Mastodon
Neurons in a Dish Learn to Play Pong

Neurons in a Dish Learn to Play Pong

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

brain cell neuron growth

The things scientists do! Getting neurons to play pong is kind of weird, fascinating, and incredibly important at the same time.

Kind of weird because it sounds like some sort of strange scientific experiment whereby neurons, brain cells, can be wired up to a computer to do useless things. But that may be a lay person’s first impression. The implications are quite dramatic. It means that a group of individual brain cells growing in a petri dish can exhibit “intelligent” behaviours. That is fascinating but also an incredibly important insight.

So, what did these researchers actually do?

This was a collaboration between 10 different institutions led by Brett Kagan and the goal was to see how simple systems can adapt and learn behaviours in an environment. We tend to think of the brain as incredibly complex and advanced, as in human brain, but in research often much simpler brain such as that of worms are used. They have very simple brains but can still have a behavioural repertoire and respond and adapt to the environment that belies the brain’s simplicity.

The researchers grew neurons in a petri dish – these show spontaneous electrical activity – brain cells can’t but help to communicate to each other. The cells were sitting on a mesh that was linked in a closed loop to a simulated environment. And this simulated environment was the original computer game pong – hitting a moving dot with a “paddle”. The reason for this is that it is a very simple game easy to understand the rules and gives a clear environment to measure success or failure of “behaviour”.

The spikes of activity of the neurons were measured and when they got stronger, they moved the paddle. When the paddle missed the ball, the neurons were “critiqued” – this was done through a special software programme created by company called Cortical Labs.

The principle that was used is based on a theory called the free energy principle. One of the tenets of this is that all living organisms are trying to find predictability and change their behaviour, or worldview, to achieve this predictability. Therefore when the paddle is missed, unpredictable signals were given, in contrast to predictable signals when the ball was hit.

The neurons then became better and better at playing pong. Collectively learning and self-organising their behaviour to become an effective pong unit.

So, it might sound weird, but this is quite amazing. That brain cells grown in a petri dish can learn to coordinate their activity to learn to play a game. Wow!

This shows that our brain cells are self-organising groups that aim to build behaviour repertories to reduce unpredictably – and therefore operate better in the environment.

And that the primary purpose of our brain is to be prediction machine.

Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

References

Brett J. Kagan, Andy C. Kitchen, Nhi T. Tran, Forough Habibollahi, Moein Khajehnejad, Bradyn J. Parker, Anjali Bhat, Ben Rollo, Adeel Razi, Karl J. Friston. 
In vitro neurons learn and exhibit sentience when embodied in a simulated game-world
Neuron, 2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2022.09.001

More Quick Hits

How the Brain Strengthens Memory in Sleep

How the Brain Strengthens Memory in Sleep

Sleep is essential for building memory, we know that, but the precise mechanisms remain elusive- until now . . .

 

This content is only for Premium Brains - please subscribe to access this. All subscriptions come with a free trial.
Register for free to receive access to "Healthy Brains" and other selected articles.
Subscribe to Premium Brain (monthly or annual) to access all articles and access the download page.

Subscribe now

 

leadership brain magazine

Chirp Up! Birdsong Improves Mental Wellbeing

Chirp Up! Birdsong Improves Mental Wellbeing

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

birds nature brain health

Waking up to an early morning chorus of birdsong is nice. No doubt about that. But the benefits could be much more significant than just a fleeting feeling of positivity (and followed by a groan to get out of bed by some).

Researchers at Kings College London have just reported on the results of a study that tracked people’s exposure to birdsong and the resulting mental health impact – with some very positive results.

Hammoud et al. tracked 1’292 participants over three years who completed an impressive 26’856 assessments. They used an app that asked them three times a time whether they could hear birdsong and then followed up with questions on mental health.

What did they find?

They found that seeing or hearing birds was associated with an improvement in wellbeing and that this can last up to eight hours. Not bad for a bit of birdsong. What’s more they also found that this also improved wellbeing in those suffering from depression.

This supports plenty of other research into the benefits of nature and specifically of just birdsong. I reported on the positive effects of biodiversity and birdsong here. But these researchers were also able to account for co-occurring other environmental factors such as seeing tress – we also know greenspace has a positive benefit – and found that birdsong alone could account for positive benefits.

So, that’s all good news – surprising and effective method to improve mental wellbeing – so open the windows and listen to the birds. It will do you good.

Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

References

Ryan Hammoud, Stefania Tognin, Lucie Burgess, Nicol Bergou, Michael Smythe, Johanna Gibbons, Neil Davidson, Alia Afifi, Ioannis Bakolis, Andrea Mechelli. 
Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment reveals mental health benefits of birdlife
Scientific Reports, 2022; 12 (1)
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20207-6

More Quick Hits

Yes, Fake Smiling Does Improve Your Mood

Yes, Fake Smiling Does Improve Your Mood

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

Fake it till you make it – or so the saying goes. That means things like act confident, even if you don’t feel it, until you feel confident. When it comes to mood, and happiness, there has long been the advice of “just smile, it will make you feel better”. With the assumption that the movement of smiling will trigger a host of knock-on effects. Makes sense, right?

Yes, it does make sense, but, it has been difficult to prove. This also is the history of a legendary study published in 1988 which involved having participants watch a video with a pencil between the teeth, forcing the mouth into a sort of grin (the smiling scenario), or holding the end between the lips to form the mouth into a “pout, a more negative facial expression.

The hypotheses was that the pencil pushing the mouth into this involuntary smile or pout could and would impact impressions of how amusing the participants judged the videos they were watched, and also their mood.

Strack et al. did indeed find a correlation and so it was deemed proven that forcing a smile will make you feel better. That is until it fell, and fell heavily, to the replication crises in psychology.

The replication crises, for those who don’t know, was the realisation that many studies in psychology couldn’t be replicated. So, if another researcher repeated it, they got different results. Basically, if a study can’t be replicated then it kind of nullifies the whole experiment and subsequent results. And particularly worrying is that many of the most famous, most cited, and most popular studies seemed to be falling.

The pencil and smile one by Strack et al, was just such a study. Oft cited and much written about and spoken about by motivational speakers like I was. Not only could it not be replicated in different individual studies, but a global consortium ran 17 experiments with about 2’000 participants according to the same rigorous protocol while they were all videoed.

And what were the results?

Almost no effect. This seemed to wipe the smiling study off the plate. Psychologists were up in arms about the state of their science, and we all lost a favourite study to quote. But the story doesn’t end there. Strack himself had noted that a problem with the replication was that participants had been filmed during the experiment. And we all know that we tend to change our behaviour when observed. Could this be influencing the results?

Well, this is then what a group of Israeli researchers decided to investigate in 2018. And lo and behold what they found was precisely that: when filmed or unfilmed the results replicated both cases. There was an effect size almost identical to Strack’s original study when unfilmed, and similar to the follow up studies when filmed. Both studies are therefore correct.

That is a bit of history to understand the background to this particular experiment. And it now has a study to complement it. In this, however, sceptics and supporters for the smiling hypotheses came up with a protocol that they both agree would be more suitable. Holding a pencil between your teeth in a fake grin or to pout can be unwieldy, uncomfortable and unnatural.  Therefore, participants either mimicked a smile from an actor’s picture or pulled their lips towards their ears in a forced smile but also repeated the pencil in mouth technique. This was a large-scale study across 19 countries and with 3’878 participants.

And what did they find?

They found that the two conditions of mimicking a smile and forcing a smile were effective: “facial mimicry and voluntary facial action task could both amplify and initiate feelings of happiness”. So yes smiling, even if fake and forced, does make you feel happier.

And interestingly the pencil condition was hardly effective. This points to the original problem with Strack’s original research was that a pencil does not force the mouth into a natural smiling shape and therefore is not very effective at replicating the “smile to be happy” hypotheses.

So, that’s a long-winded way of saying – what many have assumed is correct all along:  yes, you can fake it to make it, and smiling will make you happier, whether forced, or fake.

So, keep smiling and if you are feeling down a fake smile will help!

Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

References

Nicholas A. Coles, David S. March, et al. 
A multi-lab test of the facial feedback hypothesis by the Many Smiles Collaboration
Nature Human Behaviour, 2022
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-022-01458-9

Original Study

Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988).
Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 768–777. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768

Failed replication

Wagenmakers, E.-J., Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L, et al.
Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988).
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 917–928.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616674458

Positive Replication

Noah, T., Schul, Y., & Mayo, R. (2018).
When both the original study and its failed replication are correct: Feeling observed eliminates the facial-feedback effect. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(5), 657–664. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000121

More Quick Hits

How Your Brain Decides to Help Others in Danger

How Your Brain Decides to Help Others in Danger

Quick Hits
Daily brief research updates from the cognitive sciences

brain help emergency

In times of crises and danger we may hide and flee as our natural instincts would guide us, or do something else: put ourselves at danger and help others.

Whenever there is a tragic event, there abound stories of individuals who have helped others, often at great risk to themselves. But why? I don’t mean that negatively, it is great, and I have helped others in critical situations myself, a number of times actually.

What I mean is that the brain would normally, we assume, prioritise ourselves and seek to save ourselves first rather than instinctively help others. But the opposite seems to happen.

We may assume this is empathy, or moral standards, but recent research just published has shown this doesn’t appear to be the case!

Joana Vieira and Andreas Olsson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden have just published the intriguing results of a brain scanning study. They conducted a lab experiment in which 49 volunteers had their brains scanned while in a helping scenario.

Sorry, while in a brain scanner there is no running through fire to help others, ethical committees wouldn’t allow this anyway. But what they did do is give participants mild electrical shocks and they could avoid this and/or help others avoid this – virtually that is.

So far so good, but they manipulated the task by adding the risk of getting an even stronger electrical shock if they went to help the other person. This simulates scenarios in real life when helping others leads to greater danger for oneself. They also changed the proximity of threat by saying the electrical shock could be imminent.

So, what did they see?

Interestingly what the researchers saw is increased activation in certain regions in the brain while deciding to help others with threat to oneself. And no, they weren’t areas associated with moral, social behaviour, or cognitive behaviour. It was related to threat. Two regions: the amygdala which is strongly associated with threat detection, and an area called the insula which is involved in embodiment of feelings were both active and levels of activation correlated to willingness to help others.

What was also a surprise is that helping behaviours were correlated with this threat and defensive network but not with the distress of others. So, it is not the distress of others which was stimulating the helping but the perception of threat and the more intense this was the more likely and individual was to help.

This sounds counter-intuitive in some ways, we may assume staying calm would help, we know that too much threat can cause, stress, distress and shut down various other areas of the brain. So, I’d be Interested to know how these all play in to this.

Nevertheless, this does give us a fascinating insight into our brains when helping others. Viera and Olsson are planning further work researching how the presence of others influences behaviour on themselves and the other bystanders in similar helping scenarios. That also looks like fascinating research, and I will keep an eye out for the results.

I will also continue to help others – and hopefully my defensive network in my brain will remain active!

Andy Habermacher

Andy Habermacher

Andy is author of leading brains Review, Neuroleadership, and multiple other books. He has been intensively involved in writing and research into neuroleadership and is considered one of Europe’s leading experts. He is also a well-known public speaker, speaking on the brain and human behaviour.

Andy is also a masters athlete (middle distance running) and competes regularly at international competitions (and holds a few national records in his age category).

twitter / LinkedIn

References

Joana B Vieira, Andreas Olsson. 
Neural defensive circuits underlie helping under threat in humans
eLife, 2022; 11
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.78162

More Quick Hits