Anaesthetist's Hymn performed by the comedy duo Amateur Transplants, set to the music of Total Eclipse of the Heart.

[P.S. What's this got to do with the brain? Consciousness.]

Inspired by a female blogger we all know and love! Enjoy ;)

[click for larger image]

Credit: Mark Stivers. Thanks Mark!

According to Jennifer Argo it is possible to get a guy to want to watch a so called 'chick flick', all you need to do is tell him its fictional. According to the press release:

"We looked at fact and fiction stories and found that if people have high empathy - usually women - they will enjoy a story more if it's based on fact," she said. "Conversely, people who are low in empathy, typically males, when you tell them in advance that it's fiction they'll enjoy it more. We think it's because it gives them an excuse to enjoy it. They let down their guards."

Bullshit....

I love all chick flicks!

Ok.. I'm lying - can someone please explain to me the draw of Dirty Dancing?

Just because animals doing human things are funny I give you an elephant throwing darts:

-via Neatorama-

Check out this Discussion led by Charlie Rose with guests Eric Kandel, Aaron Beck, Steven Roose & Peter Fonagy:

Here are some interesting home videos of the Freud family as well.

Whenever I meet someone new and I tell them I'm studying psychology I inevitably get asked the ever annoying question "Are you analyzing me right now?" which of course always leads to the same response from me, "I'm as qualified to analyze or give therapy as an engineering student." Which is not at all.

I'm thinking of changing that response to "English majors are more qualified to do that than any psychology student." After all, the humanities and other social sciences seem to be paying much more attention to the classic analysis of old, namely psychoanalysis than any self-respecting psychology department.

It's not just the experimental psychologists who are ignoring Freud (I've never even taken a course on therapy or mental disorders. I study cognition and vision, why bother?) it seems that even the clinical psychologists are ignoring him. In a recent article in the New York Times, Patricia Cohen reports that psychoanalysis is dead in psychology departments and mostly only being taught in english, history, and art departments.

...a computer-based analysis of course descriptions at 150 public and private institutions that are highly ranked in U.S. News and World Report's college survey. It found that of the 1,175 courses that referenced psychoanalysis, more than 86 percent were offered outside psychology departments.

I'm completely happy with this statistic and am actually pretty surprised that the rate of classes about psychoanalysis is as high as 14% being taught in psychology departments. At the University of Illinois (one of the best clinical programs in the U.S.) I've been told that psychoanalysis is only covered as a small unit as part of a larger therapy course.

While Freud brought much attention to psychology it isn't clear to me (or anyone since the research is sparse on the positive benefits of psychoanalysis) that anything besides a historical perspective should be taught - in any department. Of course there are many people who disagree with my sentiments, especially the professional schools of psychoanalysis and the confused new aged people that pay money to learn woo at these institutions.

At the end of the NYTimes article there is a pretty silly argument on why psychoanalysis won't die,

Neither the split between the humanities and science, nor the warnings of the demise of psychoanalysis are as serious as they are often made out to be, said Jonathan Lear, a trained psychoanalyst and a philosopher who works on integrating the two fields at the University of Chicago.

Wanting to measure the effectiveness of psychoanalysis is natural, he said, but figuring out how to do so is not simple.

"Some of the most important things in human life are just not measurable," he said, like happiness or genuine religious feeling. Freud, though, is particularly useful for gaining insights into questions of human existence. "There will be the discovery of problems that the standard ways don't address," he said, and then "there will be a swing back to Freud."

Lear is blatantly wrong, I don't think either Martin Seligman (ex president of the APA) or Ed Diener would agree that happiness is not measurable. While Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience have a difficult time answering questions about the human condition I don't think Psychoanalysis offers any more insight to the truth and if anything is a crutch psychology and society have leaned on way too long.

HT: Mind Hacks

This Friday is a holiday (in America, at least) and what's better on a holiday than a rerun? Yay for reruns. So, I've written about the Amygdaloids before, but here's an introduction video in case you didn't see it (or want to enjoy it again). Also, this band of rockin' cognitive scientists has a CD available now.

The Amygdaloids: Live concert at Union Hall

Preview their new CD here (buy it here) alongside descriptions of each brain-based song.

"Past lovers often leave strong and enduring memories. 'A Trace' tells a story about this. Memory researchers in the know will figure out that the scientific theme underlying this song is the dominant trace theory."

'Memory Pill' tells a more controversial theory related to some of lead singer/neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux's research on memory, while the 'Mind-Body Problem' in their song is a classic one.

Here's another video of them in a concert at Madison Square Gardens, getting The Wave. More info.

Everyone has been talking about stem cells in the last couple days. Here's something to offend most of you - Christopher Reeve eating fetuses for their Stem Cells. Enjoy ;)

Now that you are probably horribly offended about something or other here's why I'm posting this video now:

Now paralyzed people can eat their own stem cells to become superpeople!

One of the earliest references to a controlled experiment is from Daniel 1: 1-16 in the Old Testament of the Bible. In this 'experiment' Daniel pits his nutrition regime of pulse to eat and water to drink versus the best cuts of meat and the most highly rated wine. Check out the experimental methods and results below:

1:1 In the third yearof the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. 1:2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. 1:3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. 1:5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. 1:6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: 1:7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego. 1:8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. 1:9 Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. 1:10 And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. 1:11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 1:12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. 1:13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. 1:14 So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. 1:15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. 1:16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse. 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. 1:18 Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. 1:19 And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king. 1:20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm. 1:21 And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.

I'm not so sure why Daniel was so favored by God since he couldn't come up with the greatest of experimental designs. There are so many problems with the design and interpretation of this study! The first and foremost of the problems involves the experimental groups. The children really should have been randomly assigned to the nutrition groups. Who knows Daniel might have passed his "all matters of wisdom and understanding" gene onto his kids while none of the others were imbued with this wonderful gene. Which leads us to another problem... "all matters of wisdom and understanding" is a very poorly defined construct. How does measure this? Were there IQ tests, feats of strength and bravery, or what?

Let us know in the comments what some of the many other problems with this study are.

I wonder whether Daniel's children also gained a substantial amount of weight on this diet since they were eating so many carbs? Hmmm... maybe the carbs in the wine offset this difference. I guess the peer review process for the bible wasn't scientifically rigorous so we'll never know.

We here at Omni Brain (don't forget the disclaimer) don't advocate using this biblical diet for your children in order to increase their abilities "in all matters of wisdom and understanding," instead we recommend a balanced diet of meat, pulse, and wine. In addition, exercise 4-5 times a week for an hour will guarantee a great abundance of "wisdom and understanding" developing in your offspring.

And now she's in Newsweek.

I couldn't wait for Multimedia Friday to post this video, it's just too funny.

I Am the Very Model of a Psychopharmacologist is set to Gilbert and Sullivan's classic song with animation. Created by Stephen M Stahl, MD, PhD, of the Neurosciences Education Institute, Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California San Diego, author of Essential Psychopharmacology. Credentials for neuropsychopharmacological hilarity.

A Flickr user took the all the U.S. currencies with buildings on them and lined them up to the real ones in Washington D.C. Pretty cool!

Omni Brain loves these tricks of vision. Check out some more here.

-via Neatorama-

I'm sure this comes as no surprise to my readers but this blog has been rated as having a Junior High Reading level. You know what though?! I'm proud of that. I'm happy that I'm not a scientist who can only write bland big worded journal articles and use words like affinage, nugatory, pukka, or bouleversement. Now that I've ruined the readability of the blog by using the previously mentioned words I have to admit that I would get angry if I were reading a journal article and found big words as well. In any case... here's the official rating (before I added the big words):

Get a Cash Advance

Anti-drug ad parody that's also an anti-drug ad itself. This is Your Brain on Heroin: Any Questions?.

The one... the only... Jesus made from Sushi and Chopsticks!

Actually... that's a cucumber for the head, ginger for the body, and shrimp fins (or whatever they're called) for the legs. I tried to make a crown out of onion but it didn't work too well.

I ate the body of Christ afterwards. That makes me religious right?!

David Ng from The World's Fair has decided to start another meme.... Here's the lowdown:

Anyway, this meme asks that you come up with your own scientific eponym. What's that exactly? Well, first read this excellent primer by Samuel Arbesman, which basically provides a step by step description of how to do this effectively. Then have a go at your own blog. If all goes well, I'd like to create a page at the Science Creative Quarterly, that collects (and links to) the good ones.

So onto the Higgins-Levinthal Dictum:

Also known as "the why fat smoking republicans are responsible for 9/11 number".

Do you want to know why you aren't getting comments on your blog? Do you wonder why you manage to piss off everyone you come across?

Your answer is here! This fabulous new equation will determine how many comments you will get for your obnoxious posts!

Thanks to Lowk and Andrew (who both sent in versions) of our fancy new equation!

a = How many non-overlapping groups you piss off
b = How offensive comment is
c = How stupid/gullible group is
d = How likely group is to do vanity searches on themselves and not be able to restrain themselves from commenting.
e = size of group (note the inverse correlation!)
k = some as of yet unknown constant.

By the way.... this same post was essentially posted here a while ago.

An entertaining posting on craigslist:

Survival Of The Fittest
Date: 2007-08-30, 2:03PM EDT

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels.

Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the "loser," and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.

I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world.

Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment.

When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3x5 card reading, "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes."

This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion.

There can be only one.

Please help Shelley out. Look what a beautiful girl she used to be - and now she's in and out of prison and a Meth addict. So head over to Retrospectacle and let her know she's still beautiful even though her teeth are rotting out.

You can also check out the dancing elf version of the Shelley's right here.

If you're a regular reader of this blog I'm sure you've realized by now that we never post on global warming. It's not because we don't care.. we do! I promise. It's just that I really don't know anything about the debate at all. Someone could tell me that we had an ice age 29 years ago and I would believe them (well maybe not believe them - but I couldn't refute their argument). I tend to support my fellow bloggers here at Sb's against the global warming denialists but that isn't because I know anything - I just trust their judgment. So when I saw a special report from BBC about the top ten arguments for global warming denialism and why they are full of shit I was pretty excited.

Here's a good example:

6. CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN
Sceptic:
Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind.

Counter:
Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.

Check out the other nine.

Just about every election cycle and Superbowl Marco Iacoboni and his lab do some sort of neuroimaging study to determine what people are actually thinking about the political candidates or their teams. Every time these studies come out you can hear the popular press cheering and smiling while you can hear scientists and bloggers cringing in disgust. The most recent study, instead of being published in a peer review journal, was published in the NYTimes. Head over there to give it a read before you continue on.

People cite many reasons to be doubtful of these studies, some complete nonsense and some very good criticisms. Martha Farah, from the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience (where I used to work), has a great posting at the Neuroethics and Law blog with a great analysis of this research. Here's the heart of the post:

So why do I doubt the conclusions reported in today's Op Ed piece? The problems I see have less to do with brain imaging per se than with the human tendency to make up "just so" stories and then believe them. The scattered spots of activation in a brain image can be like tea leaves in the bottom of a cup - ambiguous and accommodating of a large number of possible interpretations. The Edwards insula activation might indicate disgust, but it might also indicate thoughts of pain or other bodily sensations or a sense of unfairness, to mention just a few of the mental states associated with insula activation. And of course the possibility remains that the insula activation engendered by Edwards represents other feeling altogether, yet to be associated with the insula. The Romney amygdala activation might indicate anxiety, or any of a number of other feelings that are associated with the amygdala - anger, happiness, even sexual excitement.

Some of the interpretations offered in the Op Ed piece concern the brain states of subsets of the subjects, for example just the men or just the most negative voters. Some concern the brain states of the subjects early on in the scan compared with later in the scan. Some concern responses to still photos or to videos specifically. With this many ways of splitting and regrouping the data, it is hard not to come upon some interpretable patterns. Swish those tea leaves around often enough and you will get some nice recognizable pictures of ocean liners and tall handsome strangers appearing in your cup!

The rest of her article is well worth reading. Check it out.

There's a revolutionary mental health claim in a hot new article - Therapeutic Efficacy of Cash in the Treatment of Anxiety and Depressive Disorders: Two Case Studies.

The first case report involves a man who was laid off and lost his pension; after treatment with various SSRIs and sedatives with numerous side effects, the patient came into the office free of depressive symptoms. He claimed to have won the lottery, which fMRI brain scans [shown here] confirmed with evidence of a complete remission. In the second case, a single mother of four found her anxiety and depression lifted after a substantial inheritance. The change was verified by examination of the patient's mood ring. The mechanism of large sums of cash in the treatment of depression is not clear. From the paper:

Psychiatric medications relieve symptoms of depression and anxiety by restoring chemical balance within the brain, but exactly how these drugs restore the brain's chemical balance while simultaneously wreaking havoc on every other organ in the body remains a mystery. Equally mysterious is the mechanism by which cash payments provide therapeutic benefit to depressed and anxious patients. The receipt of a large sum of money may somehow stimulate, increase, block, adjust or otherwise act upon the level, supply, transmission, inhibition, secretion or bodily excretion of dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, acetylcholine, gamma-aminobutyric acid, dihydrogen monoxide, propylene glycol or some other chemical compound yet to be discovered.

... In a random survey, 3,964 Medicaid patients were asked whether they would prefer to receive various combinations of prescription drugs for the rest of their lives, or a single lump sum payment of $250,000. The vast majority (99.93%) chose the cash option.

With no follow-up of the two patients studied here it is difficult to predict the long-term outcomes of sudden infusion of cash, but should its effect wane over time an appropriate drug is newly approved: Havidol.

Read more of the satire.
Via Ben Goldacre's del.icio.us links.

The Onion News Network brings us In The Know: Is The Government Spying On Paranoid Schizophrenics Enough? Satire of a talk show with pundits who promote more and better spying on people diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

In The Know: Is The Government Spying On Paranoid Schizophrenics Enough?

Note: It's "people diagnosed with" (or just "people with") and not "schizophrenics" as people are more than their differences and labels. But that's not as funny, is it?

Dooooo It!!!

A depiction of delusional parasitosis in Dave Kellett's webcomic Sheldon. DP, a fixed delusion in which one believes s/he is infested with bugs despite no evidence, was famously described in Philip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkly. Superblogger and psychologist Vaughan Bell wrote a nice article on the subject, check it out.

Thanks again, Dave, for permission to share your comic (with slightly modified layout to make it blog-friendly).

If you had control of the crowd behind a free throw shooter at a basketball game and you wanted him to miss what would you do?

Here's one highly entertaining way:

Help us come up with some others!

Animal rights activists are horrible. I don't like the idea of belittling peoples opinions and treating them like crap but sometimes they really deserve it. Check out this hilarious video of a really stupid animal rights supporter who's ridiculous opinions are used against him to scare the crap out of him.

On a more serious note... head over to The Denialism Blog for the disturbing story of an attack on a scientist by animal rights activists.

Check out this sweet sweet purse made to resemble a brain:

I think it's an obvious idea since brains combined with anything is sweet, but you might wonder about who the heck came up with this idea:

Known for stretching the fashion limits with his avant garde design for the label Undercover, Jun Takashi recently came out with this Brain Bag. An intricate knit of wool resembling the three-pound jelly structure encapsulated by the skull, it's playful but also looks mature and sophisticated and holds its own among other designer handbags.

-via boingboing-