Denise A. Baker

Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages

A series of highly-cited experiments published in 2008 demonstrated a biasing effect of neuroimages on lay perceptions of scientific research. More recent work, however, has questioned this bias, particularly within legal contexts in which neuroscientific evidence is proffered by one of the parties. The present research moves away from the legal framework and describes five experiments that re-examine this effect. Experiments 1 through 4 present conceptual and direct replications of some of the original 2008 experiments, and find no evidence of a neuroimage bias. A fifth experiment is reported that confirms that, when laypeople are allowed multiple points of reference (e.g., when directly comparing neuroimagery to other graphical depictions of neurological data), a neuroimage bias can be observed. Together these results suggest that, under the right conditions, a neuroimage might be able to bias judgments of scientific information, but the scope of this effect may be limited to certain contexts.

Visual Attention and the Neuroimage Bias

Several highly-cited experiments have presented evidence suggesting that neuroimages may unduly bias laypeople’s judgments of scientific research. This finding has been especially worrisome to the legal community in which neuroimage techniques may be used to produce evidence of a person’s mental state. However, a more recent body of work that has looked directly at the independent impact of neuroimages on layperson decision-making (both in legal and more general arenas), and has failed to find evidence of bias. To help resolve these conflicting findings, this research uses eye tracking technology to provide a measure of attention to different visual representations of neuroscientific data. Finding an effect of neuroimages on the distribution of attention would provide a potential mechanism for the influence of neuroimages on higher-level decisions. In the present experiment, a sample of laypeople viewed a vignette that briefly described a court case in which the defendant’s actions might have been explained by a neurological defect. Accompanying these vignettes was either an MRI image of the defendant’s brain, or a bar graph depicting levels of brain activity–two competing visualizations that have been the focus of much of the previous research on the neuroimage bias. We found that, while laypeople differentially attended to neuroimagery relative to the bar graph, this did not translate into differential judgments in a way that would support the idea of a neuroimage bias.

Making sense of research on the neuroimage bias

Both academic and legal communities have cautioned that laypersons may be unduly persuaded by images of the brain and may fail to interpret them appropriately. While early studies confirmed this concern, a second wave of research was repeatedly unable to find evidence of such a bias. The newest wave of studies paints a more nuanced picture in which, under certain circumstances, a neuroimage bias reemerges. To help make sense of this discordant body of research, we highlight the contextual significance of understanding how laypersons’ decision making is or is not impacted by neuroimages, provide an overview of findings from all sides of the neuroimage bias question, and discuss what these findings mean to public use and understanding of neuroimages.

The “Second Place” Problem: Assistive Technology in Sports and (Re) Constructing Normal

AbstractnObjections to the use of assistive technologies (such as prostheses) in elite sports are generally raised when the technology in question is perceived to afford the user a potentially “unfair advantage,” when it is perceived as a threat to the purity of the sport, and/or when it is perceived as a precursor to a slippery slope toward undesirable changes in the sport. These objections rely on being able to quantify standards of “normal” within a sport so that changes attributed to the use of assistive technology can be judged as causing a significant deviation from some baseline standard. This holds athletes using assistive technologies accountable to standards that restrict their opportunities to achieve greatness, while athletes who do not use assistive technologies are able to push beyond the boundaries of these standards without moral scrutiny. This paper explores how constructions of fairness and “normality” impact athletes who use assistive technology to compete in a sporting venue traditionally populated with “able-bodied” competitors. It argues that the dynamic and obfuscated construction of “normal” standards in elite sports should move away from using body performance as the measuring stick of “normal,” toward alternate forms of constructing norms such as defining, quantifying, and regulating the mechanical actions that constitute the critical components of a sport. Though framed within the context of elite sports, this paper can be interpreted more broadly to consider problems with defining “normal” bodies in a society in which technologies are constantly changing our abilities and expectations of what normal means.

Wearables and User Interface Design: Impacts on Belief in Free Will

This research investigates the social implications of sensor driven self-quantification technologies designed to direct user behaviors. These self-sensoring prescriptive applications (SSPA’s), often referred to as “wearables,” have a strong presence in healthcare as a means to monitor and improve health, modify behavior, and reduce medical costs. However, the commercial sector is quickly adopting SSPA’s to monitor and/or modify consumer behaviors as well [1, 2, 3]. Interestingly, the direct impact biosensor data have on user decision making, attitude formation, and behavior has not been well researched. SSPA’s offer an opportunity for users to monitor the “self” in terms of quantitative, objective, biological terms that may be beyond the user’s control. Research suggests some states of the body (e.g. chronic pain, hunger) can affect underlying beliefs in free will (BFW), finding that the less control a person has over those physical states, the weaker their BFW [4]. It is not known, however, whether reminders about physical states of the body, such as heart rate monitors used during exercise, may also serve to reduce BFW. This is an important gap in knowledge when considering that reduced BFW can have numerous negative impacts on individual behavior [5, 6, 7]. This preliminary work examined the impact of such technologies on underlying BFW. Participants who monitored their heart rate during a short walk using a wearable heart rate and activity tracker had lower BFW than participants who merely look at the device’s various tracking features and participants in the control condition.

Integration of Social Behavioral Modeling for Energy Optimization in Smart Environments

A key requirement for success of smart home energy management systems is understanding the users psychological perception of a smart environments, and the design of control strategies that specifically take into account such dimensions in system operation. We discuss how our research develops psychological models and integrates them with optimization and machine learning techniques to realize social and behavioral aware energy optimization methodologies for smart homes.

Bound to be 'normal' assistive technology, fair opportunity, and athletic excellence

Objections to the use of assistive technologies (such as prosthesis) in elite sports are generally raised when the technology in question is perceived to afford the user a potentially “unfair advantage,” when it is perceived as a threat to the purity of the sport, and/or when it is perceived as a precursor to a slippery slope toward undesirable changes in the sport. These objections rely on being able to quantify standards of “normal” within a sport so that changes attributed to the use of assistive technology can be judged as causing a significant deviation from our understanding of “fair” advantage, purity, and status quo. These three objections hold athletes using assistive technologies accountable to standards that restrict their opportunities to achieve greatness, while athletes who do not use assistive technologies are able to push beyond the boundaries of these standards without moral scrutiny. This paper explores how constructions of fairness and “normality” impact elite athletes who use assistive technology to compete in a sporting venue traditionally populated with “able-bodied” competitors.