Through the k-hole

Note: this post will go up at 12pm Friday at www.mindhacks.com.

What do squat parties in Brixton, vetinarians in Buckinghamshire, and cereals in Budgens have in common?* The answer, of course, is Special K.**

Ketamine is a tranquillising agent that was widely used until patients began to complain of its hallucinogenic effects, which they experienced when coming out of sedation. Not too fun. Except, of course, for those who take it for pleasure – of whom, according to ongoing research by Mixmag magazine and the Institute of Psychiatry, there have been more than a fourfold increase between 1999 and 2003. Apart from this population, the drug is still administered as a tranquilliser for animals, and also young children for whom the trippy effects don’t seem to occur. Notably, after Putin banned the drug in Russia in 2003, Bridget Bardot campaigned for a reversal, on the basis that it would result in more suffering for animals; whether the implications for children were weighed is not on record, but in any case Russia reversed the ban in ’04. Notably, the drug is not illegal in the EU, and whilst a controlled substance is low down in priority, at least in the eyes of the law. But if you’re an ocassional taker, or curious about it, I suggest you read further, to get the skinny on the cognitive neuropsychopharmacology of ketamine.

My friend and colleague Celia Morgan has been doing her PhD on the cognitive effects of ketamine with Val Curran at UCL; Prof Curran gave a presentation about this last month; again, some is not yet published (although some is, and if you use Google Scholar you should be able to get your hands on some abstracts, at least).

To give the basic neurochemistry, ketamine is an nMDA antagonist – this means it acts on a specific type of neural receptor in the brain, the nMDA receptor, found throughout the brain but particularly in the cortex, and it act by suppressing its normal activity (whilst an agonist would boost it). This leads to an excessive release of the neurotransmitter glutamate. This lays a case for a possible harmful effect of ketamine: nMDA antagonists have been shown to disrupt long-term potentiation (the neural mechanism by which learning takes place in the brain). And the receptors are particularly heavily distributed in memory-critical areas such as the hippocampus and surrounding areas, which means adverse effects are likely to impact on memory.

Moreover, clinical reports document that being on ketamine produces symptoms very similar to those seen in schizophrenia. The similarities have been so striking as to contribute to a shift away from purely dopaminergic models of schizophrenia to nMDA hypofunction models, which suggest that glutamate as well as dopamine are responsible for the abnormal function of the schizotypic brain. (see e.g. Olney and Farber 1997).

Morgan and Curran have been investigating this using cognitive and neuropsychological testing, alongside clinical-style inventories of schizotypic symptoms and thoughts. One aspect of their research uses healthy people, dosed up with ketamine. Relative to doses of placebo, ketamine-addled subjects were impaired across a variety of tasks – short-term memory, attention, and problem solving. They also gave higher ratings when asked to score a number of schizophrenic-type experiences, such as such as ‘The world does not feel real to me’.

Anyone investigating specific populations (like patients, drug users or people with developmental disorders), rather than imposing different conditions on a generic population, will tell you nightmares of exclusion criteria, control group selection and so on. The difficulty with ketamine users is that they invariably take a lot more than ketamine – cocaine, weed, ecstacy and even more obscure drugs. Their solution was to accept poly-drug users in the ketamine group – and to match with a control group of poly-drug users, who had never done ketamine. In effect, this is a subtraction technique, similar to the kind that underlies many imaging studies (activation difference between complex and baseline tasks shows you the activation due to the processes unique to the complex task), and underlies much of the presuppositions of cognitive neuropsychology.

Compared to this control group, ketamine users were poorer on days following their drug intake, and still poorer three days afterward. As ketamine has a very short half-life, it seems fair evidence that this may represent neural degeneration (already established in laboratory work – Olney et al 1998), rather than active effects of the drug. (To make sure of this, they also compared subjects from their non-chronic use experiment after three days, and the placebo and ketamine group were not performing at different levels.) Their poorer performance was shown on tests of source memory, story recall, verbal fluency (being able to list words of a specific criteria rapidly) and speed of semantic processing (what things mean). They also, needless to say, showed higher ratings of schizotypic type symptoms. A follow-up study on a sample of former chronic users is also a window into how enduring these effects are; changes in certain measures were heavily correlated with changes in ketamine intake, but many others, including the schizotypic symptoms, continued to persevere. What is perhaps the most ominous of the findings is the apparent irreversability of the impairment produced in episodic memory (personal memories of events and instances), and possibly also attention.

Abstract of paper on healthy individuals link
Abstract of longitudinal paper in Addiction link

*Non-UK readers, insert your own amusing locations (to wit: lively if rough urban area; rural dull spot; corner-store-cum-supermarket). Once you have done this, laugh appreciatively, and wonder at the marvel of international collaboration. Truly, is there nothing we cannot do?

** I hasten to add that Special K the cereal is not in any way hallucinogenic, unless you can hallucinate from eating damn fine flakes. Of maize!

Penny in the link bank (balance: ₤0.02)

Checkout the webcomics here (click on either archive and start from the beginning): link. More and more you can see the potential for this medium – the style and colours that the bright young things are starting to pull off are cracking.

Penny in the link bank (balance: ₤0.01)

I’d never heard of Oblique Strategies before, but apparently Brian Eno and friend, the artist Peter Schmidt (I’m beginning to sound like Joe Friday here no?) put together their working principles, which were often whimsical and out there, into a deck of cards as inspiration. There is an online oblique-generator at this link.

Something familiar, Something peculiar, Something for everyone: A policy tonight!*

Posting policy, that is.

This whole blogposting thing has become increasingly slackadesical, and I’m the first to admit that. Mainly because the poverty of posting means there’s no-one else to do the admitting. The ridiculous thing is I have a stack of things to talk about, but they just get furled up or store away in a text file (normally a never-to-be-sent email, which I find functions quite nicely as an on-the go appendable list).

My attempt at a remedy is this: one post every three days, while offering comment free linkage on other days. That is, a one-liner like “Sebastian really hits it with this post: {link}” or “This story describes some interesting biotech developments, but there is some sinister goings on: {link}. Copyright of biological materials is going too far”. If I am in danger of spilling over into more, even a paragraph, I’ll finish it off and shelve it for the next post day, and replace with a link instead (hell, there’s millions of them). Link days may have more than one link, and may quote where appropriate. The Glenn Reynolds model of blogging, I guess. Items that ‘only’ get a link may later get upgraded to a post, in that I think of some interesting angle that I want to add. This counts as a post, so two link days to come. Goodies every day, with a personal touch as regular as I can make it.

===============================
*With apologies to Stephen Sondheim

I’m in the wrong line of research (A continuing series)

This is so good I just have to reproduce it verbatim::

Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

by Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David

from Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 1999 Dec Vol 77(6) 1121-1134

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of the participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

Hat tip to the ever-mocking John

Don’t let other people get in the way of a good idea

Julian Baggini talks about a phenomenon, here, which I imagine many people likely to read this have encountered, of forming substantive and functional relationships through the internet. By this I don’t mean on-line social forums like Friendster, Myspace and hi5 (although I’m not knocking them either – they seem fun, if a bit of a time drain, and if I were single I’m sure it would be an outlet for a bit of wishful thinking: a venezualan supermodel-jetski racer! And we’re connected through bobs mate tonys mate steves acquaintance tim. It’s onnnnnn. ). Dr B is remarking on the work and productive partnerships that can arise when people have never met, and seem all to the good for that. As he puts it

… online collaborations can be supremely efficient. The qualities I identified in my co-author, Peter S Fosl, which made him a good collaborator, were all manifest in our email communications and in his work. He was knowledgeable, clear, flexible, enthusiastic about communicating ideas and responsive to suggestions and advice. What more did I need to know? Whether he liked his lattes skinny?

I can cheerfully second this, as it’s precisely how my involvement with Mind Hacks began. I only knew Tom from his website: assured, stylish and highly informative. When, after some purely pixel-based interaction, he offered me the chance to get involved in a project he was in, I jumped at the chance. If I had known that he is, like me, a guy who wears t-shirts and eats at Thai veggy buffets, I would have recoiled in horror. Well, I wouldn’t, but for the job at hand (contributing to a neuroscience fun-guide) person-to-person contact was unneccessary for me to make the judgments. Having said that, if a professional relationship was the main, formal game, then meeting in person translates to those bonus levels on Mario games that are just as vital as the game itself.

While writing this, I began to consider whether this argument holds for well-defined tasks like writing book sections according to a specified format, but not for open-ended development, like (say) free-forming the future of a fresh or neonatal project. Then I realised: hey, someone’s done some experimental work on this- and it’s me!

I exaggerate for gut-wrenchingly comic effect, of course. Brainstorming research from the 50’s onwards was shown that groups underperform relative to the sum of what they produce individually, both at producing ideas 1 and retrieving memory content 2, and don’t seem to produce emergent new memories. A common explanation for this is social loafing 3 the term coined for the free riding that occurs when responsibility is diffused amongst a variety of agents. A related issue is production blocking, where the delays people face before speaking may lead to them to forget their ideas, or supress them because they seem less relevant or original later. Often good intentions of facilitators of group discussions may compound this, by enforcing turn-taking or other systems that might in the interests of balance interfere with fluidity and hence output. (Of course, output may not be the most valued measure, and in some cases, such as a focus group it might make sense to privilege balance over prolificity.)

This dim view of mass brainstorming is tempered by findings that its negative effect attenuates when a dyad (group of two) is made up of good friends or partners 4; the explanation offered is that individuals have a ‘cognitive style’ that people can become familiar with, so when one is on a roll the other doesn’t interject, or can pick up and develop vague wavings into something genuinely useful. And if you send your mind a’thinking down this merry alley, the level of performance should be due not merely to the interactors but the interaction.

As the mind goes, so the research proposals follow, and a group of researchers 5 successfully eliminated the output shortfall produced by group colloboration by mediating their interaction through a computer-based file-sharing procedure. Through this participants were offered questions to which they could append comments; they could then view other comments and append comments to that. Production blocking was eliminated because one can immediately respond with ideas without interruption, and even though some degree of social loafing could still have been operating to impair performance, groups did better than the sum of the efforts of their members working alone, and increasingly so for larger groups. The ‘me’ bit of all this was some undergrad work I carried out extending this effect to collaborative memory, rather than ideas, and showing that two heads can be better than one, if they interact in this fashion. Not my idea, I was under the tutelage of John McCarthy, who I haven’t seen for ages but whose site confirms he is still doing fun stuff, which is actually pretty Mindhackish. Hmmm. Maychance I’ll give him a buzz sometime….

With good reason, other people have picked up the ball with this work and run with it.This paper, for example, details a computer environment in which people can contribute to solving or exploring questions, in a more sophisticated manner. And in a sense, we are all already converts to this perspective, no? Who can doubt that, for all the noise in amongst the signal, that the interated and interconnected debate you can find in a blog comment thread allows for the screening of useful ideas in a way that a face-to-face argument would rarely do? Putting aside the availability of such variety of viewpoints and information that the internet provides, there is a good case that it’s developing in such a way to structurally promote the flourishing of new ideas in a way that has never been universally achievable before.

Clearly I’m not bringing up anything new here, and I think Eldan,Tom and Matt would have a lot more to say about this, which I would love. I just felt like mapping out a geneology of the research that lines up with these changes in our information and interaction environment.

1 Lamm, H., Trommsdorff, G.(1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): A review. European-Journal-of-Social-Psychology, 3(4), 361-388.

2 PR Meudell, P.R., Hitch, G.J., Kirby, P. (1992). Are two heads better than one? Experimental investigations of the social facilitation of memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology.

3 Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group process and productivity. Academic Press, New York.

4 Wegner,D.M., Erber, R., Raymond,P.(1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal-of-Personality-and-Social-Psychology, 61(6), 923-929

5 Valacich,J.S., Dennis,A.R., Connolly, T.(1994). Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational-Behavior-and-Human-Decision-Processes, 57(3), 448-467

Knowledge Nuggets – Original Recipe

This project here probably has some sputtering into their creme brulee, but the idea of compressing great works of philosophy whilst retaining the “in their own words” attraction of going to the originals is a wonderful thing. The pitch, itself compressed to it’s standout points is

There is no taking-part in the ‘Great Debate’ of Western civilisation, the debate about who we are, how we should be governed, how we think and how we ought to behave, without some familiarity with the, remarkably few, thinkers in whose language and idiom the talk is conducted….So, here are the most used, most quoted, the most given, sources of the West. The books that have defined the way the West thinks now, in their author’s own words, but condensed and abridged into something readable….it becomes possible to read the whole thing as a single narrative, as the story of Western Thought

The story of Western Thought in a month of lunchtimes? That’s got to be the ultimate democratisation of information. More power to us.

Mindhacks

I’m up on Mind Hacks now – my intro post is here, and I should be a creature feature on the site in the future. And, if you’re coming here from the site, then welcome and look around. And I know it’s a terrible design. That’s why Matt is a web guy, and I’m a neurosciency guy. Only Matt knows tons about neuroscience too. And Tom has a great looking site.

But they can’t do this, can they

[does intricate footshimmy]

Didn’t think so.