Mind reading!

Neuroscientists at the UC Berkeley have used functional MRI technology to determine what someone is looking at just by analyzing their brain patterns.

Others have done this in the past using neural networks, but never with images. Haynes et al. (2007) had participants perform mental addition or subtraction and record what brain activity is occurring first. Then, participants were given numbers and they were able to choose whether to add or subtract, then they gave their answer. Post hoc analyses (long after participants were out of the scanner) lead to neural network models being able to predict using brain activity alone whether participants added or subtracted the numbers.

Gallant and colleagues (2008) have used similar methodology. Participants first had to view objects so researchers could determine brain patterns, then they were able to match up future brain patterns with past scans. While it’s not pure mind reading (since you need prior knowledge), it’s still pretty impressive.

This is good, because bad people don’t have a big database of scans involving brain patterns of previous knowledge. So evil doers will not be able to stick anyone in an fMRI and read their thoughts, thankfully. At least, not yet.

If at first you don’t succeed, you fail.

I’m a couple of months behind on the phenomenon that is Portal, a short video game produced by Valve Studios. Portal is a first-person puzzle game with an ingenious twist: you have a “gun” that can shoot an entrance and exit portal pretty much anywhere, so you can cross a chasm by shooting portals next to you and on the wall across from you, allowing you to “cross” the chasm by avoiding it all together. The game is surprisingly hard to explain, actually. I’ll just embed a video:

The game is amazingly well done, and it makes me think about the video game and cognition research that is all the rage right now. Multitudes of studies (most famously Green & Bavelier, 2003) have shown that video game experts can process more information and have a larger functional field of view. This is just a side effect of these action video games, though - they weren’t designed to enhance cognition. A game like Portal, however, stretches the mind and requires an entirely new way to solve problems. Portal requires the player to completely re-conceptualize their concept of 3D space. Not many other tasks do that.This game provides a fascinating platform for learning this entirely new concept in a first-person environment. There are times (when learning how to maneuver a submarine, for example) when this type of spatial nonconformity is necessary to successfully complete a task. It would be interesting to examine what new cognitive skills develop as one becomes an expert with a game like this. The field of video game and cognition research is still fairly new, but I anticipate seeing it expand in many new directions, including leveraging innovative new games such as this to examine how we can train our minds and expand the way we think.

Ikea directions and nonverbal instructions

So I got a new mattress and bed frame recently. The bed frame came from - where else? - Ikea. Great looking stuff for cheap! Of course, I dragged it home, opened the box, and gasped, horrified at the instructions:

Admittedly, the first pages of the instructions were good about telling you what you were supposed to have. But there were no words. Only pictures.

At first, I thought “How could you not have words?” But then I quickly realized how visual of a task this it - putting the long piece of wood against the shorter piece, and using one of this type of screw to fasten them. The adage “A picture is worth a thousand words” definitely applies. Looking at the picture below, you kind of have an idea of what you’re supposed to do:

But imagine if you were given words instead of that picture! “Place a screw (Screw B) in holes 2, 3, 7, and 8 - two behind the headboard and one at the footboard. Then, insert a half-moon fastening device (Device A) into the hole. Using the hex wrench, tighten a nut (Nut B) onto each screw.”

I’d much rather have the picture. Along with the fact that Ikea can include these directions with their furniture worldwide and not have to deal with translation, it’s a smart move. It utilizes our imagery and our mental mapping skills. We’re visual creatures, and this plays to our strengths. Well done, Ikea. If only I could actually put my bed together!

No trucks! Satellites crossing.

What in the world does this sign, found in the UK, mean?

According to Sky News, this sign means that trucks should not use their GPS systems to navigate on the signed roads. Apparently, the roads are very narrow and the GPS is not accurate enough to properly guide them. But why is the red line over the truck? Shouldn’t it be over the satellite? Or would that mean “Trucks, activate weapons and destroy all satellites.”

Road signage, thankfully, has been an area that both traffic engineers and human factors engineers have long been involved with (see the Federal Highway Administration). Most road signs in the US are clear. More text may be useful in some occasions (except for signs that say “PED XING”, which means “Pedestrian Crossing”), but images are also extremely useful.

The goal is to get drivers to immediately understand what the sign says. Reading is automatic (the Stroop effect; Stroop, 1935), but it still takes time to process the words. On the other hand, images are wonderful because the gist of an image can be determined in mere milliseconds (Potter, 1976; Friedman, 1979) - complex scenes can be reduced to words like “library” or “bedroom” in the blink of an eye. This is what gives images the advantage. A well-designed image must be easily viewed, and the gist must be extracted quickly. If the sign is confusing - such as the one above - by the time drivers understand the sign, it may be too late.

Grand Canyon: The Human Factor

I just got back from visiting the Grand Canyon and Las Vegas - it was a perfect way to relax, since I just took my comprehensive exams. There were still a few interesting notes from the human factors realm, though, including a bit from the Grand Canyon.

One of the most useful thing that the National Parks Service does at the park it to put up signs at important canyon overlooks with information and history. Additionally, there is usually a sign that labels the visual points of interest. This scenic locator is incredibly well-crafted - a huge photo taken on a clear day with every interesting point labeled. You would find a point of interest on the sign, then look out into the canyon and find the exact geographic feature exactly where you expected it. It seems like an obvious thing to do, but it wasn’t, at least in the past. This scenic locator from 1922 is hardly a photo-realistic representation of the lookout point:

While this must have taken more work to make than a large photograph, this is (of course) not as intuitive for the visitor. There is no mental imagery, and mental mapping from the representation to the real thing is much more difficult. People have difficulties interpreting abstract images, which the 1922 scenic locator definitely is. Modern technology enabled the National Park Service to create the intuitive representation of the Grand Canyon, which enriches everyone’s experience.