Scientists Discover How Deeply the Brain Processes Speech

Language was once thought to be a single side of the brain phenomenon. New technology helps to seek how the brain maps sounds and language to come up with meaning. Researchers at UC San Francisco found that people use both sides of their brain to categorize and understand language. 

This wasn’t the only discovery. Instead of responding to phonemes the brain actually responds to more elemental pieces of information called Features. The difference is profound as the individual sound isn’t as important as the categorization of these sounds at an elemental level. The brain is processing deeper than scientists originally predict. 

The way in which a person uses lips, tongue or vocal cords determines the overall meaning and understanding. If this is true then language has a biological component and is based in deeply held abilities of what makes us fundamentally human when compared to other species. 

The research is important because it can help people with reading and speech problems. It may even adjust how we come to understand and teach the English language. If the speech is associated with the movements of air within the mouth then classifications and history of words can be analyzed on a different level. 

Video

Journal

Adaptive Leadership and Cognitive Differentiation

The world is complex and so are the environments that leaders navigate. New environments require leaders to be adaptive and adjust their behaviors to overcome multiple demands. At present, the literature is weak on understanding the theoretical implications of complex leadership styles. The researchers Thatcher, et. al (2013), discuss a model of association between the leader’s self-concepts (the mind) and the neuro-scientific basis of this complexity (the brain). They found that complexity of thought, effectiveness, and brain differentiation work together.  

Because of the increasing ambiguity of world factors, a number of scientists have begun to discuss the adaptive complexity that leaders display in order to make effective decisions (Denison, et. al., 1995). The nature of that complexity of thought is mixed integrally with adaptive decision-making. In this case, adaptation “refers to the process by which an individual achieves some degree of fit between his or her behaviors and the new work demands created by the novel and often ill-defined problems resulting from changing and uncertain work situations. (Chan, 2000, pg. 4)”

The ability to think through the varying scenarios and situations to come to proper conclusions is based upon the meta-cognitive deep-seated abilities of the leaders that influence their self-concepts. Over time, these skills integrate to create complex mental constructs that are integrated with concepts of self to make it easier for such leaders to make decisions that are more effective and thought out (Lord et al., 2011). It is a process of experiencing that allows deep perception to differentiate key aspects of the environment and then integrate them into a complex and information laden framework. Some may call this the conceptual blend of environmental stimuli.

Adaptive decision-making is a process of self-awareness that allows individuals to see various situations and social influences that weigh on any particular decision (Endsley, 1995). It comes from a development of the concept of self that understands the underlining themes of various cultures and how this self fits within those cultures. It can traverse the complexities of culture and its various aspects to adjust behavior when the times call for it. It is not a surface skill that’s learned by the majority of the population, as it requires an ability to see self in time and space and have the following characteristics (Endsley, 1995):

1.) Perceive changes that are occurring in the environment,

2.) Interpret environmental information and integrate it into goals while understanding the implications of those changes on self.

3.) Make predictions of future events and the systems that develop under the new context.

The researcher’s model argues that the leader develops a battery of selves they can access in any given situation. Those who are not complex will simply not comprehend many aspects of a situation and rely on a single or few concepts of self to interpret their environment. The ability to think complexly with multiple self-constructs is based in the neuro-connections of the brain. Research has indicated that complex concepts do not map themselves to one spot within the brain but to multiple areas (Cacioppo, et. al, 2008). Therefore, those that can draw from multiple areas can think at level deeper and richer levels when compared to others. 

It is believed that these processes of the brain create effective leadership. The prefrontal lobes are responsible for executive control and behavior (Chow & Cummings, 1999). It is this part of the brain that regulates the internal states as a response to environmental stimuli. Those that function well processing emotion, stimuli, goal directed behavior, and social awareness are able to succeed in other leadership possibilities.  

As the brain processes information its complexity will determine what types of memories it can access based upon its neural wiring. These memories and experiences direct behavior. Complex thinkers have complex brains that are able to access multiple parts of their brains, adjust which processes they are using, and find alternative strategies to achieve their objectives. Such brains are seen as the highest form of leadership and human functioning (Smith et al., 1997).

Thatcher, et. al (2013), conducted a study in which 103 military members were used to study the psychological neurological aspects of decision-making. They used an EEG system to determine neural activities within the brain.  Participants were given a military scenario in which they would have to create adaptive thinking to make it through appropriately. They found that leaders that are more complex demonstrated greater adaptive thinking, decisiveness, and positive actions as they interacted with task demands in response to evolving four-part scenarios that escalated throughout the trials. The EEG machine showed that such leaders had differentiated activities throughout the brain when solving complex problems and responding to events making them more accurate and effective.

The report furthers the concept that leadership is partly hardwired into the brain and that experience and skill can be used as a method to draw out such leadership. The nature vs. nurture debate becomes more defined as basic neurological adaptability processes match with experience and skills to create effectiveness in responding to environmental stimuli. The study of the brain and its ability adds to the possibility of selecting those students with the highest possibilities for leadership.

Cacioppo, J. et. al. (2008). Neuroimaging as a new tool in the toolbox of psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 62–67.

Chow, T., & Cummings, J. L. (1999). Frontal-subcortical circuits. In B. L. Miller & J. L. Cummings (Eds.), The human frontal lobes: Functions and disorders (pp. 3–26). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Chan, D. (2000). Understanding adaptation to changes in the work environment: Integrating individual difference and learning perspectives. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 1–42.

Denison, D. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6,524–540

Endsley, M. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.

Lord, et. al. (2011). A framework for understanding leadership and individual requisite complexity. Organizational Psychology Review, 1,104–127.

Smith, et. al. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design strategies. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace (pp.89–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10260-004

Thatcher, et. al. (2013). The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (3).

Is Consciousness a Factor of Electrical Activity?

Nature

Researchers have found that consciousness is likely a function of electrical brain activity. A team of neurophysiologists at Milan University in Italy discovered through magnetic imaging that consciousness is a level of electrical brain activity that creates cohesive patterns of rippling activity. It is a process of neural firings where individual neurons act individually but within a collective sequence that creates what we call experience. 

The activity has been described as an echo whereby an electroencephalography can measure and create a score between 0 and 1 based upon this pattern. The research has some implications that include the ability to determine if a person is aware but not responsive to the outside world or if they are unconscious. 

The researchers developed a baseline between .33 for unconscious and .44 for a low conscious score. The results help medical practitioners understand at what level people are aware of their surroundings and the activities of the environment  Such methods could help in saving lives, communicating with people, and further developing anesthesia for surgery. 

However, the results raise an interesting concept. If consciousness is a level of stimulant activity of connected neurons than does additional associated firings mean higher levels of awareness? Other research has indicated that intelligence is a function of the level of electro activity based in the strength of signals between various areas of the brain. Einstein was believed to have higher levels of mental activity based in his neural firings and insulated neural fat that allowed those signals to travel farther. 

Let us imagine for a moment that the philosophical consciousness level is one of greater environmental awareness based upon neural activity in the brain. One who is at a higher conscious state is simply more able to collect, process, store and connect such information at greater levels. Does it then become possible that this level of conscious is really a simple reflection of brain activity?

Assuming that consciousness (i.e. awareness) is a level of brain activity then it is also possible that some are more aware than others of the finite details of their environment. They may be able to make and see connections that others can’t seem to understand or have knowledge of. They would live in a quantitatively and qualitatively different world than the bell curve average because they have greater capacities for understanding based within this electrical brain activity.

Casali, et. al (August 14, 2013). A Theoretically Based Index of Consciousness Independent of Sensory Processing and Behavior.  Sci Transl Med, 5 (198). Retrieved August 15^th, 2013 from http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/5/198/198ra105

Researchers Create False Memories in Mice

The memory implantation of science fiction, the movie Inception, and the concept of memory travel has not yet become an actual affair but may be well on its way. Scientists have implanted false memory into mice to create memories that never actually happened. Dr. Susumu Tonagawa a neuroscientist, and his team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently published this amazing study in the journal Science. 

Neurons are a combination of electrical current that activates memory to determine the best courses of actions to current events.  By manipulating individual neurons, it is possible to place within the mice’s mind the fear of an activity that never occurred. The memories are stored in what is called engrams that are put together to create a behavioral action to certain stimuli in the present. 

The channelrhodopsin protein was encoded in the brain cells when they were activated during a room exploration process by the mice. Later, when exposed to blue light the protein was activated and changed the memory. This occurred when the mice were placed in a different chamber and an electric shock was given to create a fear response. However, when the blue light was activated the protein laden memory of the first room became associated with the shock. 

The switching of the shock room creates a profound new finding. The process helps to explain how memory operates and how false memory works in humans. Humans take bits and pieces of things they remember and add them up to make a constructed memory. The problem is that they sometimes include information that is not accurate. 

There is a way for humans to overcome false memory. This includes the ability to better associate the original memories to their root stimuli and be aware of the alternative explanations. When humans are aware of the pieces of memory and use logic to help them ensure that the pieces fit together, or alternative pieces of information that are more accurate when a single piece changes the meaning of the memory, they can better decipher false from true memory. 

The concept of comparing and contrasting exact events is call critical thinking. Settling on the facts and then making logical meaning from the facts helps to ensure that the events are constructed in an accurate way. When people make leaps because cause and effect without the associated pieces they are more prone to false memory. It is a little like asking someone why they believe something is true and they cannot go back and pull out the facts to back up their assumptions. 

Generally, the more intelligent and questioning a person is the less likely they are going to be prone to false memory. A person who questions the facts in any particular event can weigh and balance alternative explanations and then rest on that explanation which is most logical. They may even resign that something is the most logical explanation and they believe it to be true but that alternative explanations are possible. 

There is also a way to actually overcome false memory in people through the use of technology.  A memory creates skin conductance because it is controlled automatically by the central nervous system. Something that never really happened would have a lower level of skin conductance than something that was actually stored within the brain. This helps people who accidentally associate false memories with true events separate the two through the vividness of the fact. 

At present the study was only conducted on mice but does open the possibility of creating and changing memories. Perhaps there will someday be a medical use for this process in helping people overcome trauma or change previously learned negative stimulation to positive stimulation such as a phobia. The study will likely be repeated to create validity and additional data before being tried on more complex mammals. 

Ramirez, et. al (2013). Creating a false memory in the hippocampus. Science, 341 (6144).

You may read the abstract here or purchase the full article HERE

Scientists Invent the Thinking Microprocessor

Scientists from the University of Zurich, ETH Zurich and partners in Germany and the U.S. have developed a microchip that processes much like the human brain. Unlike clunky predecessors that react only to environmental stimuli these new chips use neurons that will use analytic abilities, decision-making capabilities, as well as short-term memories to react to their environment in real time. 

The key to this discovering is that it can take sensations from the environment like humans and process them to make quick paced decisions. As the machine picks up on environmental cues it is capable of processing the multiple sensations to make meaning out of these cues and in term devise a type of strategy and change or adjust its course of action. It works fundamentally the say way the human brain works. 

The science of neuroinformatics typically seeks to recreate artificial bundles of nerves on supercomputers in an attempt to determine how information is processed in much the same way as the human brain processes information. The field of neuroinformatics uses mathematical models, tools, and other systems to try and mimic the neuroscientific aspects of the human nervous system. 

You may ask yourself what would be the main point in developing a computer chip that works much like the human brain? The ultimate goal is to create independent functioning machines that have the ability to take cues from their environment, change their courses, and complete their missions. At present, machines still need to be run through remote control because humans still have the most efficient decision making processes available. 

According to Professor Giacomo Indiveri from the Institute of Neuroinformatics (INI) the goal is to, “…emulate the properties of biological neurons and synapses directly on microchips” (University of Zurich).  In essence, you would have an independent machine that can adjust course, behavior, and actions based upon environmental information. This processing would be limited by the sensory systems attached to the system. 

There are some theoretical problems with the process. Unless the system can build new connections, behavioral models, and hardware independently it would not be able to mechanically/biological adapt to its environment. It would be limited by its design. Furthermore, it would be a rational machine that wouldn’t necessarily be able to use emotion to further those connections to create new forms of knowledge such as intuition. Data is only half the equation while emotion is the other. According to the French Mathematician Descartes emotion hampers decision making but others have argued it is truly part of and enhances the decision making process. 

In either event, it certainly will be interesting to figure out where all of this leads. Such machines might be of benefit in space, underwater, combat situations, and places where communication has been cut off. The development of miniaturization in manufacturing is likely to make these processing systems more efficient and capable of use in multiple arenas. We may soon have a machine that think as fast as we do but would be limited in its ability to intuitively “feel” its environment in the way humans can. The good news is that you could probably still confuse such a computer with questions that require an intuitive answer based in emotional judgement where the pieces don’t create the solution.

Neftci, et. al (2013). Synthesizing cognition in neuromorphic electronic systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 10.1073

 

University of Zurich-Chips that Mimic the Brain

Descartes-Emotions