Jul 26 2013

Implanting False Memories – Sort Of

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Implanting False Memories – Sort Of”.


6 responses so far

6 Responses to “Implanting False Memories – Sort Of”

  1. Sawyeron 26 Jul 2013 at 12:18 pm

    Now for the next step – can we convince mice that they participated in satanic rituals? And will mice ostracize their fellow demon-worshiper rodents that confess their horrible past?

  2. pseudonymoniaeon 26 Jul 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Completely agree. It’s a neat trick, but there is little evidence that a “false memory” was created in the sense that the term is usually meant.

    The best evidence for this? Animals froze only about 30% of the time with this new technique in the “false” room (which is still cool, the other animals barely froze at all), but a different group froze ~75% of the time in the “real” room.

    This shouldn’t be surprising, as the “false memory” only consisted of activating a subset of the cells involved in the perception of a real experience (a fraction of cells in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus, ignoring additional hippocampal cells and the rest of the brain).

  3. petrucioon 27 Jul 2013 at 2:58 am

    Spellcheck: “I’m now sure” = “I’m not sure”

  4. etatroon 29 Jul 2013 at 2:24 am

    I had a vivid imagination as a child and as an adult, some of my early childhood memories are of my fantasies and day dreams and they seem just as real as the memories of events that actually occurred (which have documentation). I’ve also intentionally forgotten information … Discovered by accident personal information about a friend, knowing that said friend chose not to tell me, was able to “forget” the discovery for a long time; until after friend shared info, and only reflection of the conversation, remembered the discovery months in the past. Personal anecdotes like this and findings from neuroscience make me question much of my concocted view of the world.

  5. Bill Openthalton 29 Jul 2013 at 6:31 am

    … the conventional view that our minds are our brains.

    This might be the conventional (“Based on or in accordance with general agreement, use, or practice“) view in neurology and neurobiology, but it is probably not the view of the majority of humans. Almost all the people I interact with firmly hold that the mind transcends the “mere” functioning of the brain.

  6. Josh Hedgepethon 29 Jul 2013 at 9:29 pm

    Exactly how did they tag or go about activating said cells?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.