The site www.neurosciencenews.com is mainly a site that just uncritically passes on neuroscience press releases, which these days tend to be filled with hype and unfounded boasts. But the site does have some original articles. Very recently the site published an article entitled "The Top 10 Neuroscience News Articles of 2023." A look at the articles listed leaves you with the impression that neuroscientists are getting nowhere trying to explain human minds by neural explanations.
Let's look at each of the "Top 10" stories listed.
#10: " Lab-Grown Human Brain Organoids Go Animal-Free"
The story merely tells about some scientists creating tiny clumps of brain cells. We hear nothing about any cognitive results from such experimentation.
#9 "Optimism Linked to Poor Decision-Making and Lower Cognitive Skills"
The research described is not neuroscience research, but merely some psychology research that involved analyzing survey data produced when people filled out questionnaires.
#8 "Dry Scooping: A Risky Dietary Practice Common Among Adolescents and Young Adults"
The research described is not neuroscience research, and has nothing to do with the brain or the mind.
#7 "Brain Brew: How Daily Coffee Habits May Affect Brain Plasticity and Learning."
The article states, "Researchers found those who regularly and frequently consume caffeine products may have diminished long-term potentiation (LTP), a vital process for learning and memory in the brain." We have a link to a November article on www.neurosciencenews.com which refers to the poorly designed Questionable Research Practices study "Chronic caffeine consumption curbs rTMS-induced plasticity" here. That study does not meet good standards of experimental research involving correlations, because it failed to follow any blinding protocol, and failed to follow the principle of using at least 15 subjects in each of its study groups. The paper says, "We performed a post hoc covariate analysis on self-reported caffeine-users (n = 16) vs. non-users (n = 4)," but the control study group size was way too small. The authors of the paper confess this flaw, stating, "It is important to note that conclusions from this study remain preliminary as there were only four subjects in the NCU group (vs. 16 in the CU group), thus likely overestimating the effect size." The authors did nothing to measure or test learning in their subjects, and did nothing to show any kind of bad effect on learning.
The claim that LTP is "a vital process for learning and memory in the brain" is a groundless speech custom of today's neuroscientists. No research has ever shown that LTP is any kind of mechanism for learning or memory, nor has any research shown that LTP has anything to do with human memory. LTP was first observed as an artificial effect that scientists produced by artificial electrical stimulation. This artificial stimulation produced a very short-term effect on synapses. In general LTP is as short-lived as a suntan, and cannot be any explanation for human memories that last for decades. The use of the term "long-term potentiation" (LTP) to refer to this very-short term effect is one of the very many cases of misleading language use by neuroscientists.
The insinuation of the www.neurosciencenews.com article that drinking coffee may negatively affect learning is contrary to the experience of generations of college students who know that coffee is a fine stimulant that facilitates learning simply by increasing alertness.
#6 – "A Drug That Increases Dopamine Can Reverse the Effects of Inflammation on the Brain in Depression"
We have a reference to a small study involving a few dozen patients, one claiming that some increase in dopamine can have a good effect in reducing some type of inflammation. The study claims to have produced some evidence that some type of chemical marker related to inflammation has been changed by the use of the medication. But the study has not provided any evidence that the drug helps to improve depression. In recent years the chemical imbalance theory of depression (that depression is caused by an imbalance of brain chemicals) has come under severe attack by quite a few neuroscientists who have stated that the theory has no basis in observations.
#5 "Aggression Is A Result of Self-Control, Not Lack Thereof"
The discussion refers to a paper that is a mere psychology study, not a neuroscience study. The 27-page paper is not an experimental study, but a mere theoretical study. The paper refers on only one of its pages (page 11) to neuroscience results, and on that page mentions conflicting evidence about whether the prefrontal cortex does or does not show increased activity during aggression. The claim that aggression is a result of self-control is implausible sounding, and does nothing to back up claims that minds are made by brains.
4 – "Nearly 1 in 5 Adults May Have Misophonia, Experiencing Significant Negative Responses to Sounds"
This is rather obviously not an important research result.
3 – "Mushrooms Magnify Memory by Boosting Nerve Growth."
We are referred to one of the articles on www.neurosciencenews.com that uncritically parroted the press release of a junk science study. The study did not provide any robust evidence that mushrooms increase memory, nor did it provide any good evidence that mushrooms increase nerve growth. The study was yet another Questionable Research Practices study using way-too-small study group sizes such as only six mice or only nine mice. Figure 9 of the study fails to provide any robust evidence that memory has been improved in the mice given mushroom extract. The study group size mentioned in Figure 9 is the way-too-small size of only nine mice. No blinding protocol is mentioned in the memory test, making the reported result unreliable. The memory test used (something called the NORT test) is not a reliable test of memory, requiring subjective judgements about a rodent's movements.
2 – "Paying Attention to Faces May Be Linked With Psychopathology Levels and ‘Big Five’ Personality Traits"
We hear a claim that "Those who paid little attention to faces were more likely to suffer from a psychological disorder, specifically, depression, alexithymia, or anxiety." That's the opposite of what the headline above claims. In any case, the result does nothing to support claims that the mind is the product of the brain.
1 – "Zoom Conversations vs In-Person: Brain Activity Tells a Different Tale"
We have this claim:
"When communicating online via platforms like Zoom, researchers observed users had suppressed neural signals. However, when embarking on face-to-face or in-person conversations, neuroimaging revealed heightened brain activity and more coordinated neural responses between the participants."
We are referred to an October 2023 study in Imaging Neuroscience by Joy Hirsch. The study is here. It does not actually involve neuroimaging such as fMRI imaging, but only eye tracking and EEG reading, and something called Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy. No blinding protocol was followed. The Figures of the paper do not mention how many subjects were used. There is a mention of a total of 28 subjects, but we don't know whether this total was divided up into much smaller study group sizes such as only 9 or 10, study group sizes that would have been too small. No robust evidence has been found relating to the question of whether the brain is responsible for making the mind. I doubt that the study has even produced evidence that people look more closely at real faces than on faces on computer screens shown during Zoom sessions.
So these are the "best of 2023" stories presented by the Neuroscience News site. None of them represent any progress in establishing claims that the mind is produced by the brain, or that the mind is the same as brain processes. But let's look in another place for some sign of such progress: in a recent Scientific American article entitled "2023’s Mind-Bending Revelations in the Brain Sciences." We read these section headers talking about "some of the standout mind and brain stories we covered in Scientific American in 2023."
#1: "AI DRIVES A MACHINE THAT CAN DECODE THE CONTENTS OF YOUR BRAIN"
Scientific American gives us a link to its previous story in which one of its writers bought "hook, line and sinker" the claims of the authors of the very low-quality study "Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings." The study failed to show any good evidence for anything important, as it used way too-small study group sizes of only three subjects and seven subjects (15 subjects per study group is the minimum for a moderately impressive result). Following Questionable Research Practices, the scientists report no sample size calculation, no blinding protocol, no pre-registration, no control group, and no effect size. The only "statistical significance" reported is what smells like "p-hacking" kind of results of the bare minimum for publication (merely p < .05). For these basically worthless results, seven subjects endured something like 16 hours of brain scanning with a 3T scanner, which is more than 30 times longer than they would have had for a diagnostic MRI. Senselessly, this study has been reported by our ever-credulous science press as some case of reading thoughts by brain scanning. It is no evidence of any such thing.
#2 "VICTORIES IN GO INSPIRE BETTER GAMEPLAY"
We are referred to some development that is not at all a neuroscience development, but merely a development in psychology and computer software development.
#3 "WILL WE FINALLY UNDERSTAND CONSCIOUSNESS BY THE YEAR 2048?"
We get under this heading a discussion merely reminding us that neuroscientists have been unable to find any brain explanation for how conscious humans can exist.
#4 "QUASHING BAD THOUGHTS MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER"
We get under this heading a discussion of some research that is purely psychology research, not neuroscience research.
That's all that the Scientific American article on "2023’s Mind-Bending Revelations in the Brain Sciences" has to offer. The article couldn't even make it up to a #5. I found one other article of this type, one entitled "Six Mind-Blowing Brain Studies In 2023 That Stunned Researchers." We get this list of stories:
- Menstruation And Brain Structural Change
- Most Complete 3D Insect Connectome
- Sex Drive Switch In Mouse Brains
- Spiral Signals In Human Brain
- Game-Changing In Utero Brain Surgery
- Humans And Squid Brains Are Alike
So these are the "best of 2023 neuroscience" stories presented by the Neuroscience News site, the Scientific American web site and one other source. None of them represent any progress in establishing claims that the mind is produced by the brain, or that the mind is the same as brain processes, or that brains store memories. We are left with the impression that neuroscientists are getting nowhere trying to establish such claims. One of the main reasons why (besides the very frequent poor research methods of neuroscientists) is that such claims are false. Your mind is not produced by your brain, and is not the same as brain activity. So we can expect that in future years the critical analyst will get a similar impression of neuroscientists being "lost in the woods," getting nowhere in trying to prove the groundless but cherished dogma of their belief community that you are your brain. But those who are not critical analysts may be fooled by some of the hype, misstatements and "smoke and mirrors" trickery that comes so abundantly from this community, seeking to keep everyone marching in lockstep down the thought path of an erring mainstream.
No comments:
Post a Comment