Summary and Blog Stats

Our service learning grid project focused on contributing to Cognitive Neuroscience research by utilizing the computational power of multiple computers to increase processing efficiency and data collection.  We connected to the Mindmodeling@Home grid project.  Through our interview with Dr. Sturgill and evaluation of our research paper, we were able to gain a better understanding of the evolution of the human brain and its cognitive capabilities through morphological changes. As a result, we were able to gain a better appreciation for our cognitive abilities and how the modern human skull and brain has evolved from that of our recent ancestors and relatives such as Neanderthal. 

Units contributed to the grid: 18, 528.10 as of March 2, 2013
Currently ranked as number 621 (based on average use) out of 2000+ contributors.

Our grid completed a record-breaking 52 jobs, roughly 13,000 days worth of computation, in less than one month.

Heritability, Vg, Ve, and Cranial Morphology in Humans and Neandertals.

1. Both your interview and your article mentioned the complex factors involved in Neandertal brain/cranial morphology.  What is the h² of facial form (or facial size) thought to be?  What does this tell you about the V_E and V_G of cranial morphology?

 Both your interview and your article mentioned the complex factors involved in Neandertal brain/cranial morphology. What is the h² of facial form (or facial size) thought to be? What does this tell you about the V­_G and V_E of cranial morphology?

When considering any trait in an organism, evolutionary biologist must try and determine how much of a trait is dependant on heritability (h²). This narrow sense ability determines a ratio or percentage that can be attributed to genetic factors (V_G­) by diving the genetic variation by the total phenotypic variation.

For cranial size, I found three different numbers for heritability in humans, and they are as follows (taken from Martinez-Abadias’s “Heritability of human cranial dimensions: comparing the evolvability of different cranial regions.”):

Height: h² = 0.34

Length: h² = 0.32

Breadth: h² = 0.28

When these numbers are analyzed as percentages, it is easy to see that cranial size in humans has low heritability. In other words, about two-thirds of variability in human skull size is due to environmental factors (V_E); genetic makeup only accounts for about one-third of variability in human skull size.

Our paper discusses a couple different environmental factors that may contribute to the variance in skull morphology, and they are climate, locomotor behaviors of the species, and genetic drift.

Neandertals were thought to live in northern Europe, an area of mostly cold climate.  However, when comparing morphology of Neandertals to humans today, they were most similar to those skulls of sub-Saharan Africa and so this theory was not exactly supported as the main environmental factor. They do make mention of nasal features corresponding to morphologies found in high-altitude organisms, which could give some (if only little) credibility to that theory.

Dental loading is also another theory considered to explain skull morphology, because the anterior teeth have more wear than posterior teeth. This dental loading would have to be considered an adaptive trait on which natural selection would have acted for many generations. On investigation of bite forces though, modeling shows that Neandertal bites were not particularly high and therefore provides a problem for supporting this theory of adaptive dental loading.

Genetic drift seems to be the most supported hypothesis in his paper, as the author ran a simulation using quantitative genetics and was unable to reject any statistical results. Further, he argues that fossil records support the genetic drift theory even more by stating that skull features do not appear all at once but rather gradually accumulate over the years.

2. Two of the three hypotheses proposed to explain the evolution of Neandertal cranial features are adaptive (natural selection), and one is “neutral” (genetic drift).  Explain these competing hypotheses and why the authors support the latter, non-ultra-Darwinian view.

This article presents three hypotheses for the evolutionary explanation for Neandertal cranial features: adaptation to cold climates, adaptation to anterior dental loading, and genetic drift.  The first hypothesis, claiming adaptation to cold climates, is based on the observation that the geographic range of the Neandertals was centered  in northern Europe, which was considerably cooler at the time of the Neandertals.  However, just because they experienced colder temperatures does not require that their cranial features are adaptations to these colder conditions.  Since most of these type of hypotheses focused on the nasal region. Studies have been done on the internal nasal dimensions.  The narrow superior internal nasal dimensions, tall nasal apertures, and progecting nasal bridges are typically found in high latitude recent humans and could be adaptations to cold climates.  However, the Neandertal nasal region does not appear to be an adaptation to cold climates and if they were adapting to cold similarly to presen-day humans, then climatic adaptation is not a likely explanation for their cranial form.

Another characteristic of Neandertals is that they tend to have more worn anterior teeth than posterior ones.  In addition to that, these anterior teeth showed a high incidence of enamel chipping, microfractures, and microstriations on the labial surfaces which suggest that Neandertals used their mouths like a vise.  The second hypothesis, the anterior dental loading hypothesis, states that the facial form of the Neandertal are adaptations to dissipate the high mechanical loads produced by such behavior.  However, the article states that since the facial features of Neandertals appear early in development they cannot be direct mechanical responses to anterior dental loading.  The article goes on to say that instead, these would have to adaptations produced by natural selection after the species performed the behavior for several generations.  Another issue the author has with this hypothesis is that biomechanical modeling suggests that Neandertals were not able to produce high bite forces, at least not high enough to promote any resistance, and thus their cranial form cannot be adapted to resisting high bite forces if they were incapable of producing them.

The author favors the genetic drift hypothesis for many reasons.  First is that Neandertals and modern human populations became isolated from one another around 350,00 years ago.  This would have caused the two to diverge from each other, even in the absence of natural selection through events such as changing allele frequencies.  They tested this hypothesis and estimated that both groups diverged 311,000 to 435,00 years ago, which closely matches dates derived from ancient Neandertal and extant human DNA sequences, which they say is expected if genetic drift is responsible for the cranial divergence.  Another strong piece of supportive information the author brings up comes from fossil records.  He says that Neandertal features, like modern human features, did not appear all at once, rather, they gradually accumulated over hundreds of thousands of years.  This is the expected pattern if genetic drift were responsible.

3. In an evolutionary sense, why is it informative to study dental and cranial morphology in hyraxes or non-human primates?

                Studying dental and cranial morphology in non-human primates can be informative because it allows us to learn about and describe general aspects of the body mass, diet, and behavior of a fossil primate. Paleoanthropologists use the comparative method to understand morphological adaptations in fossil primates; meaning they base their inferences on the fossil primates by comparing them to studies of form and function of extant primates. For example, if the fossil primate and extant primate seem to have similar dental characteristics then you can infer that they may have eaten the same types of foods. Dental characteristics are related to more than just diet though, they also help determine the body mass of primates. Large-bodied primates tend to have relatively large teeth and paleoanthropologists hypothesize that correlates to body mass in extant primates also hold for extinct primate taxa. So, teeth can tell us about the size and weight of fossil primates and extant primates.

                As mentioned before, dental correlates to diet in fossil (and extant) primates, specifically enamel thickness and dental morphology. Enamel thickness reflects differences in the physical properties of foods eaten by primates. For example, species with a diet composed of hard, gritty food such as seeds tend to have thick enamel. Species such as folivores eat leafy plant foods and tend to have thin enamel. The anterior dentition of many primates serves in the initial preparation of food for chewing. The functional signal for incisor and canines is seen in primates that use their teeth on hard substances such as wood, bark, and fruit. The projections of the incisors can also tell you how the primate eats its food. On the other hand, a primate that eats leafy materials passes its food directly to its premolars and molars (back teeth). It’s easier to chew up leaves with your posterior dentition than with your front canines and incisors.

Pic on Left: Chimps are omnivorous (so they have characteristics of both plant eating molars and sharp canines and incisors) and their diet mostly consists of fruits and plants, insects, and sometimes small monkeys (baby bushbucks, young baboons) and baby mammals (meat is only 5% of diet, males hunt for meat more than females). ( http://www.buzzle.com/articles/chimpanzee-diet.html)

Australopithecus afarensis are one of the early human forms from 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago in Eastern Africa. They had apelike face proportions (flat nose, strongly projecting lower jaw) and braincase (small brain, 1/3 of modern human brain), long arms with curved fingers for climbing trees, small canine teeth, and lived both in trees and on ground which helped them survive for almost 1 million years as the climate and environments changed. They mainly ate a plant-based diet; the remains of their teeth indicate they ate soft, sugar rich fruits but their tooth size and shape suggest they could have eaten hard, brittle foods too (fall back foods for when seasons didn’t have fruit possibly?). (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis)

There is some experimental evidence that lifetime behavior differences, specifically which foods are eaten, can influence cranial form. Experiments on rock hyraxes investigated the effects of food processing on cranial growth and form. Lieberman and colleagues found that the maxillary molars of rock hyraxes are positioned directly behind the orbits as in humans, which make them more appropriate models for human mechanical loading patterns than some other prognathic primates. They found that diet and perhaps certain behaviors can influence facial size.

 

Picture on the left shows lateral views of human (top), rock hyrax (middle), and baboon (bottom) adult skulls scaled to same length. The entire molar row lies beneath or posterior to the plane of the orbits (dashed line) in humans and hyraxes, but not in baboons (which are a particularly prognathic primate). (http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724840400051X-gr1.jpg)

                Cranial morphology provides insight on both diet and locomotion in fossil primates. Paleoanthropologists can gain information on the relative bite force involved in mastication, or chewing. Primates that feed on hard materials (i.e. seeds, fibrous plant parts) tend to have larger muscles and muscle attachments on their skull and mandible.

                Information on activity patterns and locomotion can be determined by looking at the relative size of the eye orbits compared to the overall size of the skull. Nocturnal primates tend to have relatively larger eye orbits compared to their skulls and diurnal primates have relatively small orbits compared to the skull. The location of the foramen magnum approximates body posture and locomotion. In tetrapods, the foramen magnum tends to be located more posterior on the head but in upright primates, it is located directly under the skull.

                   Studying dental and cranial information in non-human primates and hyraxes is beneficial and informative to understanding the behaviors and environments of early human forms and how they evolved into the modern human form that we know today. By studying changes in dental morphology throughout non-human primates, we can infer their diet and methods of eating and compare their ways to humans. We can study when these changes occurred and in what species and possibly link the changes to when there was a significant climate or environmental change that caused species to evolve and new species to form. The same goes for studying cranial morphology. By comparing skulls between non-primates and humans, we can see the differences and similarities and then try to figure out why the differences that are there exist and possible explanations for the differences.

                In our paper, Weaver explains that there are three main evolutionary explanations for Neanderthal cranial morphology including, adaptation to cold climates (most have been found in northern Europe), adaptation to anterior dental loading, or genetic drift. Neanderthal features didn’t all appear at once; they gradually accumulated over a period of 300,000 years. A similar pattern may explain the appearance of modern human features. Neanderthals could have been isolated by genetic drift and this could have led to our modern human form. Studying dental and cranial morphology allows us to figure out a time frame of when these changes could have occurred, why, and explain why we look and behave the way we do today.

Reference: "Primate Origin", http://www.pearsoned.ca/highered/showcase/lehman/media/lehm_ch05.pdf

4. Define autapomorphy and compare and contrast it with symplesiomorphy and synapomorphy, citing a Neandertal skeletal example of each.

Autapomorphy is one type of an uninformative character as a derived character state that is restricted to a single terminal taxon in a data set.  While synapomorphic traits are also derived character states, synapomorphies are shared traits and are used to define monophyletic groups.  In other words, synapomorphic traits are seen in decedents of a common ancestor, but not in the ancestor itself.  Autapomorphic traits are used to distinguish organisms from others who are closely related, with a recent common ancestor, while cladistics uses synapomorphies to help group together taxa sharing a recent common ancestor as they tell us about relationships within a group.   Thus, autapomorphic and synapomorphic traits are informative occurrences, while symplesiomorphic character states are primitive features that are shared between a common ancestor and its descendants.  Symplesiomorphic traits are therefore phylogenetically uninformative and do not indicate details of relationships.

 The article, The Meaning of Neandertal Skeletal Morphology, summarized these trait classifications and their importance in cladistics and evolutionary character state analysis, “the appearance of derived features in the fossil record can pint to the action of directional natural selection or genetic drift, and the retention of primitive features can indicate stabilizing natural selection (Weaver and Klein).” A Neandertal skeletal example of an autapomorphic trait is that Neandertals show a greater convexity of the infraorbital plane, or in other words, the absence of infraorbital concavity (Weaver and Klein) which is indicated by the a more posterior placement of the inferior orbital margin.  This convexity appears to be unique to the Neandertal as Homo erectus shows a flat infraorbital region and modern humans are defined by a concave condition of the infraorbital plane (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CDgQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpages.nycep.org%2Fed%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2FNMG%252024.pdf&ei=ySlxUcGCKoeMyAH_vYGACw&usg=AFQjCNEYQpwU_rJQpUtR44ZI-GCgMOzdtw&bvm=bv.45373924,d.aWc).

An example of a symplesiomorphic or shared ancestral character state is the absence of a mental eminence, in other words the absence of a chin (Weaver and Klein).  The absence of a mental eminence is a character state is a shared by the Neandertal and its ancestors, unique to modern humans.  Upright walking is a synapomorphic character trait of Neandertal and its close relatives with respect to Homo erectus as the recent common ancestor.  

from https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&hs=XIW&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=monophyletic+group+of+neanderthal+and+homo+sapiens&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45373924,d.aWM&biw=1525&bih=756&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=EDVxUbORMsLr2AXwrID4Dg#imgrc=2vcjL2wJhQYR1M%3A%3BLUgAtbm3K3K-OM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fafarensis99.files.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F01%252Fape-phylogeny.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fafarensis99.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F02%252F19%252Fancestral-hominin-or-stem-hominid-part-one%252F%3B500%3B352

            5. What does Neandertal cranial morphology have to do with cognitive neuroscience in modern humans?

As a relatively new scientific field, cognitive neuroscience can gain a lot of understanding from the study of Neandertal cranial morphology, gaining insight into the events that lead to our great specialization and cognitive abilities. ‘Paleoneurology is the only available tool to analyze and understand human brain evolution (www.emilianobruner.it/pdf/Paleoneuro03.pdf), therefore  understanding Neandertal cranial morphology is the key to insight in the development of cognition and resulting abilities.

 By investigating the cranial morphology from Neandertal to modern humans, there is the possibility of gaining insight into how evolutionary modifications of anatomical traits altered the functional abilities of the brain.  Palaeoneurological data of Neandertals might provide insight into the relationship between internal brain organization and brain functions as the differences in the structure of the cortex seen between that of modern humans and Neandertals could indicate the reasons for our increased cognitive ability. 

By studying the differences in Neandertal and modern human brain anatomy, research may be able to correlate an increasing number of relationships between anatomical regions and function.  Providing insight into function-location relationships, can aid in the diagnosing and potential treatment of neurological disorders and/or cognitive impairments including degenerative  and functional diseases.  For example, modern humans have increasingly specialized language associated with the left hemisphere (http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.492). Morphological changes between Neandertal left hemisphere and the modern human left hemisphere could provide insight into anatomical structures crucial to language, and perhaps could provide information for the restoration of language lost due to damage of the brain. 

 

Interesting Research Article!

Check out this paper, titled "The Meaning of Neanderthal Skeletal Morphology". The link is
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40485014 .

Our Interview with Dr. William Sturgill!

               Dr. William Sturgill is a Professor of Psychology here at Rockhurst and he teaches a multitude of classes, including courses like Cognition, Cognitive Neuroscience, Psychology of Perception, Psychology of Language, and more. His interests lie especially in cognitive neuroscience and how the brain enables higher cognitive functions. Current research projects of his include projects on the brain and humor, on the formation and maintenance of an attentional set, and on visual perception of words. When we asked Dr. Sturgill what made him decide to study cognitive neuroscience, his answer was quite simple- it’s interesting! The brain is the most complex organ and an amazing piece of evidence for evolution. There is so much that we have learned about the brain, yet so many things are still unknown and may forever remain mysteries.

                To prepare for our interview, the group prepared a handful of questions relating to the evolution of the brain and comparing the human brain to the Neanderthal and chimp brains, the evolution of thought, and artificial intelligence. We planned on asking these questions one by one in typical interview fashion but that’s not how it played out at all! Once we asked one question, the questions snowballed off of each other and we ending up covering a variety of topics! We started off by explaining the MindModeling project to Dr. Sturgill and asked him if he thought we would ever really be able to mimic human thought and other mental processes and be able to model the mind for a computer program. He answered instantly with a big, fat NO! He said that the brain is just way too complex for this kind of mind modeling program to be feasible and there is still so much we don’t know about the brain, so how we can model it if we don’t understand it completely yet ourselves!? Dr. Sturgill started to talk about some of the connectionist models that people have currently been working on since about the 1970s. Following is a recap of some the things he talked about regarding cognition and connectionism.

                Cognition can be explained as the act of understanding and learning and involves mental processes that take place in the brain. Connectionism explains cognition as the process of multiple areas of the brain working together to process information and think. Because each neuron in the brain has multiple dendrites, when an action potential fires, synapses transfer across multiple areas of the brain. By doing so, processing information can be learned through multiple perspectives. For example, items could be processed by their color, texture, size, or other features. The brain registers this information in the sensory part of the brain. Following this process, your brain’s motor area may begin working for you to act based on these features. For this all to occur, connectionists argue that smaller units all work together in the brain to create action potential. This process can be explained using complicated mathematical models found online.

                In order for this to apply to artificial intelligence for the MindModeling project, we have to consider the use of symbolism. Researchers over the last couple decades have tried to mimic the human brain based on symbolism. With this method, people type an input such as “brown” into the computer and connect it with “dog.” Several features are added to the word dog so that if you ask the computer a question like “what is brown and furry?” the computer will filter out everything that isn’t brown and furry. In a sense, it is connecting the word “dog” to “brown and furry.” The physical word “dog” symbolizes those two characteristics. Critics do not believe this technique can ever be perfected to mimic the human mind though because humans are so complex (http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~rsun/sun.encyc01.pdf).

                The Turing Test is used to measure whether a machine (such as a computer) can match the human mind. With this test, a person sits there and types onto a keyboard a conversation or topic starter. This input is then shared with a human being and a machine made to mimic a human. The person then reads both responses (one from a human and another as the machine) and tries to distinguish them. If the person cannot tell the difference between the two, then the machine is said to successfully have mimicked a human brain. Again, critics of this test do not believe that this is technically mimicking the human brain because it is simulated intelligence rather than real intelligence (http://www.turing.org.uk/publications/testbook.html).

                As you can see, there seems to be some people who think conditioning a computer with input and output responses is similar to the way the brain works and therefore mimics the brain, but this just isn’t the case. Computer programs, no matter how “smart” they are, can’t make spontaneous decisions on their own like humans can and therefore computers aren’t really mimicking the actions of the human brain. That’s why it seems implausible to Dr. Sturgill that we would ever be able to create a program of artificial intelligence that mimics the brain thought process and other higher cognitive functions. After talking about connectionism and current theories that claim to mimic the brain, the rest of our interview was spent talking about the evolution of the brain. This topic in itself could be discussed for days on end, not just the hour that we had but we got a glimpse into the history of the brain. But before we talk about what Dr. Sturgill had to say about this, we will briefly outline the structure of the brain so you have a better idea of what we are talking about in regards to its evolution.

                In order for higher thinking and creativity, there has to be connections and fluidity throughout the cortex.  The cerebrum, also known as the cortex, is the part of the brain that is associated with tasks and higher brain functioning such as thought and action.  The cerebrum is divided into four lobes: the frontal lobe (anterior part of brain), parietal lobes (superior lateral sides of brain), occipital lobe (posterior part of brain), and the temporal lobe (inferior lateral sides of brain).  Each lobe is given a specific function to carry out within the process of thought and action.  The frontal lobe is associated with reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving.  The parietal lobe is associated with movement, orientation, recognition, and perception of stimuli.  The occipital lobe is associated with visual processing and the temporal lobe is associated with perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, memory, and speech.

                Within the central nervous system (CNS, which includes the brain and spinal cord), nerves extend from your brain to your face and from the spinal cord to the limbs and remaining parts of your body.  Sensory nerves gather information from your environment (input) and send a signal to your brain to perform the necessary action (output), which are carried out by motor nerves.  The brain is essentially divided into a motor section and sensory section and these two sections work together to allow us to perform all of the actions we do on a daily basis. The brain is amazingly interconnected this way.  Each system works separately but at the same time. Evolution has allowed them to work together almost flawlessly.  By that we mean interconnections are going on all the time and we don’t even know it!

From

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2012/05/the-success-of-homo-sapiens-may-be-due-to-spatial-abilities/

With regards to the evolution of the brain, Dr. Sturgill focused on the evolutionary modifications of the Neanderthal brain to Homo sapiens brain, and the unknown behavioral and cognitive capacities resulting from their anatomical and functional differentiations.  The major physical difference inferred from fossil evidence between the two brains is the lack of frontal lobes in the Neanderthal brain.  Neanderthal brains were long compared to that of a human, resulting in a low, sloped forehead, taking the place of the human frontal lobes.  This difference is seen in the globular human braincase compared to the elongated braincase of the Neanderthal.  These physical differences are important when considering their implications in the organization of the brain and consequently in the synaptic pathways in the development of cognitive abilities.  Neanderthals had a slightly larger brain in size which some had assumed meant Neanderthals were capable of similar levels of cognition, however, as Dr. Sturgill pointed out, size of the brain is not the most important factor in determining cognitive abilities, but rather the internal organization is of greater significance                 (http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/08/07/499/). 

From http://www.sciguru.com/newsitem/11760/Compared-Neanderthals-modern-humans-have-better-sense-smell

                Dr. Sturgill stated the smaller, more condensed human brain may contribute to our higher cognitive functions as the brain is composed of the same relative number of cells, but the cells became more interconnected, increasing the fluidity of neurological circuitry across the cortex.  The smaller human brain may have evolved as the increased complexity allowed for more computational power in a smaller space.  As the physical modifications increased the number of neural connections, an increase in the number of advanced cognitive processes resulted.  The most important contribution of these internal structural alterations was the adaptation of creative innovation, or the capacity to process and depict novel and orderly relationships.  The ability to innovate allowed for thought and the development of specialized skills. The adaptive presence of the frontal lobes in humans is important in the expansion of these activities as the frontal lobes are associated with novel thinking because they possess strong connections with the regions of the temporal and parietal lobes associated with concepts and information storage
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14972752).

                Thus, the frontal lobes contribute to our capability to be innovative as it requires activation and communication between regions of the brain which usually do not possess strong pathways.  Thus it is possible as a result of a more compact brain, whose versatility enables us to manipulate the environment on a much larger scale than any other species.  This is seen, according to Dr. Sturgill, in the lifestyle of the Neanderthals, who lacked innovation which may have resulted in their remaining in the freezing north with no other hunting methods than the spear for thousands of years without looking for changes to improve their quality of life. 

                Another key to the evolution of the human brain with respect to innovation is the importance of the evolution of thought.  Dr. Sturgill stated that speech is an adaptation of the vocalization of thought, with communication as an exaptation as a result.  Many believe that speech was adapted for communication but Dr. Sturgill doesn’t think this is the case. Speech was adapted to express all of the interconnections and thoughts and ideas going on in the brain. Without the presence of frontal lobes, humans may not have established the increased connections necessary for developing novel and alternative ideas, which through the aid of communication, has allowed the evolutionary success of humans to explore and expand our environment over the Neanderthals. If you want to take a look at the proposed evolutionary tree Homo sapiens brain, take a look below, it's pretty cool! 

From http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/08/07/499/

        Overall, our interview with Dr. Sturgill went very well and was very informative! Like we mentioned before, there's so much history regarding the brain and it's evolution- that could be a class all on it's own probably. It was interesting to hear about the current models for the brain and what artificial intelligence currently exists. However, it seems unlikely that we will ever understand the brain enough to create an artificial brain that does the exact same things and thinks like us humans do. Decision making and higher cognitive functions are what make humans human so it makes sense that it is unlikely to make a model that exactly mimics us.

        One of the most interesting parts of the interview to me was when we discussed the differences, or if there is a difference, between the 'mind' and physiological functioning of the brain.   I felt this discussion showed the complexity and difficulty of studying cognitive neuroscience as there is very little we know about the brain and thought. In addition, the lack of concrete methods to study and/or understand cognition as well as varying interpretations about the definitions and interaction of the mind, soul, and neural firings.  For example, we discussed the mind and neurological function as a 'chicken and egg' scenario, does the mind result from brain activity or does the mind influence our perception and cognition? Our interview was very interesting and showed us an introduction into the challenges and variety of areas to explore within cognitive neuroscience.