Monkey Funk (or lack thereof)

Sea lion is first non-human animal to keep a beat

Ronan is the first known non-human mammal successfully trained to bob her head in time with a metronome-like sound — and then to apply her new skill to tempos and music she had not previously heard, according to researchers at the Long Marine Laboratory at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

---

This is the biggest news in auditory (or at least musical) animal behavior, right now. Make sure you get to the bottom of the linked page where you will be rewarded with video evidence. It will be worth your while.

Reminds me of a similar, recent article featuring rhesus macaques. I was quite surprised to find that I had not previously written a post about said article. I won't let it by me a second time.

In this article, the authors describe results which suggest that macaques can detect rhythmic perception, but not beat induction (according to the earlier study, sea lions are the only mammal other than humans that can do both). The theory that there is a distinction between these two faculties is know as the dissociation hypothesis.

None of these terms are intuitively obvious. Beat induction is the ability to detect regularity of beats in a rhythm. It is what gives us our ability to tap our foot along with the beat in a song. Rhythmic perception merely refers to the ability to tell that some specific amount of time has passed. This sort of timing work has been studied extensively in many animal species, and it is well known that pretty much all mammals can time intervals. In fact, I have myself done some work demonstrating rhesus macaques' flexibility in timing intervals (Diapadion et al, unpublished results or something).

There is a major drawback to this monkey study: there is no behavioral data. It is entirely EEG. In many ways, I prefer EEG to fMRI or electrophysiology for brain imaging. EEG takes a distributed look at the activity of billions of neurons, unlike eletrophysiology, where you isolate signals from single neurons and pretend that the entire brain region surrounding acts the same way. fMRI also takes a distributed look at brain activity; in fact it is often more accurate than EEG. Unfortunately you can't put monkey into a MRI scanner unless the monkey has been knocked unconscious. You have to stay still in the scanner to get good data, and monkeys, well, they're not so good at that, ever.

fMRI is also superior to EEG because fMRI allows you to see deep into the brain, whereas EEG only lets you look at surface areas because it is on the surface of the skull that you place the EEG electrodes. There might be something going on deep in the auditory cortices that the authors' EEG findings are missing. Which is why it would be nice to see some results from additional metrics. Practically speaking, I don't believe it is likely that the authors are mistaken; the primate literature supports their hypothesis.

In the sea lion video, the speaker suggests that beat keeping may be far more widespread in the animal kingdom than previously thought. No, probably not. This EEG study suggests that monkeys are totally incapable of beat induction, and it stands to reason (and evidence) that this holds for other primates. As it stands, convergent evolution is the most likely explanation.

Honing, H., Merchant, H., Háden, G., Prado, L., & Bartolo, R. (2012). Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) Detect Rhythmic Groups in Music, but Not the Beat PLoS ONE, 7 (12) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051369

Relevant recent research round-up

Much has been going on in the various realms of mind research, and quite a little backlog of interesting studies have come off the presses. Stories featured in order of appearance. 

Compulsive eating shares addictive biochemical mechanism with cocaine, heroin abuse, study shows

ScienceDaily (2010-03-29) -- In a newly published study, scientists have shown for the first time that the same molecular mechanisms that drive people into drug addiction are behind the compulsion to overeat, pushing people into obesity. ... > read full article

Addiction fascinates me. I, for one, greatly enjoy eating. I appreciate food, but one can enjoy a good meal and eat a whole lot of it. A few years ago, I could get away with eating any quantity of food, and I wouldn't gain any significant quantity of weight. That's changed lately, which bothers me since I appear to be just as ravenous in my desire for food. Am I addicted to eating? If one combines the statistics for obesity, alcoholism, and drug addictions, I get the feeling you'd find yourself confronted with a disturbingly large portion of the population. This problem may be more prevalent in the States, which is apt enough, since NIH funds the research.

Unconscious learning uses old parts of the brain

ScienceDaily (2010-04-07) -- A new study provides evidence that basic human learning systems use areas of the brain that also exist in the most primitive vertebrates, such as certain fish, reptiles and amphibians. The study involved an investigation into the limbic striatum, one of the evolutionarily oldest parts of the brain, and the ability to learn movements, consciously and unconsciously, through repetition. ... > read full article

I am a big "fan" of studying the unconscious parts of the brain. The older it gets, the more important it is for our functionality. Of course, if you look at stuff that is too old, then you wind up dealing with medulla structures which regulate the contractions of your digestive track. Since consciousness is probably a very recent development, it makes perfect sense that unconscious (implicit) learning and memory is tied to older brain structures. Its good that someone confirmed this.

Brain shuts off in response to healer's prayer - life - 27 April 2010 - New Scientist

WHEN we fall under the spell of a charismatic figure, areas of the brain responsible for scepticism and vigilance become less active. That's the finding of a study which looked at people's response to prayers spoken by someone purportedly possessing divine healing powers...

I'd like to begin by stating that I heartily dislike The New Scientist. I was going to say that I "abhor" the publication, but that isn't quite accurate. I would be okay if TNS accepted its role as a popular, light science publication, but they continually attempt to make themselves out to be a serious journal, which the quality of their reports prohibits.

Anyway, this research is still pretty interesting. I'd definitely wager that this commanding effect of charismatic leaders can be seen outside of religious domains.

Social networking helps hermit crabs find homes

ScienceDaily (2010-04-28) -- Biologists have discovered that, contrary to their name, hermit crabs may locate new and improved housing using previously unknown social networking skills. These behaviors may shed light on any animal that relies on discrete and reusable resources, from hole-nesting woodpeckers to urban apartment dwellers. ... > read full article

Despite the buzz-wordiness of the title, this is exceptionally interesting stuff - they've discovered new behaviors among hermit crabs! If a crab in need of a home finds an empty shell that is too large, it will wait around for another crab to come by and take the shell in hopes of picking up the larger crab's old shell. I won't argue that there are massive impacts on our understanding of human social behavior, but still, that's pretty neat.

Researcher explores role of human behavior in infectious disease emergence

ScienceDaily (2010-04-30) -- A wildlife scientist has examined how different human behaviors influence disease transmission between domestic dogs and the African wild dog, an endangered species. ... > read full article

On that last note, here's a study which definitely does have a lot to say about the betterment of the human condition via understanding social behavior. On reading this story, my first musing concerned how far back these human-dog social behaviors related to disease go back. Dog domestication could easily predate the agricultural revolution, and possibly even the formation of complex hunter-gatherers. Thus, the origin of these behaviors might be evolutionary and not environmental, which ought to alter our approach to handling these issues.

How nerve cells distinguish odors

ScienceDaily (2010-05-03) -- Whether different odors can be quickly distinguished depends on certain synapses in the brain that inhibit nerve stimulation. Researchers have shown that mice in which a certain receptor in the olfactory center is missing can distinguish similar smells more quickly than mice without genetic manipulation. ... > read full article

 Once, I did a bit of work in the neuroscience of taste and smell perception (in rats and mice). I worked at the systems/behavioral level, but there's a great deal more research occurring one step down, at the cellular level. This stuff is some pretty heavy neurochemistry, but if you are up to date on that knowledge, this is intriguing research.

Cavemen among us: Some humans are 4 percent Neanderthal - CSMonitor.com

We have met Neanderthals, and they are us – or about 1 to 4 percent of each of us.

That is one implication of a four-year effort to sequence the Neanderthal genome – essentially setting out in order some 3 billion combinations of four key molecules that together represent the Neanderthals' genetic blueprint...

Yet another result of the data being churned out of Svante Pääbo's legendary Neanderthal genomics project. As they mention in the article, "the results and their further refinement are expected to yield a treasure-trove of information on what makes modern humans distinct from Neanderthals, humans' closest extinct relative." Considering the prior lack of evidence in favor of any of the conflicting theories of what became of the Neanderthals, this is a fine change of pace. Plus, I'm at a lucky stage in life where I'm not in favor of any of the particular theories, so these findings do not offend my sensibilities.

Blinking neurons give thoughts away

ScienceDaily (2010-05-10) -- Scientists have used a genetic light source to measure brain signals. Electrical currents are invisible to the naked eye -- at least they are when they flow through metal cables. In nerve cells, however, scientists are able to make electrical signals visible. Scientists have now successfully used a specialized fluorescent protein to visualize electrical activity in neurons of living mice. In a milestone study, scientists are able to apply the method to watch activity in nerve cells during animal behavior. ... > read full article

I swear, I had this same idea a couple of years ago, but I didn't   Plus, I honestly didn't see how it would be a more useful technique than modern two-photon imaging techniques. The advantage I did not for see was that if one can ditch the cumbersome microscope equipment needed for two-photon excitation imaging, you could attach a fibre-optic connection which would allow you to visualize brain activity while the animal was behaving. I confess that I have a soft spot for calcium imaging, so I'm quite pleased by this, but there are still some big issues, like the fact that you can't do this in humans, and its hard to visualize the neurons below the top layers of the cortex.

Alrighty then. Until... next month?

Map and Maze Puzzles

This past weekend was the annual MIT Mystery Hunt, and every year I say that I'm just not going to care that much, and when the hunt actually starts, I reneg on everything I've said and go peddle to the metal. Of course, I then forget this change of mind a year later and it all happens again. The exception was the 2008 hunt, which actually sucked enough for me not to do any meaningful work for it - I can't remember working on a single puzzle from that year.

This year was not an exception to the pattern, which is unfortunate since I am in Africa and remote solving from a netbook over a crappy ADSL connection is extremely frustrating. Plus I'm unable to access most of the puzzles. In spite of this, I've done what I seem to be a satisfactory amount of work and solving. Which is why I can now divert my attention to writing this post which I have been thinking about for a little while.

In the realm of puzzles, some people are specialists. There are the crossword freaks, sudoku nerds, anagram weirdos, cryptic punks to name a few. I'm a map puzzle specialist, as it turns out, and its generally my opinion that way too few people appreciate a good map puzzle. Consider the atrocities and monstrosities I've had to put up with in previous hunts.

My predilection towards map puzzles is a curious thing. One could easily attribute such a strength to one's puzzle upbringing; the title of this post is taken from the puzzle book which is my traditional all-time favorite (it is sort of like a little hunt unto itself, made up entirely of this sort of puzzle and without any need for the internet), thus we can surmise that my library was at least partially an influence.

However, in 9.10 - Cognitive Neuroscience, we spent a class discussion gender difference in cognitive capacities, which was the first time I encountered the literature behind such stipulations. Gender differences are everywhere in the brain, but what I found intriguing were the differences in spatial ability between the sexes. I dug up an old meta-analysis (Linn and Peterson, 1985) of various spatial tests to have a look at just what the data says.

I do mean, old, too - the review is from 25 years ago and more recent analyses have been published. However, publications in purist psychology journals tend to be more resistant to the Open Access revolution, so I couldn't obtain anything more current. This is unfortunate because I don't like this paper too much - its geared towards developmentalists, not... genderists? Sexists? In particular, it provides only a couple of highly lacking tables and figures for the gender comparison data, placing unwarranted emphasis on the age data. The name of your article is "Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability..." Come on.

So, how does one approach evaluate an individuals ability to think spatially? Traditionally, there are different tests for the tree main types of spatial ability.

Rotational analysis refers to ones ability to visualize 3D objects and rotate them around and accurately revisualize them. This is the kind of skill one would find useful in games like Homeworld or X-Wing, and probably general path-finding.

Very simply put, spatial visualization requires one take an image and alter it, usually in a fairly complex way, following multiple steps.

The bottom line:

Males are significantly better at mental rotation and in spatial perception, females are slightly more able than males at age 4, but at age 5 male ability accelerates and by adulthood, males well-outperform females. In spatial visualization, tests have not revealed significant differences.

I am inclined to attribute map puzzle skill to the one's ability in spatial visualization, due to the highly complex nature of both tasks. This would imply that gender has nothing to do with the matter, which doesn't exactly jive with the stereotypes. Gender stereotypes and bad and all, though usually contain a kernel of truth somewhere within. A small array of tests as we have examined only provides so much information on the big picture of how the brain processes spatial info across the genders. Map and maze puzzles themselves come in all shapes and sizes, thus further obscuring the question.

Which is why the real moral of this post is that one should not too earnestly mix sleep deprived marathon puzzling orgies with stuffy science literature.

Now that the males have a step up at least in the majority of spatial cognition, I'll have to eventually write a counterpoint to level the playing field with the females. Perhaps I'll write about that infuriating female aptitude for multitasking, which is very real. Be afraid.


References:
1. Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analysis. Marcia C. Linn, Anne C. Petersen. Child Development, Vol. 56, No. 6 (Dec., 1985), pp. 1479-1498.

Repeat: That was a weird book

This post is borrowed from my old journal of years past. I liked/wanted the content enough to carry it over and bring it up to date.

I picked up a copy of "The Cognitive Neurosciences" Third Edition from the MIT Press garage sale by chance, which was a damn nice find (its a fatty and probably would cost about a hundred bucks new - I paid ten); one of those texts I see often on the shelves of grad students, post-docs, and profs in Course 9. When glancing through it, I found that Sapolsky contributed a section for it called "Stress and Cognition," which sums up much of his own academic research, plus that of others, and is pretty much exactly the research I am talking about when I attack MIT student life circumstances. Plus, its quite a well written piece. It unfortunately isn't available for public consumption on the web, but here are a few articles that talk about the same issue to a less complete degree.

However, my desire is to talk about an entirely different book. My 9.20 professor urged me to try reading a book he had mentioned to me entitled "Sperm Wars." Its about the underlying science (I can't stress this enough, the author is a professor of Biology at Manchester, and has spent years running carefully regulated studies involving thousands upon thousands of samples) of human sexual behavior. So I'm interested in this sort of stuff, and the book seemed pretty cool (and if you examine the back cover, already mildly shocking), so I gave it a read.

The stuff in there is really weird. Downright boggling. Also fascinating, for a number of reasons. For example, one of the scientific findings highlighted in the book is that 10% of all children born to married couples do not possess the genes of their "father." Another: male and female homosexuality exists as a genetic balanced polymorphism. Because of the very real reproductive advantages given by bisexual genes, homophobia probably developed in heterosexuals because the others were a threat to reproductive fitness, plus there is that unfortunate problem of the spreading disease. Its worse in industrial societies; secluded populations with less disease exhibit much higher rates of bisexual behavior and little taboo exists. There's a lot more where that came from, too.

The primary goal of the book is to discuss the anatomy and physiology of human reproduction, leaving all aspects of societal influences out of it. The anatomy and physiology is certainly enough to fill the book since there is some weird weird shit that does make sense from an animal behavior perspective, but is stuff I would not dream of on my own. It is a strange strange thing we've got going for ourselves. I'm not sure I always agree with his uses of "scenes" to illustrate examples of behaviors. Some of it is pretty shocking, which is probably the author's intention, since without presenting the reader with realistic shock value, the legitimate points he is trying to get across simply wouldn't set in.

Perhaps the author's primary takeaway point is that naturally, human reproduction is not innately cooperative. To our Freudian Id (Actuality: Hypothalamus, lower brain areas, endocrine organs, etc.), tis an everlasting conflict against the opposing gender. The male "shotgun" approach is often viewed derisively as crude and stupid, but there is a lot more intelligence in these behaviors than it appears. Its quite unsettling how much simple hormones and unconscious planning/scheming are able to manipulate our actions without our conscious understanding. Due to the drastic difference in "how stuff works down there," the science says males should spread their genes to as many people as possible, minimizing personal risk, and women should try to collect the strongest genes possible (again minimizing risk) while maintaining supportive relationships with at least one male. What does it mean to be the strongest? Well, that's always changing and fluctuating, but that unconscious machine happens to know damn well what's "best," and its often not what our minds are seeing.

In one of Sapolsky's published essay collections, he wrote a little piece about the neurophysiology of escalating arguments amongst people: where they come from, why the develop, how they end up exploding, and at the very end of the piece, what we can consciously do to take advantage of our own physiology and stop ourselves from being stupid. This book is not that. To the author's credit, he explains that he wanted to present the bare facts, unclouded by bias or agenda. To alleviate small arguments is easy, but to take a stance on what people should or shouldn't do sexually involves many questions of morality and ethics, issues we've been seriously debating for hundreds of years. To delve into that would needlessly distort what the book means to do.

Which is to provide fair and balanced view of both genders and the various behaviors and structures involved. He does a relatively good job. After all, the guy knows his ethology and sociobiology, and he's in no way just pulling this out of his ass. I'd have liked to see more data, but that's not what this book is for. Hundreds of additional articles exist for that purpose. Plus, the book really does only touch on one side of human behavior. If we were talking about dogs, bears, monkeys, or any other animal, then this would be it. But, we're not that, and the author recognizes this from the outset.

I'm not sure if this a book that I really think everyone ought to read. The information contained within is important, but its presentation is perhaps not ideal, which is unfortunate because people really should be aware of how we actually work. Some stuff in the book should probably be viewed with skepticism, but many of the results have been shown to be reproducible... Ha. Ha ha.

I think what it really boils down too is, as those silly G.I. Joe cartoons used to say, "knowing is half the battle."