The Ultimate Goal of Science

The ultimate goal of science is explaining cause and effect relationships.  Only true experiments allow us to determine cause and effect relationships.  However, even when using true experiments we can only suggest cause and effect relationships  in terms of probability.  Scientific information is not absolute and it is tentative in nature (subject to change). 

True Experiment:  A research method, using random assignment of participants to different groups,  that allows researchers to determine cause and effect relationships through manipulation of a variable / variables and control of a situation. 

So, in addition to describing and predicting phenomena in the observable universe only true experiments allow explanations of cause and effect relationships.

For Causation: Key implications
- Cause occurs before effect
- Cause present - effect more likely to occur
- Cause absent - effect less likely to occur

Confound:  an uncontrolled extraneous variable or flaw in an experiment. 

Confound is term often used when discussing research. There are a couple of key ways to reduce confounds when conducting true experiments:
- Randomly assign participants to groups so individual differences within groups average out
- Treat each group exactly the same except for the differences in the level of the independent variable

Recommended Article!
UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/03/21/understanding-research-methodology/

Who's Rational?

More evidence that we need to promote and teach Rational thinking. As Stanovich and others have pointed out there is a distinciton between Intelligence and Rationality. High levels of intelligence do not predict Rationality (across many tasks).

 

I finished collecting data earlier this week for my experimental study - Critical Thinking and Environmental Factors.  The critical thinking tasks actually were a cover. The primary concern of the study was expectation and food liking.

 

In regards to the crit.. thinking tasks (3 tasks ) the performances were not good. No one correctly answered all three of the problems and many participants missed all three. The tasks used were similar to the ones often used by Stanovich and Kahneman.

24 ps answered 0 correctly

19..................... 1 correctly

4....................... 2 correctly

total of 19% correctly answered

 

Articles on Rationality

Are We Rational Animals

 

Critical Thinking: What is True and What To Do

 

Myths About Rationality

 

Video-  What IQ Tests Miss

 

 

 

 

 

The Neuroscience of Expectations

It is important to recognize that different expectations lead to different activations in the brain.   From a neuroscientific perspective expecting a future outcome involves several brain mechanisms aimed at preparing the body for an up-coming future event (Benedetti, 2009; Scott, Stohler, Egnatuk, Wang, Koeppe, & Zubieta, 2007).  As an example, the expectation of a future positive outcome may lessen anxiety and / or activate brain circuits that are involved with reward mechanisms. The reward mechanisms are mediated by specific neuronal circuits that link motor, cognitive, and emotional responses.  These mechanisms are typically studied in the context of natural rewards.   However, a negative expectation may lead to increases in anxiety, and activation of brain areas involved with negative experiences.  It follows, that different expectations related to food may lead to different brain activity, thus affecting outcomes (responses / reactions).  

Scott et al. (2007) examined the role of the nucleus accumbens (NAC), a region of the brain involved with reward expectation, in the formation of expectancy effects (placebo effects).   Using functional molecular imaging, activation of NAC dopamine (DA) release was observed during placebo administration and related to its anticipated effects and placebo effect development. In additional functional MRI studies, the expectation of monetary gain increased NAC synaptic activity proportional to placebo- induced DA release.  This research demonstrates strong support for the magnitude of expectation in relation to brain reward mechanisms.

Volkow et al. (2003) investigated how expectation affects the response to the stimulant drug methylphenidate in 25 cocaine abusers. The effects of the drug on brain glucose metabolism and on its reinforcing effects (self-reports of drug effects) were evaluated in four conditions: (1) expecting placebo and receiving placebo; (2) expecting placebo and receiving the drug; (3) expecting the drug  and receiving the drug methylphenidate; (4) expecting the drug and receiving placebo.  The results indicated increases in metabolism were 50% larger when methylphenidate was expected than when it was not.  These differences were significant in cerebellum (vermis) and thalamus. In contrast, unexpected methylphenidate showed larger increases in left lateral orbitofrontal cortex than when it was expected.  Drug-induced increases in self-reports of being high were also 50% greater when subjects expected to receive it than when they did not.  Self-reports of being high were significantly correlated with the metabolic increases in thalamus but not in cerebellum.  A key finding in this study is that expectation heightens the effects of methylphenidate in the brain and its reinforcing effects.  

An event-related fMRI study was used to measure the effects of cognitive (semantic) priming on the neural responses to a delivery of odors (de Araujo, Rolls, Velazco, Margot, Cayeux, 2005).      Odors were presented with descriptors on a screen.  A test odor was labeled on different trials as “cheddar cheese” or “body odor.”  The same labels were paired with delivery of clean air in different trials.    Alpha-ionone (pleasant, labeled “flowers”) and Octanol (unpleasant, labeled “burned plastic”) were used as references for pleasant and unpleasant stimuli for the psychophysics and neuroimaging.  The participants rated the test odor as significantly more unpleasant when labeled “body odor” than when labeled “cheddar cheese.”  The fMRI showed that the rostral anterior cingulate cortex / medial orbitofrontal cortex was significantly more activated by the test stimulus and by clean air when labeled “cheddar cheese” than when labeled “body odor.”   Recent neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that pleasant odors preferentially activate medial orbitofrontal regions, while unpleasant odors activate lateral regions.  The findings of this study suggest expectation of odor may have an influence on flavor perception, as smell is a key component involved with flavor perception.

 

References available upon request

Dr. Gottlob from the NSF

Big thanks to Dr. Gottlob for taking time out of his busy schedule to talk with Knowledge Summit

What is the general process for considering whether or not to fund research proposals?

We only have enough money to fund about 12 percent of the proposals we receive. First, we send all proposals out for external (adhoc) review by experts in the field. After we get those reviews back, we hold a review panel with about 15 experts from the US and Canada, here at NSF. Those panelists sort the proposals into A B and C categories according to external reviews and their own assessments of the proposals' merits. Their sorting serves as a recommendation to the program officer, who then makes his/her own decision on what to recommend for funding.

We consider many factors in deciding what gets funded, including the quality of the proposal, the theoretical importance of the work, the experience and capability of the investigators, and other factors such as geographic and institutional diversity, and portfolio balance.

What is the strangest proposal you have seen since you have been at the NSF?

For reasons of confidentiality, I cannot comment on proposals that were not funded. But there have been some odd ones, as well as some that are really far-reaching and innovative, but maybe just not ready for prime time.

What does a typical day look like for you- morning until bedtime?

I ride my bicycle into work by 9 in the morning, catch up on emails, meet with colleagues about proposals that they are interested in funding, have phone conferences with investigators and potential investigators, attend training sessions, attend departmental meetings and brownbag talks, and try to shoehorn in some reading on my own interests, which are in embodied cognition, attention, and (lately) Bayesian statistics. My primary work activities involve reading proposals, writing justifications for proposal declines and awards, soliciting adhoc reviewers, and running review panels for my program (Perception Action & Cognition) and other programs.

After work, I take a bicycle ride on a local canal path or trail, or go out to dinner with colleagues and other people I know in the area. Washington DC has a lot to see and do.

Will you return to the University of Kentucky after your three year assignment at the NSF?

Yes. My main challenge will be to resume my research program, and to leverage my experience at NSF into some kinds of activities that will help UK be more competitive in getting federal funding.

Has working at the NSF changed your view on science and how it is administered at the governmental level?

Yes, very much so. I have had a couple of federal grants (NIH and NSF) but knew almost nothing about things work in DC. I've also learned a lot about the political process; NSF is an independent branch of the federal government. At the science level, I have been exposed to so much new stuff in Cognitive Science and other behavioral sciences, including economics, geography, and anthropology. I've gained a real appreciation for other ways of seeing the world. Academics tend to get compartmentalized into their own subfields, so this has been great exposure. 

About Lawrence Gottlob

Dr. Lawrence Gottlob is a program director at the NSF in the area of Perception, Action & Cognition . He is an experimental psychologist who studies visual attention and cognitive aging. He has been at UK since 2001 and is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology.   His PhD is from Arizona State and he did a postdoc at Duke University.

Conscious & Unconscious Placebo / Nocebo Effects

The placebo and nocebo effect is believed to be mediated by both cognitive ( expectations) and conditioning mechanisms. Little is known about their role in different circumstances. In a study conducted by Benedetti et al. (2003), the effects of opposing verbal suggestions on experimental ischemic arm pain in healthy volunteers and on motor performance in Parkinsonian patients was analyzed. It was found that verbally induced expectations of analgesia/hyperalgesia and motor improvement/worsening antagonized completely the effects of a conditioning procedure. The researchers also measured the effects of opposing verbal suggestions on hormonal secretion and found that verbally induced expectations of increase/decrease of growth hormone (GH) and cortisol did not have any effect on the secretion of these hormones. However, if a preconditioning was performed with sumatriptan, a 5-HT1B/1D agonist that stimulates GH and inhibits cortisol secretion, a significant increase of GH and decrease of cortisol plasma concentrations were found after placebo administration, although opposite verbal suggestions were given. These findings indicate that verbally induced expectations have no effect on hormonal secretion, whereas they affect pain and motor performance. This suggests that placebo effects are mediated by conditioning when unconscious physiological functions such as hormonal secretion are involved, whereas they are mediated by expectation when conscious physiological processes such as pain and motor performance come into play, even though a conditioning procedure is performed.

At least two main findings emerge from this study. First, analgesic and motor placebo responses appear to be mediated by verbally induced expectations. Although the subjects' expectations were not directly measured, many studies shows verbal suggestions affect expectations. Opposite verbal suggestions modulated pain in contradictory directions and most important, even after a pharmacological analgesic preconditioning, a significant hyperalgesic effect occurred when suggestion of pain increase was given This indicates that the placebo effect of was caused by expectation of analgesia and not by the pharmacological preconditioning per se. This can also be seen in Parkinsonian patients, whose motor worsening appears to depend on verbally induced expectation; in fact, the opposite verbal suggestion was enough to reverse this effect. The second important finding is that verbally induced expectations of hormonal increase and decrease had no effect on hormonal plasma concentrations. However, placebo administration after sumatriptan preconditioning mimicked the effects of the sumatriptan itself. It is important to point out that these sumatriptan-like effects occurred regardless of whether verbal suggestions were given for GH increase or decrease. Thus verbal manipulations that are likely to affect expectations did not influence hormonal secretion.

“[I]n the present study, conditioning appears to play a crucial role in the placebo responses of human unconscious physiological functions, whereas expectations replace conditioning when conscious perception is involved (e.g., pain and motor performance).” Benedetti et al., 2003

The two key mechanisms underpinning placebo effects and nocebo effects are expectations, and conditioning (Pavlovian, Classical Conditioning). The mechanism explaining the placebo or nocebo effect depends on the context. In some cases conditioning and expectations may contribute to the effect, while in others one or the other may be involved. However, some have pointed out the conditioning is a form of expectation. Thus, if this is the case conditioning always involves expectation, whereas the reverse may not be true.

What are placebos?

Originally, placebos were thought of as inert pills or medications that were presented by physicians in the medical context or by researchers in clinical or experimental studies. Today, the term has a broader definition and it is used in a variety of settings. Placebos are present in our everyday lives, and sometimes have profound impacts on behaviors, and experiences (different types of placebo effects). The word Placebo is derived from a Latin phrase meaning “to please”.

“A placebo is a substance or procedure that has no inherent power to produce an effect that is sought or expected.” (Williams & Podd, 2004)

In general terms, when considering placebo, the entire ritual surrounding the administration of the substance or procedure is considered. Placebos are context specific. What might be a placebo in one condition may actually serve as a nocebo (opposite placebo, negative outcome) in another context. Also, a placebo in one context may serve as an active treatment (substance, procedure) in another context. Learning and cultural influences play a large role in determining whether a substance or procedure serve as a placebo. The study of placebos has advanced substantially over the past few years, and has provided important information in regards to neurobiology, and various other biological mechanisms. Coming Soon The Amazing World of Placebo Effects: The Neurobiology of Placebo Effects

Investigating Placebo Effects 2- Sham Knee Surgery

Mosley et al. (2002) conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of arthroscopy for osteoarthritis of the knee. Patients were assigned to receive an arthroscopic debridement, arthroscopic lavage or placebo surgery. Patients and assessors of outcome were blinded to which condition the patients were in. Outcomes were assessed at multiple points over a 24-month period. Five self-reported scores and one objective test of walking and stair climbing was used as measures. Neither of the intervention groups reported less pain or better function than the group receiving the sham surgery. In fact, at two weeks participants that received the sham surgery performed better on an objective walking and stair climbing measure than those in the debridement group. This was also found at one year and the debridement group showed a trend towards worse functioning at two years. However, it is not clear if this outcome occurred due to a placebo (via expectation) effect or natural history.

Placebo Effects- Sham Knee Surgery (video)

Coming Soon! The Amazing World of Placebo Effects