PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience
description
Transcript of PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience
![Page 1: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
PS4529/30PS4529/30ApplicationsApplicationsof Cognitiveof CognitiveNeuroscienceNeuroscience
![Page 2: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Do ERPs revealDo ERPs revealmodality specific retrieval processes?modality specific retrieval processes?
• Subjects SAW and HEARD words at study
• Performed a word-stem (e.g. MOT__) cued recall task
• ERPs were formed to stems completed with Studied SEEN items Studied HEARD items Unstudied NEW items
• ERP retrieval effects for each sensory modality:- SEEN – NEW difference HEARD – NEW difference
Allan, Robb and Rugg (2000), Neuropsychologia, 38 1188-1205.
![Page 3: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
No!ERPs are insensitive to
differences in modality at retrieval
Recall auditory episodeRecall visual episode
As retrieval ends…
As retrievalbegins…
![Page 4: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
ERP Modality Experiment: ConclusionsERP Modality Experiment: Conclusions
• Multiple retrieval processes, active at different times– Onset ~ 0.5s after retrieval cue!
• Retrieval of ‘visual’ and ‘auditory’ episodes involves common processes. No evidence for modality specific retrieval processes.
• ERPs reflect a ‘core component’ of retrieval? – Changes in neocortical activity driven by the
Hippocampus during early stages of retrieval (prior to modality specific activations)?
– Or: attention to retrieval products?
![Page 5: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Episodic Memory Mechanisms
ConsolidationMechanisms
AttentionalControl
Encoding Storage Retrieval
AttentionalControl
SemanticRecords
PerceptualRecords
Binding
ContextSemanticRecords
PerceptualRecords
Binding
Context
![Page 6: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Exclusion tasks (following Jacoby, 1991)
Exp. 1 Blocked Encoding.
Block 1: Generate a sentence incorporating each word
Block 2: Rate each word for pleasantness
Exp. 2 Blocked Encoding.
Block 1: Generate a sentence incorporating each word
Block 2: Read each word aloud
Retrieval
Words from block 2 always defined as ‘target context’
Herron and Rugg (2003)
Can we control what we recollect?
![Page 7: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
New Target Non-Target
Exp. 1 0.96 (0.05) 0.76 (0.16) 0.83 (0.06)
Exp. 2 0.88 (0.11) 0.63 (0.13) 0.84 (0.08)
Herron and Rugg (2003)
Target context easy (exp 1) vs. hard (exp 2) to recollect
![Page 8: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
0 600ms 0 600ms
+
5µV
TARG NONTARG NEW
Exp. 1
Exp. 2
LEFT RIGHT
Herron and Rugg (2003)
ERP data when control exerted over recollection
![Page 9: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
(1) ERPs may reveal covert retrieval ‘strategy’
The size of parietal old/new effects reflect the attention paid to particular retrieval products.
Neural correlates of remembering are present, or absent, dependent on strategy
If retrieved information is not ‘task-relevant’, it wont be attended and there wont be a neurophysiological sign of its recollection(Herron and Rugg, 2003)
Bottom line
![Page 10: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
1. Farwell’s claims.2. Their validity from scientific perspective.3. The basics of his view on cognition and the brain.4. His MERMER technique, the data pattern and interpretation.5. Its application in forensic settings.6. Suggested reading from his web-based material.
ERPs as ‘memory detectors’..?
![Page 11: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Brain Fingerprinting
http://www.brainwavescience.com/HomePage.php
“…The Brain never lies…”
“…99.99% for sure…”
“…Find the MERMER and you’ve found the Murderer…”
“…the infallible witness…”
![Page 12: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Farwellian view on Cognitionand the Brain
• What does a criminal always take from a crime scene that records their involvement with it?• Their brain
• How is this knowledge expressed? – By a unique neurophysiological signature called a
‘MERMER’
![Page 13: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
CMF view of Memory and the Brain
• Subjective experiences of memory reflect a highly fallible (and malleable) system
– Memories for events that never happened can be generated
– Memories for events that did happen can be deliberately forgotten, altered and possibly inhibited.
– Strategic changes during retrieval can eliminate ERP evidence of recollection in exclusion-type tasks
![Page 14: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
MERMER
• Memory and Encoding Related Multi-faceted EEG Response
• When details of a crime are known to the suspect, a MERMER will be detected. A MERMER will not occur in an innocent subject.
![Page 15: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Multiple test for your brain
• Three kinds of information are used to determine whether a subject has specific crime-related information in their brain:– Target– Irrelevant– Probe
• Target information elicits a ‘yes’ response or a MERMER. This is used as a control. Irrelevant information will not elicit a MERMER. A MERMER in response to probe stimulus indicates recognition or the presence of certain information.
![Page 17: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
• Targets: information the subject definitely knows; this can be ensured by telling the subject before the test starts.
![Page 18: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
• Irrelevants: information that subject definitely does not know; this can be ensured by simply making up the information
![Page 19: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
• Probes: information relevant to the crime or situation, which the subject may or may not know.
![Page 20: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Journal of Forensic Sciences (2001)
• Involving 3 pairs of subjects (A/B), who knew each other
– Days beforehand, ‘A’ (the informer) was interviewed about events in ‘B’s life (e.g. B’s Birthday party at Bosco’s diner).
– ‘B’ was tested on this information (probes)• Knowing
– ‘A’ from another pair was tested on the same stimuli• Unknowing
- All subjects were given a list of Target stimuli prior to the test
- ‘Exclusion’-type test instructions
![Page 21: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Subject 1(Knowing)
![Page 22: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Subject 6(Unknowing)
![Page 23: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Prior and succeeding MERMER work
• Knowledge of FBI acronyms– Farwell reports 100% accuracy in discriminating FBI
trainees from non-trainees.
• knowledge in the public domain about the MERMER technique– US PATENTS– Internal CIA reports– The JFS study– A couple of conference abstracts
![Page 24: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Forensic Applications of MERMER
• Harrington case– 26 years into life sentence– MERMER for alibi-relevant probes but not crime scene-
relevant probes– Key prosecution witness hears about this and changes
testimony– Harrington goes free!– IOWA supreme court rules such evidence is admissible in
court
• JB Grinder case– Led to a conviction
• JR Slaughter case
![Page 25: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Forensic Applications of MERMER
• The ‘Daubert’ standard used by the IOWA supreme court:-
1. Has the science been tested? 2. Has the science been peer reviewed and published? 3. Is the science accurate? 4. Is the science well accepted in the scientific community?
![Page 26: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Key scientific issues to consider
• Farwell quite clearly does not deny the imperfection of human memory
– An eyewitness testifies to the the content of their memory, not to the truth of what happened.
• But he believes that the MERMER reveals
– “… what IS present in a person’s brain.”– This makes no sense, whatsoever, without knowledge of the
function revealed by the MERMER
– What function(s) does the MERMER reflect?• The Daubert criteria imply that there is a clear answer to this critical
question
![Page 27: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
A Scientific evaluation
1. Has the science been tested? A little, by Farwell
2. Has the science been peer reviewed and published? Twice, I think.
3. Is the science accurate? Unknown
• Is the science well accepted in the scientific community? By definition, it cannot be.
![Page 28: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Is the MERMER an Old/New ERP effect?
• Inadequate work on neurophysiology of
– MERMER• What is its scalp distribution?
– Very long-term memory retrieval• Possible lack of Hippocampal involvement during retrieval• Lack of distinct recollective qualities• Preponderance of ‘interpretation’
– Repeated retrieval of single ‘episodes’• Almost nothing known…
![Page 29: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Is Farwell right or wrong to apply his technique with this level of
knowledge?
• Are moral considerations relevant?
• On empirical grounds?– Compare Farwell’s scientific basis to that for the
introduction of a new drug
• In principle? • If someone doesn’t generate a MERMER, what can be
concluded if we don’t know what functions it reflects?
• Is the distinction between what the person knows or reports versus what their brain reports meaningless?
![Page 30: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Readings
• Farwell’s website– Particularly his research subsection
• Review Dan Schacter’s work on memory errors– 7 sins paper from proceedings of the royal society– Neural bases of true and false memory– See also Ken Paller’s recent work
• Gonsalves and Paller (2003)• http://troy.psych.northwestern.edu/~cnl/
• Media portrayal– http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/
0,13026,1176809,00.html
![Page 31: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
•If accuracy / truthfulness matter, then personal report cannot be trusted
Motivation to lie
Unreliability of memory
Even if valid testimony is given, issues of personal responsibility and lapses of self-control still arise
Key Issue: The supposed objectivity of scientific neural data vs. the subjectivity of
personal report
![Page 33: PS4529/30 Applications of Cognitive Neuroscience](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062519/56814e42550346895dbbb517/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Questions and Answers?