October 17 Blog

I thought that Bourtchouldaze’s discussion of prosopagnosia was very interesting, particularly the idea that even though such patients could not consciously identify any faces, changes in their skin’s electrical conductivity indicated that they can, on some unconscious level, identify faces. This made me wonder three things. First, I was curious as to what would make the researchers even begin to look at the electrical conductivity of the skin, for it seems that it would have been more likely for them to look for changes in conductivity (or another variable) in various parts of the brain. Second, I wondered why an increase in skin conductivity, which indicates a nervous, emotional, or guilty predisposition, would relate to face recognition; though emotional doesn’t seem very far off, feelings of guilt and nervousness are not ones I would think would be associated with knowledge of faces. Third, what are the differences, in terms of brain structures used, between “covert” recognition and “overt” recognition? Even though the facial recognition in this patient was unconscious, it seems unlikely that it would entirely bypass the brain structures used in conscious recognition. Bourtchouldaze states earlier in the chapter that “information flows through a set of distinct but interconnected neural networks, each of which performs a certain job. These interconnected networks allow information to be processed in a parallel fashion so that damage to one part of the network does not necessarily affect the function of the rest of the system.” What distinguishes, then, the part of the network involved in conscious facial recognition from the part that is involved in unconscious facial recognition?

I found this weeks reading from Schacter especially interesting. It is always the most compelling to read about case studies to better understand a concept. While reading the case studies of the people suffering from severe amnesia, I realized how important memory is to every aspect of our lives, and how devastating it would be to lose parts of it. Even the people who retained procedural memory and some of their semantic memory were severely impaired. The loss of your episodic memory leaves you with no real sense of self, no way to make goals or plans for the future, and no way to relate to people and make new attachments and connections. You are essentially alive in a very stagnant state. It seemed so hopeless and depressing.
I thought it was interesting when Schacter talked about how some amnesic patients are aware of their memory disorders and some aren’t. It seems like it could even be a built in defense mechanism for the person to be unaware of their memory problems. When they are left unaware they are able to exist as well as they could with their brains being so compromised. It seems similar to other mental illnesses like autism. More severely autistic children are as content with their existence as possible. Less severely autistic children, however, are aware that they are unable to make the connections with people that other people make. They are aware that they are not “normal” and that they are missing out on parts of life that others take pleasure in.
I liked the way that Schacter talked about the experiments in brain imaging that lead up to our current understanding of the different parts of the brain and what mental processes occur in each of them. The PET scan and magnetic resonance imaging have really elevated our understanding of the brain in ways that were never possible before. Studies conducted using this type of technology to figure out what parts of the brain are responsible for what seems much more exact and scientific to me than the studies we talked about before like Ebbinghaus and Bartlett. These new technologies allow us to take out the human element which made the previous studies unpredictable and uncontrollable. It is now possible to follow the scientific method more exactly and hold most of the variables constant except the one being tested. To me, the results from these tests seem more accurate and reliable.
Another interesting part in Schacter was when he discussed the experiment done on priming where they showed participants a picture for just a second and then later the participants said that the liked that drawing over the other ones. I find that is true in my life also. If I have heard part of a song, even just playing in the background as I am doing something else and not focusing on it I always like it more later when I actually listen to it. When something is even a little familiar, I like it more than I would if it was my first time hearing it. At least for me, this seems to be true of most things in my life. Familiarity has a comfortable feeling which for me, becomes intertwined with feelings of enjoyment. Even places seem nicer when I have already been there, even if I don’t know that I have been there until I find out later. I wonder if that is true for most people.