Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Patrick Lockerby | May 29th 2009 04:23 PM | 2 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More The Chatter Box articles

All

About Patrick Lockerby

Retired engineer, 60+ years young.
Computer builder and programmer.
Linguist specialising in language acquisition and computational linguistics.
Interested in every human endeavour except the... Full Bio

Stick It In Your Ear!

People's reports of inner mental processes are not considered to be reliable enough to validate theories.  (Some would say formulate, even.)  Such reports are only accepted in general, as when a medicine is reported by a patient to alleviate the pain of migraine.  Theories in psychology based on the detailed 'inner awareness' of phenomena are often dismissed as 'mentalese'.

It would be very useful to be able to look directly at the human brain's many operations and so discover if our 'mentalese' theories have any scientifically demonstrable validity.  Over the course of time, methods and instruments have evolved to test these theories by proxy.

There are very many theories in the cognitive sciences which depend for their validity on proof that the human brain divides tasks preferentially between its left and right hemispheres.  Whilst brain imaging techniques have advanced dramatically of recent years, availability and cost have restricted their application.

A new method has been devised to detect cerebral lateralisation.  Based on the observation that lateralisation produces lateral temperature differences, the method measures timpanic temperature differences. 

The taking of timpanic temperature is an established method of taking the temperatures of infants, so this would indicate a degree of reliability in the method.  There is some dispute about whether or not perspiration affects measurements.  Other dispute areas probably do not apply to the psychological testing of volunteers.

The tympanic temperature differential method could provide a cheap and reliable way of bringing physical measurement capabilities into the ordinary classroom.

References:
"Tympanic membrane temperature, exposure to emotional stimuli and the sustained attention to response task ",  to be published in Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology , Volume 31, Issue 5 July 2009.

"Should tympanic temperature measurement be trusted?", Anna Riddell and Walter Eppich, 19th February 2003,  Oxford Vaccine Group and Duke University Medical Center.  BestBETs

Comments

jtwitten's picture
To get a touch pedantic, the use of internal mental processes is fine for hypothesis development, but is difficult to apply to rigorous hypothesis testing.  Dismissing any source of information should always consider what the information is to be used for.  Which is to say that I agree with you, Patrick.

To get a touch technical, the pediatric practice the we use for our daughter does not use the tympanic membrane method for taking temperatures, precisely for the reliability issues you mention.  Of course, if it is an unreliable measure of core body temperature due to variation in mental processes, then it may be ok for this application.  Knowing the source of variance is always important.

logicman's picture
Josh: you had me worried for a bit with your first sentence. :)
Of course, if it is an unreliable measure of core body temperature due
to variation in mental processes, then it may be ok for this
application.  Knowing the source of variance is always important.

I added the comments about variance precisely because so few articles on this mention them.

Thanks for agreeing with me, the check is in the post.  ;)

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.