After providing all the funding for The Brain from Top to Bottom for over 10 years, the CIHR Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction informed us that because of budget cuts, they were going to be forced to stop sponsoring us as of March 31st, 2013.

We have approached a number of organizations, all of which have recognized the value of our work. But we have not managed to find the funding we need. We must therefore ask our readers for donations so that we can continue updating and adding new content to The Brain from Top to Bottom web site and blog.

Please, rest assured that we are doing our utmost to continue our mission of providing the general public with the best possible information about the brain and neuroscience in the original spirit of the Internet: the desire to share information free of charge and with no adverstising.

Whether your support is moral, financial, or both, thank you from the bottom of our hearts!

Bruno Dubuc, Patrick Robert, Denis Paquet, and Al Daigen

Friday, 10 February 2017
You Don’t Catch a Ball by Calculating Its Trajectory, You Catch It by Moving

Today I’d like to talk about a problem that is a classic both for baseball players and for cognitive scientists. And the way that baseball players solve it has helped cognitive scientists to better understand the important role that the body plays in cognition.

The problem is as follows: how does a baseball player go about catching a baseball that has been hit high into the air, especially when the player is in centre field and the ball is following a long, parabolic trajectory that would otherwise cause it to land several metres from where the player is standing? How does the player go about calculating this trajectory and moving, in just a few seconds, to the right place to catch the ball? This is what has long been known in English as “the outfielder problem.” (If you’re more of a soccer fan, imagine a backfielder successfully heading a long throw-in by the goalkeeper.)

As some of you may know from high-school physics, if you know the ball’s speed as it leaves the hitter’s bat, and the angle of the ball’s trajectory relative to the ground, then given the effects of gravity on this trajectory (and ignoring, for simplicity, the effects of wind and air friction), you can calculate the spot where the ball will fall. But the player out there in deep centre field has no way of knowing these values, much less having the time to plug them into the right mathematical formulas to solve the problem and move to where the ball should land.

So how does the centre fielder position himself at the right spot? By a very simple trick: he moves so that the ball always stays at the same position in the sky, from his point of view! If he sees the ball rising, he keeps dropping back until it stops doing so. Once he sees it begin to fall, he keeps moving toward just quickly enough to keep it in the centre of his field of vision. Similarly, if the ball moves a bit to the left, the player moves a bit to the left, until the ball appears to have stopped moving leftward, and vice versa if the ball moves to the right. And in the final fractions of a second, if the player is in the right place, all he has to do is stretch out his glove to that spot in the centre of his field of vision where the ball no longer appears to be moving up, down, left or right but does appear to be growing bigger and bigger as it approaches. This process is known as “optical acceleration cancellation”, because the fielder is constantly trying to use his own movements to cancel out the acceleration of the ball as perceived in his field of vision.

Solving the problem of catching a ball that has been hit very high in the air can be regarded as a fairly elaborate cognitive process, but that does not mean that the fielder’s brain arrives at the solution by manipulating abstract symbols. In fact, working on its own, the brain could never solve the problem. It needs help from the perception of the ball in the player’s visual field and, most importantly, from the movement of the player’s body through space. The two interact in real time in what is known as a perception’action cycle, in which. at any given time, the perception tells the individual what action to take so that certain stimuli will match an internal model whose efficacy has been validated through training over time (in this case, the model that says to keep the ball motionless in one’s field of vision).

Two final remarks. The first concerns the eminently embodied nature of the cognition in this example. The baseball player is a human being with frontal vision and legs that let him move quickly, and these bodily characteristics form an integral part of the cognitive process needed to solve the problem at hand. Working alone, the brain would fail miserably at this task. So we are talking not only about embodied cognition, but about embodied cognition in which a part of the environment (the ball’s position in the sky) is used in real time to complete a task successfully. (For more on this subject, take a look at this course, if you read French.) The concepts involved certainly bring to mind Kevin O’Reagan’s assertion that sensation is a way of interacting with the world.

My second remark concerns the predictive nature of this task, and in particular the fact that the person performing it is constantly correcting errors in relation to a model that he has developed internally. To catch the ball, the fielder must keep it immobile in his field of vision, and hence must move to cancel any movement of the ball whenever the visual input ceases to match the prediction of this model, in which the ball must not move. This behaviour, in which the individual is generally trying to correct an error perceived through the senses, is a form of what is known as predictive processing or predictive coding, This approach, or, if you prefer, paradigm, was developed relatively recently in cognitive science and offers great promise to help us better understand the connections among perception, cognition and action. But its roots lie in a simple, far older idea: that our brain is fundamentally a machine for making predictions, for the ultimate purpose of keeping our organism alive.

i_lien The Embodied Cognition of the Baseball Outfielder
a_lien The outfielder problem: The psychology behind catching fly balls

Uncategorized | No comments

Monday, 9 January 2017
A First Brain-Imaging Study on the Effects of LSD

“This is to neuroscience what the Higgs boson was to particle physics.”

This eye-catching remark comes from neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt, and he is talking about a study on which he was the senior researcher: “Neural correlates of the LSD experience revealed by multimodal neuroimaging”, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in April 2016. And like the results of the research on the Higgs boson, the results of Nutt’s study confirmed the theory—in this case, that the observed changes in brain activity would provide a very good picture of the mental state produced by an “acid trip”. (more…)

The Emergence of Consciousness | No comments

Monday, 12 December 2016
Some Amazing Predictions Based on Brain Connectivity

This week, I’d like to tell you about two very interesting articles. The first, by Emily S. Finn and her colleagues, was published in the journal Nature Neuroscience in October 2015 and is entitled “Functional connectome fingerprinting: identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity.” As its title suggests, Finn’s research team successfully identified individuals from patterns not on their fingertips, but rather in their brains! (more…)

From the Simple to the Complex | No comments

Monday, 7 November 2016
Norman Doidge and cerebral plasticity

This week, I want to recommend a Brain Science Podcast featuring Dr. Norman Doidge, first posted online in February 2015. This podcast was in a sense a sequel to one devoted to Doidge’s book The Brain That Changes Itself (links to both podcasts are provided below). Both of these programs discuss a fundamental characteristic of the human brain: its great plasticity, even in adults—in other words, the fact that the brain’s neural circuits reorganize themselves constantly throughout our lifetimes. (more…)

Memory and the Brain | No comments

Thursday, 20 October 2016
Psychologist Scans Own Brain Twice per Week for a Year and a Half

If you use social media, you have probably seen posts where someone has shown photos of themselves taken at regular intervals over a long period. Well, Stanford University psychologist Russell Poldrack has gone them one better: he has scanned his own brain twice per week for a year and a half! But Poldrack’s goal isn’t simply to wow his friends on Facebook. He is using the scans to do something that has never been attempted before: to understand how the connectivity of a normal person’s brain may vary over a period of several months, a span of time in which people with mental disorders often show considerable fluctuations in their psychological functions.

Poldrack calls his study “MyConnnectome”, and he published his initial results in the December 9, 2015 edition of the journal Nature Communications. It might seem surprising that no one had ever gathered such data before. But not many normal subjects would have been willing to do what Poldrack did: get into an MRI machine for a brain scan two mornings each week (one of them on an empty stomach) for a year and a half, have blood samples taken once per week, and write a report on his diet and physical activity every day. It took a scientist who was really motivated to advance the state of knowledge. (more…)

From the Simple to the Complex | No comments