Drunk on Alcohol?

When you drink alcohol and get drunk, are you getting drunk on alcohol?

Well, obviously, you might think, and so did I. But it turns out that some people claim that the alcohol (ethanol) in drinks isn't the only thing responsible for their effects - they say that acetaldehyde may be important, perhaps even more so.

South Korean researchers Kim et al report that it's acetaldehyde, rather than ethanol, which explains alcohol's immediate effects on cognitive and motor skills. During the metabolism of ethanol in the body, it's first converted into acetaldehyde, which then gets converted into acetate and excreted. Acetaldehyde build-up is popularly renowned as a cause of hangovers (although it's unclear how true this is), but could it also be involved in the acute effects?

Kim et al gave 24 male volunteers a range of doses of ethanol (in the form of vodka and orange juice). Half of them carried a genetic variant (ALDH2*2) which impairs the breakdown of acetaldehyde in the body. About 50% of people of East Asian origin, e.g. Koreans, carry this variant, which is rare in other parts of the world.

As expected, compared to the others, the ALDH2*2 carriers had much higher blood acetaldehyde levels after drinking alcohol, while there was little or no difference in their blood ethanol levels.

Interestingly, though, the ALDH2*2 group also showed much more impairment of cognitive and motor skills, such as reaction time or a simulated driving task. On most measures, the non-carriers showed very little effect of alcohol, while the carriers were strongly affected, especially at high doses. Blood acetaldehyde was more strongly correlated with poor performance than blood alcohol was.

So the authors concluded that:

Acetaldehyde might be more important than alcohol in determining the effects on human psychomotor function and skills.

So is acetaldehyde to blame when you spend half an hour trying and failing to unlock your front door after a hard nights drinking? Should we be breathalyzing drivers for it? Maybe: this is an interesting finding, and there's quite a lot of animal evidence that acetaldehyde has acute sedative, hypnotic and amnesic effects, amongst others.

Still, there's another explanation for these results: maybe the ALDH2*2 carriers just weren't paying much attention to the tasks, because they felt ill, as ALDH2*2 carriers generally do after drinking, as a result of acetaldehyde build-up. No-one's going to be operating at peak performance if they're suffering the notorious flush reaction or "Asian glow", which includes skin flushing, nausea, headache, and increased pulse...

Kim SW, Bae KY, Shin HY, Kim JM, Shin IS, Youn T, Kim J, Kim JK, & Yoon JS (2009). The Role of Acetaldehyde in Human Psychomotor Function: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study. Biological psychiatry PMID: 19914598

Drunk on Alcohol?

When you drink alcohol and get drunk, are you getting drunk on alcohol?

Well, obviously, you might think, and so did I. But it turns out that some people claim that the alcohol (ethanol) in drinks isn't the only thing responsible for their effects - they say that acetaldehyde may be important, perhaps even more so.

South Korean researchers Kim et al report that it's acetaldehyde, rather than ethanol, which explains alcohol's immediate effects on cognitive and motor skills. During the metabolism of ethanol in the body, it's first converted into acetaldehyde, which then gets converted into acetate and excreted. Acetaldehyde build-up is popularly renowned as a cause of hangovers (although it's unclear how true this is), but could it also be involved in the acute effects?

Kim et al gave 24 male volunteers a range of doses of ethanol (in the form of vodka and orange juice). Half of them carried a genetic variant (ALDH2*2) which impairs the breakdown of acetaldehyde in the body. About 50% of people of East Asian origin, e.g. Koreans, carry this variant, which is rare in other parts of the world.

As expected, compared to the others, the ALDH2*2 carriers had much higher blood acetaldehyde levels after drinking alcohol, while there was little or no difference in their blood ethanol levels.

Interestingly, though, the ALDH2*2 group also showed much more impairment of cognitive and motor skills, such as reaction time or a simulated driving task. On most measures, the non-carriers showed very little effect of alcohol, while the carriers were strongly affected, especially at high doses. Blood acetaldehyde was more strongly correlated with poor performance than blood alcohol was.

So the authors concluded that:

Acetaldehyde might be more important than alcohol in determining the effects on human psychomotor function and skills.

So is acetaldehyde to blame when you spend half an hour trying and failing to unlock your front door after a hard nights drinking? Should we be breathalyzing drivers for it? Maybe: this is an interesting finding, and there's quite a lot of animal evidence that acetaldehyde has acute sedative, hypnotic and amnesic effects, amongst others.

Still, there's another explanation for these results: maybe the ALDH2*2 carriers just weren't paying much attention to the tasks, because they felt ill, as ALDH2*2 carriers generally do after drinking, as a result of acetaldehyde build-up. No-one's going to be operating at peak performance if they're suffering the notorious flush reaction or "Asian glow", which includes skin flushing, nausea, headache, and increased pulse...

Kim SW, Bae KY, Shin HY, Kim JM, Shin IS, Youn T, Kim J, Kim JK, & Yoon JS (2009). The Role of Acetaldehyde in Human Psychomotor Function: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study. Biological psychiatry PMID: 19914598

Neuroskeptic Embarrassed by Hand Pic

OK, I admit it, sometimes I write notes to help me remember what I'm going to blog about. Still, at least I'm in good company.

Neuroskeptic Embarrassed by Hand Pic

OK, I admit it, sometimes I write notes to help me remember what I'm going to blog about. Still, at least I'm in good company.

Your Questions Answered

One of the best things about Google Analytics is that it tells you what it was that people searched for which led them to your site. Here's the top 10 search terms so far:

1. neuroskeptic 3,973
2. best antidepressant 3,429
3. how to read minds 3,377
4. why do we sleep 1,742
5. st john's wort 903
6. st johns wort 734
7. st. john's wort 588
8. legal highs 446
9. the best antidepressant 432
10. what is the best antidepressant 426

None of this is too surprising, although the number of people wanting to know which is the best antidepressant is a little concerning, since the short answer is that there is no one best antidepressant, because everyone responds differently to each drug. Although I've discussed research about the relative effectiveness of different antidepressants, there's still no substitute for a doctor's professional opinion.

When it comes to the bottom search terms, however, there are surprises round every corner. Here are some of the things that, curiously, only one person has yet asked.

what's is that's mean function

I don't know. Good question, though.

how to be a neuroskeptic reader

Well, reading Neuroskeptic is a good start, but you have to send me £1,000 to qualify as an official reader.

y8gvvyjjvyhktuxrym3msynmnoaszduoniu0sm81tzmwmm7ny0g1s8gyykvlmama

I'm not sure which is the bigger mystery: why did someone search for this, and why did it lead them here?

why is my wife suddenly more sexually active

She could be bipolar and entering a manic phase, or she might have started using drugs, but if were you, I'd worry about that later and enjoy it instead of Googling for explanations.

why do we sleep? describe the course of a typical night's sleep and some of the effects of sleep deprivation.

This is one of the many searches that are clearly students looking for material to plagiarise for a paper they have to write. A warning: if I ever catch a student of mine doing this, you will get an automatic F. Although I'll also give you bonus points for reading my blog, so you'll end up with a C overall.

why do the british not show emotions?

We do, but we do it in such a refined and sophisticated way that you just can't see it.

why do people die when they get stot in the head and who studies it

Hmm.

which drugs are considered dopamine agitators

Many drugs agitate dopamine - the poor neurotransmitter just can't stand to be around them. Sometimes it gets quite upset, and has to sit down and have a stiff drink when they finally leave the synapse.

Your Questions Answered

One of the best things about Google Analytics is that it tells you what it was that people searched for which led them to your site. Here's the top 10 search terms so far:

1. neuroskeptic 3,973
2. best antidepressant 3,429
3. how to read minds 3,377
4. why do we sleep 1,742
5. st john's wort 903
6. st johns wort 734
7. st. john's wort 588
8. legal highs 446
9. the best antidepressant 432
10. what is the best antidepressant 426

None of this is too surprising, although the number of people wanting to know which is the best antidepressant is a little concerning, since the short answer is that there is no one best antidepressant, because everyone responds differently to each drug. Although I've discussed research about the relative effectiveness of different antidepressants, there's still no substitute for a doctor's professional opinion.

When it comes to the bottom search terms, however, there are surprises round every corner. Here are some of the things that, curiously, only one person has yet asked.

what's is that's mean function

I don't know. Good question, though.

how to be a neuroskeptic reader

Well, reading Neuroskeptic is a good start, but you have to send me £1,000 to qualify as an official reader.

y8gvvyjjvyhktuxrym3msynmnoaszduoniu0sm81tzmwmm7ny0g1s8gyykvlmama

I'm not sure which is the bigger mystery: why did someone search for this, and why did it lead them here?

why is my wife suddenly more sexually active

She could be bipolar and entering a manic phase, or she might have started using drugs, but if were you, I'd worry about that later and enjoy it instead of Googling for explanations.

why do we sleep? describe the course of a typical night's sleep and some of the effects of sleep deprivation.

This is one of the many searches that are clearly students looking for material to plagiarise for a paper they have to write. A warning: if I ever catch a student of mine doing this, you will get an automatic F. Although I'll also give you bonus points for reading my blog, so you'll end up with a C overall.

why do the british not show emotions?

We do, but we do it in such a refined and sophisticated way that you just can't see it.

why do people die when they get stot in the head and who studies it

Hmm.

which drugs are considered dopamine agitators

Many drugs agitate dopamine - the poor neurotransmitter just can't stand to be around them. Sometimes it gets quite upset, and has to sit down and have a stiff drink when they finally leave the synapse.

Yo Momma, Victorian Style

I've just finished Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, which is something of a cult classic amongst people of an atheist or skeptical persuasion. Written by Scottish author Charles Mackay in 1841, the book details some of the bizarre things that people had believed and done over the preceding centuries.

It's best known for its chapters on outbreaks of mass irrationality, such as financial bubbles like the Tulipomania, the European witch trials, and "animal magnetism" (the sections on which include some excellent descriptions of psychosomatic illness and the placebo effect). Heavy stuff.

But my favorite bit was the charming "Popular Follies of Great Cities", which covers the spread of comedy catchphrases in 19th century London. Remember when everyone went around saying "Wasssssssssssupppppppp?" or "Doh!" or some variant of "Your mum / yo momma?" (that last one is still going on). It turns out this is nothing new.

Two hundred years ago Londoners, at least working-class ones, were fond of such phrases too. There was the question "Who are you?", which could be aimed at anyone doing or trying to do something above their station; the universal answer to any stupid or unwelcome question, "Quoz", and best of all, "Has your mother sold her mangle?" the implications of which Mackay does not discuss in detail.

Each of these were popular for a few months and then went out of fashion. Personally, I think it's time we brought some of them back into use. So - has your mother sold her mangle? I thought so.

Yo Momma, Victorian Style

I've just finished Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, which is something of a cult classic amongst people of an atheist or skeptical persuasion. Written by Scottish author Charles Mackay in 1841, the book details some of the bizarre things that people had believed and done over the preceding centuries.

It's best known for its chapters on outbreaks of mass irrationality, such as financial bubbles like the Tulipomania, the European witch trials, and "animal magnetism" (the sections on which include some excellent descriptions of psychosomatic illness and the placebo effect). Heavy stuff.

But my favorite bit was the charming "Popular Follies of Great Cities", which covers the spread of comedy catchphrases in 19th century London. Remember when everyone went around saying "Wasssssssssssupppppppp?" or "Doh!" or some variant of "Your mum / yo momma?" (that last one is still going on). It turns out this is nothing new.

Two hundred years ago Londoners, at least working-class ones, were fond of such phrases too. There was the question "Who are you?", which could be aimed at anyone doing or trying to do something above their station; the universal answer to any stupid or unwelcome question, "Quoz", and best of all, "Has your mother sold her mangle?" the implications of which Mackay does not discuss in detail.

Each of these were popular for a few months and then went out of fashion. Personally, I think it's time we brought some of them back into use. So - has your mother sold her mangle? I thought so.

The Neuroscience of MySpace

How does popularity affect how we judge music?

We tend to say we like what other people like. No-one wants to stand out and risk ridicule by saying they don't enjoy universally loved bands, like The Beatles... unless they're trying to fit into a subculture where everyone hates The Beatles.

But do people just pretend to like what others like, or can perceived popularity actually change musical preferences? Do The Beatles actually sound better because we know everyone loves them? An amusing Neuroimage study from Berns et al aimed to answer this question with the help of 27 American teens, an fMRI scanner, and MySpace.

The teens were played 15 second clips of music, and had to rate each one a 5 star scale of quality. Before the experiment they listed their preferred musical genres, and they were only given music from genres they liked. To make sure no-one had heard the songs before, the researchers went on MySpace and found unsigned artists...

A total of 20 songs were downloaded in each of the following genres: Rock, Country, Alternative/Emo/Indie, Hip-Hop/Rap, Jazz/Blues, and Metal (identified by the MySpace category).

The twist was that each song was played twice: the first time with no information about its popularity, and then again, either with or without a 5 star popularity score shown on the screen. Cleverly, this was based on the number of MySpace downloads. This meant that the subjects had a chance to change their rating based on what they'd just learned about the song's popularity.

What happened? Compared to doing nothing, hearing music activated large chunks of the brain, which is not very surprising. In some areas, activity correlated with how highly the listener rated the song:

The regions showing activity correlated with likability were largely distinct from the auditory network and were restricted to bilateral caudate nuclei, and right lateral prefrontal cortices (middle and inferior gyri). Negative correlations with likability were observed in bilateral supramarginal gyri, left insula, and several small frontal regions.

The headline result is that a song's popularity did not correlate with activity in this "liking music network", and nor did activity in these areas correlate with each teen's individual "conformism" score, i.e. how willing they were to change their ratings in response to learning about the song's popularity. Berns et al interpreted this as meaning that, in this experiment, popularity did not affect whether the volunteers really enjoyed the songs or not.

Instead, activity in some other areas was associated with conformism:

we found a positive interaction in bilateral anterior insula, ACC/SMA, and frontal poles. Given the known roles of the anterior insula and ACC in the cortical pain matrix, this suggests that feelings of anxiety accompanied the act of conforming....Interestingly, the negative interaction revealed significant differences in the middle temporal gyrus... the popularity sensitive individuals showed significantly less activation. This suggests that sensitivity to popularity is also linked to less active listening.

*

This paper is a good example of using neuroimaging data to try to test psychological theories, in this case, the theory that social pressure influences musical enjoyment. This is makes it better than many fMRI studies because, as I have warned, without a theory to test it's all too easy to just make up a psychological story to explain any given pattern of neural responses.

But there's still an element of this here: the authors suggest that conformism is motivated by anxiety, not because anyone reported suffering anxiety, but purely because it was associated with activity in the anterior insula etc. This is putting a lot of faith in the idea that anterior insula etc activity means anxiety - it could mean a lot of other things. There's also the question of whether letting people rate the songs for the first time before telling them about the popularity is the best way of measuring social pressures.

The most serious omission in this study, however, is that we're not told about the correlations between music preference and conformism. The world needs to know: are kids who like "Alternative/Emo/Indie" music free-thinkers, or are they really the biggest conformists of all? The paper doesn't tell us. In the absence of empirical evidence, we'll have to rely on South Park...

Stan: But if life is only pain, then...what's the point of living?
Fringe-flicking Goth: Just to make life more miserable for the conformists. (flicks fringe)
Stan: Alright, so how do I join you?
Goth Leader: If you wanna be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do.
- South Park, "Raisins"

Berns, G., Capra, C., Moore, S., & Noussair, C. (2010). Neural mechanisms of the influence of popularity on adolescent ratings of music NeuroImage, 49 (3), 2687-2696 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.070

The Neuroscience of MySpace

How does popularity affect how we judge music?

We tend to say we like what other people like. No-one wants to stand out and risk ridicule by saying they don't enjoy universally loved bands, like The Beatles... unless they're trying to fit into a subculture where everyone hates The Beatles.

But do people just pretend to like what others like, or can perceived popularity actually change musical preferences? Do The Beatles actually sound better because we know everyone loves them? An amusing Neuroimage study from Berns et al aimed to answer this question with the help of 27 American teens, an fMRI scanner, and MySpace.

The teens were played 15 second clips of music, and had to rate each one a 5 star scale of quality. Before the experiment they listed their preferred musical genres, and they were only given music from genres they liked. To make sure no-one had heard the songs before, the researchers went on MySpace and found unsigned artists...

A total of 20 songs were downloaded in each of the following genres: Rock, Country, Alternative/Emo/Indie, Hip-Hop/Rap, Jazz/Blues, and Metal (identified by the MySpace category).

The twist was that each song was played twice: the first time with no information about its popularity, and then again, either with or without a 5 star popularity score shown on the screen. Cleverly, this was based on the number of MySpace downloads. This meant that the subjects had a chance to change their rating based on what they'd just learned about the song's popularity.

What happened? Compared to doing nothing, hearing music activated large chunks of the brain, which is not very surprising. In some areas, activity correlated with how highly the listener rated the song:

The regions showing activity correlated with likability were largely distinct from the auditory network and were restricted to bilateral caudate nuclei, and right lateral prefrontal cortices (middle and inferior gyri). Negative correlations with likability were observed in bilateral supramarginal gyri, left insula, and several small frontal regions.

The headline result is that a song's popularity did not correlate with activity in this "liking music network", and nor did activity in these areas correlate with each teen's individual "conformism" score, i.e. how willing they were to change their ratings in response to learning about the song's popularity. Berns et al interpreted this as meaning that, in this experiment, popularity did not affect whether the volunteers really enjoyed the songs or not.

Instead, activity in some other areas was associated with conformism:

we found a positive interaction in bilateral anterior insula, ACC/SMA, and frontal poles. Given the known roles of the anterior insula and ACC in the cortical pain matrix, this suggests that feelings of anxiety accompanied the act of conforming....Interestingly, the negative interaction revealed significant differences in the middle temporal gyrus... the popularity sensitive individuals showed significantly less activation. This suggests that sensitivity to popularity is also linked to less active listening.

*

This paper is a good example of using neuroimaging data to try to test psychological theories, in this case, the theory that social pressure influences musical enjoyment. This is makes it better than many fMRI studies because, as I have warned, without a theory to test it's all too easy to just make up a psychological story to explain any given pattern of neural responses.

But there's still an element of this here: the authors suggest that conformism is motivated by anxiety, not because anyone reported suffering anxiety, but purely because it was associated with activity in the anterior insula etc. This is putting a lot of faith in the idea that anterior insula etc activity means anxiety - it could mean a lot of other things. There's also the question of whether letting people rate the songs for the first time before telling them about the popularity is the best way of measuring social pressures.

The most serious omission in this study, however, is that we're not told about the correlations between music preference and conformism. The world needs to know: are kids who like "Alternative/Emo/Indie" music free-thinkers, or are they really the biggest conformists of all? The paper doesn't tell us. In the absence of empirical evidence, we'll have to rely on South Park...

Stan: But if life is only pain, then...what's the point of living?
Fringe-flicking Goth: Just to make life more miserable for the conformists. (flicks fringe)
Stan: Alright, so how do I join you?
Goth Leader: If you wanna be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do.
- South Park, "Raisins"

Berns, G., Capra, C., Moore, S., & Noussair, C. (2010). Neural mechanisms of the influence of popularity on adolescent ratings of music NeuroImage, 49 (3), 2687-2696 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.070

The War on "Interesting"

My New Year's Blog Resolution - no more calling things "interesting".

While writing, I sometimes find myself searching for an adjective to attach to something I've just mentioned, words to explain why I think it's relevant. It's... no... it's kind of... hmm... It's interesting, is what it is! Phew. Now I can move on. Anything can be "interesting" - a book, a blog post, an article, an event, an idea, a movement, a prediction, an argument.

Calling something interesting is effortless; easy; it's a one-size-fits-all term. If you can't think of anything else to say, you can at least say that. Which is why people do. I know I'm not alone in this.

But "interesting" is a cop-out. It adds nothing. If you're taking the trouble of writing about something, it should be taken as read that you think it's interesting. The whole point is to explain why - to tell people what's special about it. Does it present new evidence? If so, is it reliable? Does it introduce a new distinction, a new vocabulary, a new way of thinking? If so, why is it a good one?

Sadly it's easier to just call something interesting than to explain why it is. Partly this is because "interesting" (or "fascinating", "thought-provoking", "intriguing", "notable" etc.) is just one word, and it's easier to write one word than a sentence. More important is the fact that you probably don't know why you're interested by something until you do some thinking about it.

Don't duck out of doing that thinking. It's intellectual laziness. Even more so is to say that you're not sure if something is true, but it sure is interesting. "It's not necessarily true, but it's a fascinating thought" - is it? why?

Are you interested by the possibility that it's true, so if you learned that it was definitely false, it would become boring? Or is it one of those ideas that's interesting "in itself"? If so, why? Because it's an influential idea in a political or historical sense? Because it sheds light on the minds of the people who believe it? Are you sure that your interest isn't a kind of repressed belief? Are you really "only interested", or do you see something you like? If so, why not say so?

So, I'm quitting the habit, cold turkey, as of now. No more will I reach for the "interesting" button whenever I'm stuck for words. With any luck, this will make my writing a little bit more interes... hmm.

The War on "Interesting"

My New Year's Blog Resolution - no more calling things "interesting".

While writing, I sometimes find myself searching for an adjective to attach to something I've just mentioned, words to explain why I think it's relevant. It's... no... it's kind of... hmm... It's interesting, is what it is! Phew. Now I can move on. Anything can be "interesting" - a book, a blog post, an article, an event, an idea, a movement, a prediction, an argument.

Calling something interesting is effortless; easy; it's a one-size-fits-all term. If you can't think of anything else to say, you can at least say that. Which is why people do. I know I'm not alone in this.

But "interesting" is a cop-out. It adds nothing. If you're taking the trouble of writing about something, it should be taken as read that you think it's interesting. The whole point is to explain why - to tell people what's special about it. Does it present new evidence? If so, is it reliable? Does it introduce a new distinction, a new vocabulary, a new way of thinking? If so, why is it a good one?

Sadly it's easier to just call something interesting than to explain why it is. Partly this is because "interesting" (or "fascinating", "thought-provoking", "intriguing", "notable" etc.) is just one word, and it's easier to write one word than a sentence. More important is the fact that you probably don't know why you're interested by something until you do some thinking about it.

Don't duck out of doing that thinking. It's intellectual laziness. Even more so is to say that you're not sure if something is true, but it sure is interesting. "It's not necessarily true, but it's a fascinating thought" - is it? why?

Are you interested by the possibility that it's true, so if you learned that it was definitely false, it would become boring? Or is it one of those ideas that's interesting "in itself"? If so, why? Because it's an influential idea in a political or historical sense? Because it sheds light on the minds of the people who believe it? Are you sure that your interest isn't a kind of repressed belief? Are you really "only interested", or do you see something you like? If so, why not say so?

So, I'm quitting the habit, cold turkey, as of now. No more will I reach for the "interesting" button whenever I'm stuck for words. With any luck, this will make my writing a little bit more interes... hmm.

Neuro4Kids Stuff

Neuroscience For Kids is a long-standing website hosted by the University of Washington and run by Dr. Eric H. Chudler.


It's extremely good, and even if you're no longer a kid you'll find it an interesting resource - I'm not ashamed to admit that I learned stuff from pages like this one on ancient Egyptian brain damage or the questions and answers section.

Anyway, Dr Chudler has just launched the Neuro4Kids.com store where you can buy brain-based items. I particularly like the Stroop effect bag (also t-shirt) and the "I misplaced my brain" late-birthday cards...

Neuro4Kids Stuff

Neuroscience For Kids is a long-standing website hosted by the University of Washington and run by Dr. Eric H. Chudler.


It's extremely good, and even if you're no longer a kid you'll find it an interesting resource - I'm not ashamed to admit that I learned stuff from pages like this one on ancient Egyptian brain damage or the questions and answers section.

Anyway, Dr Chudler has just launched the Neuro4Kids.com store where you can buy brain-based items. I particularly like the Stroop effect bag (also t-shirt) and the "I misplaced my brain" late-birthday cards...

Barack Obama Boosts Testosterone

But only if you voted for him, and only if you're a man. That's according to a PLoS One paper called Dominance, Politics, and Physiology.

It's already known that in males, winning competitions - achieving "dominance" - causes a rapid rise in testosterone release, whilst losing does the opposite. That's true in humans, as well as in other mammals. The authors wondered whether the same thing happens when men "win" vicariously - i.e. when someone we identify with triumphs.

What better way of testing this than the U.S. Presidential Election? The authors took 163 American voters, and got them to provide saliva samples before, during and after the results came in on the night of the 4th November. Here's what happened -

In Obama supporters (the blue line, natch), salivary testosterone levels stayed flat throughout the crucial hours. But supporters of John McCain or Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, suffered a testosterone crash after Obama's victory became apparent. That was only true in men, though; in women, there was no change.

Heh. Of course, we hardly needed biology to tell us that people often identify strongly with their preferred political parties, and the fact that social events cause hormonal changes shouldn't surprise anyone - the brain controls the secretion of most hormones.

The gender difference is interesting, though. Does this mean that men identify closer with politicians? Or maybe only with male ones - what would have happened if Hilary had won... or Palin? It could be that the testosterone surge accompanying success is strictly a man thing, although it's been shown to occur in women in some studies, but not consistently.

Finally, I should mention that this paper contains some excellent quotes, such as "...Robert Barr, who arguably did not have a chance of winning...", "In retrospective reports of their affective state upon the announcement of Obama as the president-elect, McCain and Barr voters felt significantly more unhappy" and my favourite, "men who voted for John McCain or Bob Barr (losers)". That last one may be taken slightly out of context.

Stanton, S., Beehner, J., Saini, E., Kuhn, C., & LaBar, K. (2009). Dominance, Politics, and Physiology: Voters' Testosterone Changes on the Night of the 2008 United States Presidential Election PLoS ONE, 4 (10) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007543

Barack Obama Boosts Testosterone

But only if you voted for him, and only if you're a man. That's according to a PLoS One paper called Dominance, Politics, and Physiology.

It's already known that in males, winning competitions - achieving "dominance" - causes a rapid rise in testosterone release, whilst losing does the opposite. That's true in humans, as well as in other mammals. The authors wondered whether the same thing happens when men "win" vicariously - i.e. when someone we identify with triumphs.

What better way of testing this than the U.S. Presidential Election? The authors took 163 American voters, and got them to provide saliva samples before, during and after the results came in on the night of the 4th November. Here's what happened -

In Obama supporters (the blue line, natch), salivary testosterone levels stayed flat throughout the crucial hours. But supporters of John McCain or Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, suffered a testosterone crash after Obama's victory became apparent. That was only true in men, though; in women, there was no change.

Heh. Of course, we hardly needed biology to tell us that people often identify strongly with their preferred political parties, and the fact that social events cause hormonal changes shouldn't surprise anyone - the brain controls the secretion of most hormones.

The gender difference is interesting, though. Does this mean that men identify closer with politicians? Or maybe only with male ones - what would have happened if Hilary had won... or Palin? It could be that the testosterone surge accompanying success is strictly a man thing, although it's been shown to occur in women in some studies, but not consistently.

Finally, I should mention that this paper contains some excellent quotes, such as "...Robert Barr, who arguably did not have a chance of winning...", "In retrospective reports of their affective state upon the announcement of Obama as the president-elect, McCain and Barr voters felt significantly more unhappy" and my favourite, "men who voted for John McCain or Bob Barr (losers)". That last one may be taken slightly out of context.

Stanton, S., Beehner, J., Saini, E., Kuhn, C., & LaBar, K. (2009). Dominance, Politics, and Physiology: Voters' Testosterone Changes on the Night of the 2008 United States Presidential Election PLoS ONE, 4 (10) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007543

Spot The Difference

As part of my extensive research into the famous dead fish brain scanning study, I decided to read a little bit about the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), the fish which started it all.

It turns out, at least according to Wikipedia, that there are various interesting things about this species, for example, it's "much more aggressive than other salmon". Who knew?

However, by far the most interesting thing is that developing salmon embryos are about the cutest things in the world, and look exactly like smiley faces, or maybe Pacman. Those dark spots really are the eyes.

Endless forms most beautiful, indeed.

Spot The Difference

As part of my extensive research into the famous dead fish brain scanning study, I decided to read a little bit about the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), the fish which started it all.

It turns out, at least according to Wikipedia, that there are various interesting things about this species, for example, it's "much more aggressive than other salmon". Who knew?

However, by far the most interesting thing is that developing salmon embryos are about the cutest things in the world, and look exactly like smiley faces, or maybe Pacman. Those dark spots really are the eyes.

Endless forms most beautiful, indeed.

Puff the Illusionary Dragon

There's a lot of interest in visual illusions at the moment thanks to an excellent article over at Seed, This Picture Is Not Moving.

A while back I wrote about the Hollow Face Illusion in which a hollow (concave) mask of a face appears to be a solid (convex) face and I posted a seriously freaky video featuring Charlie Chaplin. But reader "Jake" just pointed out an even better example of the same illusion, the Paper Dragon.

See the video above. If you like what you see, you can make your own paper dragon by printing out this .pdf here. It only takes 10 minutes, scissors and a bit of sticky tape. I highly recommend it, the effect is astonishing - it really looks as though the dragon's head is moving. You may need to close one eye to get the full experience. (The dragon was designed by ThinkFun).

The dragon, like the Charlie Chaplin mask, is an example of the "depth inversion" effect. Our visual system assumes that objects are convex, rather than concave, especially when those objects are familiar things like faces.

In my opinion the most interesting thing about the phenomena, and indeed with all illusions, is that concious belief cannot override the effect. I know that the dragon's head is concave, I folded it up and stuck it together myself. Yet I still see it as convex. This is strong evidence for the modularity of mind. But that's another story.

Puff the Illusionary Dragon

There's a lot of interest in visual illusions at the moment thanks to an excellent article over at Seed, This Picture Is Not Moving.

A while back I wrote about the Hollow Face Illusion in which a hollow (concave) mask of a face appears to be a solid (convex) face and I posted a seriously freaky video featuring Charlie Chaplin. But reader "Jake" just pointed out an even better example of the same illusion, the Paper Dragon.

See the video above. If you like what you see, you can make your own paper dragon by printing out this .pdf here. It only takes 10 minutes, scissors and a bit of sticky tape. I highly recommend it, the effect is astonishing - it really looks as though the dragon's head is moving. You may need to close one eye to get the full experience. (The dragon was designed by ThinkFun).

The dragon, like the Charlie Chaplin mask, is an example of the "depth inversion" effect. Our visual system assumes that objects are convex, rather than concave, especially when those objects are familiar things like faces.

In my opinion the most interesting thing about the phenomena, and indeed with all illusions, is that concious belief cannot override the effect. I know that the dragon's head is concave, I folded it up and stuck it together myself. Yet I still see it as convex. This is strong evidence for the modularity of mind. But that's another story.