Brainwaves in Organoids?

By Neuroskeptic | September 7, 2019 2:15 pm

A paper about electrical activity in cultured human brain cells got a lot of attention this week:

Scientists Just Detected Brain Waves in Mini Lab-Grown Brains

Mini-brains grown in a lab show neural activity like preterm babies

The study, published in Cell Stem Cell, was about cortical organoids, three dimensional blobs of brain-like tissue that are created from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).

Read More

fMRI as “Implied Social Presence”

By Neuroskeptic | September 1, 2019 2:24 pm

Having an MRI scan can be a noisy, unusual, and sometimes stressful experience. But can it also be a social one?

Read More

The Racism of Carl Jung

By Neuroskeptic | August 20, 2019 4:14 pm

The Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung (1875-1961) was one of the best-known psychologists of the 20th century. He introduced such famous concepts as introverted and extraverted personalities, and the idea of the psychological ‘complex’.

Today, Jungian or analytical psychology retains an active community. But a recently published Open Letter from a number of prominent Jungians points to troubles within the fold.

The letter acknowledges that Jung’s writings contained racism, and apologizes for the failure of Jungians to confront this fact earlier.

Read More

Neuroimaging’s Bias Against Left-handers

By Neuroskeptic | August 17, 2019 3:03 pm

Left-handed people are under-represented as volunteers in human neuroimaging studies, according to a new paper from Lyam M. Bailey, Laura E. McMillan, and Aaron J. Newman of Dalhousie University.

Bailey et al. analyzed a sample of 1,031 papers published in 2017, finding that just 3.2% of participants were non-right-handed, even though this group makes up about 10-13% of the general population.

Read More

“Clock-like” Neurons Discovered At Last?

By Neuroskeptic | August 4, 2019 3:55 am

The brain is buzzing with gamma oscillations – cycles of neuronal activity with a frequency (around 40-60 Hz) higher than that of other major brain waves.

A longstanding hypothesis is that gamma serves as a kind of ‘clock signal’ that enables the coordination and integration of signals. Gamma has even been proposed as the mechanism by which the brain ‘binds’ information from different brain areas into a unitary consciousness.

However, while the gamma-clock hypothesis is intriguing, direct evidence for it has proved elusive. Many researchers now believe that gamma is merely a non-specific marker of neuronal activity.

Now, in a new paper out in Neuron, researchers Hyeyoung Shin and Christopher I. Moore announce the discovery of a new class of neurons that seem to have clock-like properties, and firing regularly at gamma frequencies. This could help to put the gamma-as-clock theory back on the map.

Read More
CATEGORIZED UNDER: animals, EEG, select, Top Posts

The Strange “Bathtub Illusion”

By Neuroskeptic | July 27, 2019 9:47 am

Arrange your fingers like the image below, and then look at them closely.

From Bertamini (2019) i-Perception

Do you notice anything odd?

Psychologist Marco Bertamini of the University of Liverpool describes this test in a fun new paper. According to Bertamini, seven of the ten people he surveyed reported that their little fingers clearly appeared to be ‘too far away’, to the extent that they did not appear to be part of their hands.

Bertamini suggests that the illusion is caused by the fact that the little finger is considerably smaller than the others, and our visual system tends to assume that smaller things are further away, similar to another illusion called the Ames window.

Bertamini named his discovery the “Bathtub Illusion”, after the location where he first observed the perceptual distortion. He even includes a pic of himself relaxing in the very tub where this occured.

Personally, I can experience the illusion when I look at the photo shown above, but I wasn’t able to make it work by staring at my own hands. Six of Bertamini’s ten volunteers also reported that the photo was stronger. I suspect this is because we can feel the position of our fingers, as well as seeing them.

This is not the first bathtub-based visual illusion, believe it or not. A (quite powerful) ‘stretching out in the tub’ illusion was revealed by Lydia Maniatis in 2010.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: funny, papers, select

An Electric “Humm” To Make You Smarter?

By Neuroskeptic | July 21, 2019 9:31 am

This week I came across a brain stimulation device called Humm that promises to improve your cognitive function and memory if you stick it to your forehead.

The Humm device. Image adapted from

There are several broadly similar devices on the market, which make use of the principle of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) – passing a current through the head (the front of the head, generally) in order to modulate brain activity.

In the case of Humm, the stimulation is applied at a frequency of 6 Hz which is meant to enhance theta waves in the prefrontal cortex. As the creators put it:

Working memory calls on a specific type of brainwave – slow-frequency, thrumming rhythms called theta waves. As we age, the strength of our theta waves naturally decreases and the brain’s overall rhythms become out of sync, resulting in a decline in working memory. Humm utilizes a proven method called tACS to resynchronize these rhythms and strengthen memory by gently stimulating the brain at a theta wave frequency of 6hz. tACS acts like the conductor of an orchestra that guides populations of neurons to fire simultaneously, allowing separate areas of the brain to communicate better.

What caught my eye about Humm is that they report doing a randomized, controlled study to show that their device really works and isn’t just a placebo. Here’s the write-up of the experiment.

I have to say that Humm’s study pleasantly surprised me. I was expecting it to be some kind of half-baked study that’s more marketing stunt than science. However, the study actually looks solid and I think it would pass peer-review, although it’s not published.

The Humm team randomly assigned n=36 volunteers to receive either active Humm stimulation or a sham (placebo) condition. The experimenters were also blinded to the condition. Before, during, and after the stimulation, participants completed a simple working memory task.

The active stimulation group performed better during and after stimulation than the control group (p=0.004 in both time-points.)

There were no group differences in expectations of benefit from Humm at baseline, or in perceived benefit experienced at the end of the experiment, which counts against a placebo explanation of the improvement.

The write-up even includes the raw data, and graphs the individual data-points, which is something that many academic papers still fail to do, so in that regard, Humm could be said to have gone beyond the gold standard.

Overall, this seems like a well designed experiment, except for one problem: it’s small. n=36 split between two groups is not much data; it’s not a tiny sample size, but it’s certainly not a large one, and I would want to see a much larger study before I would pay $99.00 to pre-order a pack of 12 Humms.

I consider it a priori unlikely that tACS stimulation could improve cognition. Humm hits the prefrontal cortex with 6 Hz current, which is supposed to enhance theta oscillations. But the frequency of theta oscillations varies across individuals; the theta range is usually said to be 4-7 Hz. Very few people would have a theta frequency of ‘exactly’ 6 Hz.

If my personal theta frequency is, let’s say, 5 Hz, then adding a 6 Hz stimulation would seem more likely to disrupt the normal theta function, rather than helping it.

Even supposing that my theta frequency was precisely 6 Hz, then Humm stimulation might be in phase with my theta waves, enhancing them, but it would be equally likely to be out of phase and suppress them. There is indeed evidence that individually-tailored theta tACS can disrupt working memory, although to be fair, plenty of other studies show a benefit. My point is that, a priori, there is no reason to assume a beneficial effect of this kind of stimulation.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: select, Top Posts, Uncategorized

The Fall of Niels Birbaumer

By Neuroskeptic | July 2, 2019 4:19 am

A highly acclaimed neuroscientist whose work offered hope for many patients with brain injury has fallen from grace.

Niels Birbaumer. From

Prof. Niels Birbaumer, of the Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen in Germany, came under investigation earlier this year. The probe began after researcher Martin Spüler raised serious concerns over a 2017 paper in PLoS Biology by Ujwal Chaudhary et al. Birbaumer was the senior author.

Read More

“Terrorist Fiske Jab” Revisited

By Neuroskeptic | June 29, 2019 8:33 am

This very blog forms a large part of a newly published study on research methods blogs in psychology. The paper has a spicy backstory.

Back in 2016, psychologist Susan Fiske caused much consternation with a draft article which branded certain (unnamed) bloggers as being “bullies” and “destructo-critics” who “destroy lives” through “methodological terrorism.”

Fiske’s post (which later appeared in a more moderate version) was seen as pushback against bloggers who criticized the robustness and validity of published psychology papers. According to Fiske, this criticism often spilled over into personal attacks on certain individuals. Much debate ensued.

Now, Fiske is the senior author of the new study, which was carried out to examine the content and impact of 41 blogs that have posted on psychology methods, and, in particular, to find out which individual researchers were being mentioned (presumably, criticized) by name.

The included blogs (listed in the supplementary material) were a fairly comprehensive list, as far as I can see. My blog has the second largest number of posts out of all the blogs included (1180), but this pales into comparison with Andrew Gelman‘s 7211, although that is a multi-author blog. All posts were downloaded and subjected to text mining analysis. Data was collected in April 2017.

The results about the bloggers’ ‘targets’ were fairly unsurprising to me. It turned out that, out of a list of 38 researchers who were nominated as potential targets, the most often mentioned name was Daryl Bem (of precognition fame), followed by Diederik Stapel (fraud), and then Brian Wansink and Jens Förster (data ‘abnormalities’.)

Most-blogged about named researchers in the psychology methods blog sample. Only researchers mentioned in 5 or more posts shown here.

These results seem inconsistent with the idea that bloggers were especially targeting female researchers, which had been one of the bones of contention in the 2016 debate. As the paper says:

Equal numbers of men and women were nominated, but nominated men were mentioned in posts more often.

I would note though that many of the male names high on the list have been ‘officially’ found guilty, or resigned (Stapel, Wansink, Förster, Smeesters), while none of the women have to my knowledge (Fredrickson, Schnall, Cuddy). At best you could try to argue that bloggers unfairly target innocent women? I’m not sure that this kind of question can be answered with quantitative data, anyway.

I have to say that it’s to her credit that Fiske carried out this detailed analysis of blogs in the wake of the firestorm over her 2016 comments. She could easily have just decided to walk away from the whole topic but instead she decided to collect some real data. On the other hand, I agree with Hilda Bastian’s comments on the weaknesses of this paper in statistical terms:

In some ways, the study has more relevance to a debate about weaknesses in methods in psychological science than it does to science blogging. It’s a small, disparate English-language-biased sample of unknown representativeness, with loads of exploratory analyses run on it. (There were 41 blogs, with 11,539 posts, of which 73% came from 2 blogs.) Important questions about power are raised, but far too much is made of analyses by gender and career stage for such a small and biased sample. And they studied social media, but not Twitter.

Nanobacteria in the Brain?

By Neuroskeptic | June 23, 2019 5:49 am

A paper just out in eccentric medical journal Medical Hypotheses caught my eye yesterday:

Potential role of calcifying nanoparticles in the etiology of multiple sclerosis

Hmm, I thought, this looks interesting. I’d never heard of the idea that nanoparticles could cause neurological illness.

So I read the paper and quickly found myself falling down a (nano)rabbithole into a fascinating and little-known tale of strange science.

Read More


No brain. No gain.

See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar