My, how time has flown. This semester was truly a vacuum of time. The semester has given me much experience and growth as I have learned many new and interesting things. What I found to be the most interesting part of this term is how interoperable perceptive systems are. Every different perceptive function combines to create a full perceptive experience. Before this term, I considered perception only in terms of single systems, but after experiencing this class, I have learned that those who have the ability to perceive every available sense do so, it is truly an experience. I smell chicken… honestly, I smell chicken. There is a man in a seat behind me in the library eating a chicken sandwich. The volatile odorants from the delicious, savory, baked poultry have passed through the air and traveled up my nasal passages, these odorants get stuck in the mucous membrane of my olfactory epithelium and are picked up by the receptor cilia of the olfactory receptor cells, and coded to the olfactory bulb; this signal transduction to various cortical targets eliciting a number of responses. The sweet, sweet odor begins to go to work on my amygdala and thalamus, informing me it’s a pleasurable aroma. Feedback with my orbitofrontal cortex helps me decide I want to turn and see (and quite possibly snatch) the myriad of delicious foods my neighboring table is munching on. I turn, and the incredible edible meal comes into my field of vision. Certain wavelengths are absorbed in the chicken, while others are reflected. The wavelengths that are reflected enter through my pupil and hit my retina, travelling through the ventral stream, beyond V4 and into Area IT and to my temporal lobe where my memories are recalled. It’s things like this that amaze me about how the mind put things together.

Another example of putting it all together is synesthesia, the “mixing of the senses.” (Perception, 269). Synesthesia is the mixing of various sensations. One particular example is color graphemic synesthesia, a form in which people see colors when looking at letters or numbers; for instance, if a graphemic synesthetic saw the number 57, they may associate that number specifically with the color orange. Other synesthetic perceptions include sound to color synesthesia, which is find to be most interesting. The experience of synesthesia has been described as a concrete sensation rather than an emotive feeling which makes this experience markedly more phenomenal.

As a sound induces colors based on various sound spectra. I’ve always wondered what an experience such as that would be like, but I can merely speculate on the matter. The closest I’ve come is visualizations used in popular media players:

How is such interconnectivity possible? Do we attribute this to the plasticity of the brain? A possible neurological explanation for this is referred to as disinhibited feedback. When stimuli are conducted to areas of the brain that are signaled to from many different sensory pathways often receive some sort of feedback, to avoid sensory induction from multiple areas, feedback is implemented. In synesthetes, inhibition may not be occurring in particular pathways, thus allowing for sensory induction. Thus, the convergence of these pathways and their disinhibition could bring about the synesthetic experience.

This disinhibition could arise in developmental stages. It is possible that infants that have large, less differentiated connections between cortical areas could acquire synesthesia developmentally due to less differentiation (often mediated by the secretion of Nerve Growth Factor). This is only a theory, and experiencing this is something only a synesthete can understand (or someone on acid, as LSD can often invoke synesthetic effects, don’t do drugs by the way). Once again, how our mind interconnects our different perceptive pathways is truly amazing. This is the most important thing I learned during this semester.

What you see is not always what’s there. There are many occasions in which people are blind to things that are present in their environment. Inattentional blindness is known as not being able to see things that are actually present. This phenomenon occurs due in to part to a lack of a frame of reference from which the object can be perceived. Another explanation for this is mental focus; one may be focusing on an object so intently that a mental distraction occurs, leaving objects ignored. Our brains cannot focus on every detail at once, but this is not necessarily a terrible thing. Though we cannot focus on every detail in our environment, we are able to focus intently on particular tasks and objects, increasing our efficiency and assisting in our survival; we know how to segregate the important from the unimportant. Of course there are some funny moments that occur because of our inattentional blindness:

I can empathize with all of these people that were victims to the swap. I can imagine myself in their situation, especially considering that I am the type of person to devote my full attention to something I find important. I can see myself talking to a gentleman or lady that had just asked me for directions, and as I am looking down on the map, my frame of reference changes. This, coinciding with my devoted concentration to the task at hand (reading a map isn’t that easy) allows the man or lady to make a swap without me noticing, allowing for a funny (read: completely embarrassing) television moment. Change blindness and inattentional blindness are two very similar phenomena and can often go hand in hand. What makes them differ is the idea that change blindness can occur from some type of obstruction of visual perception (such as a saccade). The end result is similar, a lack of perception of an object that is present.

Cortical magnification, or the number of neurons dedicated to the visual cortex and the size of stimuli they interpret is a function of the visual field. In humans, more neurons are dedicated to the center of the visual field, pertaining to the fovea. Though this area is small, the number of neurons processing for it is great; contrary to the number of neurons that process for the peripheral visual field (significantly less).

Is this a good or bad thing? For humans it is a good thing. This is based on the ecology related to our evolution. We as humans are omnivorous beings, and our vision allows us to maximize our abilities as hunters (read: high on the food chain). With cortical magnification, visual acuity is increased in our center of vision, which gives us the ability to hunt our prey. The position of our eyes also gives us a larger central field with depth perception. Cortical magnification is great for our position in nature. Though we don’t always win:

Being the quintessential Transformers fan that I am (read: borderline addict). I couldn’t help but take a trip down memory lane and write a post on Transformers and visual perception. Just as the theme song so candidly states, the transformers are “More than meets the eye.” This statement can be applied to visual perception because everything that is seen by our eyes does not represent everything that is present in the world. An example of this is the fact that we are only able to see a portion of the light spectrum. Another possible explanation for “more than meets the eye” is the manner of interpretation of factors such as vividness and contrast. What is at work here is the influence from our retinal ganglion cells and their on/off receptive fields. These RGCs provide valuable information about how light hits objects we are observing. The physical measurement of light bouncing off does not represent what our brain perceives.

Mach bands are an optical illusion in which bands of a light and dark color are separated by a thin band with a light to dark gradient. This narrow band is perceived as two different bands.

This optical illusion is more than meets the eye, just like transformers.

The human eye and a camera share some similarities, but they are not the same. Their minimal basic functions are similar, as they both use light reflected off of objects to create an image to capture the world around us. There are some further similarities that the eye and a camera share, among these is the ability to use a lens to focus an inverted image on an area that’s light sensitive (in the eye’s case, the retina, and a camera’s film). They can also adjust how much light passes through the lens, by manipulating the aperture of the camera, and the iris of the eye. This is where similarities being to wane and differences become clear. Cameras, be they digital or film, focus light onto an area that has a fixed light sensitivity (the film, or CMOS sensor). But in the case of the human eye, the light sensitive area is the retina varies in sensitivity, depending where light hits (surround or center). Also, while cameras change the position of its lens to focus, the eye changes the actual conformation of the lens. If I were to choose a method of vision, I would choose my human eyes over camera lenses (read: duh). This is because our eyes have evolved over epochs to maximize their functionality specifically for our needs. Our eyes take in and block out the right amount of stimuli, as well as point out stimuli that are pertinent to our safety. If I did have a choice, I wouldn’t mind having a bird’s eye, as most birds have 2-5 times more photoreceptors and a more intricately developed fovea than a human’s. Though If I did, I would hope that it wouldn’t make me more prone to running into things:

Mondegreens can be funny things. Even the source of the word is a mondegreen itself was coined out of a misinterpretation. Mondegreens are a misinterpretation of words often heard in song lyrics. These can be associated with malapropisms, but rather than saying incorrect words, they are heard incorrectly. These misinterpretations can often be readjusted using various context cues. Personally, there have been quite a number of times that I’ve misinterpreted words and phrases from lyrics of different genres and languages. One of my most fondest memories was trying to figure out what Missy Elliot was saying (and doing) in her video “The Rain.”

At the time, I had always thought that the chorus of the song went (mind you this is how it would be if i were to sing it aloud): “I can’t stand the raaaaaiiiiiin. Still smilin though.”

The actual lyric was ”against my window.” (I still can’t figure out what she’s doing in that video).

Another mondegreen moment I remember ocurred while listening to the Gorillaz song “19/2000.” The first time I heard the chorus, I thought that Noodle was singing: “Get the cool, get the cool shoes sean.” I never considered contesting this, after all, I love cool shoes. Plus having your name said in a song is a good experience.

This was quickly adjusted after one of my colleagues (unfortunately) decided to correct me by telling me Noodle was saying “shoeshine.”

Apparently I am not the only one who has had mondegreen moments, a quick search on youtube provided plenty of examples:

Helen Keller said, “Blindness cuts me off from things;deafness cuts me off from people.”

The loss of hearing be it pre-lingual or post-lingual, creates a barrier for human communication. What Helen Keller infers with the statement she makes is: that vision separated her from seeing objects, but sound cut her off from hearing and developing the most common method of communication in hearing and speaking language. Development of linguistics begins in early stages of child development where and infant responds to human voices and eventually emulates this in the conceptualization of language, and eventual development of syntax. What Helen Keller lacked in her childhood, before she was taught by a wise teacher (Anne Sullivan). Keller is an example of how important hearing is for development of language and communication (though other methods of language are very useful, i.e. sign language). Without being able to hear or see language being formulated, it is extremely difficult to convey any ideas or information other than the most primitive emotions.

To test the importance of olfaction in gustation, I conducted a small experiment consisting of 8 of my closest friends involving nose plugs, skittles, and perception. We purchased an extra large bag of skittles and conducted an experiment involving delicious grape and nasty lemon (note: we came up with these names ourselves). By plugging our noses, our sense of taste was diminished because we were unable to use olfaction to enhance gustation. We conducted a blind test where we tasted at random the lemon (read: disgusting) and grape (scrumptious) skittles and guessed their flavors. Of the 8 lucky skittle eaters, only two scored above 50% in correctly identifying the flavor; a surprise to me, since I imagined anybody with papillae would be able to correctly identify the nauseating taste of a lemon skittle. This alone provided enough proof for me to believe the importance of smell when it comes to enhancing gustation (and proof that lemon skittles also have a disgusting smell). I thoroughly enjoyed the tests since we were able to finish a considerably large bag of skittles; though this isn’t necessarily something to take pride in as that is extremely unhealthy (I prefer starbursts anyway, even the lemon ones).

On the subject of unhealthy foods, I always wondered why these were the foods that had some of the best flavors. It turns out that fat actually has a flavor associated with it (this isn’t good for me), meaning that those fat free foods that people ‘claim’ don’t taste the same, really don’t.

The commercialization of smell is something that surrounds us; some of it is clear and potent, while other smells are more and nuanced. Smell can bring about fond memories, and changeone’s mood. This is because of smell’s association with the limbic system, as well as its association with the amygdala. The influence that smell has on a human being has been exploited (successfully) for commercial enterprise. A strong example of this is the perfume business. Their whole purpose is the sell desirable scents and fragrances to attract and impress. This is a million dollar enterprise that shows no sign of slowing down, thanks to hundreds of celebrities trying to sell their own scent (i.e. P. Diddy’s Unforgiveable). But these fragrances also sell because smell is an important social function, scent can attract potential love interest. These smells are an accessible, buyable pheromones, changing moods and influencing behavior, and they’re also better than using other smell methods. Though seemingly shallow, people spend copious amounts of money for the finest scents. The price point for these fragrances is often based on their chemical composition. The more expensive expensive perfumes often have chemical conformations that do not easily degrade over time, allowing them to last hours, while other (often cheaper) fragrances last minutes. Mind you, this is not universal, just an occurrence that is commonly found. I know that many people are often dissuaded from paying a large sum of money for perfume or cologne; it’s neither vital nor necessary to have, plus there are always alternative methods to cologne (I’ll stick with my Armani Code though).

Our sense of touch is an incredibly essential component to our everyday life and essentially our survival, though it is often taken for granted (by myself included). When reflecting on the importance of touch, I realized the amount of substance one would lose. This sense gives us a world of information including identification of objects, socialization, and body awareness. I feel that if I were to lose my sense of touch, much of the world I enjoy would be lost. The touch of a loved one could not be felt, and social embrace would be abandoned. Even something as mundane as typing this very passage would require the utmost focus and concentration as I would have to devote my eyes to watching my fingers punching the correct keys rather than relying on my slight touch and proprioception. A world without touch is a world of misfortune. On the subject of misfortune, what about pain? I often curse (colorfully) about the aches and pain I receive from the knocks and accidents of everyday life, in fact, just a few weeks ago, I accidentally sliced one of my fingers to the joint (read: bloody mess) while cleaning up my dorm room. I did not know it happened initially but after a few seconds, my friends Bradykinin, Histamine, and Substance P let me know that a trip to the ER was necessary. John Patrick said it very well: “Pain makes man think. Thought makes man wise. Wisdom makes life endurable.” Losing nociception would be utterly terrible. Without it we would not know our limits, nor would we know when to stop a potentially dangerous action. Pain gives us knowledge about our surroundings, and makes us wiser, making it easier to survive.
Without pain I would not have known about my injury until I saw it, and for more pressing injuries, time is crucial. My trip to the hospital was a short one: 5 minutes in the waiting room, 15 for stitches, and an agonizing 40 for my insurance information (I’ll spare everyone my healthcare rant); all in all a quick trip. I do remember vividly the conversation I had with the doctor. He asked me how bad the pain was and he jokingly said they wouldn’t need to amputate, though he has seen some injuries that required it. Looking back on this conversation reminded me about our discussion about phantom limb syndrome in amputees. This is another example of the importance of neuroplasticity and adaptability. Our bodies and our brains maximize their functions through adaptability and the encroachment of unused neurons into another area is a prime example of this.

[Oh, and while on the subject of amputees, I found this pretty interesting article about prosthetic proprioception.]