The truth is, the human brain is somewhat limited when it comes to processing visual images.

Not everything we see with our eyes actually registers with our brains. There is simply too much visual information to completely process every second; therefore, our brain processes just a fraction of what we see.

Change Blindness

However, if something changes, flashes, or skirts across our vision, we automatically give it our full attention. It is this hypersensitivity to movement that has led many people to be overconfident in their ability to observe things.

In reality, people are often surprised at how blind they can actually be in a given situation.

By definition, change blindness is the failure to notice a visual change in our field of vision.

Two Views – Same Phenomenon

Previous research has uncovered two theories to suggest how humans view things. One is called the top down approach; the other is the bottom up approach. The top down theory suggests that our brain puts things into context as we see them.

For example, if you are told to look to find a computer in an office, you would automatically look at the desk, since that is where your brain expects a computer to sit. You would not immediately look at a window or the ceiling of the office – your brain has already learned that the computer would most likely not be on the ceiling.

The bottom up theory focuses on the things in the field of vision that stand out. These two theories are perhaps the more basic elements of how our brain deals with the visual images that it is bombarded with every day.

A Little Bit of Truth in Each

Both of these theories are used at different times in different settings. Depending on the desired outcome, the top down process is used to look through the scene to see if there is anything of interest. Then our bottom up way of thinking takes over to notice the thing that suddenly stands out.

When your brain uses one process, the other has to be set aside.

This simple fact that it is difficult to do two things at once means that details can be missed, or changes overlooked, regardless of how acute you think your attention to detail has been developed.

The human brain allocates our resources as needed to different tasks, but we can’t do it all, all the time.

We also cannot explain everything all of the time, and that is why we wanted to share an awesome related video on the concept of change blindness and a test you can take to determine your own cognitive abilities.

This video is great – from the observer’s point of view (us watching the video) it seems so shocking that the people giving directions don’t notice the switch!

And here is a really great test for you to take as well, and make sure to leave a comment and tell us how you did…this is a test on your ability to notice changes in a series of photos – I definitely did not do as well as I thought I would have… Once again, writing these articles demonstrates we all have a lot to learn and a lot of brain power to continue to harness and develop.

Click here to take the test.

Source:
Verma, Milan, and Peter W. McOwen. “A Semi-automated Approach to Balancing of Bottom-up Salience for Predicting Change Detection Performance.” Journal of Vision. June 4, 2010. Volume 10, number 6, article 3. Full text: http://www.journalofvision.org/content/10/6/3.full

Yes, you read that correctly. A recent press release from Northeastern University in Boston revealed a project to chart how happy Americans are based on their twitter posts.

We had to share this; it is such an excellent result of mixing social media and neuroscience.

Like the press release mentions, using Twitter as a way to capture the feeling of a moment in time is raw, real, and possible. It is a researcher’s goldmine, and it can help answer a lot of different questions, including the happiness quotient of Americans.

(Shameless plug: you should follow us on twitter: exploringmind. And while you’re at it, like us on facebook, too. We will be posting exclusive content, as well as contests, news, and general science research, etc.)

The Study

Researchers compiled a pool of 300 million tweets that were captured from 2006-2009. They did not include posts from outside the US or from tweeters who did not post their exact city on their profiles. All of these tweets were posted publicly.

The team, from Northeastern and Harvard, rated each tweet by looking for key words to determine the mood of the posts.

Some of the keywords included ‘funeral’ and ‘death’ for unhappy words, and ‘love’ and paradise’ for happy key words, among others.

The results are awesome – and you can read about them on a colored map or check out a time lapse video that shows how tweeters represent happiness in a 24 hour period. Good stuff!

Check it out in full: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/news/mood_maps.html

The Research

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/amislove/twittermood/

As always, comment below and let us know what you think. Check out your own twitter posts, too. Do your posts reflect how you feel at any given moment?

Sources (from above):
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/news/mood_maps.html
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/amislove/twittermood/

Pretty much everyone has heard about the Butterfly Effect. (We do not mean that Ashton Kutcher movie! You can go to IMDB for that, but first, stay here and read this.)

In sum: the butterfly effect states that a butterfly flapping its wings somewhere in the jungles of Asia can eventually start a tornado in Texas.

It’s a concept that has been used by people willing others to realize the unforeseen consequences of their actions. (Smoky the Bear may have summarized it best – if you leave a smoldering match near a campsite, you can start a forest fire.)

Did you stop to ever think that it could have a material effect on in the inner workings of your brain? (Butterfly effect, not a forest fire.)

According to recent research at University College in London, published in the June 2010 issue of Nature, there may be evidence of a butterfly effect happening within the brain.

The scientists at UCL decided to test this. They asked: would the firing of a single neuron quickly peter out, or would it have a material effect on the surrounding brain circuitry?

The Experiment

The researchers decided to present a single (artificial) synaptic spike into the neuron of a rat’s brain. To do this, the animals were first anaesthetized, then a single neuron was artificially “excited” with a current lasting either 100 or 200 milliseconds.

The surrounding area of the brain was closely monitored to check for any resultant synaptic spikes.

The researchers had expected that the single spike would extinguish itself and no continuing motions or actions would be found.

The Results

What they found was that this single spike did not extinguish, but instead, the single jolt produced at least twenty-eight separate synaptic spikes.

This would be like setting off a small firecracker near a pile of dynamite and having twenty-eight subsequent explosions!

And just in case you thought it ended there, it didn’t – each subsequent synaptic spike was shown to create more and more ripples of activity.

The researchers found that that single spike could potentially create over 1,500 new synaptic spikes within the brain.

Obviously, this avalanche of synaptic firings makes the brain a very busy place. The next question here, then, is: How does the brain deal with all the extra noise and still be able to function on a daily basis?

Within this same experiment, the researchers uncovered information about the brain’s rate code, which makes sure that computation in the brain is accurate.

A rate code essentially means that the more intense the stimulus is for a given action, the higher the frequency of firings and synaptic spikes for that particular action.

In other words, if the need and desire for the task is great enough, the concept of the task will “drown out” the added noise created within the brain.

The concept of the rate code sounds cool, but it is confusing… If there are any rate code experts reading this, please comment at the end of this article!

Let’s Play…

After reading this research, a couple of questions popped into my mind.

From the mental health conditions I have studied, it seems like noise might be too much for some brains to handle.

It would be interesting to know if there actually was a limit to how much noise a person could stand to have in their mind, but could still be able to function and perform necessary activities also.

Is there such a thing as too much noise? If so, what happens to someone’s mind? I am imagining a big, messy brain explosion with a loud sonic boom-type noise accompanying it, like a building imploding.

If your brain explodes, is it Ashton Kutcher’s fault?

Source:
London, Michael. “Sensitivity to perturbations in vivo implies high noise and suggests rate coding in cortex.” Nature. Volume 466, number 1: 123-128.
Image: Credit to http://www.celsias.com/article/group-declares-planetary-ecological-emergency/

Clay Shirky is a firm believer in changing how society works by using new technologies to enable global cooperation. In other words, he believes social media can and will change the world.

This TED talk is from June 2009, but it is perhaps more relevant today than when it was originally posted.

Please excuse any errors as I wrote this in a rush and was distracted by social media…

In a fun article published in the magazine Fast Company, journalist Adam Penenberg submitted to being a human guinea pig for neuroeconomist Paul Zak’s social networking experiment.

And the result was more than interesting.

Adam had his blood levels tested for Oxytocin (not Oxycontin, the addicting painkiller) which is called the “love” hormone because it stimulates empathy, generosity and trust.

He also tested his stress hormones cortisol and ACTH tested.

Then Adam spent some time tweeting...

Ten minutes later Zak had his blood tested again.  And the result was that Adam’s level of Oxytocin increased by 13.2%.  As Adam writes, “that’s equivalent to the hormonal spike experienced by the groom at the wedding Zak attended.”

Even more interesting to me is that the stress hormones cortisol and ACTH went down 10.8% and 14.9%, respectively.  That is pretty significant.

Too much trust…

I am not going to get into the mechanisms of why this is happening.  (Dr. Zak explains more in the article that I link to below.)

But what I do want to talk about is this trust thing.  If social networking increases a hormone that makes us trust too much, then we might be as vulnerable online as we are at the back of the room at a Tony Robbins’ seminar.

For example, a recent study by the Ponemon Institute revealed that almost 90% of social media users believe that social media sites pose no risk even though 60% weren’t sure the social media could even protect their identities!

And 44% would use these sites even if they were sure the site could NOT protect their identities!

Here are some more fun findings:

*Approximately 65 percent of users do not set high privacy or security settings in their social media sites.

*More than 90 percent of users do not review a given Website’s privacy policy before engaging in use.

*Approximately 40 percent of all respondents share their physical home address through social media applications.

Sounds like a little too much trust to me!  Could it be that the hormonal effects just make us immune to critical thinking?

Stress and connection

On the flip side, if connecting with people through social media reduces our stress levels, then it could be very good for our health as stress is the silent killer.

It is kind of ironic.  Technology seems to be the source of a lot of isolation.  And then social media comes to the rescue and provides a whole new way to connect.

This new remote way of connecting seems to do the trick if Dr. Zak’s results can be replicated on a larger scale.

Save the children

On a related note, neuroscientist Susan Greenfield believes that social media is literally changing the brains of young users.  She believes that they: shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification, and make young people more self-centered.

More from Dr. Greenfield:

My fear is that these technologies are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.

Funny, that kind of sounds like me.

So where is this all going?

Based on the latest developments in neuro-technology, Emotiv has developed a revolutionary new personal interface for human computer interaction.  The Emotiv EPOC is a high resolution, neuro-signal acquisition and processing wireless neuroheadset.  It uses a set of sensors to tune into electric signals produced by the brain to detect player thoughts, feelings and expressions and connects wirelessly to most PCs

Enough said…

One piece of advice that all dieters receive is simply this: don’t skip breakfast. The idea is that skipping breakfast will make you crave junk food, and bypass eating the healthy stuff.

Well, new research presented at the Endocrine Society’s 92nd Annual Meeting in San Diego explains why this may be the case. And it has everything to do with the activation of ghrelin, the “hunger hormone.”

Before we get to the newest study, let’s learn a little more about this “hunger hormone.”

Ghrelin is a hormone located in the stomach that sends hunger signals to the brain. When ghrelin levels are too high, the brain wants food – even if we are full.

And when ghrelin levels are high, the food we crave is high in calories – especially foods that are loaded with fat.

Here is where it gets interesting: ghrelin helps you feel good. In fact it helps you feel REALLY GOOD by activating some of the same regions of brain that are also activated by cocaine! So let’s just say it is highly motivational.

Ghrelin and high calorie cravings

In a study on miceⁱ, Dr. Jeffrey Zigman and his team found that mice injected with ghrelin chose to be in a room previously anchored with a high calorie treat versus a room anchored with a low calorie treat. The mice not injected with ghrelin had no preference for either room.

For clarity, the mice with elevated levels of ghrelin just “felt better,” in the high calorie room, “The mice’s behavior had nothing to do with eating,” Zigman said. “Their behavior was linked to obtaining the more pleasurable thing.”

In a second test, Zigman tested how long mice would continue to poke their noses into a hole in order to receive a pellet of high-fat food. The non-ghrelin group gave up far faster than the mice injected with ghrelin.

A new way to increase ghrelin levels and your cravings for fatty foods…

Skip breakfast. In the studyⁱⁱ referred to earlier in this article, researchers recruited healthy (not obese) adults to test this theory.

Here were the conditions:

1. Subjects came into the lab on three separate mornings.
2. Each time, subjects would be asked to view pictures of either high calorie foods (chocolate, cake and pizza) or low calorie foods (salads, vegetables and fish).
3. Then, using a keypad, the subjects rated how appealing they found each food picture.
4. There were, however, three different conditions:
• Condition one: subjects came into the lab 90 minutes after eating breakfast and were injected with a saltwater solution 40 minutes before viewing the pictures.
• Condition two: subjects came to the lab 90 minutes after eating breakfast and were injected with ghrelin 40 minutes before viewing the pictures.
• Condition three: subjects came to the lab after skipping breakfast and were injected with the saltwater solution 40 minutes before viewing the pictures.

When injected, neither the researchers nor the subjects were aware of whether they were injected with salt water or ghrelin.

The results: Skipping breakfast is just like injecting ghrelin

The group that skipped breakfast (c) AND the group that ate breakfast and had the ghrelin injection (b) both preferred the high calorie foods.

The group that ate breakfast AND had the salt water injection (a) preferred the low calorie foods.

So don’t skip breakfast if weight loss is your goal!!

The best breakfast for reducing ghrelin (and your cravings)…

In a study, ⁱⁱⁱpublished in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers determined that protein is the best way to lower post meal ghrelin levels.

The ingestion of fats had little to no effect on post meal ghrelin levels, meaning that eating fat for breakfast is not going to help you make better decisions later in the day.

The ingestion of carbohydrates had an initial ghrelin lowering effect. But in a short period of time after eating carbohydrates, the ghrelin levels not only rebounded, but after only two hours, they rose to an even higher level than before. So eating lots of carbohydrates might also be counterproductive.

So, if you want to control your cravings for high calorie, fatty foods throughout the day, it might be wise to include a lot of protein along with a limited amount of carbohydrates and fats. I am not sure of the types of carbohydrates and fats used in the study, so it might be that carbohydrates high in fiber have a different effect – I just don’t know.

And you definitely require a certain amount of good fat in your diet, so please don’t overdo this.

A ghrelin pill?

Don’t expect ghrelin to show up in your local health food hotspot any time soon. Other studies indicate that artificially reducing ghrelin is also associated with a rise in feelings of depression.

Would losing weight be worth risking depression? Sadly, when people were surveyed on this question back in 2008, the majority of people said it would be worth the risk.

So would you take a pill that would help you lose weight even if you knew it would probably make you feel bad?

Please leave me your thoughts…

Courage is loosely defined as the ability to confront fear, pain, risk, intimidation, or uncertainty.

There are also moments that call for acts of courageousness, like the firefighter who runs into a burning building to check for trapped people, or a teenager with moral courage, who chooses not to go along with a group of friends who are planning to rob a convenience store.

Basically, some of us have it, and the rest of us wish we had more (see picture).

Can you tap into your courage center?

According to new research, published in the June issue of Neuron, yes, you may be able to access and increase your courage center, since the scientists involved in this experiment have located that spot in the brain.

The courage center of the brain was found by an experiment dealing with two extremes: live snakes (the fear factor) and toy teddy bears (the control).

About 60 people volunteered for the study, which hoped to use fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology to see where the brain lit up when courage was summoned in a given situation.

One group was composed of 40 people who were found to have a serious, debilitating fear of snakes. From here on, we will refer to them as the Fear group. (To determine this group, all of the possible participants had to take a questionnaire that graded their fear level.)

The second group was composed of 20 people who handled snakes on a regular basis and had absolutely no fear of the animal. We will refer to those as the No Fear group.

Step One: Teddy Bears…

Participants, laying down under an fMRI scanner, saw either a LIVE snake or cuddly teddy bear on a conveyor belt with a series of steps. The end of the conveyor belt was near the participant’s head.

The subjects either chose “Advance” or “Retreat” options on a button, and when the choice was selected, the snake or teddy bear moved down to the next step or farther away from the participant.

Unsurprisingly, no one was afraid of the teddy bear.

A side note, those in the No Fear group chose “Advance” for the snake to come closer just as quickly as they chose “Advance” for the teddy bear to move closer. So to them, the snake had the same result as the teddy bear.

So for the control group, no courage was needed for the participants to move either object closer.

Step Two: Those in the Fear group were shown SNAKES!!!

All the participants were aware that the goal was to bring each object as close to their heads as possible (even if it was necessary to summon all the courage you felt you had), so some were able to bring the snake closer, but a larger percent of this group chose “Retreat” to move the snake away.

After each button selection, the participants were asked to report their fear level on a scale of 0-100. Those in the Fear group reported, on average, a 62 score of fearing the snake.

In addition to the after-selection question, the participants were also monitored with a brain scan and also a SCR, or skin conductance response (layman’s terms for sweating when nervous).

The after-selection questions helped to determine how much courage the participants summoned in order to bring the snake a step closer.

The researchers asked:

“To what extent did you try to overcome the fear?” and “Did you need to make a larger effort to overcome your fear as [the snake got closer]?”

The average answer to both was a 4 on a 0-5 scale, indicating that not only did the Fear group participants recognize their mounting fear; only some were able to force themselves to overcome their fear and press the button to bring the snake closer.

The Courage Center

The activity in their brain, according to the fMRI results, showed a significant difference when the participants chose to bring the snake closer or not.

It turns out that there was a part of the brain that lit up when people showed courage (moving the live snake closer to them even when they were scared), as opposed to choosing for the live snake NOT to come closer (the people who did not show courage).

This part of the brain is located in the sgACC, or subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, which is responsible for fear, emotion, stress, perception, and a variety of other tasks.
And the cool thing is that when you show courage it is activated, and when you wimp out it is not!

The Amygdala

To me, a surprising part of this study is where the courage center is located. In other articles, we have discussed the role of the amygdala and how it controls the fight-or-flight response humans feel when threatened.

It would seem as if the amygdala would be at work here, forcing the human to stay, and fight, instead of run away, in a situation where more courage is needed.

This article indicates that the sgACC (when activated) is actually able to cancel out some of the fear activated by the amydgdala. So you can see courage trumping fear in the brain – what a system!!

What is more interesting, if you recall a post from last week, which said that your brain makes a choice 6-7 seconds before you’re aware of it, is that the activity in the sgACC of the Fear group started to rise 6 seconds before participants chose the “Advance” option for the snake to move closer.

So, they chose to act courageously before consciously making the decision to do so.

Can we bottle this courage?

Unfortunately, we will probably have to wait a few years before scientists figure out how to create and bottle synthetic forms of liquid courage that we can drink before situations that require bravery.

More realistically, scientists will continue their research to discover how to exploit this area, and to call it up in a necessary moment.

Research on depression has actually shown that Deep Brain Stimulation (a surgical treatment involving the implantation of a medical device called a brain pacemaker, which sends electrical impulses to specific parts of the brain), on the saACC has shown a therapeutic result.

So maybe all the lion needs is a little Deep Brain Stimulation!!

Previous research has shown that being exposed to nature has a variety of health benefits. Here is a brief list:

• Children suffering Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) get tangible benefits from just limited time in “green” spaces.

• Attention scores in classrooms are higher after playing in “green playgrounds” versus asphalt.

• People experience almost twice the mood elevation when walking in the country versus walking indoors. (Take that, “retail” therapy.)

• Simply looking at nature can be healing. A number of studies have demonstrated that viewing nature (even just from windows) offer a range of benefits, including:
  • less stress
  • lowered blood pressure
  • fewer headaches and illnesses
  • greater job satisfaction
  • quicker recovery rates for post-operative patients

• One study conducted in Indianapolis found that children in greener neighborhoods had a reduced risk of being overweight or obese.

So, just how much nature exposure is associated with these benefits?

Some new research suggests that it might take as little as 5 minutes per day…

In a meta-analysis recently published in Environmental Science & Technology, researchers show that just 5 minutes of physical activities in the presence of nature led to demonstrable benefits in both mental and physical health.

Walking, cycling, fishing, horseback riding, farming, and even gardening all constitute “physical activity.”

Five minutes was determined as the most efficient number. Longer times were still beneficial, but lead to diminishing returns. For example, 10 minutes of activity does not double the benefits!

Some interesting side notes:

• A blue/green setting seemed to cause a better health response.
• The presence of water caused an even greater effect.
• Light intensity activity (as compared to intense or moderate) seemed to have the best effect on self-esteem.

Why nature is so good for mood and self esteem…

Now that it is clear there is an effect, the interesting question is why this may be the case.

The answer seems to be that it helps restore our capacity for attention.

We evolved in non-urban environments. This makes not having exposure to nature similar to taking an animal out of their natural habitat. And, without access to at least some exposure to our natural habitat, bad things happen.

According to Doctor Frances Kuo, director of the Landscape and Human Health Laboratory at the University of Illinois:

“Humans living in landscapes that lack trees or other natural features undergo patterns of social, psychological, and physical breakdown that are strikingly similar to those observed in other animals that have been deprived of their natural habitat. In animals what you see is increased aggression, disrupted parenting patterns, and disrupted social hierarchies.”

Dr. Kuo (who I quote a lot here!) goes on to say:

“In evolution, those of us who found it — nature — sort of inherently interesting probably were more likely to remember where the berries were… And so the idea is that we’re selected for being interested in relevant natural phenomena.”

So being exposed to nature, helps reset our capacity for attention. And according to Kuo,

“allows us to be our best selves, so we are able to inhibit impulses that we want to be able to inhibit; we can take the long view of things; we can think better.”

In Conclusion

I think the new study that shows all it takes is light activity for only 5 minutes a day to get the majority of the “nature benefit” is great news. I personally thought it would be a whole lot more time required. And a special thanks to Dr. Kuo, who provided most of the insight on this blog post!

I am curious; does anyone already have a 5 minute-a-day nature practice?

In a kind of spooky experiment, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them.

In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their right or left hand.

The only condition was that they had to remember when they made the decision to either use their right hand or left hand.

Using fMRI, researchers would scan the brains of the participants while all of this was going on in order to find out if they could in fact predict which hand the participants would use BEFORE they were consciously aware of the decision.

The Results

By monitoring the micro patterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex, the researchers could predict which hand the participant would choose 7 SECONDS before the participant was aware of the decision.

“Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.

I don’t even know where to begin here! I know from the hypnosis research that the unconscious pretty much controls everything and that consciousness is extremely limited.

But, I do find it a bit disconcerting that decisions are made by unconscious me 7 seconds before conscious me…

I am not the only one.

Watch Marcus Du Sautoy (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford) go through the study himself. The 7 second delay is in full effect.

Marcus is really disturbed here and brings up the subject of free will. Does this mean we really do NOT have free will? I am really curious what you think about this, please comment below.

Source:
Chun Siong Soon, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze & John-Dylan Haynes, “Unconscious Determinants of Free Decisions in the Human Brain.” Nature Neuroscience, April 13th, 2008.

Have you ever eaten something every day for a long period of time, and then one day decided you never wanted to have that food again?

Or, perhaps you’ve had a song stuck in your head on repeat for so many days in a row that you swear that you never want to hear that song ever again?

Or, maybe you’ve tried numerous healthy eating plans in an effort to lose weight, but fell off the wagon after a few days because you couldn’t stomach eating the same diet meals day after day?

We have all experienced this feeling, but there is an actual technical term for it, called satiation.

In a clever group of experiments, researchers at the University of Minnesota’s School of Management may have found a way to overcome satiation by eliminating something called ‘variety amnesia.’ Best of all, this news may help you stay on track with any food plan you choose.

The Studies

The researchers conducted three tests using different satiation triggers, including: a close friend, a favorite candy flavor, and the chorus of a favorite song.
I will not go over all three studies as they were all similar in structure, so below is how the “favorite song” study went down…

Part One

Fifty students picked his or her own favorite song, and a clip was made for each person, on average about 30 seconds long, and it consisted of just the song’s chorus.

The goal was to make the student grow sick of hearing the same song over and over, so they made each person listen to their clip 20 times in a row! After each listen, the student would rate the clips on a 101 point favorability scale.

Not surprisingly, as time went on the favorability rating dropped. Starting at an average of 78, after 20 listens the clips were rated at an average of 35. This is a 50% decrease in enjoyment after just 30 minutes or so of repeated play!

Part Two

Three weeks later, the same students were brought back to the lab and randomly split into two groups.

One group was asked to recall all the television shows that they had watched during the previous three weeks. (The Control)

The second group was asked to recall all the music they had listened to in the past three weeks. (The Experiment)

Then, all of the participants listened to their chosen songs (from the earlier part of the experiment) one more time. They were then asked how much they desired to listen to the full version of that song again.

The control group (that was asked to recall TV shows) expressed much less interest in listening to the song – they were still satiated. They ranked the song at 45.

However, the music-recall group expressed a much greater interest in listening to their previously tired-of song choice. They ranked the song at 69. This is because subjects were reminded of the variety in the same category in which they were experiencing satiation.

Variety Amnesia

In short, it was the recall of previous experiences in a similar category, in this case, music, that helped relieve the variety amnesia.

A second trial, with jellybeans, further proved that the recalling of similar experiences had to be within the same category (food) to help end the satiation with the target food (jelly beans).

In other words, people become satiated with a particular item because they forget about the other varieties of that item that they have enjoyed in the past.

Therefore, by recalling some of your past experiences with items of the same type, you can more easily get over your satiation of a target item.

Why Does This Matter?

Some things you do repetitively can be good for you. Eating the same healthy breakfast, staying with the same partner, etc…

So, for example, if you feel like you’re getting tired of your partner, recall all the partners and dates you have ever had. This will help eliminate the satiation caused by the variety amnesia.

Lastly, if you are drinking diet shakes or eating prepared meals, perhaps simply thinking of all of the decadent meals you recently had, or other drinks you’ve had, will help you to stay on track with your current program.

I’d love to hear what you all think, so comment below.

SOURCE:
Galak, Jeff, Joseph P. Redden, and Justin Kruger. “Variety Amnesia: Recalling Past Variety Can Accelerate Recovery from Satiation.” Journal of Consumer Research. December 2009, Volume 36: 575-584.