Saturday, 20 December 2008

Walk the Line

0 comments

How about I shut up for today and pass you on this,( oh ya ...go on click on it) so that, I could be as said... Predictably Irrational and yet let you get a glimpse of what I want to tell you.

Psst: Once you are done, you could hop on to this, and get to know how you could apply that to waggle your web marketing strategy !


Sunday, 2 November 2008

When you had wished you had a damaged brain

0 comments

Lets try the below ...

Can you move a single matchstick to form a valid mathematical ?

Can you form a valid mathematical statement by moving one matchstick?

No sticks can be discarded, an isolated slanted stick cannot be interpreted as I (one), and a V (five) symbol must always be composed of two slanted sticks. The only valid symbols are Roman numerals and "+", "-" and "=". OK, now try this one:

Can you form a valid mathematical statement by moving one matchstick?

If you had trouble with that last puzzle, fear not - it means your frontal lobe is probably intact! Healthy adults are frequently outperformed by patients with frontal brain damage on that test, according to a 2005 study by Reverberi et al.

The authors tested 35 patients with focal brain lesions to the lateral or medial prefrontal cortex, along with 23 age- and education-matched healthy subjects, on a series of similar "matchstick arithmetic" problems, with 3 minutes to complete each problem. Whereas only 43% of healthy subjects completed the second problem, more than 80% of the patients with lateral prefrontal damage were able to do so!

Why should this be? The authors argued that prefrontal cortex allows for "sculpting of the response space" - in other words, prefrontal cortex is used to guide and control the mental search for a solution. Normally such "cognitive guidance" is a good thing ... but it can be bad for solutions which require thinking outside the box - outside the normal, real-world constraints we place on workable solutions.

So healthy adults might search for solutions that respect the rules of normal arithmetic, and assume that this constraint is implied. One might never even consider the mathematically ill-formed solution to the second problem: IV=IV=IV. On the other hand, patients with brain damage may not use these common-sense constraints, and thus be more likely to stumble upon the rather unorthodox mathematical statement which is correct in this case.

So while the frontal cortex may enable "higher" cognitive functions like planning, judgment, and goal setting, it may also constrain us. The prefrontal cortex allows us to remember our current context and our expectations of what it might entail, and project towards other contexts, both in the past and the future. Those with under-functioning frontal lobes - such as brain trauma patients, and children - may somehow live in a less-specified world, where something as simple as making coffee could be a hopelessly complex or under-determined task. Yet they may also enjoy a "cognitive drift" into mental spaces which the tight, goal-directed reins of our prefrontal cortex steer us away from.

But there's an interesting methodological flaw in the study which allows for a less fanciful explanation (and might also explain why this paper is published in Brain instead of Nature!)

3/4 of the subjects encountered a type of matchstick problem with 10 legal moves prior to the IV=IV=IV problem - more than twice as many moves as are possible in either of the examples above. Healthy subjects might have implicitly recognized the number of potential moves, and thus avoided a time-consuming trial-and-error strategy. Lateral PFC subjects, on the other hand, might not have picked up on this rather subtle issue, and continued obliviously with a trial and error search strategy. It's not clear to me why the authors didn't fully balance the design to rule out such order effects (it would have been easy to do). Still, their results are interesting, regardless of why they got them.


Also, Would you want to know how brain damage helps in...well, Gambling ?!

Wednesday, 15 October 2008

A Delusion or you did Distort Time ?

0 comments


Demystifying Delusions -

Delusions are pathological beliefs which persist despite clear evidence that they are actually false. They can vary widely in content, but are always characterized by the absolute certainty with which they are held. Such beliefs reflect an abnormality of thought processes; they are often bizarre and completely unrelated to conventional cultural or religious belief systems, or to the level of intelligence of the person suffering from them.

The delusions experienced by psychiatric patients are sometimes categorized according to their theme. For example, schizophrenics often suffer from delusions of control (the belief that an external force is controlling their thoughts or actions), delusions of grandeur (the belief that they are a famous rock star or historical figure) or delusions of persecution (the belief that they are being followed, attacked or conspired against).

Although often associated with psychiatric disorders, delusions can also occur as a symptom of neurodegenerative disorders, and improved diagnostic methods have led to an increase in the identification of brain damage in patients who suffer from them. To date, however, there has not been an all-encompassing theory of how the brain generates delusions. Now though, Orrin Devinsky, a professor of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry at New York University, proposes that delusions are generated by a combination of right hemisphere damage and left hemisphere hyperactivity.

In a review published in the journal Neurology, Devinsky examines the neuropathologies underlying two delusional syndromes with the aim of identifying anatomical abnormalities that are common to all four. Specifically, he looks at Capgras syndrome, the delusional belief that close friends or relations are imposters or have identical body doubles with different identities and reduplicative paramnesia (or Capgras for places), in which one believes that a familiar place exists in two locations simultaneously.

These syndromes are related to, and often co-exist with, confabulation (the pathological production of false memories) and anosognosia, a condition in which one fails to recognize, or is unaware of, a neurological deficit such as blindness or paralysis. They also share common mechanisms and pathologies. However, whereas confabulating patients can be convinced that their memories are false, deluded patients hold on to their beliefs firmly.

Devinksy looked at numerous case studies of individuals with these syndromes and, when possible, pinpointed the site of brain damage in each. His analysis showed that the four conditions do indeed share common pathological features. In 69 patients with replicative paramnesia, for example, 52% had incurred damage to the right frontal lobe (as a result of stroke or Alzheimer's Disease), 41% had damage to both, and 7% had damage to the left. Likewise, the case studies of patients with Capgras syndrome showed that they had damage primarily to the right frontal lobe.

The ubiquity of frontal lobe damage in the cases studies supports the hypothesis that these delusions involve impairments in executive function, working memory, decision-making and the abilities to make accurate predictions and to estimate and sequence time. One consequence of damage to the right frontal lobe would therefore be an impairment in the patients' ability to monitor the accuracy of their own cognitive processes.

According to Devinsky's hypothesis, this leads to increased left hemisphere activity - the left hemisphere compensates for the lack of inappropriate inputs from the right, "filling in" the gaps and conjuring a creative and extravagant narrative which leads to false explanations of the patient's experiences. Damage to the right hemisphere may prevent the patient from recognizing his or her cognitive errors, and therefore from changing their false beliefs.


From a different perspective, you could have distorted time to quantify the experience you had, isn't it?

"Where is it, this present? It has melted in our grasp, fled ere we could touch it, gone in the instant of becoming." - William James, 1890

Extremely dangerous, traumatic, or surprising moments are often accompanied by reports that time seemed to "slow down" or "fly by." The perceptual basis of these subjective temporal distortions is unclear, but not for lack of trying: one recent experiment went so far as to drop subjects off a 400 foot tower while testing their ability to decipher a rapidly flashing string of numbers - a test of perceptual processing speed. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Subjects were no better at deciphering these numbers than they were under more mundane circumstances.

Ironically, temporal distortion may be more noticeable in such mundane experiences. A 2004 study by Tse and colleagues reviews evidence that durations are estimated as somewhat longer as more complex stimuli are being presented - as though time is subjectively expanding. In contrast, when subjects must actively attend to those stimuli or perform a secondary task while estimating durations, they tend to estimate those elapsed durations as slightly shorter - as though time is subjectively contracting.

Tse et al. suggested that these effects might emerge in the same way distraction might impair your ability to count the "ticks" from a clock's second hand. According to this "missed temporal cues" hypothesis, duration judgments are accomplished by attending to "temporal units." When attention is fully directed towards these temporal judgments, fewer "temporal units" are missed and duration estimates increase; however, when attention is divided, more of those "temporal units" are missed and so the estimates decrease.

Tse et al also suggest an alternative hypothesis: "attentional boost." According to the "attentional boost" theory, the processing of relatively low probability stimuli may somehow speed information processing of that stimulus, causing more "temporal units" to be counted.

To distinguish between these hypotheses, Tse et al. combined several methods of temporal estimation with the oddball paradigm, in which relatively low-probability stimuli are embedded inside series of more high-frequency stimuli. (For example, in auditory oddball, subjects might hear a string of sounds like "ROOF ROOF ROOF WOOF ROOF." Bizarre, I know.)

In a first experiment, subjects reliably estimated that an oddball visual stimulus was similar in duration to a much more frequent visual stimulus when, in fact, its duration was around half as long (675 msec vs. 1050 msec)!

A second experiment demonstrated that this temporal expansion of "oddballs" occurs only when the more frequent standard stimuli are longer than ~150 msec in duration. In fact, there's a subjective temporal contraction when standard stimuli are around 75 msec in duration - as though attention cannot be allocated to the oddball quickly enough, and the subsequent blank interval or standard stimulus itself undergoes the subjective temporal expansion, instead of the oddball.

An interesting feature of the data is a peculiar "dip" in the degree of temporal distortion measured by these methods when the more frequent standard stimuli last only around 375 msec. Shorter or longer standards cause more temporal distortions. Furthermore, this dip occurs at different times between individuals, and Tse et al. argue that it could reflect what many consider to be the dual mechanisms of attentional reorienting: a transient component and a sustained component.

Subsequent experiments replicated the effect with a variety of stimuli and temporal estimation methods. These temporal distortions (and to some extent the pecular "dip") were apparent when using auditory stimuli and were present with visual stimuli regardless of whether subjects were asked to rate the magnitude of the oddball's duration, to reproduce the duration of the oddball, or to rate whether the oddball lasted longer or shorter than the average of all previous stimuli (all of these are established psychophysics techniques for duration perception).

Tse et al note their results could be an example of the "time order error" (TOE) in which the second of two sequentially judged stimuli is altered along the dimension of judgment. For example, when two weights of large mass are lifted in succession, subjects tend to say the second is heavier. In contrast, when two weights of small mass are lifted one after the other, subjects tend to rate the second as lighter. So, in the case of temporal distortion, subjective duration lengthens if the oddball is presented for longer than 150 msec, but shortens if the oddball is presented for less than 150 msec. They discuss several reasons to doubt this possibility, including that TOE theory seems to contradict several findings in the duration psychophysics literature, as though it might not apply to duration judgments.

There are clear evolutionary advantages to subjective temporal distortion - as Tse et al note, increasing temporal resolution could allow for greater depth of processing and thus more adaptive responding when an organism is endangered or surprised. Although intuitively far-fetched, visual psychophysics has demonstrated that spatial attention can alter the spatial resolution of vision. Thus it seems at least plausible that "temporal attention" could alter the temporal resolution of duration judgments, causing them to contract or expand.

Finally, an interesting question for future research is how these phenomena might interact, given the time-frequency tradeoffs that are inherent to signal processing. For example, increased spatial attention could cause decreased resolution in temporal judgments, and vice versa.



Related:

Friday, 10 October 2008

Mentoring works?!

0 comments

Often friends ask me about the difficulties we face trying to startup immediately after graduation. One of the common answer they get to hear is that we have always found the right people to speak openly about our challenges and get their views and insights about it. But I thought it would be appropriate to share something about how such advices have worked for me at least. Because it was very, very different from what I myself expected or how most sources of learning would present it as.

Firstly, I believe no amount of mentoring can substitute experience. And for a non-conformist like me, most advices and insights are not a very natural way to base your decisions on. In spite of that, it has been extremely helpful in a very different way. Normally, we learn the right choices based on our previous cases, when we had to make a similar choice. After a few right/wrong choices you make, most people can pretty much figure out what works for them. Now, having a mentor greatly accelerates two steps involved in the process I stated above:
  1. It makes you realize the right choices much sooner than you would otherwise.
  2. It helps you understand not just what the right choices are, but why they are the right choices. This makes future learning so much more easy.
Of course, you may argue that there are both merits as well as demerits to this. I agree. But in our case it's been something that has mainly brought out positives for us and I believe it would be so in many other cases where the founders do not have direct corporate experience before. Having said that, things are working great for us only because we enjoy one huge luxury - being able to speak our hearts out with our advisors and get candid opinions not just about encouraging aspects of our business but also about challenges and things that can go terribly wrong. If you cannot speak without any veils with your advisors/mentors, it's no good for either sides irrespective of how much short-term credibility it may bring to your venture.

Like most opinions that I'll be expressing in this blog, some of them have been tested, some of them might just be air. Opinions, beliefs, schedules, roles - everything change so fast in a startup that it makes me wonder if this is the right time to be blogging about it! But then, here I am...

Monday, 6 October 2008

Learning to fly

0 comments
I remember seeing a comic strip where a young eaglet asks its Mom: "When can I fly, Mama?." Mama looks back at its repaired wooden wings and replies: "Once you finish reading that," pointing at a big fat manual on flying.

Sometimes I cant help but wonder: are there really too many prerequisites to fly on your own?

Wanna startup? put down your ideas on paper first, write a business plan, write a whitepaper, speak to experts, speak to distant clients, speak to every other person in the world you can make up a relation with, seek advice, seek mentoring, seek money, work out the numbers, build up confidence, participate in competitions... the list suddenly seems endless. And even after you've done everything, you still won't have the one real thing which you need to fly high, fly long - a passion for flying!

How could you trust your passion in something you've never done before? That does take a lot of time, lot of work and a lot of learning. Personally, I feel if there is no doubt, no fear, then learning becomes a burden, a tough thing to do. It becomes difficult to put in the efforts required. [Probably that's why all of us wait till the day before the examinations, to put in our efforts and learn something :)]

It took quite a lot of time for us to work time and again on our model, accept its shortcomings and improve it, convince ourselves that we need to write a business plan atleast for ourselves and convince ourselves to accept that things will never go as good as they seem to work within a beautiful cocoon of ours at BITS Pilani.

I'll cut short the story and wind up in a line: We did do all the things I've mentioned above and we're now glad for every bit of it.

[We still do all the above things everyday & we've actually started to love it now!!!]

Thursday, 25 September 2008

Staying alive...

0 comments
In my last post, I spoke of how we graduated from Stealth Mode and started developing the product we had in mind - a framework to create virtual personalities and simulate their behavior in different situations which mimic the real world. It was tough, but we had successfully worked on tough things before.

What we had never done before was to create a world for ourselves, where we could afford to work on crazy little ideas of our own without being at the end of a pointing finger. I wonder why our education system has never bothered to teach us the traits required to hold on to our dreams, no matter how different they are from those of the ones around us. If I come to think of it, personally, my stay at Election Commission and CEL at BITS Pilani might be the main reason why I never felt alienated by this difference as long as I was in BITS Pilani.

I did have my share of gloomy days when it suddenly seemed meaningless to defy everybody around, defy the world and the system that has brought us so far. Though most times, the pain had little to do with Vita Peracta. And there were days when I wanted to quit, drop all grand plans and take refuge in a safe and certain life. The only reason those moments did not stick on, was an infinite source of encouragement and hope, called Nakul Jamadagni. Me & Nakul have had numerous chats at all corners of our campus, at all times of the day. I cherish every single one of them for making me forget that anything at all was different, in what we were doing.

A common feature in all those conversations was long arguments. We used to put out all possible reasons and emotions we had, for or against anything which was the cause of worry. I think, to find someone who will argue against you with all his/her heart is really a huge advantage no matter what you are doing in life. Even to this day, the thing I miss the most about people & places I'm far from is the time I've spent arguing. 'Coz some of the most important things I've learnt in life, are from people who've told me I'm wrong.

Saturday, 20 September 2008

Breaking out of Stealth

1 comments
To tell or not to tell - is a dilemma which haunts most individuals when a new idea hits them. I won't pretend to have an answer. I'll just take you through how we went about breaking out of our stealth mode.

But first, let me clarify my stand on this issue. Even I am an advocate of the new age culture of democratizing innovation. But I do believe a stealth mode is necessary for an idea, at least in a non-ideal world like ours where most ideas end up being born into their graves. Stealth protects you from losing motivation about your idea even before you get a feel for its true potential. Stealth helps you shape your idea to reflect your own self, before letting it grow freely and rapidly in an open environment. Having said that, I do understand that a prolonged stealth mode is as likely to kill an idea, as letting it out before a wrong crowd.

Fortunately, in our case the idea was born within a team and hence reduced the risk of reaching a stale mate under stealth. The real break-out moment came during the winter holidays. With a 11page white paper, me & Sindhu knocked the doors of every neuro-psychologist, social psychologist, evolutionary biologist and psychology doctors we knew. At the same time, Nakul was speaking to HR directors and business heads of several companies in Mumbai. We even found ways to get introduced to experts in the field of computational and cognitive neuroscience from a few major research groups around the globe. In 10 days, I had 100+ conversations labeled "Vita" in my gmail account and we had personally interacted with 15+ individuals from relevant groups.

What did we get? Insights - loads of it & a very promising network of people who were convinced more because of our energy than the idea, which was still looked upon in disbelief like a magic trick that you could not break. To me, the theory was so beautiful, it had to be true. It probably worked in our favor that our framework was already able to predict a good number of behavioral traits which were only inductively asserted till then.

A few people truly liked our idea and got involved in developing it further, while most others liked us and that gave us the confidence to continue working on the idea. By this time, we were convinced that our idea is well ahead of our time and hence almost stopped working on the business aspect of it. The business was turning into a science project.

[Thank you list: Dr. Anders Sandberg, Dr. Ahalya Raghuram, Dr. Vidyanand Nanjundiah, Dr. Manjula, Dr. Keshav Kumar, Ms. Renu, Mr. Rituraj, Dr. Anita Ghai, Dr. Kusuma, Dr. Shobini Rao, Mr. Vijay Rao and Dr. Suman Kapur]

Friday, 12 September 2008

An idea...

0 comments
Today's world needs a new religion, a new belief which can hold their life together - is what Nakul & me concluded after a funny discussion at VK radi (an eatery at BITS Pilani). We thought we were the right guys to go ahead and seed such a belief in people's minds. All we needed was an extremely sane guy who could connect easily to the masses and make them believe in whatever philosophy we plan to grow. We couldn't think of such a guy but I very much knew a girl who I thought would be a perfect fit for the role - Sindhu.

An hour later, the 3 of us were sitting at Sky Lawns and discussing about what we thought was a growing problem - lack of understanding about life. Yet another hour passed, before we realized we were just sitting and throwing around idiotic ideas that would never work. So we left. But only now do I see how many new and insane ideas that one hour of talk had seeded in all of us. Yet, we left the place without any prejudice for or against any idea.

After going back, I got hooked on to gmail as usual - a prized trait gifted by CEL (Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, BITS Pilani), specifically by one lanky, energetic idea bank at CEL called Chinmay Kulkarni. I still don't know what made me dig out a saved chat that was a few days old, where me & Sindhu had tried to come up with a million reasons for why the world and its people are the way they are. What caught my attention was a phrase that could only mean one thing to me at that time - 'Captain Jack Sparrow', but it meant a lot more. It meant 'Life in its complete form' - Vita Peracta.

A week later, we were working on creating a game where the virtual world responds to the player's decisions in exactly the same way as the real world would. But the problem was that the virtual world would have virtual people and we had no clue about how virtual people behave. We did not even have a clue about how real people behave in a real world. A few days later, we found out, no one else has a clue either.

The world still rested its head on the shoulders of two tall figures in Psychology - Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. It probably was too ahead of their time to think about going one step ahead of their psychological theories and start testing if they can accurately predict people's behavior using any of those theories. It sadly turns out that you can't. People are too unique to be boxed into standard categories and deduce their behavior. What we needed was a framework to accommodate millions of traits that make us what we are and yet keep the framework simple enough to be put to everyday use.

Sounded like it was still too ahead of our time as well, we now pardoned Freud & Jung. Seemed impossible. Yet, we felt we were holding in our hands, the ends of a few threads that would someday stitch themselves into a beautiful picture of the human mind. We started to help it stitch faster. The idea had taken hold, dreams of an infinite possibilities had found a way to creep into our minds and to me personally, it was a joyful way to keep myself distracted from everything I hated about our world - Boxes & Walls.

[This post is dedicated to Nakul & Sindhu. I'm beginning to realize that an idea is a bunch of ignited minds and not just a bunch of connected thoughts. The latter can never change the world and we're experimenting with the former.]

Friday, 5 September 2008

0 comments

Pre-Launch: Website Under Construction - Vita Beans