SPIKE//

Month

October 2010

53 posts

what is your October wishes?

Hi new follower.  I’m not familiar with October wishes… Do I get three?  Assuming I do:

1.  A no-strings-attached, no-revisions-needed IRB approval. Oh, and someone to collect all my data for me and then write up the analyses. That’d be rad; thanks.
2.  I wish someone would cook me dinner for a change.  Also, that person could buy me a drink.  Maybe this could be a regular occurrence.
3.  I wish James Nord would visit me in Boulder.  Oh wait, that one really is happening!  

What are you all wishing for this October?

Oct 1, 20103 notes
#ask me ask me ask me #james nord #thesis hell #IRB
Play
1:12
Sep 30, 201012 notes
#gratutious video of yourself #this video will probably self destruct #superfluidity #wooden spoon

September 2010

38 posts

Sep 29, 20106 notes
#friends #no show scheiner #gpoyw
Contrived randomness → massmoca.org

bobulate:

Sol LeWitt’s Wall Drawing 305:

Wall Drawing 305 is composed of one hundred random specific points that are determined by the draftsman. The points are random in that they may be placed anywhere on the wall. The draftsman uses Sol LeWitt’s vocabulary and geometric lexicon to guide the mapping of the points. …. As the draftsman maps out each generated point, he or she writes a description of how he or she arrived at that point next to it. This allows the viewers to trace the process of the placement of the points.

The backstory on the contrived randomness:

Wall Drawing 305, like many of LeWitt’s wall drawings, calls for the random application of forms — bringing up questions about how much the draftsmen should work to contrive that randomness. LeWitt’s response to the conundrum is to encourage draftsmen “…not [to] think too much in some situations. The use of the idea of the random is meant to preclude the conscious placement of elements to form a pattern.”

As it turns out, we might, however, fundamentally misunderstand randomness:

Humans are fascinated by randomness and yet we fundamentally misunderstand it. One misunderstanding is our belief in the hot hand — the intuition that a short run of consistent, but statistically independent, events is likely to continue. Another is our belief in the gamblers fallacy — the intuition that a short run of consistent events is likely to reverse. Although these two tendencies appear contradictory, they are often explained by the identical mechanism — the representativeness heuristic.

Understand or not, I’m still a LeWitt groupie.

Auto Sol LeWitt reblog.  Ever since I visited DIA:Beacon, a museum devoted to large-scale modern art, I have been entranced with LeWitt’s work.  Previous Sol LeWitt posts.

Sep 28, 201014 notes
#Sol LeWitt #art
Sep 28, 20106 notes
#health care reform
Play
Sep 26, 20104 notes
#band of horses #Denver #highamplitudesucking
Sep 25, 201015 notes
#bourbon #fall #recipe
Decadancies: bourbon baked figs à la Taf

I recently spoke with Taf about various preparations of baked figs.  She suggested a version with cream cheese, honey and bourbon.  After I recovered from my speechlessness, I decided that these heavenly creations would be called decadancies, a combination of “decadent” and “delicacies”.

1 dozen figs
2 oz. cream cheese
drizzle of honey
generous splash of bourbon

Preheat the oven to 350.  Prepare figs by giving them a quick rinse and slicing off the stems.  Cut each fig down the center, about halfway through.  Turn the fig 90 degrees and make another slice.  Place figs in a baking dish.  Pull the four quarters apart and stuff with cream cheese.  We suggest using your fingers.  Drizzle honey and bourbon all over.  Cover the figs with tin foil and bake about 20ish minutes, or until the whole house smells delicious.  Let the figs cool a few minutes.  You may decide at this point to add more bourbon or cream cheese, bourbon, honey, or all of the above.  Take the baking juices and baste the figs.  

image

(photo via loscheiner)

Sep 25, 20103 notes
#recipe #figs #taf #decadancies
Bourbon apple cider?

How bad could that be?  I’ll let you know soon.

Sep 25, 20104 notes
#bourbon
Sep 25, 201012 notes
#gpoyw
Sep 25, 201012 notes
#whatwehadfordinner #etymology #botany
Thesis hell on a Friday night

At 8 pm I cooked up a pound of mashed potatoes with kale.  I spoon-fed myself the green concoction out of an enormous wooden mixing bowl.  Until about an hour ago I was drinking full-fat chocolate milk straight from the glass container; I have now moved on to boxed white wine from a Bonne Maman jelly jar.

I spent the last five hours editing my IRB protocol and uploading it all to the human subjects committee.  Time has slowed to the point where I can actually see it pass in front of my eyes: it looks, strangely, like striated pale lime jello.  My brain has turned into mush, into mashed potatoes, into jelly-jars full of wine.

Tomorrow I’ll write up the recipe for the mashed potatoes; they were delicious.  But now, I think it’s time for me and the Bonne Maman to call it a night.

Sep 25, 201011 notes
#stay classy lolo #thesis hell #thesis hell is so tasty
Sep 22, 20102 notes
#cluttering #speech language pathology #fluency disorders
And then my cluttering client told me that his mother has end-stage Parkinson's

What’s going on with these two unrelated neurological disorders?  My thought is that the two diseases are actually more related than they appear.  

Cluttering is extremely rare and so there is almost no data on its genetic basis.  A recent study found that 9/10 boys with Fragile X (a chromosomal disorder) exhibited cluttering, suggesting a strong genetic basis.  I haven’t been able to find any other data on heritablity.

Parkinson’s disease is not generally considered to be a genetic disorder, though about 10-15% of people with PD have a first-order relative with the disease.  There are a few specific genetic mutations which are associated with PD, but those account for only a minority of cases.  In all likelihood, scientists simply haven’t discovered all of the genetic causes thus far.  Parkinson’s is terminal, and though the course can be quite protracted, it is a devastating illness with no cure.  

If the two disorders are related, as I suspect, I wonder if cluttering can be used as an early predictor of later Parkinson’s disease.  To my knowledge, no one has ever connected the two disorders; doing so would require a huge longitudinal study.  Someone get on that.

Sep 22, 20106 notes
#cluttering #parkinson's disease #speech language pathology #science
Cluttering and Parkinson's Disease

I’m striking out into uncharted speech-language pathology-theory territory here, but I’m pretty confident that there is a connection between cluttering and Parkinson’s disease.

Cluttering (which I described below) is a neurological disorder that affects language, in terms of increased rate of speech and decreased intelligibility.  People who clutter sound like they are mumbling.  Sometimes, they start off louder and clearer, and as they go on talking, their speech becomes faster and less clear.  As I mentioned in regards to the client I saw this morning, people who clutter are not aware of their dysfluencies.  If you play them a recording, they can recognize that their speech is rapid and unclear, but they don’t notice this while they’re talking.

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurological disorder that impacts movement.  In PD, the dopamine-producing cells of the basal ganglia (major centers for initiating and controlling muscle movement) die off.  As those cells die the messages those neurons send to other brain areas become erratic.  People with PD have uncontrollable tremors and difficulty initiating movements.  Movements generally become smaller, which is known by the beautiful scientific term, “festination”.  Walking turns to shuffling.  Speech turns to mumbling.  PD speech is very rapid and very quiet. Often, speech starts off louder and clearer, and as it goes on, it becomes faster and quieter.  As the disease progresses, festination gets worse and worse; speech can be so fast and so quiet that it’s unintelligible.

People with PD are difficult to treat because they have no awareness that they are speaking so quickly and so quietly.  Typically, they think their speech is fine, and they accuse their nagging spouses of needing hearing aids.  It is only when they listen to a recording of themselves that they recognize that they are mumbling.  Even after repeatedly telling a person with PD that they are mumbling, they will not change their behavior because the disease causes an impairment in sensory integration. 

What I’m saying is that people with PD festinate.  People who clutter festinate, though we call it “cluttering”.  People with PD have sensory integration issues.  People who stutter have sensory integration issues.   Makes you (or at least me) wonder if the two conditions are correlated: does some underlying brain anomaly disrupt motor and sensory integration processing in both PD and clutter?

Sep 22, 20103 notes
#cluttering #parkinson's disease #speech language pathology #science
Stuttering and Cluttering

Wednesday mornings I get dressed all fancy and participate in a stuttering diagnostic clinic.  Diagnosing stuttering is pretty easy: either a client does it or they don’t.  The classic signs of stuttering, known as core behaviors are repetitions (part-word and whole-word), prolongations (holding a sound extra long, like “mmmmmmmom”) and blocks (moments where no sound is produced, despite effort).  Stuttering is accompanied by secondary behaviors: things the person who stutters does to get out of the dysfluent moment.  Secondary behaviors can include signs of tension in the face, avoiding eye gaze, hard eye blinks, hand movements, head jerks, irregular breathing, using filler words, circumlocuting … Secondary behaviors are reactions to the person’s discomfort with stuttering- they happen because the person is painfully aware of their dysfluency.

Once you’ve confirmed that a client exhibits core and secondary behaviors, diagnosing stuttering boils down to a measure of severity- and there are scales to quantify severity, so that’s easy enough.

But what about when someone sounds like they’re stuttering, but they’re not exhibiting core and secondary behaviors?  That was our client this morning: his words came tumbling out rapidly; he tripped over them and repeated sounds and words.  He didn’t have secondary behaviors, with the exception of facial grimacing that occurred unrelated to speech contexts.  Further, unlike people who stutter, this client reported that he was unaware of his rate of speech.  On an objective level he knows that he speaks quickly because other people have told him so.  However, he is not aware of his rapid rate while he is speaking.

This client has a disorder that is even more rare than stuttering, called cluttering.  Cluttering is characterized by a rapid rate of speech, dropped sounds and generally low intelligibility.  Stuttering is a speech disorder; cluttering is more accurately described as a language disorder that affects speech.  Because language is disrupted, cluttered speech can also have an erratic rhythm and syntactic errors.  

I mentioned above that people who stutter are very aware of their stuttering; people who stutter often feel embarrassed, ashamed and angry.  People who stutter avoid speaking situations because they are uncomfortable talking.  People who clutter, in contrast, are almost always unaware of their dysfluency: they don’t have secondary (avoidance) characteristics because their dysfluency doesn’t bother them.  

Our client reported that he never realizes how dysfluent he is- unless he hears a recording of himself.  When he hears a recording he can barely understand himself.  He hears that he speaks too quickly, but when he tries to speak more slowly (what most people would perceive as a “normal” rate), he feels like he’s going so slow that he’ll forget the next word he wants to say.

The problem here is one of sensory integration.  The client has intact perception; there is nothing wrong with his hearing.  The problem is that he isn’t integrating his perceptions of himself online into his productions.  And that’s when I started connecting cluttering to Parkinson’s disease.

Sep 22, 20108 notes
#stuttering #cluttering #fluency disorders #speech language pathology
“I saw a pigeon, neck snapped and bleeding from the mouth. I thought of you.” —

James Nord

I miss you too!

Sep 21, 201010 notes
#james nord #pigeons
Why doesn't the IRB just trust that I'm not going to fuck with my thesis participants?

I never wrote about this on tumblr, but my thesis exploded a few weeks ago.  Briefly, one member of my committee (not a speech-language pathologist, but an exercise physiologist) didn’t approve of the methodology.  He proposed I do an entirely different experiment in order to more accurately get at the question I’m looking at (how do different types of practice affect speech motor learning).  And since he is the senior member of the committee, and since he convinced one other senior member, the final say was that I needed to start a new project.

A new project means new methods, means new stimuli, means new participants- and all of that means I need to submit a new proposal to the Institutional Review Board, the committee which oversees all experiments involving human subjects.  

And that means a long, and tedious and excruciatingly detailed account of the exact methods of my experiment: every minute of the experiment accounted for; the purpose of each piece of equipment explained; the coding system for ensuring confidentiality spelled out.

I suck at this.  I’m a big-picture person, not a detail person.  My brain starts spinning when I think about details.  I feel like I’m endlessly zooming in on the edge of a fractal: each time I think I’ve explained my methods, I realize I need to further clarify a screening, and then define the tests I’m using, and how the data will be collected … 

I keep thinking: would it be fucked up to surreptitiously cite Milgram, 1963 somewhere in the body of my protocol?  Just to see if the IRB committee is paying attention?  I mean, if I’m taking the time to fine-tooth comb this nonsense, then I at least deserve the satisfaction of knowing that the committee has to pour over every detail, too.  Even if that means the protocol gets denied until I remove all mention of using my experimenter authority to coerce participants into doing unethical shit.

Sep 19, 201012 notes
#thesis hell #speech language pathology #science #IRB #milgram shock experiment
“Rudimentary literacy acquisition in English takes the average child roughly three years, while in Finnish it can be accomplished in just six months.” —

Wy are English wurds so hard to spel? Masha Bell, a doughty campaigner for English spelling reform, has counted at least 3700 English words with ‘unpredictable’ spelling, many of which simply have to be learned by rote. The Germans simplified their language - should anglophones do the same? (via theeconomist)

When kids are really young, say kindergarten, we tell them that Columbus discovered America.  A few years later, and we tell give them a bigger picture: actually, there were already Native Americans here.  A few more years, and we begin to add some gruesome details: by the way, Columbus tortured, maimed and enslaved the indigenous populations.   We don’t give Kindergarteners the full picture, and no one thinks that’s weird.  In fact, it’s developmentally appropriate.

In the same way, no one expects kindergarteners to have mastered the nuances of English spelling.  Spelling is hard!  Like all cognitive skills, it develops over time.  Further, it develops at an appropriate pace.  As in, a six-year old can sound out the words they want to use, words that are meaningful in their writing.  Sure, they make mistakes- often very predictable ones.  Would an American kindergartener have trouble spelling “predictable”?  Of course.  A child living somewhere with a more transparent orthography- like Finnland- would have an easier time.  But if neither kid knows the meaning of the word, then who cares if they can spell it?  Sounding out a word does not enable you to use it.  

Comparing orthographies across cultures seems like some relativistic hogwash to me.  It takes speakers of Chinese over a decade to even make a dent in their writing system.  Does the amount of time it takes to learn to spell reflect meaningful cultural differences?   I doubt it; unless that time is positively correlated with GDP.  

English spelling is hard; that’s undeniable.  But it’s not impossible.  In fact, most people learn how to do it with exceptional accuracy.  People who struggle with spelling throughout their lives probably either had poor spelling instruction (pretty much the norm in this country), or might have a language-learning disability like dyslexia, which went untreated.  People who argue for spelling reform are probably undiagnosed dyslexics, who are rightfully angry that they were never able to break the code of English.

It’s not impossible to learn English spelling because, despite its occasional quirkiness, it is largely rule-based.  Yes, some of those rules are obscure.  Some of those rules require an understanding that English has borrowed heavily from many other languages: Greek, Latin and French, especially.  In English we use orthography to mark those words as borrowings; spelling holds clues about a word’s origins.  (If you follow this blog, you know that etymology is a gold mine from which I continuously pillage).    English is without a doubt the richest language in the world: with far and away the largest lexicon and thousands of borrowings.  Many borrowings don’t follow the more obvious English spelling patterns. Marsha Bell, whom The Economist mentions above- has counted 3,700 words that are “unpredictable”.  I would rather learn each of those beautiful, unpredictable gems by rote than leave our language bereft without them.  I think other word nerds would agree.

Through their spellings, words also tell us how they are related to one other.  Say these words out loud: Canada, Canadian.  In “Canadian” the second vowel is really different.  But those words are related!  If we marked the difference based purely on sound, you’d lose that relation: Canada, Canaydian.  If you were just learning to read, you’d never associate those two words.  A similar thing happens with morphemes (the tiny pieces of words that hold meaning).  Morphemes can show us grammatical relationships (plural, past tense, etc) or they can show us derivational relationships.  For example, say these words: magic, magician.  Only the first syllable sounds the same, but the words are related.  A person who is a magician does magic.  Children younger than 8 or 9 don’t fully grasp this concept.  So even if they can spell “magic” perfectly, you get spellings of “magician” that don’t include “magic”.  You get things like “majishun”.  Those kinds of errors might freak parents and teachers out- but they’re perfectly developmentally normal (up to a point), and if you teach kids about roots and morphemes, they absorb and apply that knowledge readily.

Spelling is hard.  Multiplication tables are hard.  Learning a second language is hard.  Teaching kids to wash their hands with soap and water is hard.  I know:  I have taught children to do all of those things.  Learning, in general, is hard.  It’s work.  But the payoff is huge, which is why we keep doing it and forcing our kids to do it.  When you learn something, not only do you come to own that knowledge, but you establish a framework for later cognition.  Should we abolish memorization of multiplication tables and just teach kids how to use calculators?  No, of course not.  We recognize that even though calculators are quick and readily available, learning to memorize is an important skill.  Similarly, learning to spell is an important skill because it enables us to efficiently communicate high-level ideas.  Simplifying English spelling will not make it easier for people to use language. 

Enough with the dumbing down of society, please.

Sep 18, 201056 notes
#don't get me started #spelling #language #speech language pathology #dyslexia #the economist
“I’m a street-walking cheetah with a heart full of napalm.” —You and me both, Iggy; you and me both.
Sep 17, 2010
#Iggy Pop
Next page →
2011 2012
  • January 3
  • February
  • March
  • April 1
  • May 1
  • June
  • July 1
  • August 1
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2010 2011 2012
  • January 40
  • February 32
  • March 50
  • April 12
  • May 11
  • June 7
  • July 4
  • August 8
  • September 19
  • October 7
  • November 3
  • December 4
2009 2010 2011
  • January 46
  • February 93
  • March 78
  • April 46
  • May 36
  • June 53
  • July 57
  • August 39
  • September 38
  • October 53
  • November 34
  • December 53
2009 2010
  • January 10
  • February 23
  • March 44
  • April 52
  • May 104
  • June 115
  • July 69
  • August 81
  • September 75
  • October 71
  • November 35
  • December 67