A Parasite That Lets Tom Kill Jerry

Sitting around the campfire as a young girl, my dad would always tell a story about brain-infesting, evil-doing parasites. As much as I would like to believe that this was only a scary story, at least half of the human population is infected with some form of parasite of the brain or body. One that is especially creepy and strange is Toxoplasma gondii. This parasite has been studied in depth recently for its strange effect on the rat population.

A rat infected with T. gondii behaves completely normally…except for one small behavioral detail. Rats, which rightfully fear cats, are highly sensitive to their urine, keeping clear of it whenever possible. T. gondii causes rats to become ATTRACTED to cat urine, therefore severely decreasing their chance of dodging kitty predators. This parasite, when it attacks the brain, is found in high concentrations in the amygdala. This begins to explain modifications to innately feared stimuli. Weird, huh?

What’s even weirder about this parasite is its link to schizophrenia. Schizophrenics are much more likely to show presence of T. gondii in the brain than normal, healthy people. Women infected with the parasite are also more likely to have children that eventually develop schizophrenia. When given Haloperidol, a drug used to treat symptoms of schizophrenia, the urine-crazed rats reversed their behavior and became “normal” again. Could the life cycle of these parasites shed light on the origin of schizophrenia? Perhaps get us closer to a cure? Perhaps! I hope to see more research on this unique, campfire story-worthy parasite.

For more information, see: http://www.livescience.com/7019-mind-control-parasites.html

Your Voice Tastes Like Maple Syrup

During my senior year of high school, I enrolled in a Theory of Knowledge class. During one uncharacteristic class period, we discussed something of interest to me. Mr. Case explained that there are some people whose senses are crossed, combined, or layered. A classmate raised her hand with a frightened look on her face. She asked the class, “doesn’t everyone taste sounds?” She had no idea she was a synesthete. I’ve been fascinated ever since.

Synesthesia results from crossactivation of brain regions associated with sensation. Synesthetes have been reported with every sensory combination imaginable. They see music. They hear touch. THEY HAVE SMELL-O-VISION! A student speaker/synesthete in my college biological psychology class (boldly) explained that upon orgasm, every one of her senses fires rapidly, ricocheting off of another; a symphony of sight, touch, taste, smell and sound overcoming her. Oh. My.

Considering that 1 in 2000 individuals experiences some sort of synesthesia (Baron-Cohen et al., 1996), and that we’ve been studying the condition for over one hundred years (Galton 1880a), we know a lot about it, right? Nope. No one seems to know for certain when or why this happens. The big issue in untangling synesthesia is that it occurs in so many sensory combinations, then along a spectrum within each combination. Not to mention most synesthetes are unaware of their condition. Think about it: if you were born without the ability to taste, would you question it? If you saw colors associated with letters from the time you were born, you’d believe that’s the way the world works. The unique nature of synesthesia makes it very difficult to examine. The vast amount of research on the subject is therefore highly inconclusive.

But let’s take a break from being so sciency and bask in how COOL this is! Synesthetes and those who study them almost always see the condition as an enhancement to their lives. They can outperform most on related cognitive tasks (like picking out a 2 in a sea of 5’s…because it’s a different color), and they get to experience the environment in a way most can never understand. It seems to me that synesthesia may actually be a fossil of neuroevolution. Perhaps our ancestors experienced sensory input as a web, a combination of what we consider to be separate functions. Over time, in order to conserve energy, our sensations and perceptions became simplified. Then again, these people may represent “the brain of the future.” Who knows? I look forward to the bevy of research that is sure to come.

F. Galton, Visualised numerals. Nature, 21 (1880), pp. 252–256.

S. Baron-Cohen, L. Burt, F. Smith-Laittan, J. Harrison and P. Bolton, Synaesthesia: prevalence and familiality. Perception, 25 (1996), pp. 1073–1079. (1880), pp. 252–256.

fMRI: The New and Improved Lie Detector Test

I've been reading a lot lately about the potential use of fMRI scanning in court trials. For the most part, neuroscientists do not support use of the technology as it currently stands. This hasn't stopped numerous individuals from trying to incorporate fMRI scans into their supporting evidence. Defense attorneys in a 2009 San Diego child abuse case attempted to incorporate fMRI evidence, later denied by the judge. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/noliemri/) The company that performed the testing, No Lie MRI, claims its data is 90% accurate, much more convincing than a standard polygraph test. No Lie and similar companies base their testing on the idea that the ventrolateral area of the prefrontal cortex is the tell-all for fibbing. Basically, heightened blood flow to this area during questioning indicates that the participant is a dirty, rotten liar.

In 2010, a neuroscience researcher named Kent Kiehl became involved in the trial of a serial murderer named Brian Dugan. (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464340a.html) Dugan had already served twenty years in prison, but was appealing to the court to do away with his death penalty charge. Kiehl used fMRI evidence to show that Dugan was suffering from severe psychopathy; he couldn’t possibly have made clear decisions about murderous acts with a mind so ‘handicapped.’ Though this evidence was allowed in court, the death penalty charge remained unchanged.

How should we feel about the use of this invasive technology? fMRI can visualize the interworking of our brains, completely out of our own control. With enough practice, you can fib on a lie detector test (people do it on Maury all the time). But can you lie to an fMRI scanner? Is this any different from more generalized rights to privacy? fMRI lie detection is a growing industry, with new companies spurting up annually. It doesn’t seem that the current technology can back up promises these companies are making, but what if it could in the future? Should this sort of technique, if based on sound evidence, be considered ethically sound? I think not. Our minds are the only possession that is truly our own. It is our choice who to let in, how to manipulate what emerges. If we take that right away (even from murderous, terrible people), what do we have left? One day, you could show up at a job interview only to be thrown into an fMRI and analyzed by a representative from No Lie MRI. This is a slippery slope, and I foresee some heavy controversy in the near future.

The Human Camera

Are you ready for your mind to be blown??! Get ready…here it comes…

This man, Stephen Wiltshire, has an astounding memory. He is also a quick-moving, gifted artist. His incredible talents are especially intriguing seeing as his autism, by generalized standards, should leave him with deficits in spatial working memory. Stephen obviously has a brain that is very unique. This calls to question, again, what does it truly mean to be intelligent? I could spend the rest of my life working to enhance my mental capacity and improve my drawing skills, but I could never, ever draw Rome so beautifully from memory (or while looking at a photograph, for that matter). I might carry a conversation or acknowledge social cues better than Stephen, but doesn’t that just make us intelligent in different ways?

Savant syndrome is not uncommon in the autistic population. According to Dr. Darold Treffert, one in ten autistic individuals displays this trait. He points to a theory developed by Allan Snyder which states that magnetic pulses directed towards the left hemisphere can increase activity in the otherwise hushed right brain mechanisms. This occurs in those without autism when the left anterior temporal lobe is inhibited. Increased action in the right brain explains increased talents in visual memory, music and the arts.

I wonder, is it always better to have a “normal, healthy” brain, or do savants like Stephen Wiltshire have something to teach us about so-called intelligence?

If Loving the Internet is Wrong, I Don't Want to Be Right

I recently read an article, originally published in The Atlantic, about the so-called “Googlization” of our brains. The fast-paced wonderland of the web provides us with a wealth of knowledge, easily accessible by a few clicks. But are there repercussions that come with such ease of access? Is the internet letting our brains off the hook? According to Nicholas Carr, our brains are rewiring in response to the way the internet is organized. We are becoming less patient, less capable of deep thought or extensive reading. This ironically lengthy article brought forth some very interesting points, some of which I thought applied nicely to our in-class discussion on intelligence.

As Carr points out, reading is not instinctive like the desire for speech. Children innately begin to speak; the importance of communication is ingrained into our evolutionary history. As our need for communication expanded, written word became increasingly important. The web has taken this aspect of our culture to another level. Nowadays, we expect most of what we read online to be succinct. We tweet, update our statuses, and read abstracts or blogs instead of lying down with a good book. Newspapers and magazines are beginning to mirror this transition as well. Is all of this good for our brains?

It seems as though our access to the internet has made life a heck of a lot easier. It could be argued that we’ve become lazy, and so have our brains. I disagree. Human intelligence should not be defined in the sense that we would define a computer’s capacity. My laptop can store four gigabytes of information, but can it learn from its environment, pulling together stimuli in order to survive and flourish? If we are learning to take advantage of the ease of access found on the web, good for us. We’re evolving; we’re making space in our noggins for other activities. I may depend on Google for facts I could easily remember, and I may be too accustomed to the concise nature of online communication, but I’m proud to be a child of the technological age.

Carr's original article can be found here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/.