When you imagine a waterfall, what comes to mind? Maybe a misty cascade into a blue pool surrounded by trees. Perhaps the roar of water splashing down, as well. It’s a big mystery how brain activity differs when imagining a waterfall versus seeing or hearing one in real life. Brain scans now suggest some activity when you imagine something is similar to what happens when you see or hear the real thing.
But that overlap did not appear in brain areas that deal with single senses. Instead, it showed up in high-level brain networks. These are ones that handle inputs from multiple types of senses.
Researchers shared these findings March 31 in Neuron.
Neuroscientist Rodrigo Braga led the research. “When I was a teenager,” he says, “I remember the first time realizing that there’s like a voice I can hear in my head.” This “internal monologue” narrates one’s own thoughts.
“That’s really strange,” Braga recalls thinking. “Why is it that we experience those thoughts and sensations almost as if we’re perceiving them?”
He’s spent years trying to answer that question. He now works at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. It’s in Chicago, Ill. In a new study, his team asked eight people to imagine scenes, faces, someone else speaking, their own internal monologues and other sounds. All the while, an MRI machine scanned their brains.
Having hours of MRI data on all eight people allowed the team to create individualized brain maps for each. These showed how each person’s brain activity changed during imagination.
The imagination prompts that people got were open-ended. One was: “Imagine a castle on a hill.” Another: “Imagine a rock song playing on the radio.” After each prompt, the scientists asked people what they saw and heard in their heads. The questions probed how vivid each imagined experience had been — how clear and realistic it felt.
After completing the brain scans, Braga’s team asked follow-up questions. These explored what made some mental images more vivid than others.
The researchers grouped their data into two buckets. In one, they put the data on imagined locations and events. In the other, they grouped the data on imagined speech and language.
When people were thinking about locations or events, they reported highly vivid sights in their mind’s eye. Activity also went up in their brains’ “default network A.” This is a system of nerve cells in the brain — neurons — known to process real spatial information.
When people thought about speech or language, they reported hearing highly vivid sounds in their heads. Activity also spiked in their brains’ language network. This system of neurons is usually involved when someone reads or listens to speech.
In short, imaginary sights and sounds both enlisted parts of the brain used to process real experiences.
But imagined sensations did not activate sight- and sound-specific parts of the brain. Rather, the default network A and language network respond to new information — no matter what sense it had entered through.
Submit your question here, and we might answer it an upcoming issue of Science News Explores
Other studies have found that when someone imagines a certain object they’ve just seen, vision-specific brain regions light up. In this study, prompts to imagine more general scenes did not do that.
That might be because the basic visual areas of the brain respond to details like edges, colors and lines, says Nathan Anderson. Those fine details might matter when someone is asked to picture a real object they saw. But, he notes, “people don’t necessarily imagine fine details when they are imagining a [general] scene.” So the neurons that handle specific visual details aren’t needed. Anderson is a neuroscientist who took part in the study. He works at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
These findings don’t surprise Stephen Kosslyn. Since the prompts didn’t ask people to imagine detailed sights or sounds, he says it makes sense that the brain regions linked to those tasks didn’t light up. Kosslyn is a neuroscientist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. He did not take part in the new work.
Open-ended prompts are a strength of the study, says Alfredo Spagna. A psychologist, he works at John Cabot University in Rome, Italy, and did not take part in the study. Everyday mental imagery is likely closer to imagining a castle on a hill than it is to picturing the tiny details of something you just saw, he says. So the open-ended prompts used here probably closely mimic what’s happening in our brains day-to-day.
But there’s still much to learn about how the brain conjures sights and sounds that feel so real. “This is one of the many papers that will come out in the next years that try to break down this obscure concept of vividness,” says Spagna.
Many blind people navigate the world using a cane, guide dog or wearable GPS. But some have something more in their toolkit: echolocation. That’s the ability to sense nearby objects using sound. A new study shows just how master echolocators use this technique to get around.
These people make a sharp clicking sound with their tongue. (Watch the process in action.) Then they listen for its echo to sense where objects are around them. New brain-activity data show that with each click, expert echolocators improve these mental maps of their environment.
Researchers shared these findings April 6 in eNeuro.
Clicking and listening for echoes can provide information about the location of nearby objects. Or their size. Maybe even their texture. (Bats use this same process to find their way as they flap through the night sky.)
Many studies have shown that in people, echolocation turns on parts of the brain that have to do with sight. They’ve also shown that echolocation improves a lot with practice.
But scientists still don’t know “how this happens,” says Santani Teng. “How the information builds in real time” beyond what can be learned from each individual echo. He and co-author Haydée García-Lázaro work at the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute. It’s in San Francisco, Calif. As cognitive neuroscientists, the two study how our brains think, learn and process information.
To better understand human echolocation, they recorded clicks and echoes. They designed these echoes to act as if they were bouncing off a nearby object. Then, the scientists compared how two groups of volunteers responded to these recordings.
The four blind people in one group were all experts in echolocation. The other group of 21 people could see well. They also had no experience with echolocation.
Each volunteer listened to the recorded clicks followed by their echoes. The sounds were played in sets of two, five, eight or 11. After each set, these people were asked to decide whether an object had been to their right or left. As they listened, electrode caps on their heads recorded their brain activity.
The blind echolocators excelled at figuring out an object’s direction. They scored far better than those who could see. In fact, one echolocator figured out an object’s direction after hearing only two sets of clicks and echoes.
The brain data showed that each click-echo pair gives new details about the surroundings. Echolocators combine these additional details over time, “rather than through a single optimal snapshot,” says Monica Gori. She’s a neuroscientist who did not take part in this study. She works at the Italian Institute of Technology in Genoa. She also works with the Institute for Human & Machine Cognition in Pensacola, Fla.
García-Lázaro says she and Teng want to learn more about “what exactly makes better echolocators.” She’s especially curious about how experts learn to ignore the click and focus only on its echo.
This “is not magic,” says Teng. “Echolocators have a truly remarkable skill, with real-life benefits.”
Submit your question here, and we might answer it an upcoming issue of Science News Explores
Login