http://discovermagazine.com/rss/blog-feeds/neuroskepticNo brain. No gain.http://backend.userland.com/rssMon, 10 Jul 2017 20:06:41 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8936On Twitter, I learned that the British government is citing neuroscience studies as part of a new welfare initiative. The "Health and Work Conversation" (HWC) is a newly-introduced procedure for welfare claimants receiving support because sickness or disability impairs their ability to work. The one hour "conversation" is mandatory in most cases and it seems intended to encourage people to seek whatever work they are able to do. A Freedom of Information Act request has revealed documenMon, 10 Jul 2017 20:06:41 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8936http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/07/DWP_fMRI-1.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/07/DWP_fMRI-1.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8925A strange new paper reports "abnormal" brain activity in 10 patients with electrohypersensitivity (EHS) - a controversial condition allegedly triggered by electromagnetic fields from devices such as phones and power-lines. But the methods used in this study were very odd. According to the authors, Gunnar Heuser and Sylvia A. Heuser, the ten patients all suffered from symptoms such as Headaches, impairment of cognitive function, tremors, weakness, and others. Multi-system complaints weFri, 07 Jul 2017 09:03:15 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8925http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/07/heuser_fmri.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/07/heuser_fmri.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8918The medical journal Prenatal Diagnosis recently played host to a vigorous debate over whether a male fetus was spotted engaging in masturbation on ultrasound. The alleged case of antenatal autoeroticism was reported by Spanish gynecologists Vanesa Rodríguez Fernández and Carlos López Ramón y Cajal in September last year. Their paper was called In utero gratification behaviour in male fetus. Here's the ultrasonic evidence of the act: Rodríguez Fernández and López Ramón y Cajal wMon, 03 Jul 2017 21:16:51 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8918http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/07/prenatal_diagnosis.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/07/prenatal_diagnosis.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8911Five years ago I blogged about the debate over whether the blue-for-boys, pink-for-girls color convention used to be the other way around. My post focused on a 2012 paper by psychologist Marco Del Giudice arguing that the idea of a cultural "pink–blue reversal" in the English-speaking world in the early 20th century is a myth. Now, Del Giudice has published an 'update' revisiting the issue. Based on text data from late 19th and early 20th century American newspapers and magazines, Del GiuSun, 02 Jul 2017 10:37:33 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8911http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/07/pink-blue-boy-girl.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/07/pink-blue-boy-girl.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8906Psychologists and social scientists tend to see their research as a force for good. But can we assume this? Couldn't knowledge of human behaviour be exploited for malicious ends? As an example of what we might call the "goodness of psychology" assumption, consider this recent paper about Psychological Characteristics of Romance Scam Victims, from the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. The research is about online romance scams in which victims are convinced to sThu, 29 Jun 2017 21:50:18 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8906http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/good_bad_psychology.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/good_bad_psychology.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8899A new study examines the blurry distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs. The "hardness" of drugs is a concept that makes intuitive sense, but is difficult to put into precise terms. "Hard" drugs are those which are viewed as more addictive, more potent and more toxic than the comparatively benign "soft" variety. The concept has a normative aspect: "hard" drugs are bad, and you should avoid them, even if you use soft drugs. In the new paper, Slovakian researchers Peter Janik et al. Tue, 27 Jun 2017 19:35:21 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8899http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/hard_drugs_soft.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/hard_drugs_soft.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8886I've recently been doing some of every academic's favorite activity - marking student essays (papers). Here's a few observations on essays and on marking them. 1. Marking Essays is Subjective This is a bit of a truism: it's fairly obvious that not everyone will agree on how to grade an essay down to the exact mark. Unlike with, say, a multiple-choice exam, marking an essay is not a mechanical process. But it's easy to forget this when the marks are there in black and white (or rMon, 26 Jun 2017 19:39:13 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8886http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/3star.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/3star.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8881Media coverage of scientific retractions risks feeding a narrative that academic science is broken - a narrative which plays into the hands of those who want to cut science funding and ignore scientific advice. So say Joseph Hilgard and Kathleen Hall Jamieson in a book chapter called Science as “Broken” Versus Science as “Self-Correcting”: How Retractions and Peer-Review Problems Are Exploited to Attack Science Hilgard and Jamieson discuss two retraction scandals that readers of thMon, 19 Jun 2017 19:59:58 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8881http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2015/03/fixing_science.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2015/03/fixing_science.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8868A high-profile paper in Cell reports on a new brain stimulation method that's got many neuroscientists excited. The new technique, called temporal interference (TI) stimulation, is said to be able to reach structures deep inside the brain, using nothing more than scalp electrodes. Currently, the only way to stimulate deep brain structures is by implanting electrodes (wires) into the brain - which is an expensive and potentially dangerous surgical procedure. TI promises to make deep brain stimTue, 13 Jun 2017 18:25:28 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8868http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/grossman_cell.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/grossman_cell.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8860Even before we're born, human beings are sensitive to face-like shapes, according to a paper just published in Current Biology. British researchers Vincent M. Reid and colleagues of the University of Lancaster used lasers to project a pattern of three red dots onto the abdomen of pregnant women. The lasers were bright enough to be visible from inside the womb. The dots were arranged to be either "face-like", i.e. with two "eyes" above one "mouth", or inverted. The inverted condition was aSun, 11 Jun 2017 13:40:18 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8860http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/reid_dots.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/reid_dots.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8851Have you heard of the idea that smiling actually makes you joyful? Perhaps you know of the experiment where researchers got people to hold a pen in their mouth, so they had to smile, and it made them find cartoons funnier. If you're familiar with this idea, then you're familar with the work of German psychologist Fritz Strack, who carried out the famous pen-based grinning study, back in 1988. Now, Strack has just published a new piece, called From Data to Truth in Psychological SciFri, 09 Jun 2017 19:38:33 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8851http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/strack_emoji.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/strack_emoji.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8837Ten years ago, ketamine was a drug best known for its popularity on the rave scene. Yet it has since enjoyed a remarkable rebirth - as an antidepressant. Starting out with a handful of small clinical trials, there are now numerous reports that ketamine produces rapid antidepressant effects. In the US, various clinics have sprung up offering ketamine treatment to depressed patients - at least the ones able to pay the bill, because insurance doesn't tend to cover it. Now, a group of psychiaSun, 04 Jun 2017 11:22:24 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8837http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/ketamine_apa.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/06/ketamine_apa.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8829Good looking, sociable people don't make good scientists, according to popular stereotypes. This is one of the findings of an interesting new study of how scientists are perceived, from British researchers Ana I. Gheorghiu and colleagues. Gheorghiu et al. took 616 pictures of scientists, which they downloaded from the faculty pages at various universities. They gave the portraits to two sets of raters. The first group were asked to rate the attractiveness of the portraits and to say whetSun, 28 May 2017 13:36:24 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8829http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/scientist_attractive.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/scientist_attractive.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8806Brain responses to emotion stimuli are highly variable even within the same individual, and this could be a problem for researchers who seek to use these responses as biomarkers to help diagnose and treat disorders such as depression. That's according to a new paper in Neuroimage, from University College London neuroscientists Camilla Nord and colleagues. Nord et al. had 29 volunteers perform three tasks during fMRI scanning. All of the tasks involved pictures of emotional faces, whichWed, 24 May 2017 14:21:52 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8806http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/ICC_fmri_emotion.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/ICC_fmri_emotion.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8808What kinds of secrets does the average person keep? In a new paper, Columbia University researchers Michael L. Slepian and colleagues carried out a survey of secrets. Slepian et al. developed a 'Common Secrets Questionnaire' (CSQ) and gave it to 600 participants recruited anonymously online. Participants were asked whether they'd ever had various secrets, at any point in their lives. The results are a monument to all our sins: It turns out that extra-relational thoughts - meaning "thouSun, 21 May 2017 11:55:50 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8808http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/slepian_secrets.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/slepian_secrets.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8801Regular readers will know that I have an interest in plagiarism. Today I discovered an amusing case of plagiarism in a paper about plagiarism. The paper is called The confounding factors leading to plagiarism in academic writing and some suggested remedies. It recently appeared in the Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association (JPMA) and it's written by two Saudi Arabia-based authors, Salman Yousuf Guraya and Shaista Salman Guraya. Here's an example of the plagiarism: a 2015 paper by Wed, 17 May 2017 19:08:34 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8801http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/guraya_plagiarism-1.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/guraya_plagiarism-1.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8769Will the first human head transplant happen soon? According to Sergio Canavero, it will - and he'll be the man to do it. In 2015, Canavero announced his intention to carry out the pioneering operation, with the head being that of a Russian man, Valery Spiridonov, who has a muscle degenerative disease. The source of the donor body was never specified. More recently, Canavero has said that a Chinese patient will be the first to have their head transplanted. So who is Sergio Canavero,Sat, 13 May 2017 19:07:52 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8769http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/canavero_sergio.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/canavero_sergio.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8777Arbitrary and unfair behavior by scientific journals risks damaging the public's perception of science. Two weeks ago, the Journal of Translational Science published a paper that reported a correlation between vaccination and autism in 666 children. On Monday, the paper disappeared from their website, with no explanation or retraction notice. Google's cache still has the paper here. Retraction Watch has more details. In my view, this journal's behavior is a perfect illustration of Wed, 10 May 2017 14:30:33 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8777http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/vaccine_mawson.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/vaccine_mawson.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8771Edit: the PNAS paper discussed in this post has now been corrected. A new paper in the prestigious journal PNAS contains a rather glaring blooper. The paper, from Oxford University researchers Eiluned Pearce et al., is about the relationship between genes and social behaviour. The blooper is right there in the abstract, which states that "three neuropeptides (β-endorphin, oxytocin, and dopamine) play particularly important roles" in human sociality. But dopamine is not a neuropeptide. Mon, 08 May 2017 17:08:36 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8771http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/what_is_a_peptide.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2017/05/what_is_a_peptide.pnghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8747A paper just published in Nature Human Behaviour makes some big claims about the brain. It's called Evidence for a large-scale brain system supporting allostasis and interoception in humans, but how much is evidence and how much is speculation? The authors, Ian R. Kleckner and colleagues of Northeastern University, argue that a core function of the brain is allostasis, which they define as the process by which the brain "efficiently maintains energy regulation in the body". Allostasis entFri, 05 May 2017 18:53:00 GMThttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/?p=8747http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2014/01/brainquest1.jpghttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2014/01/brainquest1.jpg