I must be losing my sense of time as result of spending most of everyday communicating with colleagues via my laptop because I published today’s post yesterday [see ‘Professor soars through the landscape‘ on April 27th, 2020]. Even when a helpful reader pointed out that the accompanying video had not been published, I simply thought that I had failed to synchronise the post and video properly – see my comment on yesterday’s post. It was not until my editor asked me why I had published a post on Tuesday that I realised my error. Perhaps I am suffering from dyschronometria brought on by the COVID-19 lock-down in force in the UK.
It has been known for some time that over or under responsivity to sensory stimulation encountered in everyday life, such as noise, light and smell, can be a cause of anxiety and stress [e.g. Lipowski, 1975]. Most virtual reality systems provide visual and audio stimuli through headsets and tactile stimuli can be provided through haptic devices; however, that leaves two senses under stimulated: smell and taste. So, researchers have been exploring how to extend virtual reality to include smell and taste in order to give a complete sensory experience and thus reduce the level of stress and anxiety that many people feel when using immersive reality systems. This had led to digital scent technology that allows smells to be transmitted electronically [e.g. Isokoski et al, 2020]. So, it’s time to update your preferred communication tool to one that allows you to smell that fresh cup of coffee your colleague has just brewed before joining the meeting from their home-office. Of course, if they have not taken a shower recently then you might want to ‘mute’ the smell function! These advances in technology have led a spin-out company, Day91, to start work on gustatory technology that modifies the water in your glass to simulate the after-work drink that your team-mate is enjoying during your virtual get-together online.
Lipowski, Z. J. (1975). Sensory and information inputs overload: Behavioural effects. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 16(3), 199–221.
Isokoski, P., Salminen, K., Müller, P., Rantala, J., Nieminen, V., Karjalainen, M., Väliaho, J., Kontunen, A., Savia, M., Leivo, J. and Telembeci, A., (2020). Transferring scents over a communication network. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Academic Mindtrek (pp. 126-133).
I overheard a clip on the radio last week in which someone was parodying the quote from Marvin, the Paranoid Android in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: ‘Here I am with a brain the size of a planet and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper. Call that job satisfaction? I don’t.’ It set me thinking about something that I read a few months ago in Max Tegmark’s book: ‘Life 3.0 – being human in the age of artificial intelligence‘ [see ‘Four requirements for consciousness‘ on January 22nd, 2020]. Tegmark speculates that since consciousness seems to require different parts of a system to communicate with one another and form networks or neuronal assemblies [see ‘Digital hive mind‘ on November 30th, 2016], then the thoughts of large systems will be slower by necessity. Hence, the process of forming thoughts in a planet-sized brain will take much longer than in a normal-sized human brain. However, the more complex assemblies that are achievable with a planet-sized brain might imply that the thoughts and experiences would be much more sophisticated, if few and far between. Tegmark suggests that a cosmic mind with physical dimensions of a billion light-years would only have time for about ten thoughts before dark energy fragmented it into disconnected parts; however, these thoughts and associated experiences would be quite deep.
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Penguin Random House, 2007.
Max Tegmark, Life 3.0 – being a human in the age of artificial intelligence, Penguin Books, Random House, UK, 2018.
My regular readers will have recognised the novel nature of a blog that seeks, in a unique way, to present promising engineering ideas in a favourable and robust manner. Actually, I hope my regular readers will recognise this opening sentence as completely uncharacteristic. It was a blatant effort on my part to include the five words, underlined, with positive meanings that are most used in the titles and abstracts of articles published in clinical research and the life sciences. A recent survey of more than 100,000 articles showed the prevalence of these words, with them being used significantly more in articles in which the first or last authors were male compared to those in which the first and last authors were female. In other words, female authors are significantly less likely to describe their research findings in these positive terms and this influences the subsequent citations of their work and probably their prospects for research funding and advancement. Sunday was International Women’s Day and, hence this is an appropriate week for everyone responsible for decisions about research to be conscious of this trend. They should also be aware that the use of these positive words has increased in clinical and life sciences research by around 150% in the fifteen years to 2017. In other words, the modesty of researchers has declined and they are more likely to describe their results as ‘novel’; however, I think it is unlikely that the results are any more novel than typical results published 20 years. Of course, like most researchers, I always think my last breakthrough is the most exciting yet but many of us have been letting that enthusiasm lead us to exaggerate its novelty and value.
Source: Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorensen O & Jena AB, Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study, BMJ, 367:16573, 2019.