CSB #8: Our Own Experiment!

Do you really feel what you think you feel?

My lab partner, Hannah, and I created, conducted, and wrote about our experiment together, although our writing is a little different. You can visit her blog here.

When you feel an emotion, does your heart follow the pattern of that emotion, or is that just your mind rationalizing and saying what it is supposed to feel? You see a random picture and your heart jumps or twinges or maybe does not even react at all. Whichever the case, your heart’s reaction is the true emotion you are feeling because of the long-trained “fight or flight” thought process in the brain. If your heart rate increases or decreases matching the emotion stated for that certain picture, then the person stated what he or she actually felt. If not, he or she rationalized with him or herself and told you, the scientist, what he or she was supposed to have felt. Remember this is about how much the test-subject is true to his or her own feelings; it is not to measure the person’s personality. Our hypothesis was that there would only be a few big changes (ex: leap for fear and excitement, and, after research, drops for sadness).

Keep in mind that these are pictures, the test subject’s reaction are not entirely to the actual circumstance of the picture, instead they are to the picture (i.e. seeing a real-life tarantula versus just looking at a picture of one). We chose the ten pictures to try and encourage certain emotions. Afterwards, we showed the subject the pictures again, this time asking them to write down what emotion they felt for each picture. Then, we studied the graphs in relation to which picture the subject was seeing at that point in time, what emotion they felt, and tried to make connections. Below are the pictures we used.

Our basic procedure was to ask the subject to sit in front of the heart rate sensor, hold the hand held device displayed below. Here, a test subject, is holding the device and the object taped to the table is the sensor. To collect the data, we used Vernier Logger Pro and connected it to the laptop, recording the changes in hear trate as well as the heart beat in BPM, shown in the screenshot. We had them close their eyes for 25 seconds to allow the heart rate to register and then they looked at the pictures for 5 seconds each while recording their heart rate. Afterward, they wrote down what they thought they felt for each picture after having studied it for a minute. This is the key - it was not the first reaction that they wrote down. When analyzing the data, some discrepancies between actual heart rate and the heart rate the said emotion should have prompted made us look more closely at what might be happening in the subject's mind.

Below is the screenshot of data collection.

This picture shows the heart rate sensor and general setup.

Before we interpreted the data, we had to organize it. We averaged the results to make two graphs, one for the “average change” in heart rate for males, and the other for females. They are displayed below.

Basically, the after-reactions of the subjects had been filtered in many cases. The "fear" example is a particularly good illustration of the logical, analytical mind versus initial emotion. Not a single subject felt fear, although, after deliberation, they all said they did. This is not to say that they were lying - once they were allowed to study the picture, the brain may have connected the image with something they have seen in real life. Real spiders certainly cause fear in many people, so once the subjects connected these two things, they said they felt fear. It was almost an illusion in that way. However, there were no really big increases in heart rate generally, which leads to the tentative assumption that pictures don't really instill strong emotions in terms of "fight or flight" because it is not an "in the moment" experience - it simply makes the subject recall previous experiences, and most people do not have changes in heart rate over small, mostly insignificant memories.

d

Reading the graphs: boys that correlated (blue), boys that didn't correlate (red), girls that correlated (green), girls that didn't correlate (purple).
In the graphs above, more girls correlated for fear, while more boys correlated for sadness and excitement. Oddly enough, even though most individuals did not correlate for sadness, the averages most certainly did. However, the experiment overall proved our hypothesis (there were significant jumps, for the most part, for the pictures we specified) and showed something we never expected: people often deceive themselves into thinking that they felt a certain emotion when they actually felt something different. Does a picture of a spider scare you? Or does your brain remember the spider you saw on your ceiling and trick you into "feeling" scared?
URLs for the pictures we used:

1) http://stormgrounds.com/media/Fluffy-Puppy.jpg

2) http://memory.loc.gov:8081/learn/collections/slavery/images/whip.gif

3) http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqD1pimRTi6Jw61GfeQQWAhGWflue

JHGg__YlzLNSlXqFzyuKX&t=1

4) http://www.journeywithjesus.net/Essays/tsunami_victims_sm.jpg

5) http://www.dreamstime.com/peaceful-waterfall-thumb2698604

6) http://www.presidiacreative.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/81.jpg

7) http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.papermashmusic.com/filess/Mar/dance-party-laser_0.jpg

8) http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://jasonschaeffer.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/polar-bear-on-a-peak-of-an-iceburg.gif

9) http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.beccabondphotography.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2010/07/playing-in-field-1024x614.jpg

10) Users/15hannahb/Desktop/crying-tears-of-joy-208913.jpg

CSB #7: Goodbye, Communication

While Alzheimer's Disease is probably one of the best-known forms of dementia, there are many equally bad types that are not as prevalent. One of these is primary progressive aphasia, which affects the brain's language center. Aphasia is a "loss of ability to understand or express speech, caused by brain damage," according to the dictionary on my dashboard. While PPA is often mistaken for Alzheimer's, it is clearly different in several ways. First, it chiefly affects the brain's language center and only attacks memory after some time. Also, in Alzheimer's, the patient him/herself cannot recognize that he/she is affected by the disease, and it is often family members to identify the symptoms. However, those with PPA usually detect a deterioration in their ability to communicate before people around them sense a difference. Some similarities are that it shortens lifespan (most patients live to 67) and is a from of dementia. Sadly, frequent misdiagnoses of the disease result in incorrect treatment, which sets back the fight a long way. According to Dr. Duffy, head of speech pathology in Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, "early intervention is important."

With the language-harming effects of the condition come an even worse symptom: the deterioration of communication. The wife of patient Steve Riedner compares it to raising a child again. Riedner can "open the car window, then not know how to close it," and even recommended forms of communication like the iPad, which has apps that can talk for a person, were no help in his advanced stage of PPA. Even sign language does not work, as it utilizes the same area of the brain.

In terms of treatment, there is nothing that can even begin to revert the process of language-center failure. However, treatment usually focuses on saving the stronger parts of the person's communication and leaving the weaker elements behind. As I mentioned earlier, computers, picture icons, and iPad apps are recommended as alternate forms of communication. Dr. Mesulam, the first person to recognize the disease in today's world, says that it affects "word-finding, object naming, syntax, phonology, morphology, spelling, or word comprehension." He goes on to say that the disease comes gradually, over years.

Note: Some definitions to clarify, all from my dashboard dictionary.

Syntax: the arrangement of words to create well-formed sentences in a language

Phonology: the branch of linguistics that deals with systems of sounds in a particular language

Morphology: in linguistics, the study of the form of words

My thoughts: this is truly a terrible disease, and even more unfortunate is that it is not recognized and valuable time is wasted on unnecessary forms of treatment. It would completely terrifying, as the affected person, to realize that you could not speak with the coordination of old, that the numbers started to look like a jumble on the page, that your own notes began to read like gobbledegook. Another awful aspect is that communication itself is difficult, and after the early stages of PPA, cannot even be achieved by some patients. One aspect that was surprising to me was that it was not seen to be a new and different disease sooner, especially since, in some ways, it was so clearly different from others (i.e. the patient knew before his/her companions). When, I wonder, will cures for dementia begin to appear, or more effective forms of treatment? It is up front with the most horrible illnesses today in all of its shapes and forms.

Resources:

Brody, Jane E. "A Thief that Robs the Brain of Language." The New York Times.
N.p., 2 May 2011. Web. 3 May 2011.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/health/03brody.html?ref=science>

Stults, Michael G. "Dementia in Our Kids - The Uninvited Thief." Niemann-Pick
Children's Fund, Inc. N.p., 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 4 May 2011.
<http://www.npcfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/dementia-brain.jpg>.
Source for image.

CSB #6: We're Hurting our Clean-up System

We knew that more diverse streams and rivers are less polluted. What we didn't know, though, is why. The answer goes back again to Darwin's famous theory, and one point in particular. Darwin stated that, because every organism is unique, it has its own distinct habitat or "niche." In a river, there are different habitats depending on the water's speed and factors like ripples, pools, and eddies. If there are more species living in the river, they cover more "niches," and therefore can clean more of the river.

Specifically, Bradley Cardinale of the University of Michigan was testing how efficiently algae can remove nitrate, a common chemical in fertilizers, from the water. He used over 150 model streams, looking at a single habitat in one model and multiple habitats in another. Cardinale found that the more species of algae he put into the model stream, the more efficient the water filtration became. The 8-species mix, the one with the most species of algae and diatoms (small algae-like creatures) filtered nitrate 4.5 times faster than any single species. His main object in the experiment was to demonstrate that niches are responsible for the greater efficiency in water filtration that biodiversity presents to streams and rivers. To remove all doubt, he checked different numbers and combinations of algae species in a model stream with just one habitat; here, there was no advantage. This proved that more species "filled" more niches, and filtered more nitrate out of the water.

I love how evolution connects so many different issues. Here, though, it isn't just about evolution, although the niches are certainly vital to understanding why biodiversity is essential. Diverse species can clean up the mess we make by filtering nitrate and other chemicals out of the water, but how long can the diversity remain? Many species are going extinct because they have lost their habitat, are being hunted, cannot find food, or are overridden by species that have been introduced to the environment. However, without the diverse species, the water would be much more polluted and pose greater problems for humans. Basically, by not watching out for how what we do affects other species, we are moving towards another environmental difficulty, a greater number of over-polluted rivers. It's clear that humans have to start consciously trying to preserve biodiversity.

Why don't we already preserve biodiversity because of its other advantages? I'm sure that people already try, but not enough people are trying or their efforts are not sufficient. Using fewer resources, thereby saving habitats, would help some species survive. Polluting less by using clean energy or driving less or buying local goods to decrease pollution created by shipping would help. In effect, the same things that would help solve other environmental issues. Funny, isn't it, how they're so interconnected? Anyway, biodiversity is good for cleaner water, but we need to keep our clean-up system in good condition.

Resources:

University of Michigan. "Biodiversity Improves Water Quality in Streams Through
a Division of Labor." ScienceDaily. N.p., 6 Apr. 2011. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.

The picture is from the article and is of algae species that might be found in a stream.

CSB #5: Swimming Eyeballs

Brachiopods, or "lamp shells," are, in effect, marine worms that live in shells. A long-standing scientific question has been whether or not they can see; recently, it seemed as though some dark spots on the larvae were light sensors. Under closer examination, it was revealed that they were primitive "eyes," or the model of eye that is a "swimming eyeball." Basically, this means that it could sense light or dark, but could not do much beyond that.

Above: brachiopods

This is the first step towards the evolution of an organ as complex as the eye. Darwin himself did not feel as though something like the eye, which is, at first glance, perfect, could be explained by his ground-breaking theory of evolution. However, he did come up with steps in the evolution of such an organ, and his theory had the backing of real, living organisms with that kind of eye. This is the really phenomenal part of the theory: there is incontestable

evidence for large parts of it. The first step of his theory in the evolution of the eye, though, was unsupported until the work with the brachiopods.

Scientists also checked to see if the photoreceptor, or light receiving, genes were active at any other stage of development. Surprisingly, more of the undeveloped embryos moved towards a light source than expected, the expected being that none would move. At this point, the brachiopod embryos have no brains, no eye-like organ, or anything.

Right: eye spots on brachiopod larva

It was absolutely fascinating that our eyes, such intricate, elaborate organs, could have started out as nothing more than a bunch of photoreceptor cells. Aside from this, the fact that the undeveloped embryos could sense light is truly unexpected. Scientists hypothesize that the yolk blocks light from some directions, and this allows the brachiopod-to-be to sense the light. How this would work is not exactly clear to me, especially if it has no neurons at all and can react to its environment. Not only can it sense the light, the embryo also moves towards it.

In regards to Darwin's theory of evolution, it seems even more fantastic because proof is still being sought for it, one of the most controversial theories. The new discoveries made today, confirming his ideas, show how truly ahead of his time he was and in what accurate detail he surmised about the development.

Resources:

Article:

Zimmer, Carl. "In a Marine Worm's Eyes, the Theory of Evolution." The New York
Times. N.p., 1 Mar. 2011. Web. 6 Mar. 2011. .

Picture:

http://www.treasuresofthesea.org.nz/uploads/images/147_image_main.jpg (brachiopod)

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicyQ-gEozz_kvpVA6eIALX9_2ZGl6BMLwc1tvk2oj-ocTyXcHNNh9grpOtxnIFCd5Ke796tJqaHg431nhIDH9Gd_nroOFULRlQtDDA1TCdjImGIwGGX2BXaNh15NN-ThOCyPneW_LtsMw/s200/
BrachiopodLarva.jpg (larva)

CSB #4: Could we really wrinkle time?

A Wrinkle in Time, by Madeleine L'Engle, explores the possibility of momentous time and space travel.

Definitions:

Tesseract: The four dimensional model of a cube. In the book, however, it is referred to as the fifth dimension.

Aberration: A undesirable departure from the norm. The occupants of the strange planet that the main characters visit use the word several times.

Summary:

Meg, an ordinary, unpopular girl, is older sister to Charles Wallace, who is anything but ordinary. Charles possesses uncommon intelligence, and can speak fluently at age three, using words like "prodigious." The household is somewhat broken because the childrens' father disappeared a year before the story. One day, they are whisked away on an amazing adventure, along with a boy named Calvin, by Mrs. Who, Mrs. Which, and Mrs. Whatsit. These three strange beings, later revealed to be former stars, explain to them the presence of The Black Thing, an intense mass of evil. The protagonists are then informed that their father is imprisoned on a planet which has submitted to the Black Thing. Camazotz, the dark planet, is "governed" by a giant brain (IT), which controls the mind of all the planet's inhabitants. Punishment for disobedience is to be brought into close contact with IT. Meg rescues her father using willpower, and the four arrive home safely.

Discussion:

The science portion of this book is in two elements: "tessering" and the control IT has over the minds of Camazotzians. Tessering is when the former stars "fold" time and space. This is explained with an ant demonstration, as shown in the picture. They "fold" time and space and

simply "be" where they want to go. Meg's father ended up on Camazotz by attempting this, although in his case it went badly wrong. It would be amazing if it were possible to "fold" time and space, as it would be very effective. L'Engle suggests that humans can do it in Meg's fathers attempt. Secondly, IT's mind controlling powers are not entirely impossible. It would, in effect, be sending sets of telepathic information. If humans could perform telepathy, even with the use of a small device, IT would be possible. I think (though I have no sources on this one) that scientists are researching telepathy, and so it may one day be possible.

Questions:

1) How could time or space be "folded"? Is it a mental concept or is it physically possible?

2) Would telepathy alone account for IT's powers? Not only can IT tell other what to do, they have a hard time resisting. Is it just the signal strength?

Resources:

The book: L'Engle, Madeleine. A Wrinkle in Time. New York: Yearling, 1962. Print.

Picture

CSB #3: Fluffy Ice??

Picture: The comet spewing chunks of fluffy ice.

Definitions:

Primordial: Existing from the beginning of time

Aggregate: A whole formed by combining several elements, typically different in essence

Summary:

Two weeks ago, a spacecraft from NASA flew by a comet. However, the comet was doing something extremely irregular: analyzing the photo, experts say that jets of carbon dioxide are pushing out frozen chunks of ice and dust particles into the air as opposed to the norm of water

vapor. The carbon dioxide, they say, must be primordial dry ice because if not, the CO2 would have become part of the atmosphere long ago. Because dry ice has a much lower sublimation point than water's melting point, the water could have remained in frozen chunks whilst the dry ice was converted to gas. Comparing the chunks to dandelion puffs, an NASA worker says that the pieces have a lot of air in them, and are aggregates of small pieces of ice. The CO2 jets were coming from the two ends of the comet, but in the center, water vapor was coming out, and there was no carbon dioxide gas. The analysts say "the middle part of the comet does not contain much carbon dioxide, and thus the water ice in it can warm into vapor." NASA workers have not seen anything like this comet before, and say that it goes to prove how different the space rocks can be.

Discussion:

I was very interested in this article because I am fascinated by astronomy, especially things that are new and different. One detail that caught my attention is that the center of the comet was spewing a different substance, namely water vapor, than the two ends of the comet, something that has not happened before. It was also amazing that gas from the beginning of time was preserved for so long and is only now being released into the atmosphere - obviously, after the gas went into the atmosphere, it would not solidify inside a comet again. Lastly, the fact that the pieces of ice were "fluffy" is odd: why would it collect with large pockets of air in between? Although, it is probably good it did - had the fragments not been mostly hollow, the NASA spaceship, which was flying close to the comet at 27,000 miles per hour, would have been seriously damaged!

Questions:

1. Why is there less carbon dioxide in the center of the comet?
2. Why is the ice "fluffy" rather than solid?
3. How can this comet do two things at once while others cannot?

Resources:

Link to original article

Citation:

Chang, Kenneth. "Surprise at a Comet Visited by NASA: A Snowstorm." New York
Times. New York Times, 18 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
19c

omet.html?partner=rss&emc=rss>.

CSB #2: Algae Power!

Right: Chisti with a photobioreactor

Definitions:
Photobioreactor: A production system in which all elements are controlled. In effect, there is no influence from the external environment other than light.
Nitrogen-fixing Algae: Algae which performs nitrogen fixation, a process which causes free nitrogen in the air to react with other elements to create more reactive substances, such as ammonia.

Summary:
Yusif Chisti of Massey University, New Zealand, believes that algae is the way to go in our world, where a new, clean, renewable energy source is desperately needed. However, contrary to many of today's experiments, which use freshwater algae, Chisti supports the use of marine algae for two reasons: first, it uses less freshwater, of which we have precious little, and second, it is easier to cultivate marine algae strains. Also, the marine strains can use waste carbon dioxide in its growing process and overall need a less complex habitat. One major problem is cultivating enough algae without using an equal amount of fossil fuels and an overlarge amount of fertilizer. As Chisti says, the way in which the algae is grown significantly affects its oil content. However, at this point, it needs too much energy to be a practical solution. Scientists are exploring nitrogen-fixing algae, and a possible solution for the energy requirement is a photobioreactor, which is more efficient than the current "grow it in a pond" method. Before algae can become a reliable energy source, though, much work is needed.

Discussion:
I agree with Professor Chisti that the way in which algae is grown can greatly affect its lipid content. I have done a lot of research on algae because it was part of my science project last year, and I was interested in this article because of that. Although energy efficiency is still a problem, it is true that algae would be a relatively simple change from fossil fuels, but it burns cleanly and is renewable. It is interesting that freshwater algae require more care as compared to marine strains, although this may be because marine algae is more used to changes in temperature and pH. This is because freshwater algae grows in sheltered ponds, into which there is no flow of water. I was not aware before that fertilizer usage as well as energy usage is a problem, but it is true that fertilizer is a somewhat exhaustible resource, so it would be good to reduce dependency on and usage of it.

Questions:
1) Why would nitrogen-fixing algae be more energy efficient than the average marine strain?

2) What methods of cultivation maximize lipid production?

Sources:
Nitrogen fixation:

"Nitrogen Fixation." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica,
n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2010. .

Article citation:
Extance, Andy. "Marine Algae Offer Sustainable Fuel Hope." environmental
research web. IOP, 13 Oct. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.
Article URL:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/44012