Saturday, May 17, 2014

No Amygdala No Fear


Headshot of psychologist Ralph Adolphs
So for the second consecutive year, I attended the Quinn Memorial Lecture at UBC. The talk was by Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Ralph Adolphs entitled “The Social Brain.” I was rather intrigued by the title and by the very fact that it was another opportunity to flex my brain muscles on the brain itself (self-reflexive or meta-learning, I suppose). For last year's "mental gymnastics," please click here.

Adolphs introduced his ideas by examining three ways we generally achieve knowledge. First, we get information from our physical environment. We learn about the world by observing what goes on around us and then draw our own conclusions. So this information is dependent upon social factors, and learning would occur by watching parents, teachers, friends and classmates.

The second form of knowledge is through our own minds. This may be linked to the first one, yet it is the specific ways of arranging and interpreting the input that makes it become knowledge that is unique to us. We do not process all the information around us, but rather what catches our eye or interest, and then we add our own spin and understanding to it. 

In other words, our brains are constantly active by creating links, background stories or filling the blanks to understand the reasons and motivations behind certain actions or situations. Imagine a piano falling from the sky (my own example). We immediately make assumptions on how and why this may have come about, perhaps negligence on the part of movers, frustration on the part of a composer or a young piano student, or maybe even an intended and premeditated (admittedly artistic) plan for murder.

The third way is the minds of others. At this point, I do not clearly remember what this part was about, but I am filling in my blanks and assume that it must have been about what others tell us or what we read in books about the world. So this is a type of filtered or “second-hand” knowledge based on observations of others that we can incorporate and assimilate for ourselves. Incidentally, all of these points were actually based on somebody else's ideas who was acknowledged in a small footnote by the slide, which my eyes could not fully make out, or I was simply too lazy to jot down.

So much preamble (though I believe interesting) to get to the main issue: the brain. Adolphs showed us a simple and brief clip, the Heider-Simmel demonstration from various years ago (1944 in fact!) depicting different geometric sizes and shapes moving around a square (or something along those lines). From it we immediately and automatically projected that the larger triangle was a bully trying to push around the other triangle and the circle, with both of the victims finally managing to escape leaving the aggressive triangle to its own devices. In fact, this bully ends up “punching” and breaking his abode in a fit of unchecked and uncontrolled anger. 

All of this feels like a kind of Rorschach test, but one that was clearly visible and comprehensive for those with “normal” brains since we tend to humanize things and intuitively create a background story by giving each of the shapes human motivations, reasons, and experiences.

Yet, in fact, patients with autism do not necessarily see it that way. They merely summarize the clip by saying that triangles and circles move around. There is no storyline behind the whole situation. They do not connect or color the incidents with everyday real life experiences as we tend to do. To those patients, these were only geometrical shapes moving about with no rhyme or reason. In a purely objective manner, they may be right as our storyline is nothing but a projection onto mere facts, namely random geometrical movements on a screen (more about this below).

There were other studies that examined people (and also animals) with lesions in their Amygdala and their reaction to general fear-inducing stimuli. In the case of one patient who was called SM, it appeared that she had no fear of snakes or frightening horror clips. In a similar way, chimpanzees with damage to their Amygdala did not perceive strangers as a threat, nor even as interesting. It seems that most of our fear is regulated by the Amygdala (although it is generally more complex than that as the brain cannot be mapped alongside specific regions but ought to be looked at as a connected and interactive network of different parts working simultaneously).

What I found quite interesting is that this is not merely a matter of a fight or flight response, but that it includes social phobia as well. So people with lesions in their Amygdala tend to have less social fear and inhibitions. SM, for example, fully aware of social conventions, would in real life situations disregard issues like personal space. In one experiment she would go up and be so up-close and personal that the experimenter felt uncomfortable, and then she even pinched his nose! Asked about personal space or whether this was the correct behavior in a given social situation, she showed complete rational awareness and understanding that such behavior is inappropriate.

We can conclude that without the Amygdala or with suppressed activity in this region, our fears may be reduced. Although fear is a necessary instinct for survival, it can also be redundant and counterproductive in social situations. How many of us see certain fears as disastrous when they are merely trifles and do not have serious tangible effects or consequences. For example, the most common social fear would be the fear of rejection and how many people have lost out on glorious opportunities for romance and job advancement due to it.

Speaking of which, I was keen on asking a couple of questions in the allotted question period at the end of the talk. Both of them were about the perception of reality of so-called “abnormal” brains. I was wondering whether their perception might not be more accurate than ours. In terms of those geometrical shapes, are we not superimposing our own experiences over the fact that they were nothing but shapes and lines moving randomly, as was the observation of the autistic person?

And secondly, is not most of our learning socially contingent? Are we not expected to give specific answers to certain situations? For example, an autistic person would feel confused over trivial questions like “Where do you live.” They would struggle with a clear answer because the answer may be Canada, the universe, planet Earth, Vancouver, a specific street or an exact address, a building complex or an apartment unit ad infinitum. So, in fact, this is a really complex question that we are socially programmed to answer only a certain way. But looking at it in a literal fashion, the question is rather ambiguous and confusing.

Now I had to overcome my own Aygdala activity to raise my hand and one of the two people with mikes finally saw me and walked in my direction. After I had finally conquered my (illogical and unreasonable) social fear and was about to pose my question, which I found both interesting and relevant, I was suddenly cut off by the organizer. He simply stated that the Q & A session was finished and that the Reception would now take place. I was devastated and angry and was not able to find an answer to my question. In fact, little after, I left the premises as I could not spot Adolphs anywhere to ask him in person.

This incident did color my perception of this talk and hued it in somewhat displeasing shades. It bothered me that I was not given the opportunity to ask my question. But somehow, to pacify this obsession of mine, my brain decided to recreate the same talk in my dream that same night. There the organizer came back after the reception and told us that they had an extra five minutes for more questions from the audience.

So I raised my hand and was called upon. I asked both of my questions and awaited the answer with eagerness. But it seems that my brain scolded me. Adolphs thought my questions of no relevance, even redundant and naive, and simply dismissed them without a clear response. 

Although disappointed with the outcome even in my dream state, I ended up getting some satisfaction of getting that off my chest. What the real answer to these questions are remains a mystery still, that is, unless Adolphs happens to read this and leaves me a comment here, or unless I have another dream, but this time around have my question answered.

2 comments:

ralph adolphs said...

hi Arash-- thanks for your comments on this, which I somewhat randomly just stumbled upon on the web. Since I'm the person you're writing about, I'm quite keen to erase that bad dream you described at the end! Your questions are actually right on target and I'm sorry you weren't able to ask them in person.

To quote your questions, you asked;
"Speaking of which, I was keen on asking a couple of questions in the allotted question period at the end of the talk. Both of them were about the perception of reality of so-called “abnormal” brains. I was wondering whether their perception might not be more accurate than ours. In terms of those geometrical shapes, are we not superimposing our own experiences over the fact that they were nothing but shapes and lines moving randomly, as was the observation of the autistic person?

And secondly, is not most of our learning socially contingent? Are we not expected to give specific answers to certain situations? For example, an autistic person would feel confused over trivial questions like “Where do you live.” They would struggle with a clear answer because the answer may be Canada, the universe, planet Earth, Vancouver, a specific street or an exact address, a building complex or an apartment unit ad infinitum. So, in fact, this is a really complex question that we are socially programmed to answer only a certain way. But looking at it in a literal fashion, the question is rather ambiguous and confusing."


Well, here are my answers:

I think you are exactly right! In particular to such complex social stimuli, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer, and what is considered "normal" as a response is certainly dependent on a particular time and culture. Indeed, for the Heider & Simmel video, one could turn the findings around and describe the "normal" response a kind of social illusion (like anthropomorphizing, seeing faces in clouds, etc., something we do all the time) to which S.M. is immune.

You mention of autism is also very apropos-- we actually study high-functioning adults with autism in my lab, and not because we want to "cure" autism, but rather because we wish to understand how they see the world, and through that, better understand how we ourselves all see the world somewhat differently.

Anyways, great questions and you pretty much supplied your answers yourself already. Sorry again we didn't have a chance to chat in person after the talk. Keep up the interesting work on your blog!

Cheers,
-Ralph

Ralph Adolphs
Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience
California Institute of Technology

Arash Farzaneh said...

Dear Ralph,

Thank you so very much for your detailed and uplifting answer and for saving me from any future dreams / nightmares concerning the matter! It was a shot in the dark as my last line demonstrates, but I am more than happy that you ended up landing and commenting on my blog!

Of course, I am also very pleased to have you agree with me on these issues! This experience now has much bettered my perception and memory of your talk, which, by the way, regardless of my disposition, was erudite and of excellent quality!

Thanks again,

Arash