Showing posts with label via Daniel Bitran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label via Daniel Bitran. Show all posts

Monday, July 5, 2010

Babies & Morality

This post is based on a submission by reader Professor Daniel Bitran via Professor Martin Patt. Please submit suggestions for posts to metaist.blog@gmail.com.

Summary
Researchers at the Infant Cognition Center at Yale are conducting studies to try and assess the capabilities of infants to understand the world around them.


(Video: YouTube)

Commentary
While I'm hesitant to label this as "bunk", there appear to be at least two deficiencies in the research methods used (based on five minutes of film and not much else).

The first, pointed out to me by Professor Bitran, is that the caregivers always hold the children and may unconsciously influence the result (as in facilitated communication).

Second, the videos seem to show that the researchers who present the option know which one is the "good" one. The babies may be responding to the researcher rather than the choice (similar to Clever Hans). Nonetheless, the results of better controlled studies might show that a basic understanding of cooperation.

See Also

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Facilitated Communication

This post is based on a discussion with reader Professor Daniel Bitran. Please submit suggestions for posts to metaist.blog@gmail.com.

Definition
Facilitated communication (FC) is a process by which a facilitator supports the hand or arm of a communicatively impaired individual while using a keyboard or other devices with the aim of helping the individual to develop pointing skills and to communicate.
(Source: Wikipedia)


(Video: YouTube)

Commentary
Facilitated communication may be related to the Ideomotor Effect or the Clever Hans Effect. This would go a long way to explaining the facilitator's denial of interference as well as the subject's inability to answer questions to which the facilitator does not know the answer (among other anomalies in this form of communication).

See Also

Monday, January 18, 2010

fMRI & False Positives

This post is based on a submission by reader Professor Daniel Bitran. Please submit suggestions for posts to metaist.blog@gmail.com.

Definitions
fMRI is a way of measuring blood-flow in the brain or spinal cord and, by extension, neural activity in those areas.

A false positive is the sort of mistake your smoke detector makes when it goes off, but there's no smoke.

Summary
Despite the widespread use of fMRI, a few false positives may result in inaccurate results.


The fMRI is showing neural activity, but the salmon is definitely dead.
(Image: Courtesy of Prefrontal.org)


Commentary
The image above is striking because the false positives seem to show neural activity in a dead salmon's brain. According to researchers at UCLA Santa Barbra, these errors are due to a problem of multiple comparisons.

Imagine we're playing One of These Things is not Like the Others with several tin cans of Atlantic salmons. At first, it's hard to tell which one is not like the others -- there's a bunch of canned salmon. They have similar color, weight, shape, etc. But as we add different ways of comparing the cans (or more cans to compare), we increase the probability that there will be some way in which one of them differs from the rest -- particularly because of small differences, say manufacturing defects.

[Note: Corrections appreciated.] Now imagine we're collecting data for an fMRI. Each each point (called a voxel) is measured several times with certain extreme values discarded. Now we want to figure out which of the voxels is not like the others -- that's because that's where we expect to see differences in blood flow. However, by comparing voxels we're actually comparing multiple measurements of each voxel to multiple measurements of other voxels. This is like adding more ways of comparing the cans. Moreover, because there is a small bit of noise, the measurements for each voxel can be slightly different each time. This is why we occasionally find some difference between neighboring voxels that isn't really there -- it's a false positive. Luckily there are ways of correcting for this sort of error, but unfortunately, it is not applied as frequently as it should.

Meta
What are other examples of widespread errors of multiple comparisons or false positives?

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Craig Bennett of Prefrontal.org for providing a high resolution version of the Atlantic salmon fMRI.

See Also

Friday, January 15, 2010

Conference: Biological Foundations of Morality

This post is based on a submission by reader Professor Daniel Bitran. Thank you! Please submit suggestions for posts to metaist.blog@gmail.com.

Announcement
From the conference event page:
How does what we are learning about the brain through neuroscience and evolutionary science influence how we ought to think about ethics?

Recent advances in functional neuroimaging have increased scientists' understanding of how our brains process moral decisions. Some thinkers suggest that moral decision making is fundamentally an intuitive or emotional process, and that what we call "reason" is a post-decision making method of justification for actions, not a "higher order" process for making decisions.

If so, the new science challenges the principle of free will, the argument that reason is the foundation of moral decision making, and the importance of understanding intentions before judging responsibility for action. The potential implications for most Western ethical traditions are enormous.

(Formatting added.)
The conference is Thursday-Friday, March 18-19, 2010 at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA.

See Also