Reference

Granville-Chapman J, Dunn RL. (2007). Excuse me! BMJ 335:1293.

Sex, aggression, and humour: responses to unicycling

Juggling unicyclist and UTSA graduate Ian Bexar Maurer-Stothert

'Tis the season for the British Medical Journal's satire issue to lighten the holiday mood. Last year's gems included 2007 Ig Nobel Prize winner, Sword Swallowing and Its Side Effects (Witcombe & Meyer, 2006) and Phenotypic differences between male physicians, surgeons and film stars: comparative study by Trilla and colleagues (aka, Are Surgeons Taller And Better Looking Than Other Doctors?).

This year, Sam Shuster compared men and women’s responses to the sight of a unicyclist:

After retiring from a busy university department in Newcastle upon Tyne, and with the time and the need for more than the usual consultancies, I was able follow some of my more extreme inclinations. As a cyclist, I had occasionally thought of using more or fewer wheels, but it was only when choosing a grandson’s gift that I got seriously lost in contemplation of a gleaming chrome unicycle. My wife said "buy the bloody" thing, which I did on the whim of the moment. After months of practice at home, I graduated to back streets, a small paved park, and finally town roads. I couldn’t avoid being noticed; in turn, I couldn’t avoid observing the form that notice took. Because at the time there were no other unicyclists in the area, such sightings would have been exceptional, yet I soon found that the responses to them were stereotyped and predictable. I realised that this indicated an underlying biological phenomenon and set about its study.

This is not Dr. Shuster, but rather a participant in the July 29, 2005 Critical Mass ride in Vancouver. One might imagine that he received a particularly hostile reception from stranded heterosexual male motorists 15-35 years of age.

After compiling the comments of over 400 people, Dr. Shuster reported the following:

Almost 50% of those encountered, more often men than women, responded verbally. The sex difference in the type of response was striking. Around 95% of responses from women praised, encouraged, or showed concern, and women made few comic or snide remarks. In contrast, only 25% of the comments made by men indicated praise, appreciation, or neutrality, whereas 75% were attempts at comedy, often snide and proffered combatively as a put-down.

Some of the choice comments included:

Inquisitive 5-12 year olds:
"Why do you use only one wheel?"

Aggressive boys:
"Do you want to knock him over?" "Yes I bet I could do it"

Women:
"Wonderful . . . I am impressed"
"Clever, clever"
"You are an Olympic champion"

Men:
"Couldn’t you afford the other wheel?"
"Where’s the other bits then?"
"You must like living dangerously"

Elderly men
Two men walking together asked seriously, not as a joke, "Are you practising for a circus then?" and "Does it crush your bollocks mate?"

And what about sex and aggression? Was there any relationship with testosterone levels?

From about 11-13 years, boys began to develop an aggressive response, which continued throughout the school years. They tried to put me off balance by suddenly shouting, jumping out of hiding, kicking a football, throwing stones, or riding a bicycle at me; a few asked for a ride in addition to aggressive behaviour.

A further change in male behaviour was seen during the late teens—aggression decreased, but they tried to make disparaging "jokes," which were sometimes incorporated into mocking songs. This change continued, and finally evolved into adult male humour with its concealed aggression.

The female response was subdued during puberty and late teens, with apparent indifference or minimal approval, such as a tentative smile. It then evolved to the laudatory and concerned adult female response.

Estimated changes in serum testosterone concentrations in males with age

Particularly interesting for the evolution of humour was the way the initial aggressive intent channelled the verbal response into a contrived but more subtle and sophisticated joke, in which aggression is concealed by wit. This shows how the aggression that leads to humour eventually becomes separated from it as wit, jokes, and other comic forms, which then take on an independent life of their own.

These observations lead to the conclusion that humour evolves from androgen primed aggression.

So now you know. And how might you respond to the unexpected sight of a unicyclist?

Reference

Shuster S. (2007). Sex, aggression, and humour: responses to unicycling. BMJ 335:1320-1322.

Truth may be beauty, and beauty truth,

in more than a metaphorical sense, and false propositions may actually disgust us (Harris et al., 2007).

When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

-- John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn

It's easy for the urn to say that, of course, because it doesn't have to bear the bruised ego caused by truthful remarks such as "that's a terrible hairstyle for you" or "wow, you look so poorly endowed in those Speedos" or the classic, "those jeans make you look fat!"

The latest neuroimaging study in the Annals of Neurology (Harris et al., 2007) didn't really set out to prove Keats, but to determine

The difference between believing and disbelieving a proposition is one of the most potent regulators of human behavior and emotion. When one accepts a statement as true, it becomes the basis for further thought and action; rejected as false, it remains a string of words. The purpose of this study was to differentiate belief, disbelief, and uncertainty at the level of the brain.

The authors expected activation in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) to exert "top-down" control to bias behavior based on beliefs. Participants read statements designed to be clearly true, clearly false, or undecidable. These statements were from a number of different categories:

Mathematical: (2 + 6) + 8 = 16

Geographical: Wisconsin is on the West Coast of the United States.

Semantic: “Gigantic” means “huge.”

Factual: The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 1.2% last Tuesday.

Autobiographical: You had eggs for breakfast on December 8, 1999.

Ethical: It is bad to take pleasure at another's suffering.

Religious: There is probably no actual Creator God.

That last one might be a bad example... how about "Jesus spoke 2,467 words in the New Testament" instead? Anyway, results from the True Statement minus False Statement contrast is shown bellow:

Figure 1A (from Harris et al., 2007). Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) regions showing positive blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal for judgments of truth (belief) minus judgments of falsity (disbelief) across the seven stimulus categories.

Here we see activation in the VMPFC, which was the only area that showed greater activity for True versus False. HOWEVER, this was due to greater DEactivation during False Statements than during True Statements (when each was compared to an "implicit baseline" condition which wasn't described). The authors suggested that since this emotional processing area often shows decreases in BOLD signal during cognitive tasks, uh, hmmm... I'm not sure what they're getting at here:

The involvement of the VMPFC in belief processing suggests an anatomic link between the purely cognitive aspects of belief and emotion/reward. Even judging the truth and falsity of emotionally neutral propositions activated [NOTE: is less deactivation the same as activation?] brain regions that are strongly connected to the limbic system. It is not clear from these data whether emotional engagement enters directly into the assessment of propositional validity or whether it is a secondary consequence of the cognitive process, but the fact that ethical belief showed a similar pattern of activation to mathematical belief suggests that the physiological difference between belief and disbelief can be independent of a proposition's content and affective associations.

OK. What about the opposite contrast, False Statement minus True Statement?

Figure 2 (from Harris et al., 2007). Axial image shows increased BOLD signal in the inferior frontal gyrus (primarily the left), the right middle frontal gyrus, and the anterior insula (bilateral) when judgments of falsity (disbelief) are compared with judgments of truth (belief) across all stimulus categories. Sagittal image shows increased signal in the superior parietal lobule, the cingulate cortex, and superior frontal gyrus within the same contrast.

Not too surprisingly, the authors wanted to interpret the insula activation as a reflection of disgust at reading false statements. However, most of the false statements don't seem particularly disgusting:

Wisconsin is on the West Coast of the United States.
“Devious” means “friendly.”

Oh the horror. Additionally, they noted the similarity in frontal lobe activations for the False Statements here and "no" responses in prior studies of the Sternberg working memory task (e.g., saying "no" when the letter R was not in the study set of T J S Q). Honestly, can we really say anything about conventional notions of "belief" and "disbelief" from the Sternberg task? [I do not "believe" that R was in the study set]. Then we have the mystery activity:

...the rejection condition (disbelief) also showed increased signal in medial regions of superior parietal lobule, bilaterally. This is an area that has strong connectivity with the medial PFC, though its recruitment in the present task is not readily explained based on prior studies.

And what of uncertainty? Uncertainty was associated with greater activity in the anterior cingulate than either of the other two conditions. Also not surprisingly, the authors connected this result to response conflict, such as that observed in the Stroop effect. They concluded with a lovely philosophical discussion...

The human brain is a prolific generator of beliefs. Indeed, personhood is largely the result of the capacity of a brain to evaluate new statements of propositional truth in light of countless others that it already accepts. By recourse to intuitions of truth and falsity, logical necessity and contradiction, human beings are able to knit together private visions of the world that largely cohere. The results of our study suggest that belief, disbelief, and uncertainty are mediated primarily by regions in the medial PFC, the anterior insula, the superior parietal lobule, and the caudate. The acceptance and rejection of propositional truth-claims appear to be governed, in part, by the same regions that judge the pleasantness of tastes and odors.

...although it seems they are overstepping the bounds of their actual data.

He, who knows how to distinguish between true and false, must have an adequate idea of true and false.

-- Spinoza, from Ethics, Part II: On the Nature and Origin of the Mind

Reference

Harris S, Sheth SA, Cohen MS. (2007). Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. Ann Neurol. Dec 10; [Epub ahead of print].

OBJECTIVE: The difference between believing and disbelieving a proposition is one of the most potent regulators of human behavior and emotion. When one accepts a statement as true, it becomes the basis for further thought and action; rejected as false, it remains a string of words. The purpose of this study was to differentiate belief, disbelief, and uncertainty at the level of the brain. METHODS: We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the brains of 14 adults while they judged written statements to be "true" (belief), "false" (disbelief), or "undecidable" (uncertainty). To characterize belief, disbelief, and uncertainty in a content-independent manner, we included statements from a wide range of categories: autobiographical, mathematical, geographical, religious, ethical, semantic, and factual. RESULTS: The states of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty differentially activated distinct regions of the prefrontal and parietal cortices, as well as the basal ganglia. INTERPRETATION: Belief and disbelief differ from uncertainty in that both provide information that can subsequently inform behavior and emotion. The mechanism underlying this difference appears to involve the anterior cingulate cortex and the caudate. Although many areas of higher cognition are likely involved in assessing the truth-value of linguistic propositions, the final acceptance of a statement as "true" or its rejection as "false" appears to rely on more primitive, hedonic processing in the medial prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula. Truth may be beauty, and beauty truth, in more than a metaphorical sense, and false propositions may actually disgust us.

ADDENDUM #1: Until reading What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith (by David Van Biema), The Neurocritic did not know that the first author of the Harris et al. article is Sam Harris, the well-known nonfiction writer (The End of Faith and Letter to A Christian Nation) and highly-discussed atheist. [Oops!! He also happens to be a neuroscience graduate student at UCLA.]

ADDENDUM #2: Vaughan at Mind Hacks has posted The problem of believing in belief. He focuses on the philosophical definition of belief and whether the Harris et al. study really tells us anything about it:

...from what we know about belief it's not clear that this study tells us much more about belief rather than what happens when people respond to questions.

Yes. And deciding if the answer is Yes/No/Don't Know draws on different types of knowledge -- semantic memory, autobiographical memory, calculation -- which are heavily dependent on regions outside of PFC (e.g., temporal lobe, left inferior parietal cortex), and which do not have identical neural substrates. Although Harris would like to say there is no difference between beliefs about ethics and beliefs about mathematical equations, the experimental design is underpowered to detect such differences (which is why I didn't bother mentioning it in the first place).