No Brain Wave Is Safe

UC Berkeley researchers have recently undertaken a project (see www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/Brain-Scanner-Records-Dreams-on-Video-130497213.html) that is both fascinating and incredibly creepy (perfect for a Halloween post!). They utilized fMRI technology to create a visual response database. By showing participants an array of videos, and simultaneously recording brain activity, they collected a cornucopia of data on how the human brain responds to specific visual stimuli. The database allows them to (more or less) reconstruct an image that a subject in an fMRI machine is simply imagining. This means (hypothetically) that if you are sitting in this fMRI machine, and an inappropriate visual memory pops into your head, BOOM. They've caught you, they saw it on their own computer screen. The database has outed your private thoughts. The system is far from perfect, as this video makes clear:



But within a decade or two, as the system is improved, this technology could have some pretty serious implications. We could see what people are dreaming, dive into the subconscious. Revealing, previously unavailable data would become available to numerous research areas. For example, flashbulb memories could be reconstructed on screen, then compared with actual happenings. There is, of course, the terrifying thought of the government getting their hands on this system and going on a brain invasion spree. Let's take a moment to appreciate the premature nature of this technology. Our thoughts are safe...for now.

The Wild World of Mirror Neurons

I think mirror neurons, which provide the connection between the actions of others and our own movements, are the coolest thing...ever. They are essential for empathy, imitation, appreciation of facial expressions, and awareness of body language. V.S. Ramachandran, who has studied mirror neurons extensively, sums up their importance very nicely in this video...



Couldn't have said it better myself! The sudden existance of mirror neurons, and their following adaptations, were an essential part of mammalian evolution. They allowed us to learn from the techniques and emotions of others. As Ramachandran says, they allowed for a "Lamarckian" passing of knowledge, which then allowed for unique cultures. Human existence is completely dependent on these beautiful little neurons. What's most interesting is that by anaesthetizing the skin, we can remove the barrier between our own and others' actions (this is also common in those with mirror-touch synesthesia). We should really be devoting more attention to the role and mechanisms of these neurons, where's the research!? Give me more!

I've Got a Funny Feeling

I’ve blogged recently about both synesthesia, the cross-wiring of the senses, and empathy. As it turns out, there has been research connecting the two. A 2007 study by Michael Banissy and Jamie Ward utilized the unique properties of the synesthetic brain to explore the spectrum of empathic ability. These particular synesthetes have mirror-touch synesthesia, in which observations of physical touch on others elicit a tactile response on one’s own body. Participants were shown another individual being touched on the cheeks and hands, but told to ignore them. They were simultaneously being touched in the same regions and reporting their tactile experience. A control group of non-synesthetes were included for comparison.

What’s interesting about the responses of synesthetic individuals is the variation in their mirrored tactile reactions. For instance, when synesthetes viewed someone being touched on the right cheek, some of them reported feelings on the right cheek, others on the left, and to various extremes. This is typical in studies of synesthetes; it’s also what complicates research in this area. Synesthesia appears in numerous forms, across differing sensory pathways. The experience is slightly variable for each affected individual. For instance, for those who associate numbers and letters with specific colors, color matches vary greatly. Also, some report actually viewing letters/numbers in color, while others are simply aware that they are associated with color.

So how did the synesthetes perform on these tactile response tasks? They reported a significantly higher number of mirror touch errors than controls, meaning they weren’t distinguishing as well between synesthetic response to the touch of another and the feeling of being touched.  However, their response time was faster than that of controls when personal touch matched that of the other individual. Banissy and Ward conclude that empathy is multifaceted, and that these synesthetes are higher than non-synesthetes in emotional reactivity, but not in other areas (social skills, cognitive empathy). The data supports the idea that empathy is dependent upon shared interpersonal experience.

Original article: http://daysyn.com/Banissy_Wardpublished.pdf

Cry Me a River (Or Not)

I’ve been researching the neural mechanisms involved in empathy lately. There are numerous theories on the pathways involved in producing an empathetic response. I came across an article I found especially intriguing. To study deficits in empathy, we typically look at individuals on the autism spectrum. Evidence from these types of studies can only tell us so much, considering the vast range in the levels of social and emotional disabilities involved. An autistic person lacking the mechanistic ability to empathize would also have trouble learning to “fake” an empathetic response, as this would require them to cue into social norms. So, can empathy be learned?

A 2009 study by Danzinger, Faillenot and Peyron sought the answer. They used fMRI technology on a group of subjects suffering from congenital insensitivity to pain. If these individuals couldn’t feel pain themselves, could they still empathize with those that do? Or is the production of an emotional mirroring founded on personal experience and memory? Subjects were shown images of both faces showing painful expressions (to test emotional response) and body parts in painful situations (to test somatosensory response). fMRI scans reported activity in response to these images in comparison with control, non-painful images. Participants were also given a self-reporting empathy survey.

The subjects with congenital insensitivity to pain rated themselves at typical levels of empathy compared with a normal, healthy population. fMRI results revealed that activity in response to facial expressions was generally normal, but represented a distinctly different network of involved structures. Responses to images of body parts in pain were significantly lower than average. Danzinger, Faillenot and Peyron determined that the pathways used by CIP individuals to produce empathy reflected a learning process. Some areas, namely the insula and mid-cingulate cortex, were stimulated in both CIP and non-CIP brains when shown stimuli. Activity seen in the ventromedial prefrontal  and ventral posterior cingulate cortices of CIP subjects only points to the role of association mechanisms. These mechanisms are likely based on what is socially expected when faced with the emotional or physical pain of others.

This study is intriguing, and leaves much to be explored. To what extent are we hard-wired for empathy, and how much of it is learned? How do the pathways for emotional and somatosensory empathetic pathways diverge and converge? I can only hope that by March (when I have to present on this very topic), I have the answer to these and other fascinating questions.

PDF for the original article can be located here: http://www.empathogens.com/empathy/cip-empathy.pdf