An interesting article from Cool News talks about the differences in dog brains vs cats and even rats. I think it may also be impacted by other senses such as sense of smell when it comes to locating food sources but the differences in the way the brain enable retention, even in animals, corroborates our brain synchrony findings.
The genius of dogs is in their relationship with humans, write Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, authors of The Genius of Dogs, in The Wall Street Journal. While other language-trained animals can "learn to respond to
dozens of spoken signals associated with different objects," dogs are
the only animals that have demonstrated an ability to learn the names of
objects the same way humans do. A 2004 experiment by Juliane Kaminski
of University of Portsmouth in Britain, involved a dog named Rico, who
could infer the name of a new toy simply because the name was different
from that of the toys he already knew, just like a human.
Dogs have only "half as many neurons in their cerebral cortex as
cats," but apparently have better memories. "Several years ago, Sylvain
Fiset of Canada's University of Moncton and colleagues reported
experiments in which a dog or cat watched while a researcher hid a
reward in one of four boxes. After a delay, they were allowed to search
for a treat. Cats started guessing after only one minute. But even after
four minutes, dogs hadn't forgotten where they saw the food." Okay, so
maybe the cats are just too smart to be bothered with "playing our
silly games."
Dogs are not as bright when it comes to "navigational memory." Rats --
not cats this time -- performed better at finding food through a maze.
In a contest against wolves, dogs were not as adept at figuring out how
to get at food "placed on the opposite side of a fence, as shown by a
study by Harry and Martha Frank of the University of Michigan." However,
a later study out of Hungary found that dogs solved the problem
immediately after observing "a human rounding the fence first,"
suggesting that "the secret of the genius of dogs" is when they "join
forces with us."
Our Brains Can't Chew Popcorn and Listen At The Same Time
One of the conclusions we reached in our brain synchrony work is that when different parts of the brain (sound, text, patterns, colors, movement, for example) are stimulated at the same time from the same stimuli, that helps us retain messages. So when scientists found that chewing while listening disrupts comprehension, we were not surprised.
According to Bloomberg Businessweek (10/28/13) and as reported by Cool News, researchers at the University of Cologne conducted a test where half the subjects were given a sugar cube during the pre-movie commercials, while the other half was given popcorn. A week later, all of the subjects were exposed to images of the advertised products and the "sugar-cube moviegoers had a clear preference" for them "while the popcorn eaters didn’t. In other words, the ads hadn’t stuck with them
According to Bloomberg Businessweek (10/28/13) and as reported by Cool News, researchers at the University of Cologne conducted a test where half the subjects were given a sugar cube during the pre-movie commercials, while the other half was given popcorn. A week later, all of the subjects were exposed to images of the advertised products and the "sugar-cube moviegoers had a clear preference" for them "while the popcorn eaters didn’t. In other words, the ads hadn’t stuck with them
The result had nothing to do
with popcorn, per se. The reason is that when people read or hear
something, "the brain simulates the corresponding muscle movement of the
throat and mouth … Chewing, however, disrupts the process by
monopolizing the speech muscles (unlike eating a sugar cube, which
dissolves on its own), effectively drowning out any subvocalization and,
with it, the process of familiarization."
An earlier study produced a
similar result when subjects were chewing gum (or not). The research
undermines conventional wisdom that "mere exposure" to an image or
message "predisposes people to liking it." It also "has ramifications"
beyond advertising, as "there are plenty of settings in which people are
trying to absorb new information while eating – the working breakfast,
the client dinner, the lunch consumed resentfully at one’s desk while
trying to catch up on e-mail. Those might all be occasions in which
we’re not taking in information as easily as calories."
SyncSense in MultiChannel News
Neuroscience Tools for Better Tune-In Promos and More
By: Gary Arlen Aug 28 2013 - 3:35am
In your Psych 101 class (or when you started to create PowerPoint presentations), you learned to reinforce messages by coordinating visual and verbal ingredients. In the neuroscience course, which you probably didn’t take, you would learn how to boost that eye/ear reinforcement even further via “brain synchronization.”
So if you got a job in advertising or promotion, you’d use a tool to optimize the simultaneous impact. Cable networks including TNT, AMC Networks, HBO and We, along with ABC News and NBC News have been quietly testing “SyncSense,” a software tool that makes sure the synchronization is instant. Even a 1/10th- second delay can reduce the impact, says Daniel Fischer, a co-founder of the eponymous company.
Moreover, SyncScore – a measurement system that is part of the company’s service – tracks message recognition. In a project for AMC, SyncScore identified an uptick of 17% to 36% in recall levels for synched promotions within the 25 to 54 year old age bracket; the major variable was the placement of a synched message within an advertising pod.
Initially, SyncSense is concentrating on tune-in promotions, including on-network video messages as well as program intro segments; those few moments at the top of the hour are crucial attention-getting opportunities while viewers are surfing around to choose a show to watch.
“It improves audience retention during breaks,” Fischer emphasizes, focusing on the company’s primary selling point: retaining viewers.
Tightly coordinating voice/text messages are already a fundamental part of commercials, especially direct response and infomercials. Fischer, an alumnus of Nielsen, Discovery and Warner Cable, believes that the neural connections can also be used in reality programs, movies, dramas and short-form videos, such as the fast-evolving online video sector.
He and his colleagues, who include John Ford (formerly of Discovery and National Geographic Channel) and Charlene Weisler (an ex-AMC executive), acknowledge the challenge of introducing a new production tool to advertisers and TV promotion departments that have an established format for producing their video materials. SyncSense is emphasizing the measurement factor, which is at the core of its own revenue model.
The system has been used on more than 80 shows, ranging from HBO’s “Real Sports” to NBC Nightly News. SyncScore ratings (developed in collaboration with Nielsen data) show that tightly synched voice/text delivery increases full-show ratings by at least 2.8% and up to 7.4% in the youngest – and most fidgety – age brackets. Fischer and his team are promoting these viewership bumps as a way to drive viewers “more efficiently from promos to programs,” which leads to improved Nielsen results and higher ad rates, as he repeatedly points out.
The company’s patent-pending technology optimizes brain sync, which in turn increases attention. SyncSense is also exploring other multi-input factors that can increase viewer attention, such as the context of on-screen messages. Included in this dimension are color, movement, luminance, shapes, patterns and even what Fischer calls “gestalt criteria.” Collectively, these ingredients can be used in various combinations to trigger those neural sensors that reinforce video messages.
Plug that into your brain next time you’re looking for something to watch.
Mind Reading Computer Could Communicate with Coma Patients
Canadian researchers have developing a mind-reading computer that could help communicate with people in a coma.
The University of Western Ontario researchers used neuroimaging to read human thoughts via brain activity when they are conveying specific ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. The team say their research could lead to dramatic new ways of attempting to communicate with patients in a vegetative state.
In the study, participants were asked to concentrate on a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to questions like 'Are you married?' or 'Do you have brothers and sisters?' and only think their response, not speak it. By analyzing their brain activity, the team were able to accurately read their answers to a series of questions.
Their findings were published in The Journal of Neuroscience in a study titled, The Brain's Silent Messenger: Using Selective Attention to Decode Human Thought for Brain-Based Communication.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2333861/Mind-reading-communicate-people-coma-Researchers-say-understand-answers-simple-questions-using-brain-scans.html#ixzz2VC7XUvkQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The University of Western Ontario researchers used neuroimaging to read human thoughts via brain activity when they are conveying specific ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. The team say their research could lead to dramatic new ways of attempting to communicate with patients in a vegetative state.
In the study, participants were asked to concentrate on a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to questions like 'Are you married?' or 'Do you have brothers and sisters?' and only think their response, not speak it. By analyzing their brain activity, the team were able to accurately read their answers to a series of questions.
Their findings were published in The Journal of Neuroscience in a study titled, The Brain's Silent Messenger: Using Selective Attention to Decode Human Thought for Brain-Based Communication.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2333861/Mind-reading-communicate-people-coma-Researchers-say-understand-answers-simple-questions-using-brain-scans.html#ixzz2VC7XUvkQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Why We Love Beautiful Things
This article from the New York Times alludes to the type pf work we do here at SyncSense. That is, there are some stimuli that impacts the brain in a very viseral, psychological manner that can make us more attuned to messages, more engaged in content and more apt to take action on messaging.
The full article can be accessed here. The following is an excerpt:
GREAT design, the management expert Gary Hamel once said, is like Justice Potter Stewart’s famous definition of pornography — you know it when you see it. You want it, too: brain scan studies reveal that the sight of an attractive product can trigger the part of the motor cerebellum that governs hand movement. Instinctively, we reach out for attractive things; beauty literally moves us.
The full article can be accessed here. The following is an excerpt:
GREAT design, the management expert Gary Hamel once said, is like Justice Potter Stewart’s famous definition of pornography — you know it when you see it. You want it, too: brain scan studies reveal that the sight of an attractive product can trigger the part of the motor cerebellum that governs hand movement. Instinctively, we reach out for attractive things; beauty literally moves us.
Yet, while we are drawn to good design, as Mr. Hamel points out, we’re not quite sure why.
This is starting to change. A revolution in the science of design is
already under way, and most people, including designers, aren’t even
aware of it.
Take color. Last year, German researchers found
that just glancing at shades of green can boost creativity and
motivation. It’s not hard to guess why: we associate verdant colors with
food-bearing vegetation — hues that promise nourishment.
This could partly explain why window views of landscapes, research
shows, can speed patient recovery in hospitals, aid learning in
classrooms and spur productivity in the workplace. In studies of call centers, for example, workers who could see the outdoors
completed tasks 6 to 7 percent more efficiently than those who
couldn’t, generating an annual savings of nearly $3,000 per employee.
In some cases the same effect can happen with a photographic or even
painted mural, whether or not it looks like an actual view of the
outdoors. Corporations invest heavily to understand what incentivizes
employees, and it turns out that a little color and a mural could do the
trick.
Certain patterns also have universal appeal. Natural fractals —
irregular, self-similar geometry — occur virtually everywhere in nature:
in coastlines and riverways, in snowflakes and leaf veins, even in our
own lungs. In recent years, physicists have found that people invariably
prefer a certain mathematical density of fractals — not too thick, not
too sparse. The theory is that this particular pattern echoes the shapes
of trees, specifically the acacia, on the African savanna, the place
stored in our genetic memory from the cradle of the human race. To
paraphrase one biologist, beauty is in the genes of the beholder — home
is where the genome is.
We respond so dramatically to this pattern that it can reduce stress
levels by as much as 60 percent — just by being in our field of vision.
One researcher has calculated
that since Americans spend $300 billion a year dealing with
stress-related illness, the economic benefits of these shapes, widely
applied, could be in the billions.
What Our Brains Can Tell Us
This recent article from the New York Times helps give insight into they type of neuroscience we practice here at SyncSense. The connection of neurons and how they are connected is the basis to creating more effective videos that optimize viewer connection, awareness and engagement. Read on...
AFTER President Obama’s recent announcement of a plan to invigorate the study of neuroscience with what could amount to a $3 billion investment, a reasonable taxpayer might ask: Why brain science? Why now?
AFTER President Obama’s recent announcement of a plan to invigorate the study of neuroscience with what could amount to a $3 billion investment, a reasonable taxpayer might ask: Why brain science? Why now?
Here’s why. Imagine you were an alien catching sight of the Earth. Your
species knows nothing about humans, let alone how to interpret the
interactions of seven billion people in complex social networks. With no
acquaintance with the nuances of human language or behavior, it proves
impossible to decipher the secret idiom of neighborhoods and
governments, the interplay of local and global culture, or the
intertwining economies of nations. It just looks like pandemonium, a
meaningless Babel.
So it goes with the brain. We are the aliens in that landscape, and the
brain is an even more complicated cipher. It is composed of 100 billion
electrically active cells called neurons, each connected to many
thousands of its neighbors. Each neuron relays information in the form
of miniature voltage spikes, which are then converted into chemical
signals that bridge the gap to other neurons. Most neurons send these
signals many times per second; if each signaling event were to make a
sound as loud as a pin dropping, the cacophony from a single human head
would blow out all the windows. The complexity of such a system
bankrupts our language; observing the brain with our current
technologies, we mostly detect an enigmatic uproar.
Looking at the brain from a distance isn’t much use, nor is zooming in
to a single neuron. A new kind of science is required, one that can
track and analyze the activity of billions of neurons simultaneously.
That’s a tall order, but it’s worth it, because this is an exceptionally
personal mystery to crack. Our thoughts, desires, agonies and ecstasies
all emerge from the details of the neural landscape.
Just as an alien studying the planet could catalog several large-scale
calamities — disease epidemics, volcanic eruptions, political-feedback
loops that lead to war — so can we observe disasters transpiring in the
dense communities of our brain cells. We give them names like
neurodegeneration, stroke and epilepsy. But just because we can name
them doesn’t mean we know how to fix them. For example, we have little
idea how to mend the damage from the widespread destruction of a
traumatic brain injury (the signature injury of America’s wars). The
same goes for diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Huntington’s,
and for brain tumors, autism, dementia, paralysis and so on.
While we have improved our ability to diagnose problems, we have yet to
understand how to remedy them. Learning to better speak the language of
the brain is our best hope for turning the chaos into order, for
unmasking and addressing the hidden patterns behind disease.
But deciphering the neural code is not only about physical health.
Consider the implications for societal health. A deeper understanding of
mental illness will improve early detection, resources and
rehabilitation, potentially helping us find a way to stop using our
prisons as a de facto mental health care system. Similarly, we can
leverage brain science for a more cost-effective approach to drug crime.
We cannot win the war on drugs simply by attacking supply; we must
focus on demand. And that requires decoding the circuitry and
pharmacology in the brain of the addict.
Beyond social policy, a better understanding of the brain will steer the
future of our technologies. Smart people have been beating at the door
of artificial intelligence for decades with only limited success. Google
Translate can convert any language to any other, but understands
nothing of the content. Watson still can’t answer simple questions like,
“When President Obama walks into a room, does his nose come with him?”
Our most promising hope for creating artificial intelligence is figuring
out how natural intelligence works.
It can also usher in an era of bio-inspired machinery. You can’t pull a
piece of circuitry out of your smartphone and expect the phone to
function. But when a young child with severe epilepsy has half of her
brain surgically removed, she tends to do just fine: the remaining brain
tissue automatically rewires itself to take over responsibility for the
parts that are missing. Similarly, when an animal breaks a leg, its
brain adapts the gait of the remaining legs so the animal can keep
moving.
We don’t know how to build self-configuring machines like these. When a Mars
rover loses a wheel, our investment ends: it becomes another piece of
immovable space junk. Imagine a future in which we capitalize on the
principles of neural reconfiguration, producing devices — from
smartphones to cars to space stations — that flexibly adapt rather than
bust. For now, the brain is the only functioning example of such
futuristic machinery on our planet.
Brain health, drug rehabilitation, computer intelligence, adaptive
devices — these economic drivers would lavishly pay back any investment
in brain research. So when a taxpayer asks how to endow our country with
a confident future, you can reply, the answer is right in back of your
eyes.
David Eagleman, an assistant
professor of neuroscience at Baylor College of Medicine, is the author
of “Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.”
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 23, 2013, on page A17 of the New York edition with the headline: What Our Brains Can Teach Us.
Neuromyths
This article on neuromyths
was published on Reveries.com . It outlines three commonly held neuromyths that are actually false.
1. "The idea that we use only ten percent of our brain is patently false," report Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons in The Wall Street Journal. If you thought it was true, don't feel bad, because so do about two-thirds of the American public. Apparently the myth is perpetuated by neuroimaging research "showing only a small number of areas 'lighting up' in a brain scan, but those are just areas that have more than a base line level of activity; the dark regions aren't dormant or unused."
2. Another popular neuromyth is that "enriching children's environments will strengthen their brains." This myth "may have emerged from evidence that rats raised in cages with amenities like exercise wheels, tunnels and other rats showed better cognitive abilities and improvements in brain structure compared with rats that grew up isolated in bare cages." All that means is that a "truly impoverished and unnatural environment leads to poorer development." It doesn't mean that "constant exposure to 'Baby Einstein'-type videos ... will boost cognitive development."
3. A third neuromyth is that "students perform better when lessons are delivered in their preferred learning style." One study found that 94 percent of teachers believe this to be true, but according to a study by cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham, it is false. He's done studies that show that visual presentation leads to better memory than does verbal, but there is "no relationship between a learner's preferences and the instruction style." Another study found that many people "believe that memory works like a video recording or that they can tell when someone is staring at the back of their head."
Thank you to Tim Manners, the editor of Cool News.
1. "The idea that we use only ten percent of our brain is patently false," report Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons in The Wall Street Journal. If you thought it was true, don't feel bad, because so do about two-thirds of the American public. Apparently the myth is perpetuated by neuroimaging research "showing only a small number of areas 'lighting up' in a brain scan, but those are just areas that have more than a base line level of activity; the dark regions aren't dormant or unused."
2. Another popular neuromyth is that "enriching children's environments will strengthen their brains." This myth "may have emerged from evidence that rats raised in cages with amenities like exercise wheels, tunnels and other rats showed better cognitive abilities and improvements in brain structure compared with rats that grew up isolated in bare cages." All that means is that a "truly impoverished and unnatural environment leads to poorer development." It doesn't mean that "constant exposure to 'Baby Einstein'-type videos ... will boost cognitive development."
3. A third neuromyth is that "students perform better when lessons are delivered in their preferred learning style." One study found that 94 percent of teachers believe this to be true, but according to a study by cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham, it is false. He's done studies that show that visual presentation leads to better memory than does verbal, but there is "no relationship between a learner's preferences and the instruction style." Another study found that many people "believe that memory works like a video recording or that they can tell when someone is staring at the back of their head."
Thank you to Tim Manners, the editor of Cool News.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)