Thursday, May 19, 2011

Brain Reactions VS Feelings

Being Rational VS What You're Actually Feeling
My lab partner, Samyu, and I created, conducted , and wrote about our experiment together - to view hers click here
When you feel an emotion, does your heart follow the pattern of that emotion, or is that just your mind rationalizing(thinking about what it was taught/is supposed to make of certain situations) and saying what it is supposed to feel? You see a random picture and your heart jumps or twinges or maybe does not even react at all. Whichever the case, your heart’s reaction is the true emotion you are feeling, because of the long-trained “fight or flight” thought process in the brain. If your heart rate increases or decreases matching the emotion stated for that certain picture, then the person stated what he or she actually felt. If not, he or she rationalized with themself and told you, the scientist, what he or she was supposed to have felt. Remember this is about how much the test-subject is true to his or her own feelings; it is not to measure the person’s personality. Our hypothesis was that there would only be a few big changes (ex: leap for fear and excitement, and, after research, drops for sadness) in the heart rate compared to the emotion that was supposedly being shown. Remember this is about how much the test-subject is true to his or her own feelings; it is not to measure the person’s personality.
      


Keep in mind that these are pictures, the test subject’s reaction are not entirely to the actual circumstance of the picture, instead they are to the picture (ex: seeing a real-life tarantula VS just looking at a picture of one). Choose the ten pictures to try and encourage certain emotions. Afterward, show the subject the pictures again, this time asking them to write down what emotion they felt for each picture. Then, study the graphs in relation to which picture the subject was seeing at that point in time, what emotion they felt, and try to make connections. Collect the data and average the results to make two graphs, one for the “average change” in heart rate for males, and the other for females, along with pie charts of whose heart rate actually correlated to his or her "said" emotion.
Overall, the males as a group had a much larger variance in heart rate, which was mirrored, for the most part, by the females but with less change. Everyone had a significant leap in heart rate at the first picture. The largest drop was between 40 and 45 seconds, while the time period with least variation in heart rate was 50 to 55 seconds, during which a peaceful picture was shown. From 55 to 65 seconds there were two approximately equal increases in heart rate for “surreal” and “excitement” pictures. Overall, the males as a group had a much larger variance in heart rate, which was mirrored, for the most part, by the females but with less change. Everyone had a significant leap in heart rate at the first picture. The largest drop was between 40 and 45 seconds, while the time period with least variation in heart rate was 50 to 55 seconds, during which a peaceful picture was shown. From 55 to 65 seconds there were two approximately equal increases in heart rate for “surreal” and “excitement” pictures.

The first leap was probably from the excitement of the experiment beginning. Then, the largest drop in the males’ heart rate, and a significant drop in the females, occurred when the picture of the dead bodies after a tsunami  was shown. This drop is characteristic of sadness, which correlates with their said emotion for the picture. However, for the spider picture, the subjects all said that they felt fear. This was not evident in the heart rate at all. During the time we showed the spider (35-40 seconds), there was actually a drop in heart rate, so nobody felt actual fear. When analyzing the photograph, their logical mind may have told them that fear should be associated with the image, and so they wrote it. The other one for which we were expecting a change was excitement. Males experienced a sharp rise in heart rate, while females had a less pronounced increase. Below are some graphs displaying correlation between what the subject’s analytical mind said and what their first reaction, and heart rate, showed. Lastly, we were not expecting anything particular to happen for “peacefulness,” but the heart rate showed little change, which confirms that the subjects probably were feeling peaceful. Even though most of the subjects did not in fact have a heart rate matching his or her "said" emotion, in reality, for example if one is scared he or she will have a fast heart rate. So these test subjects, since instead of the actual situation, were shown pictures, their hearts did not match the emotions which they said they were feeling, though some people
"In the graphs of averaged heart rate, more girls correlated with fear, while more boys correlated with  excitement. Oddly enough, even though most individuals did not correlate for sadness, the averages most certainly did. However, the experiment overall did prove our hypothesis (there were significant jumps for the pictures we specified) and showed something we never expected: people often deceive themselves into thinking that they felt a certain emotion when they actually might have felt something different or even nothing at all. Does a picture of a spider scare you? Or does your brain remember the creepy spider you found on your ceiling and trick you into "feeling" scared? "(-Lab Partner-).


Picture Urls:
            
    8) http://jasonschaeffer.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/polar-bear-on-a-peak-of-an-iceburg.gif
            10) Users/15hannahb/Desktop/crying-tears-of-joy-208913.jpg

Sunday, May 8, 2011

We're smart, Aren't we?

"Pop quiz: What is 357 times 289? No pencils allowed. No calculators. Just use your brain.
Got an answer yet? Got it now? How about now? Chances are you still don’t. As you solved the problem one step at a time, you lost track of the numbers. Maybe you tried to start over, lost track again, and eventually gave up in frustration before you could discover that the answer was 103,173."

Now, why in the world was it practically impossible for us, the humans with brains that can process complex information, such as scanning a crowd and picking out people you knew and memorizing the new faces in a matter of seconds, something that is even difficult for computers nowadays, to solve a simple math problem such as 357 times 289?
Called a "Crack in the Wall," this absurd difficulty in our thought processing has left many psychologists puzzled. This struggle with some simple tasks help the scientists try to piece together how our brains are wired, and in this instance, because of the complexity of our brains and the speed at which they can function, "a bottleneck of processing" occurs when the information gets stuck in a traffic jam.
The discoverer of these strange happenings was in 1931 by a psychologist named Charles Witt Telford. He conducted an experiment with 29 graduate students at the University of North Dakota, and had them all press a button once they heard a sound. What he found out was that depending on the distance of time between the sound, the speed at which the button was pressed varied.

"If the interval was one or two seconds, it took the students about a quarter of a second to react. But if Telford reduced the interval to half a second, the students consistently slowed down on their response to sound number two. It took them an extra tenth of a second to press the key."

From this information, Telford was reminded of a muscle jerk reaction in response to electric shocks. Muscles need time to recover from these electric shocks before they can respond to the next one. If the time for relaxation is not given to the muscles, and a shock is given too soon, the muscles will not respond. He speculated that "the brain needs time to reset itself after a pulse of thought before it can carry out another one."
After 80 years of other scientists going through the same experiment and receiving the same results, this "period of relation" began to be called the "psychological refractory period," and it began to be defined as what happens "if we don’t have enough time between two tasks, [so] we slow down on the second one." Though this lag can seem insignificant at first, in reality it can mean the difference between life and death.

An example this is, say you are in a car with your friends and the light turns green, so the driver moves its foot to the gas pedal and begins to press. A car runs the red light and heads straight for your vehicle. The driver must now respond to this new information in a split second to save your life. What if it can't?
Harold Pashler ran an experiment almost exactly like the example above. He would instruct the subject to sit in a car simulator "complete with gas and brake pedals. As they drove along a virtual road behind another car, the volunteers would hear tones from time to time. They had to call out 'one' or 'two' depending on the number of tones they heard. Occasionally, the car in front would put on its brakes, and the subjects had to brake as well. Pashler and his colleagues found that it typically took just under a second for people to respond to the brake lights on the car ahead. But it took longer for them to react if they had responded to a tone within one-third of a second before the lights went on. Pashler found that, on average, the test subjects’ reaction time increased by 0.174 second. That may not seem like a big difference, but if you are driving 65 miles an hour, it translates into an extra 16 feet. That distance can mean the difference between a close call and a high-speed rear-end collision," and life and death.

So, what if this happened to you in real life? What if your brain had a traffic jam, when you needed it most? What if this was the difference between life and death? What would happen?

Though the research above shows are brain has difficulty multitasking, is this actually true? We can pat our heads and rub our tummies. We can do complex math such as calculus, understand the greatness of the universe, the minimality of an atom, plus "as you read this column, your brain can also manage your heartbeat, perceive the melody of a song playing on your iPod, and send out complicated instructions to drink a soda," yet I'll ask again, why can we not solve a simple math problem?

This is because all the separate tasks are separated into hundreds of relatively self-contained regions. "These regions can work on different tasks at the same time. Yet there are simple jobs—like math problems—that our brains can handle only one at a time. It is as if signals were flying down a 20-lane superhighway, and then the road narrowed to a single lane," leading to a traffic-jam.

Bibliography:

Zimmer, Carl. "The Brain: The 'Router' in Your Head—a Bottleneck of Processing."
     Discover: Mind/Brain. Kalmbach Publishing Co., n.d. Web. 8 May 2011.
     <http://discovermagazine.com/2010/nov/
     15-the-brain-router-in-our-heads-processing-bottleneck/
     article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=>.

smart brain. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2011. <http://www.google.com/
     imgres?imgurl=http://ambassador.rit.edu/blog/jeff/files/2006/02/
     smart_computer.jpg>.

car crash. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2011. <http://www.google.com/
     imgres?imgurl=http://s3.amazonaws.com/answer-board-image/
     2008112322441633630746813580000925.jpg>.

electric shock. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2011. <http://www.google.com/
     imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fIRbT5WQY6c/TB-faTHh8uI/AAAAAAAAAHk/
     VtN1sYOhM7E/s400/electric%2Bshock2.jpg>.

multi-tasking. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2011. <http://www.google.com/
     imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Bo2OkHBt4Ng/SY2GF7gu2WI/AAAAAAAACd4/
     0toGWWgvOZw/s320/multitasking.jpg>.