Thermal Grill Illusion

As a child, I remember being amazed by the thermal grill perceptual illusion in a science museum. In this illusion, subjects feel an unpleasant burning sensation when simultaneously touching juxtaposed cold and warm bars of a grill. However, when touching only warm bars or only cold bars, the subject does not report a feeling of pain (just the warm or cool temperatures).

Thermography of the grill surface. Panel C results in the Thermal Grill Illusion (alternating warm and cold temperatures)

In an interesting fMRI study, researchers (Lindstedt et al.) examined this phenomenon of the thermal grill illusion. It was known that touching warm and cold temperatures at the same time caused an imbalance of firing from spinal neurons, but more neurophysiological evidence and spatio-temporal data on human brain function was needed. In the Lindstedt at al. study, participants placed their left leg on the cold and warm bars on the surface of the grill so their calf muscle was in contact with the stimulating surface. While their leg was being stimulated, fMRI recordings were taken from their brain to image the supraspinal activation from the thermal grill illusion. After statistically analyzing the results, the most notable finding was a strong activation of the contralateral thalamus as compared to the patterns of activation seen by its constituent temperatures.

Thermal Grill Illusion activation (right thalamus) vs. constituent cold or warm activation

The results of this study are really interesting as they can be compared to future fMRI studies analyzing neuropathic pain. 

Mind Reader

One of the first ideas that came to my mind was a machine that is able to read the minds of criminals. Instead of wasting endless hours interrogating them, however, my ideal invention would be a device that enables people who cannot communicate, to make their thoughts known. 

I would use a simple chip that sticks onto someone’s forehead (or wherever they want to stick it) that transmits thoughts wirelessly to a computer screen (iPad, tablet… etc.) in the same room. Individuals who are unable to communicate verbally, with sign language or through writing could use the machine. Perhaps, some day, the device could even translate thoughts into spoken words. The user would also be able to manipulate the device to suppress thoughts that he/she does not want to share. Disabled individuals, who yearn to express themselves or just socialize, could make use of this device. I guess the device could also be used as an alternative to interrogation, but then the feature that deactivates unwanted thoughts would have to be turned off.  

Dr. Fiske and (de)humanization

Stereotype Content Model (SCM)

I really enjoyed Dr. Fiske’s lecture on Friday on (de)humanization as she discussed the ways in which people make sense of other people and how this affects their responses in various situations. The results of her research regarding the stereotype content model (SCM, pictured to the right) show that not all stereotypes are negative and that emotions play a large part in forming them.  


In addition, I found the “trolley dilemma,” (pictured below) which illuminates how individuals decide upon the most appropriate action when confronted with moral uncertainties to be a very interesting concept. Her explanation of the systematic differences between in-groups and out-groups also really resonated with me.

Trolley Dilemma: What would you do?

I particularly liked her segment on “over-humanization” in which she spoke about how people differentially attribute social cognition to different species of animals. It’s fascinating to realize that we do in fact have feelings of pride and admiration when thinking about cats, dogs, monkeys or elephants. Overall, the research shows that prejudice is not just a general feeling of dislike for a certain group and that the concept is actually much broader and goes much further in affecting how individuals conduct their daily lives.

There is Still Hope

At the age of 14, one of my closest childhood friends was struck by a car that ran a red light and hit him and two other people in the crosswalk. My friend suffered critically severe head trauma. I don’t know the specific details of his brain injury, but I remember visiting him in the hospital when he was in a medically induced coma and half of his skull had been removed to help accommodate the swelling of his brain. Doctors and neurosurgeons did everything they could, but, at the time, they did not ever expect him to regain consciousness. After two long and grueling years during which he endured countless brain surgeries, regular physical therapy and other forms of mental stimulation, he miraculously woke up and slowly began the long road to recovery.  

Since he regained consciousness, he has had to relearn everything and I mean EVERYTHING. He started from moving just his eyes, then his head and since then he has relearned how to breath (without a breathing tube), eat, walk, talk and every other basic everyday function that we all take for granted. It is now about five years since the accident and although he seems to keep improving, making small steps all the time, the road to full recovery is extremely long. Although I am afraid he may never reach 100%, given where he is now compared to where he came from, I will not give up hope. He is incredibly resilient and very determined. I am in absolute awe of the improvements he has made and what he is capable of today.

Journal Articles are Confusing!

The thing I find most confusing about journal articles is definitely the complicated jargon that authors use. Instead of reading and understanding the experiment and trying to interpret results on my own, I often find myself on Wikipedia trying to find out what some of their fancy language means.

When I understand the articles, my next biggest problem is length. I sometimes think the authors include way too much detail that distracts readers from the significance of their study and why it is relevant in the field today.

A third difficulty I have had with journal articles is interpreting the statistics they have provided. Sometimes it seems that if the results the experimenters obtained were not statistically significant, they would not have included those results in their study. Other times, it seems like conclusions that researchers draw from their results are a bit of stretch.

Synapse: Animations are easier to understand!

Finally, one last thing I find confusing about journal articles are their diagrams/figures. Unlike textbook pictures, these diagrams are almost always real images (instead of animations) that to a reader like me (not an expert in their field of study) are really confusing. The captions sometimes make it easier to follow, but authors often use their own abbreviations (ie. for new proteins) to describe their images that just aren’t that clear. Although I think including an animation might not be that scientifically professional and could potentially oversimplify findings, I think readers might be able to reach a higher level of understanding.