False Memory vs Constructive Memory: A case study of BW

Source

Subject BW is a 55 year old male with 12 years of education plus 18 college credits. For the past 34 years he has been employed in journalism. His case was brought to attention when his dramatic first-person story that he’s told and retold since 2003 of being in a helicopter near another helicopter that was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq suddenly morphed into a different story where his helicopter was the one that was hit. In the aftermath of this change in story he was suspended from his job, with all signs that he will be fired. Previously, I showed that everyone's stories change over time, where details are changed, details are added and details are omitted (Kurczek, 2014). Everyone has heard of fishing tales where the fish gets bigger and bigger every telling, but not everyone tells their story over and over again on camera. I've since seen story after story after story about false memories and while I was impressed with the slate article (except for the blatant plugging of their book), I can't see why false memories keep being brought up.

Episodic memory, our memory for the events we experience in life is inexorably linked with episodic narrative, how we tell the stories of our memories. However, does the episodic narrative of an episodic memory constitute the entire memory? Stories are altered by the contexts that we are in including the people that we are telling our memory to (your friend versus your parent versus a research assistant) and the time (i.e. how much time you have to talk and how long its been since the experience). Is someone lying because their narrative of their memory changes in different contexts? This is not to say that contextual changes mean that instead of a helicopter in front of you getting hit be a RPG its all of a sudden your helicopter, but makes the point that our memories are inherently labile, constantly going through changes as they are disused or updated in subsequent re-experiencing. Few people's lives are documented as news anchors, politicians, and celebrities (the other cases highlighted in the slate article) so our own fibs, embellishments and misremembered events are brought to light and to shame at the same frequency. BW's downfall, as with previous politicians stems from our perceived belief that they be trustworthy, how can you trust anything someone says when one of their memories appears to be a lie? In the future we may be able to go to the tape, but for now we just have to understand that (almost) all of our memories are flawed and constructed from bits and pieces of what we perceived to be the experience and (un)motivated remembering and forgetting of the experience in the time since.

P.S. How does one become a quoted expert, do you have to write a book or something? Considering that my dissertation included a chapter on narrative and memory and how narratives change over time in healthy individuals and individuals with amnesia, I think I may have been of service in this case. I guess this blog will have to do for now

VTA Marketing

Are you still using 20th century techniques based in psychology to sell your products? Well move into the 21st century and get your products sold through neuroscience marketing. Amygdala, dopamine, frontal cortex, serotonin, emotion, decision-making, all of these interact to create a space where a product is either bought or not. By hacking the neurocognitive architecture involved in reward and decision-making, we create a perceptuo-emotional experience that influences both episodic and procedural memory, altering future buying behavior. Scientifically evaluated by our team that includes at least one cognitive neuroscientist, our p-hacked, post-hoc and underpowered analyses will overwhelm you with our ability to beat other marketing approaches. We'll show with psychophysiological, eyetracking and fMRI studies how we tap into the brain to make your product the bell and your customers Pavlov's dogs. Mention the keyword EngagedBrain to receive a discount on our "Amygdala" package and scare 10% off your order price.

Disclaimer: This is a work of satire. In the tradition of A Prairie Home Companion, this ad, among others, will form the backbone of the underwriting and sponsorship of my podcast.

Buffet Attitudes: Everyone's a special snowflake

The recent measles outbreak has highlighted the emerging trend of picking and choosing what you want to believe or what you trust. In teaching the scientific method, one of the first tenets that is taught is skepticism and questioning everything, but it looks like we've taken that a little too far. I first came to the thought of buffet attitudes through my experience with craft beer. In my view, the rise of craft beer (along with unique tastes in other aspects of life, like food, music, etc) is closely linked to our teachings to young children in the late 80s and early 90s, that everyone is special (thanks Barney and Southpark!). Politicians are somewhat dumbfounded by millennial behavior as their beliefs appear to be more liberal (particularly in social issues), yet are more likely to call themselves politically independent. Likewise, millennials are less likely to be religiously affiliated than previous generations (in some areas of religion this has previously been termed Cafeteria Christianity). Common across these trends is the "buffet attitudes" where younger adults are picking and choosing what they want and what they like rather than buying into beliefs or attitudes wholesale. In terms of cognitive biases, "buffet attitudes" may be called cherry picking, figuratively referring to selectively choosing points that affirm their beliefs and refute beliefs they don't hold while ignoring those that don't support their beliefs.

However, contrary to this trend toward special "snowflakness" is the pull towards wanting to be categorized in as part of a group. As Invisibilia recently discussed, when given a chance we'll often jump into one category or another and once in that category fiercely defend it (see the The Robbers Cave; Sherif, 1954; 1961 for some of my favorite social psychology experiments on group affiliation). A recent study in PLoS found that when your social identity (the group you feel you belong to) is threatened by scientific findings, you may come to devalue the findings. More broadly this speaks to a trend in science denialism (here and here).

This begs the question, how do we as scientists move to educate the general public on decisive issues? Putting out research in pay-walled journals doesn't seem to work and neither does trying to communicate that work through traditional public outlets such as radio, magazine or newspapers. Individual blogs, like this one, may have a readership that can be counted on one hand and all of these previously mentioned outlets assume that by simply putting information out there, the public will be able to parse it. We already know from the anti-vaccine movement that just putting research out there won't work (especially when one study that supports a particular position is completely fabricated). Science is built on multiple investigations from many different perspectives, theories and motivations and with the evidence summing to provide evidence that certain ideas are incorrect and other ideas are not incorrect as of yet. Because of the sea of publications each year,  it is almost impossible to wade through the evidence and form an informed conclusion about almost any issue, especially when the most accessible avenues for researching scientific issues does so through false equivalencies and "controversies." It seems like many of the problems with science communication stem from issues with how the methods of science is taught. Humans carry out science and humans are messy creatures with their own thoughts, beliefs, wishes, desires and needs. We present science as this noble and true venture that is without influence or problems instead of the complex and sometimes chaotic enterprise that it is.

Brain Game! A brain training game for your brain

Does your brain feel like its down a drain? Do you wish it weren't so plain?
Then get on the brain train and play Brain Game, a brain training game for your brain!
Its such a shame when thinking feels like a pain, take of the reins and train your brain with our game!
You'll no longer be the same and you can be vein about your brain.
Be a dame and reign over your friends with your brain when you've slain them in competition mode.
Or you can feign that you're on the same plane by detaining your results from the public.
So stop being insane, don't refrain and come obtain Brain Game.
You'll be more urbane, less inane, more off the chain, so pop the champagne and toast Brain Game.
I do proclaim that you'll not be the same because your brain wont wain with Brian Game.

Disclaimer: This is a work of satire. In the tradition of A Prairie Home Companion, this ad, among others, will form the backbone of the underwriting and sponsorship of my podcast.

Are Athletes:Sports Journalists as Researchers:Science Journalists?

In the hype leading up to the Superbowl, the biggest story may be Marshawn Lynch's interactions with reporters. This style of interaction appears to be spreading to other sports stars as well and it makes me wonder about the role of sports journalists. In today's social media dominated society sports stars and fans have more direct access to each other than ever before and as with other sectors being revolutionized by technology the middle man is being cut out.

Sports writers used to be the conduit between athletes and fans, but today athletes and fans can connect through any number of avenues from Twitter, to Facebook, to Tumblr, to personal websites or even reddit. Athletes can use any combination of these social media outlets to craft their own narrative and relationship with fans rather than relying on sports writers to dictate their image. This changing relationship between athletes and sports writers appears to be similar to what is happening between researchers and science writers. A number of researcher friends have posted and commented on this recent poll complaining about the disconnect between beliefs/perceptions of the public and scientists. So what is causing this disconnect, does the responsibility of science understanding fall to the general public, the scientists communicating their findings, or science writers translating findings from scientists to the general public? As social media has opened up new avenues of communication for athletes, it also has for researchers. Grant organizations are recognizing the importance of putting in knowledge translation plans in place before projects start. However, without the public being interested in learning about science findings, whether the information comes from science writers or researchers, translating science may just be akin to throwing paper in the wind.

The poll I linked earlier also had a number of interesting questions about the role of science in society. More than half (57%) and a little under half, (43% and 40%) of scientists thought that major problems are that  there is a lack of public interest in science, lack of media interest in science, and too few scientists communicating findings. While the public has a fairly positive view on the impact of science on society, there is a trend towards negative feelings with the public lessening in their perception of U.S. achievement in science, the contribution of science to society and the return on investment in science. So it seems that while science and researchers are attempting to reach out more than ever, the public may not want to hear it. Before science and researchers work on knowledge translation it seems that we need rehabilitate the image and trust in science and researchers.

A recent demonstration of the public's mistrust in research and higher education comes from Wisconsin where Governor Scott Walker has proposed a slashing of $300 million from the UW-system over the next 2 years in order to help balance the budge and offer the institutions more flexibility in their own governance and spending. After announcing the plan and receiving backlash he also suggested that professors teach more classes because they were not doing their jobs on the 2-2 schedule of teaching at large research institutions. This brought noted backlash from professors and others in higher-education who suggest that between research (the most highly valued asset at research institutions) teaching and service, professors spend over 50 hours a week working. However, others are unwilling to "break out the tiny violins" and see professors and researchers as underworked and overpaid. Interestingly, the article links a page that lists UW-system pay and if you look at the first page the top 3 paid employees are coaches and sports administrators while the rest of the page is almost entirely dominated by marketing, economics and law professors making a fraction of what they could make outside higher education (pay for these professors is 2-5 times higher than other disciplines because of the competition/availability of jobs from the private sector). So before we can work on knowledge translation, we need to work on the image of higher education and research so that the public can trust and be interested in research.

Edit: 1/30/2015 - I was looking more into the Wisconsin higher education budget issue and see that it parallels the battle with K-12 teachers in the state just 4 years ago with many of the same claims, that they are overpaid and underworked. It seems that much of the misunderstanding of teachers at K-12 that is magnified at higher education levels is that time spent in the classroom in front of students is the only time that should count as work.

Edit 2: 1/31/2015 - I found this article discussing the same issues and article that I mention here about the divide between the public and science/higher-ed. They offer one possible bridge with open forums for scientists and the public (in particular those who are most against various scientific findings - vaccines, GMOs, etc) to discuss issues.

Edit 3: 1/31/2015 - Great discussion on Science Friday about the Pew findings

Career Trajectories

Early in my PhD studies a mass e-mail was sent out to PhD students from researchers at the Northwestern University recruiting PhD students to take place in a study on the training and aspirations of current PhD students. The study was a longitudinal study that included in depth interviews every one to two years to assess current training and aspirations with follow-ups to assess whether those aspirations changed and whether training experiences affected aspirations. Every so often I try to find what has come from the study and in searching recently stumbled across this report from the Welcome Trust on how PhD students choose their careers. If you skip to the end of the report for the conclusions and thinking points, they sound eerily similar to the suggestions from the recent report from Post-Docs and a working group on PhD education. 

MORE CAREER ADVICE AND SUPPORT DURING THE PHD

1. Help with planning careers and making grants applications to aid the transition to next stage.
2. Continue and enhance current networking opportunities. Access to information about different sorts of careers within and outside academia, provided early in the PhD.
3. For those who are struggling during the PhD, a system of mentoring with other scientists and researchers in the field would be welcomed, and could help give them a wider perspective

DEVELOPING NEW INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO CAREERS IN, OR WITH, ACADEMIA

1. Considering the opportunities for research posts which involve academic research, but are not solely based in academia. This might include jointly-funded research posts in institutions, or industry sponsorship of research posts.
2. A range of flexible technical scientist roles. Scrutinize the PI role and see if this can be broken down and split into more than one role, for example one focusing on project management, the other on laboratory work.
3. Allow scientists to take up part-time or temporary research related roles, such as project management and managing a research budget, at different times in their careers to allow for more family-friendly work and regular hours. PhD experience – knowing how academia works and how to communicate with academics – would be invaluable for such roles.

CHANGE TO ACADEMIC CULTURE AND WORKING PRACTICES

1. Remove funding criteria which require PhDs to relocate and consider research into the extent to which moving around benefits the scientist or the science outputs.
2. Institutions to learn from family-friendly innovations and systems in other sectors that enable people with children to pursue careers, for example challenging the notion that long hours equate to productivity.
3. Potential for fewer academic funding awards, but for longer time periods.
4. More investment in staff and career progression, in line with what is common in other industries, so that PhDs can realistically plan their careers.
5. Institutions should find ways of incorporating new academics more into the ‘corporate world’ of the university, potentially through guaranteed teaching posts over time.
6. Effective ‘line management’ could be valued more in academia. This may involve training for senior scientists as well as juniors, plus incentives in the university system so that coaching, support and mentoring can be increased and valued.
7. Create awareness and raise the profile of a range of role models who have come to successful science careers through a variety of different routes and backgrounds. Challenge the prevailing opinion, evident in this study, that the Principal Investigator is the main and only career option for newly qualified post-doctoral researchers.
8. Women could also benefit from seeing more female role models following careers in academic research. This would be particularly valuable if accompanied by information on their backgrounds and how they have overcome any challenges.
9. Ensure that there is good communication and dialogue about working benefits that do exist within academia (often more comprehensive than those that exist in other sectors), such as maternity leave provision and the options for working more flexibly within academic research.
10. More information and research is needed on whether moving posts or institution, if pursuing a career in academic research, is actually of long term value to researchers. As science becomes more international, virtual technologies are helping to forge collaborations without the requirement for face-to-face contact.
11. There is a perception that it is a ‘requirement’ for a researcher to have moved posts to successfully apply for a certain grant; if this is a myth, then funders need to better communicate this.
12. Challenge the ingrained perception that working in industry equates to intellectual constraint while academia means intellectual freedom. One participant told us that new biotech companies offer legitimate opportunities to publish, but that academics do not necessarily know about. Knowing more about the world of industry may help early career scientists weigh up all the opportunities open to them to remain in science.

Reading through the rest of the report is quite interesting. Many of the quotes from participants could have easily come from graduate students and post-docs that I've known. The sobering part of the report is that there is no end in sight. With stagnate demand for new faculty hires and an ever growing glut of PhD graduates and post-docs these issues are likely to get worse before they get better.

Neuroeducation and Brain Games

I've previously written about the issues surrounding brain games and it looks like the question of whether the claims that these games make are true or not is being decided by the FTC. This is about just one company, Focus Education, an "edutainment" software producer whose game, Jungle Rangers, was claimed to have been scientifically proven to improve school performance, attention and behavior even going as far as to claim it could alleviate ADHD symptoms. While the company only made $4.5 million in an industry that pulled in over $1.3 billion last year, it may be the canary in the mine.

Looking at the Focus Education website I can't seem to find any specific claims about what the program will do. More interestingly however is the complete lack of scientific investigation into the product mentioned on the page. I tried to track down the publications from their team and of the three researchers, it appears that Dr. Kerns is the only expert publishing on attention and in ADHD populations. However, on her webpage she doesn't have any trials investigating the effect of the brain training game within the last few years.

This case speaks to many of the problems that the Stanford Center on Longevity raised in their open letter about Brain Games.

Here are summarized versions of their 5 claims again:
1. More research needs to be done.
2. Other lifestyle changes (i.e. exercise, sleep, stress, diet, social interaction) are better studied alternatives that show cognitive benefits
3. The claims made should be verified by multiple independent labs and compared against active instead of treatment as usual interventions
4. No study has shown a brain game to prevent Alzheimer's Disease
5. Training is not like a vaccine, it is a continuous process that without work loses its effect

I'll be interested to see if more claims are charged against companies or if companies see this warning shot and are changing their marketing and web presences.