MEMORY SEEKER: Sometimes, when we actively remember something, our attention seems to strategically shift from cluster to cluster of stored information, like a bee flitting from one patch of flowers to another.
Image: Adapted from photos by Wolfgang Hagele and John A Beal, Wikimedia Commons
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
In search of nectar, a honeybee flies into a well-manicured suburban garden and lands on one of several camellia bushes planted in a row. After rummaging through the ruffled pink petals of several flowers, the bee leaves the first bush for another. Finding hardly any nectar in the flowers of the second bush, the bee flies to a third. And so on.
Our brains may have evolved to forage for some kinds of memories in the same way, shifting our attention from one cluster of stored information to another depending on what each patch has to offer. Recently, Thomas Hills of the University of Warwick in England and his colleagues found experimental evidence for this potential parallel. "Memory foraging" is only one way of thinking about memory—and it does not apply universally to all types of information retained in the brain—but, so far, the analogy seems to work well for particular cases of active remembering.
Hills and his colleagues asked 141 Indiana University Bloomington students to type the names of as many animals as they could think of in three minutes. For decades, psychologists have used such "verbal fluency tasks" to study memory and diseases in which memory breaks down, such as Alzheimer's and dementia. Again and again, researchers have found that people name animals—or vegetables or movies—in clusters of related items. They might start out saying "cat, dog, goldfish, hamster"—animals kept as pets—and then, having exhausted that subcategory, move onto ocean animals: "dolphin, whale, shark, octopus."
On average, the students in Hills's experiment named 37 animals in three minutes and, like so many of their predecessors, the lists they typed were organized into groups of animals unified by a single theme—pets, the savanna, etcetera. What Hills and his colleagues really wanted to know was whether the students shifted from one themed cluster to another the same way some animals hop from patch to patch of food. To make the most of its time and get the most food possible, a bird feeding on berries, for example, should only stay on any one particular bush if the plant will yield more berries than nearby bushes. At some point, the bird has eaten so many berries on the first bush that it makes more sense to switch to one with more to offer.
Scientists who study animals have translated this kind of decision-making into mathematical equations called "optimal foraging models," which Hills applied to the lists of animals produced by the students in his experiment. Hills coded a computer program that first decided the probability that a student would name a particular animal, given what the student had already named. If someone started with "cat," for instance, they are much more likely to next type "dog" than "zebra." When the program encountered a pair of words that were unlikely to appear together, followed by a pair of words with a much higher chance of coupling, it interpreted the pattern as a jump from one themed cluster to another—such as from pets to savanna. Human jurors independently verified that the program identified jumps in the right places. Finally, the program compared its analysis of how the students navigated their memories with what optimal foraging models predicted the students should do, as if they were birds feeding on berries or bees in a field of wildflowers.
Most students jumped from memory cluster to cluster exactly as the optimal foraging models predicted—and the students whose mental acrobatics most closely matched the models' predictions named the most animals. Hills's program further revealed that the most successful students abandoned one category of animals for another when it took too long to name a new animal, just as a foraging animal leaves behind a patch of food when its time would be better spent at a more fruitful patch. The findings appear online in the February 13 issue of Psychological Review.
"My initial reaction was, "Wow, it worked!" Hills says. "It is pretty cool, and not that common, that some crazy idea works out. This particular line of reasoning seems to be producing some interesting things. A lot of previous research supports the hypothesis that higher-level cognitive abilities evolved from spatial foraging mechanisms. Before we had abstract thinking, we had brains that helped us get around physical spaces—some of those abilities may be co-opted to search in information space."
Peter Pirolli, a research fellow at the Palo Alto Research Center in California who has studied how foraging theories apply to memory, sees the new findings as strong experimental support for an idea that is increasingly popular. "The general sense that searching for things in the world might have been exapted [sic] to other purposes, such as searching for information internally, is a meme that got started in the 1990s," he explains. "I see more and more work applying this aspect of behavioral ecology not just to memory but to all kinds of search and task management."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentWhy the [sic] on exapted? It means "The utilization of a structure or feature for a function other than that for which it was developed through natural selection."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDictionary.com gives nothing for "exapt" but when you type in "exapted" it gives you "exaption." If the author went there and typed in "exapt" he would conclude that the word was a typo. It's a new word to me, anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather than (just) using optimal 'foraging' strategies to randomly improve the performance of information retrieval, the brain may also or instead use indexing schemes during information storage or reorganization (perhaps during rest/dream periods) to optimize retrieval performance. Learned information (memories) may be categorized using a number of differing schemes reflecting common retrieval requirements, with lists of memory 'pointers' stored in 'indices'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis method of optimizing information storage along many retrieval paths is commonly used in database systems. The results of retrieval tests on optimally stored memories, such as those conducted here, could mimic many different specialized retrieval methods...
As an educator this article reminds me of the importance of "clustering" data when designing and then teaching new information. Of course, some students like myself would like to buzz more quickly from one knowledge tree to the next.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not convinced - I could easily in such a test and more freely written down as many animals I could think of, randomly: elephant, skunk, ant, bee, dog etc. But then I am not a bureaucrat, but a lateral person. Would I have failed? I dunno. That would depend on motivation and energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo we all link animals (et al) together in the same way?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA couple of years ago, I became suffuciently annoyed at a newspaper, that had an "IQ-test" containing these animals
Cat, cow, horse, crow, camel
Which was the odd one out???
To me, the cat, the only carnivore, but the "correct" answer was horse, because it didn't start with a C?
Would the programme recognize my pattern, if (which doens't seem unlikely) went from carnivore to herbivore, insects, spiders, fish, molluscs etc?
That said, it seems like a good strategy to stop grasping at the last straw, if there are more straws to be had elsewhere.
I picked the crow from your list....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you that crow is an appropriate answer because it is the only member of vagnry's list that is not a mammal. In addition, it is the only member of the list that is a flying animal (it is also a carnivore as well as the cat-although primarily a carrion eater perhaps). Nevertheless, if asked the proposed question on an IQ test I probably would have answered horse because the word does not begin with the letter c. However, this example does illustrate that sometimes the questions on a standardized IQ test may have subjective interpretations of what is expected to be an intelligent response to a given question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recently read somewhere that any numerical sequence or list can be considered to be a repeating pattern if a sufficiently complex rule can be constructed to produce it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour test example might be more indicative of educator/test developer bias than test subject intelligence. Likewise, I wonder about the bias of the researchers referred to in this article - adopting a test used to validly identify intellectual degradation to presumedly identify how the brain processes information is quite presumptive.
BTW, I have to wonder whether Peter Pirolli has considered how the performance of 'optimal' foraging methods would compare to the offline production of text indexes for web searches? Perhaps he can get back to us when he bumps into some really useful information...
I'm impressed with the lack of curiosity expressed in these comments. The significance of studies like this is not necessarily pragmatic. But testing this kind of hunch contributes to a growing perspective that higher order cognitive processes are built on fundamental life-supporting systems, and that the body is somehow motivated to keep building - to the point of creating for itself some of the most bewildering observations of nature. (like those in, for example, particle physics and cosmology)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this kind of observation contributes to a fascinating perspective that has the potential to alter the very notion of cognitive ability, not to mention theories of knowledge. I like to explore these things at mathrising.com where I will link to this report.
Experiments by Agranoff and others in the 1960’s demonstrated a connection between protein synthesis and memory. Their article is at the following link: (http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/33473/1/0000878.pdf). They built a shuttle box with a baffle in the middle, an electric grid and a light bulb in each end. In about 45 minutes or so any goldfish could learn that a few seconds after the light bulb came on it would get a shock and swim over the baffle to the other end of the shuttle box. The goldfish would remember the next day. If they injected a chemical into the brain of the wee creature that blocked protein synthesis the goldfish would not remember the next day. However if they used a syringe to suck out the brain of the wee fish (poor thing) and inject it into the abdominal cavity of another gold fish that gold fish would learn in a considerably shorter time. This does not indicate that memories are stored in the brain, but it does indicate that the recall process is keyed to protein synthesis. The latter is essential to making synaptic connections and building muscle etc, but this still does not mean that there is a memory bank in the brain or body.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMemory is coupled to sensory input otherwise the recall process would not be relevant to the changing flux of circumstance. If we travel to place where we used to live years ago a flood of old memories come back. If we see a friend we haven’t seen for years the same thing happens. These memories are timeless and include images, events and emotional colouring. They are organized according to how they happened. We also have aboriginal memories that relate timelessly to the evolution of the human species and our vertebrate ancestors that transcend our personal lives. The reptilian part of our brain is primary to the recall process and intimately linked to emotional experience. I question whether experiments such as these contrived behavioural studies will ever establish anything significant to the human condition. See the following links: http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Three-Brains.html Also see how recall works at the spinal level synapse by synapse at http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/System4_Sequence_Steps.html and at the cerebral level at http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/System4_Sequence_Part_2.html.
I'd have a hard time saying which is 'more' intelligent, whatever that is. Perhaps the observer, but just look what 'they've' done to the planet - not very intelligent. Or are we referring to something else?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut to the point. If I can't remember something I don't go searching for it, like a busy bee, I just let it go and it may or may not occur to me at a later time.
Obviously I don't hold memory to be the measure of intelligence and am content when the system breaks down - as it will for everyone.
Surely intelligence is more durable than that?
you want to explain us that the darwin evolution still as ongoing process which influence our brain and behaviour.But whatever the bee' said if their speeches full of lies and terors, the unpresence of police really on question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article link I posted above does not mention the part about injecting the brain of one educated gold fish into the abdominal cavity of another. I read it in one of his many published articles in the sixties or seventies. The following is an excerpt from comments he made in a book. Interesting too!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShortly after coming to Ann Arbor, I met Jim McConnell, a psychologist who had attracted considerable attention as a result of his behavioral experiments on the fl atworm, planaria. The paradigm was simple. Light from a gooseneck lamp over a small glass dish containing a planarian was paired with an electric shock administered through the water, resulting in a whole body contraction. After many trials, the worms were reported to have been conditioned: they “scrunched up” following light alone. McConnell further claimed that if trained worms were cut in half, and the head and tail segments were allowed to regenerate so that each formed a complete planarian, both regenerated halves displayed the trained response. Additional variants, including feeding chopped up bits of trained worms to naïve ones, reportedly worked as well. Much of this was published in McConnell’s Worm Runner’s Digest, a circulated pamphlet/periodical with separate experimental fi ndings and humor sections.
Assuming that English is not your first language, what exactly are you trying to say?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhoa...why isn't anyone connecting the dots here with alzheimers, parkinsons, AHDD, disease? If the bees and our food are being lashed with neuro-toxic pesticides, what makes us think that we, the end consumer, are not also being adversely impacted? We eat the honey, the food, drink the water and breathe the air all of which have been impacted by these lashing of neonicotinoids. Does it take a PhD to follow this commonsense?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHoneybees are Modern-day Canaries in the Coal Mines http://ow.ly/alUSl
The Systemic Pesticides: A Disaster in the Making http://ow.ly/alVjn
The nicotinic acetylcholine receptor gene family of the honey bee, Apis mellifera http://ow.ly/alUYk
Studies reveal dangers of neonicotinoids! http://ow.ly/alV3h
Parkinson's Disease Associated With Pesticide Exposure In French Farm Workers http://ow.ly/alUiy
Insecticides kill insect pests through their neurotoxic effects, but also have neurotoxic, immunotoxic, developmental, and reproductive effects on humans, other animals/pets, fish, and beneficial insects http://ow.ly/alUs1
Insecticides killing the Earth, Our biosystem...and You and Me http://ow.ly/alVFs
"Each year, our global biosphere endures an onslaught of some 5 billion pounds of insecticides. Many of these insecticides are neonicotinoids, which synthetically mimic a plant compound found in tomatoes, potatoes, peppers and tobacco. A neuroactive insecticide fashioned after nicotine, neonicotinoids poison nerves and prevent acetylcholine from enabling neurons to communicate with each other and with muscle tissue. In humans, for instance, these substances would trigger Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases."
"Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide - which might explain why we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMOs destroy our pollinators, they could be more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals. In addition to possible extinctions and eco-system harm, GMO opponents fear they could trigger the emergence of antibiotic resistant diseases due to viruses and bacteria used to modify some GM foods. They also fear such foods could raise the risk of developing cancer, lead to chronic illnesses such as fibromyalgia and trigger food allergies."..The Best Years in Life
More Articles in: YOUR FOOD, YOUR HEALTH: All About GMOs, Pesticides, Chemicals, CAFOs http://ow.ly/alVWg
A great article and now it is time to connect the dots...the link between the devastating neuro, autoimmune CCD bee die off from the lashings of millions of tons of neonicocides/pesticides on our food crops, in our soils, water and air. If they affect the bees immune system and memory, then we humans must also be being affected due to the accumulative affects of our daily ingesting the same toxins. http://ow.ly/alWAQ
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is crucial we conduct some truly independent studies to see if indeed the impact on the bees is translating to human health and autoimmune, neuro-diseases such as alzheimers, parkinsons, ahdd, autism. Here is one, for starters:
The Systemic Insecticides: A Disaster in the Making http://ow.ly/alWMU
QED: Who am I ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==.
Cells make copies of themselves.
Different cells make different copies of themselves.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes.
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( or not by chance ) they change own
geometrical form from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you.
Cells they are you ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view.
#
Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’
But this explanation is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’
===.
Is this formulation correct?
Of course it is correct.
Why?
Because:
Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity)
refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields
produced by living cells, tissues or organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism
What does it mean?
It means there isn’t biological cell without electromagnetic fields.
It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances:
matter and electromagnetic fields.
And in 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.
He wrote: ‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ page 10. /
#
Once again:
1.
Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.
2.
We cannot understand their interaction and therefore
we don’t know the answer to the question: ‘ who am I ?’
===.
Israel Socratus.
A bird foraging for berries on one bush can look over at another bush and notice that there are more berries over there. How does the brain look at a word-association cluster and notice there are "more berries over there?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting...I thought the crow was the odd one out, because it only had two feet.... seems we can categorize this list in a number of ways, and therefore including it on an intelligence test seems questionable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this