How fear skews our spatial perception

"Fear can alter even basic aspects of how we perceive the world around us," says psychologist Stella Lourenco.

By Carol Clark, That snake heading towards you may be further away than it appears. Fear can skew our perception of approaching objects, causing us to underestimate the distance of a threatening one, finds a study published in Current Biology. “Our results show that emotion and perception are not fully dissociable in the mind,” says Emory psychologist Stella Lourenco, co-author of the study. “Fear can alter even basic aspects of how we perceive the world around us. This has clear implications for understanding clinical phobias.” Lourenco conducted the research with Matthew Longo, a psychologist at Birkbeck, University of London. People generally have a well-developed sense for when objects heading towards them will make contact, including a split-second cushion for dodging or blocking the object, if

The more fearful someone reported feeling of spiders, the more they underestimated time-to-collision of a looming spider.

necessary. The researchers set  up an experiment to test the effect of fear on the accuracy of that skill. Study participants made time-to-collision judgments of images on a computer screen. The images expanded in size over one second before disappearing, to simulate “looming,” an optical pattern used instinctively to judge collision time. The study participants were instructed to gauge when each of the visual stimuli on the computer screen would have collided with them by pressing a button. The participants tended to underestimate the collision time for images of threatening objects, such as a snake or spider, as compared to non-threatening images, such as a rabbit or butterfly. The results challenge the traditional view of looming, as a purely optical cue to object approach. “We’re showing that what the object is affects how we perceive looming. If we’re afraid of something, we perceive it as making contact sooner,” Longo says. “Even more striking,” Lourenco adds, “it is possible to predict how much a participant will underestimate the collision time of an object by assessing the amount of fear they have for that object. The more fearful someone reported feeling of spiders, for example, the more they underestimated time-to-collision for a looming spider. That makes adaptive sense: If an object is dangerous, it’s better to swerve a half-second too soon than a half-second too late.” The researchers note that it’s unclear whether fear of an object makes the object appear to travel faster, or whether that fear makes the viewer expand their sense of personal space, which is generally about an arm’s length away. “We’d like to distinguish between these two possibilities in future research. Doing so will allow us to shed insight on the mechanics of basic aspects of spatial perception and the mechanisms underlying particular phobias,” Lourenco says. Source: eScienceCommons

Read More........→October 27, 2012

Global warming – to be or not to be

The UN Climate Change Conference will be kicked off in the capital of Qatar, Doha in late November. The global warming is continuing and no one knows how to stop it. At the same time, some scientists support the idea that there is no need to fight global warming. Experts who are well aware of the caprices of nature have shared their opinions on the scale of the issue at their meetings with our correspondents.

By Nikita Sorokin, Global warming is caused by carbon dioxide, which is being emitted into the atmosphere in huge volumes as a result of human activity. At the same time, there is an opinion that people cannot in principle radically influence the planet’s climate, and all talks about warming are a “conspiracy” of alarmists, politicians and industrialists. One can answer the question whether carbon dioxide emissions have an impact on the atmosphere: yes, there is an influence as well as no, the is no impact, head of the laboratory studying global energy problems at the Moscow Power (Electrical) Engineering Institute, Professor Vladimir Klimenko said in an interview with the Voice of Russia correspondent. “Can you imagine that in the past 15 years, emissions to the atmosphere have increased about 20 percent, while the temperature has fallen. What does it mean? This does not mean that emissions have no impact on temperature. Is there global warming? Yes, there is. Will it continue further? Yes, it will. Is it dangerous for the civilization? Yes, it is dangerous, if we fail to contain the global warming within the limits of one degree Celsius from the contemporary level,” Vladimir Klimenko said. At present, scientists suggest getting rid of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or simply, covering the Earth from excessive sunrays. However, consequence of human interference in natural synthesis will be unpredictable, head of the WWF Russia’s “Climate and Energy” Programme Alexei Kokorin told our correspondent. “It’s theoretically possible to collect carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and in fact, there is even a technology, and pump it deep into the soil. Some insist that carbon dioxide can be pumped deep into the ocean. But, at present, it will be cheaper to work on energy saving, energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources,” Alexei Kokorin said. On his part, Professor Vladimir Klimenko asks a rhetoric question. Is there a need to fight global warming? “From my point of view, there is no need because the proportion between anthropogenic and natural factors is such that the rate of increase in temperature in the next decade will be less than that has achieved in the past 30 years. This rise has frightened the international community. One of the most important factors is that solar activity is falling. Consequently, less heat will reach the Earth from the sun. In short, the sun is significantly countering the growing greenhouse effect,” Vladimir Klimenko added. Source: Voice of Russia

Read More........→October 27, 2012

Dengue fever's growing range and virulence

.

Emory disease ecologist Gonzalo Vazquez-Prokopec writes about the growing threat of the dengue virus, for the journal Future Microbiology:

We are still losing our global battle against dengue virus (DENV). After half a century since the beginning of its rampant spread, and despite decades of continued vector control efforts, DENV has re-emerged to become the most important human mosquito-borne viral infection. Currently, approximately 70–100 million cases of classic DENV infection are reported every year (most of them in tropical and subtropical countries), with an estimated 2.1 million cases of life-threatening disease in the form of Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever/Dengue Shock Syndrome. Over the last two decades, the number of dengue fever epidemics has increased exponentially, and the dramatic range expansion of the endemic and hyper-endemic areas is indisputable. Moreover, the global incidence of Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever and Dengue Shock Syndrome has increased 30-fold since the 1950s, and both severe manifestations are a leading cause of hospitalization in parts of Southeast Asia. Increases in human population, rapid and unplanned urbanization, and human travel have contributed to the resurgence and spread of DENV infections. However, it is the inadequacy of our current tools to combat the virus carrying mosquito vectors and the virus itself, together with our limited understanding of the biological, social and behavioral dimensions of virus transmission that have contributed most to our inability to contain this dengue pandemic. New approaches, tools, and methods for dengue control and prevention are desperately needed. Source: eScienceCommons

Read More........→October 27, 2012

Democracy works for Endangered Species Act

The Bald Eagle, a living symbol of democracy as the national bird of the United States, was on the "threatened" list for the lower 48 states until 2007. Photo by Saffron Blaze via Wikipedia Commons.

By Carol Clark: When it comes to protecting endangered species, the power of the people is key, an analysis of listings under the U.S. Endangered Species Act finds. The journal Science is publishing the analysis comparing listings of “endangered” and “threatened” species initiated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that administers the Endangered Species Act, to those initiated by citizen petition. “We found that citizens, on average, do a better job of picking species that  are  threatened  than

The "threatened" gray wolf. Photo by FWS.

does the Fish and Wildlife Service. That’s a really interesting and surprising finding,” says co-author Berry Brosi, a biologist and professor of environmental studies at Emory University. Brosi conducted the analysis withEric Biber, a University of California, Berkeley School of Lawprofessor who specializes in environmental law. Controversy has surrounded the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since it became law nearly 40 years ago. A particular flashpoint is the provision that allows citizens to petition the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list any unprotected species, and use litigation to challenge any FWS listing decision. Critics of this provision say the FWS wastes time and resources processing the stream of citizen requests. Another argument is that many citizen-initiated listings are driven less by concern for a species than by political motives, such as blocking a  development project. The study authors counter that their findings bolster the need to keep the public highly involved. “There are some 100,000 species of plants and animals in North America, and asking one federal agency to stay on top of that is tough,” Biber says. “If there were restrictions on the number of citizen-initiated petitions being reviewed, the government would lose a whole universe of people providing high-Only about 2,000 American Crocodiles, an ESA-protected species, remain in Florida. Photo by Tomas Castelazo via Wikipedia Commons.

quality information about species at risk, The researchers built a database of the 913 domestic and freshwater species listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA from 1986 on. They examined whether citizens or the FWS initiated the petition, whether it was litigated, and whether it conflicted with an economic development project. They also looked at the level of biological threat to each of the species,

The Northern Spotted Owl. Photo by FWS.

using FWS threat scores in reports the agency regularly makes to Congress.The results showed that listings resulting from citizen-initiated petitions are more likely to pose conflicts with development, but those species are also significantly more threatened, on average, than the species in FWS-initiated petitions. “The overriding message is that citizen involvement really does work in combination with the oversight of the FWS,” Brosi says. “It’s a two-step system of checks and balances that is important to maintain.” The public brings diffuse and specialized expertise to the table, from devoted nature enthusiasts to scientists who have spent their whole careers studying one particular animal, insect or plant. Public involvement can also help counter the political pressure inherent in large development projects. The FWS, however, is unlikely to approve the listing of a species that is not truly threatened or endangered, so some petitions are filtered out. “You could compare it to the trend of crowdsourcing that the Internet has spawned,” Brosi says. “It’s sort of like crowdsourcing what species need to be

The Mojave Desert population of the Desert Tortoise is in the highest threat category of the ESA. Photo by FWS.

protected.” Many people associate the success of the ESA with iconic species like the bald eagle and the whooping crane. “To me,” Brosi says, “the greater accomplishment of the act is its protection of organisms that don’t get the same amount of attention as a beautiful bird or mammal.” For example, the FWS turned down a petition to list the Mojave Desert population of the Desert Tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, but that decision was reversed. The Desert Tortoise is now in the ESA highest threat category, and populations of the entire species are thought to have declined by more than 90 percent during the past 20 years. “One of the biggest threats it faces is urban and suburban expansion, which could have made it politically challenging for the FWS,” Brosi notes. “And yet, the Desert Tortoise is a keystone species that helps support dozens of other species by creating habitats in its burrows and dispersing seeds.”Source: eScienceCommonsAct

Read More........→October 25, 2012

"Love"...can it be quantified?

"What Science and Philosophy Tell Us About Love":By Massimo Pigliucci, October 2nd, 2012, The Huffington Post

Suppose you are in love. More specifically, you have been in love with your partner for a couple of years now, and you are beginning to ask yourself a number of crucial questions: Why do I not feel as head over heel for him as I distinctly remember I used to until recently? Since we have been together for a while now, how should I approach the prospect of a long-term, potentially life-long relationship? At least, you would be asking those questions if you were reflecting on your feelings and on your attitude toward an important person in your life. Traditionally, you had two places to look for meaningful answers: the folk wisdom (a.k.a. "common sense") of your friends and relatives, and religion. I will be blunt here: common sense has so often been proven wrong, or at the very least misleading, that it ought to come with a gigantic warning label. As for religion, well, it mostly boils down to made up stories to justify whatever it is that a given society's commonsense maintains to be true (e.g., that women are intellectually inferior to men, that gay life is an abomination, that slavery is good for the slaves, and so on). What then? Enter what I have come to call "sci-phi," the congruence of science and philosophy. Think about it for a minute. Rejections of evolution and bizarre claims of climate change hoax notwithstanding, science has been by far the most successful human enterprise when it comes to getting facts about the world as straight as human beings can hope to get them. Similarly, philosophy is an age-tested way to reflect on our values and their implications, among other things. So why not take advantage of what the best science and philosophy have to say about the big questions in life? Take for instance the questions my hypothetical you was asking about her relationship. In answer to your qualms about not having the same feelings you originally had for your partner, folk wisdom would probably tell you either that (a) you need not worry because it happens to everyone, or (b) that you need to worry because it is a sure sign that things are not going well. What are you supposed to do with that? In answer to your question about long-term attitudes within your relationship, a religious counselor might say that the bonds of human love are sacred in the eyes of God and that therefore you are now committed regardless of what is or is not likely to happen, and by the way why are you living in sin and haven't gotten your vows approved via the proper religious ritual? Science and philosophy would provide you with answers that are a bit more nuanced, and much more likely to be true (science) or meaningful (philosophy). For instance, cognitive science has developed a reasonably good understanding of the basic emotions underlying love for a partner (infatuation, romance, attachment). As a result, we now know that in many people the burst of hormones and neurotransmitters that characterizes the beginnings of romantic love yields to a different set of chemicals that are associated with a deeper feeling of attachment. To simplify a bit, we naturally exchange the headiness of frequent sex with the calm and reassurance of knowing we are with someone we can trust and who cares for us. So, unless there are actual signs of trouble in the relationship, you can relax in the knowledge that the internal change you are experiencing is indeed normal. This, however, doesn't mean that science is the beginning and end of what we ought to know about love. We have recently seen a flood of books and articles featuring "your brain on X," where X is everything from music to reading to tasting wine, but as interesting as cognitive science is, factual knowledge of what the brain does isn't going to tell you much about how you should (ethically) behave when in a relationship. That's where the philosophy part of sci-phi comes in. The ancient Greeks distinguished three concepts of love: the erotic one, the one that manifests itself in the relationship between children and parents or between lifelong friends, and the one that we attach to ideals (or gods, if one believes in them). Modern philosophers have developed different types of understanding of love: as an emotion, as a type of concern for the other, as a union, and as valuing the other for the other's sake. The differences among these conceptions of love -- both ancient and modern -- should be an occasion for reflecting on our own way of relating to loved ones. Consider one example, just to wet your appetite. Why, exactly, is it that broadly speaking we condemn the practice of "trading up" one's partner, as we do, say, with cars or smartphones? After all, if I love someone because of certain characteristics of that person -- say, her beauty, her wit, her intelligence, and so on, it is perfectly possible that, eventually, I will meet someone with those some characteristics "plus," a better version of my current companion. Why, then, should I not exchange the old model for the new one, so to speak? For a variety of reasons, answers the philosopher. For one thing, the more time you spend with someone the more unique experiences and memories you accumulate, which means that the relationship is growing in an important sense, a sense that would be nullified if you were to change partner and start anew. But a better reason is provided by Aristotle in the context of his so-called virtue ethics: trading up objectifies a companion, thereby undermining her human dignity. And consistently doing so results not only in developing an awful reputation among other human beings, but corrupts our own character, making us worse people. Conversely, practicing virtue is the path to what the ancients called eudaimonia, the happy (because moral) life. [Massimo Pigliucci is Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York. He is the author of Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life (Basic Books, 2012). His philosophical musings can be found at rationallyspeaking.org .] Source: Philosophy of Science

Read More........→October 03, 2012