What role do the ego and group unconsciousness have in Jungian "individuation"? What role do the ego and group unconsciousness have in Jungian "individuation"?

  What distinguishes Jungian psychology is the idea that there are two
  centers of the personality. The ego is the center of consciousness,
  whereas the Self is the center of the total personality, which
  includes consciousness, the unconscious, and the ego... Jungians also
  saw psychic health as depending on a periodic return to the sense of
  Self... individuation (Source: Wikipedia - Self in Jungian psychology with interpretive liberties)

Though I took some interpretive liberties, this may be inadvisable for wikipedia.

It'd be helpful to know of aything substantial I could read, that is focused on this question, especially if (and I'm not saying it's the case that) individuation involves the externalisation of the ego.

Short answer

The ego, the collective unconscious and the persona collectively help the person to self-actualise and reach individuation through the elements of the psyche being in harmony with each other.

Long answer

A lot of what I am providing in this answer has been put together using my knowledge of Jungian Psychology from my 3 year Psychotherapy course I am sudying at Reading University and information within Wolberg (2013).  Anything not referenced here is from the Wolberg book.

Individuation

Let's first of all define the word Individuation

  In the broadest possible way, individuation can be defined as the achievement of self-actualization through a process of integrating the conscious and the unconscious. Once again, any accurate understanding of Jung should come from [Jung]. (Source: Journal Psyche)

Self Actualisation is a term coined by Abraham Maslow with his Hierarchy of Needs, and refers to having a fulfilment and mastery of all your needs from the simplest to the more complex.

Jung, the Psyche, and the Collective and Personal Unconscious

According to Carl Gustav Jung, the psyche is compartmentalised in a different way than Freud proposed. He divided the psyche into

a superficial part, the personaa social mask assumed by the individual, made up of social interests and sanctions
a less superficial aspect, the egowhich is only to some extent conscious and reflects past-personal experiences, and
a deeply unconscious partwhich has within it the collective unconscious and contained archetypes (Creator, Caregiver, Ruler, Jester...).

Difficulties occur when there is a lack of harmony among the persona, the ego, and the collective unconscious. Jung conceived of the idea that baser elements of the soul were present in the collective unconscious, and he characterised these as “the Shadow.”

The psychic reality of the situation created by the psychic images, developed in the conscious, create complexes [e.g. Inferiority Complex] and the issues, and their connected experiences are repressed or suppressed into the "shadow lands" of the personal unconscious.

Jung also believed that the collective unconscious contained

  creative fountains of energy. Primitive fears and other untoward manifestations of the unconscious invaded the patient’s conscious mind and created tensions and various neurotic symptoms that were attempts at self-cure. The collective unconscious, unleashed, constituted a source of danger for the person.

The 2 different human characters

Jung also evolved a theory of character, whereby people are divided into two types: introverts and extroverts. The introvert’s interests centred on himself or herself; the extrovert’s interests were on the external world.

  A human being, said Jung, had an innate religious craving which powered the need for self-realization. There was, he explained, no retreat from life’s burdens other than to find refuge in spiritual strivings with “acceptance of the irrational and unbelievable.” By experiencing the collective unconscious, an individual no longer would experience personal sorrow "but the sorrow of the world, no longer a personal isolating pain, but pain without bitterness, binding all human beings together.” We are brought “back to ourselves as an existing, living something, stretched as it were between two worlds of images, from which forces proceed that are only dimly discerned but are all the more clearly felt. This something, though strange to us, is yet so near, it is altogether ourselves and yet unrecognizable, a virtual middlepoint of such a mysterious constitution that it can demand anything, relationship with animals and with gods, with crystals and with stars.” These ideas were elaborated by Jung (1961) in his last book, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, a fascinating autobiographical document that explains his relationship with Freud and gives us a broader understanding of the essence and meaning of his work.

Putting it together for psychotherapy

During Jungian psychoanalytic therapy...

  an effort is made to explore “archetypes” in order to determine how these imprints contaminate the patient’s present life and interfere with self-development and self-realization (individuation). Bringing the individual into contact with his or her collective unconscious is said to help liberate creative forces that will have a constructive effect on adjustment. Once non-conscious elements are recognized, an attempt is made to guide the patient actively into a productive relationship with the unconscious.

References

Wolberg, L. R., 2013. The Technique of Psychotherapy - Fourth Edition,Chevy Chase, MD:International Psychotherapy Institute E-BooksAvailable free from http://www.freepsychotherapybooks.org

For further in-depth information on Jungian Analytical Psychology:

Frieda Fordham (1991) An Introduction to Jung's Psychology, 3rd Revised Edition,London:Penguin Books Ltd. (ISBN-13: 978-0140135688)

Carl Gustav Jung (1969) The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Collected Works of C. G. Jung)2nd edition translation in 1981 by Gerhard Adler & R.F.C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton University Press (ISBN-13: 978-0691018331)
exact same edition also printed in 1991 by London:Routledge (ISBN-13: 978-0415058445)


How does the neocortex distinguish between perception and imagination? From my understanding, the neocortex performs both perception and imagination/planning within the same hierarchical structure. During perception, an area of the neocortex receives current input from sensors and decides on motor actions to execute. During imagination, an area replays previous inputs, or operates on potential future inputs for planning. Actions don't actually get executed during planning.

On the one hand, it seems like both perception and planning are in part executed by the same neural structures. It seems intuitive that the same abstraction mechanism needs to be reused to arrive at the same high-level representations. On the other hand, it seems like the brain still needs to distinguish between them, for example to not executed imagined actions.

The two processes certainly affect each other. Perceiving a difficult situation can cause planning, perception can cause an association to imagine another situation, or imagination sets filters on what we perceive. Are there any explanations if and how the neocortex implements both perception and imagination/planning within the same structures?

Are perception and imagination states that the neocortex areas switch between, or can they be carried out simultaneously? Can multiple areas be involved in planning at the same time?
When an area sends information to another one, how does it signal whether this was perceived or imagined information?
Is there less of a distinction between the two than I'm thinking?

Short answer
Perception and imagination in the visual system use pretty much the same neural machinery, but in opposite directions - perception goes bottom-up, from the periphery to the central nervous system, while imagery uses the top-down approach, travelling from the higher associative cortices to the lower visual areas in the brain.

Background
The distinction between perception and imagination has received a lot of attention in the visual sciences. For example, imagery in congenitally blind individuals versus late-blind individuals is an interesting distinction to make with far-reaching consequences in certain fields of research (e.g. (Kupers et al., 2001)

Perception in the visual system goes from the periphery (retina), via the brainstem (LGN) to the striate cortex (V1) and higher extrastriate areas (V2-V7, see Fig. 1).

Content-related activation during imagery in visual extrastriate cortex is thought to be governed by “top-down” mechanisms in parietal and frontal cortex that mediate the retrieval of object representations from long-term memory (Ishai et al., 2000). Visual imagery and visual perception draw on most of the same neural machinery. However, albeit the vast majority of activated areas are activated during both conditions, the spatial overlap is neither complete nor uniform. The overlap was much more pronounced in frontal and parietal regions (higher visual areas) than in temporal and occipital regions (lower visual areas) (Ganis et al., 2004).

I can't supply you with references on your following questions, but I wouldn't see any reason why the brain couldn't...

  [...switch between] perception and imagination states, or [carry imagination and perception] out simultaneously

Basically, perception and imagination are two separate processes sharing large parts of their pathways, but not being identical.

  When an area sends information to another one, how does it signal whether this was perceived or imagined information?

This distinction is quite clear and pronounced, as perception is bottom-up (retinae to extristriate areas), whereas imagery is top-down (extrastriate areas to striate areas in the cortex).

  Is there less of a distinction between the two than I'm thinking?

Indeed they are pretty similar as discussed and referenced above.

Fig. 1. Visual system. source: Shumpei Ogawa

References
- Ganis et al., Cognitive Brain Res (2004); 20(2): 226-41
- Ishai et al., Neuron (2000); 28: 979–90
- Kupers et al., Front Psychol (2011); 2: 19


Can tinnitus be measured with EEG or MEG? Can tinnitus be measured with EEG or MEG (magnetoencephalography)?
Is it visible in a power spectrum?
In an ERP/ERF?

Michelle Heijblom's (2009) master thesis on Visualising tinnitus with fMRI and EEG mentions the following:

  Different studies report that tinnitus is characterised by an increase
  in slow-wave activity (0.5- 4Hz: delta activity) and a decrease in
  alpha activity (8-12 Hz) at temporal regions. Recently it has been
  suggested that this loss of alpha power is related to an increase in
  gamma power. [Weisz 2005, Weisz 2007, Lorenz 2009, Ashton 2007,
  Wienbruch 2006]. Weisz et al. state that the alpha decrease and delta
  increase resemble the state during slow wave sleep. This supports the
  idea that the changes in spontaneous brain activity might be mediated
  by sensory deprivation (hearing loss).


Psychological explanation for exorcisms? I'm doing research on alleged testimonies and evidences of the spirit realm. In particular, I've been lately reviewing testimonies and live recordings of exorcisms, some of which I find particularly impressive. I say impressive because in my opinion the exorcisms look quite convincing, and I lack the expertise in psychology and neuroscience to provide a convincing explanation other than assuming that everything is staged (which I wouldn't be able to prove either).
Common patterns are that the allegedly possessed person seems to switch personality (as though the alleged entity's personality is taking over), sometimes the exorcist and the alleged entity establish conversation, sometimes the person starts to "throw up" the alleged entity out of their body right before full deliverance is achieved.
Below some example videos with timestamps to illustrate the point:

Woman named Veronica, is exorcised by Bob Larson ( Video not for kids ).

TESTIMONY TURNS DELIVERANCE

Shocking Powerful Deliverance From Demons

Casting Out False NAR Demons (New Apostolic Reformation Warning)

A demon screamed and came out of a woman at the Eiffel tower and the Police was afraid and left.

Lady's Voice Turns into a Man's Voice - Exorcist Bob Larson Throws out the Demon!

El poder de Cristo - Sacando legión de demonios #chile #imp #estebanguzman #jesus

LIBERACION DE INFLUENCIA SATANICA- Pastor Juan Carlos Harrigan

What is the psychological explanation for exorcisms?

Google Scholar reveals a substantial quantity of learned research on the topic of exorcisms, of which the items below are but a few:

Ferracuti, S., & Sacco, R. (1996). Dissociative trance disorder: clinical and Rorschach findings in ten persons reporting demon possession and treated by exorcism. Journal of personality assessment, 66(3), 525-539. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_4

Ross, C. A., Schroeder, E., & Ness, L. (2013). Dissociation and symptoms of culture-bound syndromes in North America: A preliminary study. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 14(2), 224-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2013.724338

McNamara, P. (2011). Spirit Possession and Exorcism: History, Psychology, and Neurobiology [2 volumes]: History, Psychology, and Neurobiology. ABC-CLIO.

Henderson, D. J. (1976). Exorcism, possession, and the Dracula cult: A synopsis of object-relations psychology. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 40(6), 603.

Bull, D. L. (2001). A phenomenological model of therapeutic exorcism for dissociative identity disorder. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29(2), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710102900204

Pfeifer, S. (1994). Belief in demons and exorcism in psychiatric patients in Switzerland. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 67(3), 247-258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1994.tb01794.x

Rosik, C. H. (1997). When discernment fails: The case for outcome studies on exorcism. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25(3), 354-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164719702500304

As for many religious behaviours, exorcism behaviours appear to exist between non-intersecting religious and cultural groups.
A review of the abstracts suggests that involvement in exorcism is considered to be a Dissociative disorder.  The Mayo Clinic also has an interesting article on Dissociative disorder.


For depression diagnoses, does one make a clear distinction between endogenous and exogenous causes of depression? Roughly speaking, we might imagine that people have depression predominantly for one of two reasons:

Endogenously induced: The person has some inherent inballance between different neurotransmittors; some part of the persons's brain that regulates emotions is damaged et cetera.
Exogenously induced: The person has no friends; the person has been left by several of his/her partners; the person is unemployed and can't get a job et cetera.

Obviously, in many cases it will not be this black and white.

Whew, OK. I am going to take a crack at this. The question asks about depression diagnoses, so I will interpret and focus on that accordingly. I think we can all agree that making any clear distinction between endogenous and exogenous causes of depression is difficult, since 1) liken to the Nature vs. Nurture question, people generally agree that Major Depression is a result of multiple factors, and 2) clinicians disagree on which (exogenous vs. endogenous) tends to be the "primary" cause of depression [1].
When it comes to making a clinical diagnosis, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will use the multi-axial system in documentation. Axis IV is a part of the system, and is where exogenous factors can be reported as psychosocial and environmental problems that may affect the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis [2]. In addition, the clinician should know to keep in mind that psychosocial problems may develop as a consequence of the patient's psychopathology!
Examples of commonly listed psychosocial and environmental problems include family problems (illness, death), social environment (isolation), educational/occupational problems, economic problems, etc., etc.

The evaluation of stressors is based on a clinician's assessment of the stress that an average person with similar sociocultural values and circumstances would experience from psychosocial stressors [1].
The judgement is based on the degree of change that the stressor causes in the person's life, the degree to which the event is desired and under the person's control, and the number of stressors.

Tidbits

To make a quick note about endogenous factors, it is interesting to note that the most consistent abnormality in those with depressive disorders is increased frequency of abnormal hyperintensities in subcortical regions of the brain...
A long-standing clinical observation is that stressful life events more often precede first, rather than subsequent, episodes of mood disorders.
^ One theory proposed is that the stress accompanying a first episode results in long-lasting changes in the brain's biology... so a person has a high(er) risk of experiencing subsequent episodes of (a) mood disorder(s), even without an external stressor [1].
While some clinicians believe that life events play the primary or principal role in depression, others suggest that life events have only a limited role in the onset and timing of depression.
What may seem to be a relatively mild stressor to outsiders may be devastating to the patient due to particular/personal idiosyncratic meanings the patient attach to the event.
Edward Bibring thought perhaps depression is [the result of] the phenomenon that sets in when a person becomes cognizant of a discrepancy between his high ideals and the inability to meet the goals appropriate to reach said ideals.

I suppose I did not provide an adequate answer to your question. Given what I have looked into, it appears that individuality plays a ginormous factor in determining one's personal cause(es), and not only do clinicians disagree on the source of depression, but it appears that when clinicians make their diagnosis/diagnoses, a clear distinction between endogenous and exogenous influences is not made. At least, generally speaking...
References

Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry
DSM-IV-TR® Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders


How is epigenetic memory expressed in neurons? Epigenetic memory is seen as the most evolutionarily plausible way of learning from experiences and gaining instinctual knowledge accross generations, as established by the answer to one of my previous questions. However, is it known how epigenetic memories are translated from the DNA into neurons? Alternatively, I may be approaching this from the wrong direction and may need to read more papers, so links helping me clarify my question would be appreciated as well.

There are (at least) two ways epigenetic traits are inherited.  The important background in both cases is gene expression: there is a misconception that genes are for this or that, where the reality is that most traits come from an overlap of several genes expressing themselves in different ratios.  As a simple example, consider two varieties of bird of the same species, but one has a longer beak.  One might conclude that the genes involved in the morphology of the beak were expressed longer or in greater quantity in the bird with the bigger beak.  Epigenetics describes inherited expression schemes.

The well known method of epigenetic transfer is DNA methylation.  The DNA itself is not actually changed, but the methylation sites act like tags, altering the expression rate of those particular genes.  Another way is through histones, which are part of packing and unpacking DNA between storage and use.  Alterations in histones can also alter gene expression.


Neurotransmitter control via biofeedback? According to this thread, certain regions of the brain, and even some distributed activation patterns can be up/down regulated via bio-feedback.

Is it possible in theory and is there any research where subjects were taught to consciously control neurotransmitter (e.g. serotonin, dopamine, etc...) levels?

It seems that doing so would present with alternatives to pharmacological methods of altering neurotransmitter levels in treatment of various mood and cognitive disorders.

Firstly, you wouldn't be directly controlling neurotransmitter.  From the human perspective, you'd be controlling higher-level events (and they aren't necessarily describable on more than a phenomenological level).  Of course, this would also lead to some changes in neurotransmitter release, but in a complex way: that's all handled at a lower level by the cells.

That being said, neurofeedback is a (the?) clinical practice that most closely matches your question.  If you look at the references in the wiki page I linked, you will see lots of papers reporting on the findings and techniques.  I do not know the current state of the research.


The art of exploiting people and taking advantage of them As one ages he/she will definitely encounter a lot of people who will do their best to make the most out of him/her.

Are there any books regarding this ??

From a hackers perspective I would recommend to check out a term called "social engineering". This is all about manipulating people in order to get sensitive information.

A great book about this is called The Art of Human Hacking


Long term effect of using noise generators Some people use noise generators as http://playnoise.com/ to reduce distraction by background noise. Is there any research on the long term effects of this? Does this affect the neuronal connections in a known way?

[I don't know, but I suspect that longer exposure to senseless information (noise) should have an effect on some part of the brain. I am also suspecting that if "low-level senseless information" (i.e. static noise) has an effect, "high-level senseless information" (i.e. random combinations of patterns) could have a similar effect on a deeper cognitive level, but that is wild guessing.]

Short answer

Yes, continuous exposure to white noise affects neural responses in the auditory system. First, it can alter the tonotopic map in the auditory cortex. Second, it can lead to reduced responsiveness of the auditory thalamus.

Background

Note: this answer is based on animal experiments using extreme conditions, namely a continuous noise exposure for at least a month.

The most striking effect of continuous low-level white noise exposure (30 days) is a dramatic reorganization of the tonotopic map in the auditory cortex (Zheng, 2012). Basically, the normally regular distribution of low-to-high frequency representation in auditory cortex was grossly disorganized in noise-treated rats. The noise-treated rats performed better on a pitch-discrimination task in noise than non-treated rats. They performed worse in a quiet environment, though. Hence, their auditory system had adapted to the noise and was optimized for noisy environments.

In another study it was shown that adult rats exposed to noise (50 days) showed increased long-term-depression (LTD) in A1 neurons of the medial-geniculate nucleus (MGN) (Speechley et al., 2007). The MGN is the thalamic processing centre of the auditory pathway (Rees, 2009). Speechley et al. mention the following, and I quote:

  The facilitation of depression observed here [..] suggests that in the developed A1 continuous white noise produces general over-excitation of thalamocortical networks,
  resulting in greater LTD induced by low-frequency inputs to the network.

LTD can be interpreted as a long-term decrease in responsiveness of the auditory system to stimulation. Basically it reacts to the white noise by decreasing its activity. They explain these effects by the fact that white noise can act as a mild stressor, with accompanying changes in neuroendocrine activation and immune function. Stress and related hormonal changes may increase corticosteroid levels that facilitating LTD.

Interestingly, in newborn rats, the same treatment resulted in enhanced long-term potentiation (LTP) of the MGN. The authors raise the following explanation, and I quote:

  White noise reared animals showed greater levels of LTP relative to rats raised in
  unaltered auditory environments. Also, stimulation parameters (single 1-Hz pulses) that induced depression in control animals resulted in robust potentiation in white noise-reared rats, indicating that lack of patterned auditory stimulation during early post-natal life results in a preferential readiness of the auditory thalamocortical system for
  synaptic potentiation over depression.

References
Rees, Encyclopedia of Neurocience 2009:2275-9
Speechley et al. Eur J Neurosci 2007;26:2576–84
Zheng, Front Syst Neurosci 2012;6:1-14


Is it possible to run multiple thought processes concurrently? For example, let's say I have a friend sprinting a 50m distance and that friend wants me to time the race, but I don't have a stopwatch so I have to count "manually". Can I count while simultaneously thinking about how she'll do and while wondering what I'm going to have for dinner?

Parallel processes are often studied in a so called 'dual task' paradigm, where participants are drawing a picture and reciting a poem or, as in your example, counting and thinking about other things.
Often this method is used to demonstrate limits in attention and find insights into how the brain works (in a serial versus parallel manner). Training is an important factor in this question. It has been shown that with a sufficient amount of training a lot of tasks can be done parallel very well - so if you sit there long enough and automize the counting the rest will follow.


Does cognitive training enhance dopamine release? Joe Hardy reports on a study by Backman et al (2011) in Science, where from the authors report:

  Updating of working memory has been associated with striato-frontal
  brain regions and phasic dopaminergic neurotransmission. We assessed
  raclopride binding to striatal dopamine (DA) D2 receptors during a
  letter-updating task and a control condition before and after 5 weeks
  of updating training. Results showed that updating affected DA
  activity before training and that training further increased striatal
  DA release during updating. These findings highlight the pivotal role
  of transient neural processes associated with D2 receptor activity in
  working memory.

Joe Hardy goes on to claim:

  This result shows that cognitive training with exercises similar to
  those on Lumosity can change the way the brain works at a fundamental
  chemical level. Indeed, we’ve known for several years that the right
  kind of cognitive training can enhance brain functions like working
  memory.

Question

Is it true that cognitive training enhances dopamine release ?
Are there any studies that disprove this ?

References

Backman, L., Nyberg, L., Soveri, A., Johansson, J., Andersson, M., Dahlin, E., Neely, A.S., Virta, J., Laine, M. & Rinne, J.O. (2011). Effects of working-memory training on striatal dopamine release. Science, 333, 718.

The paper claims that training on updating (based on the influential view of executive function proposed by Miyake et al., 2000) tasks, which require maintaining and manipulating information in WM in response to new input or feedback, transfers to other memory tasks such as letter-memory and n-back, and that this transfer is associated with changes in phasic dopamine activity.
Hardy is therefore stretching the study conclusions quite far here. As Tyler Langan notes in his comment to the question, the effect of a neurotransmitter is enormously dependent on a number of factors beyond the type of transmitter, such as exactly where it is released, and for how long it is released, among others. In some sufficiently broad sense, it is probably true that "cognitive training leads to enhanced dopamine release," but I don't necessarily think that is meaningful in any explanatory sense.
When interpreting fMRI studies, it is always important to consider very, very carefully the exact relationship between the evidence and the claim, especially when venturing beyond the careful boundaries set down by the original authors. Consider, for instance, the carefully bounded conclusion reached by the original authors:

Our data are consistent with findings of displacement of ligand binding to D2 receptors during cognitive processing (5, 8) and indicate a link between previously observed increases of BOLD activity after WM training (1) and DA release.

Contrast with Hardy's more free-style take on the matter:

This result shows that cognitive training with exercises similar to those on Lumosity can change the way the brain works at a fundamental chemical level.

That's not technically incorrect, at least not as such, but it is disingenuous. In the particular sense his claim is "not incorrect," it is also "not incorrect" to say that virtually any other activity performed over a long enough time-span (e.g. five weeks) "can change the way the brain works at a fundamental chemical level." Changing at the chemical level is a part of how the brain works, and what the study by Backman et al. illustrates is a specific way it changes under certain conditions.
References

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
(link to pdf)


Why does the tempo tend to get faster? Suppose you're learning to sing or play an instrument, and you'd start playing some piece of music. If you are not experienced enough, the tempo would be unstable, usually getting faster until the end.

This phenomenon is usual, as in this question on Music SE: https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/32405/why-i-tend-to-play-faster-tempo-without-realizing-it

Many correlates it with adrenaline and throbbing heartbeat, but is there an experiment-backed evidence to explain?

(Originally posted in Skeptics SE, but I think this should be the better place.)

Tempo should be an objective parameter in music. The same piece is heard differently at higher tempo than in lower tempo. This is sensible if you accept an Aristotelian perspective of music, whereby music is an attempt to represent something real (could be a person's emotions or natural sounds). The key in your question seems to be "not experienced enough". Such a musician can lose focus of the real, intended character behind the piece (if we follow the same Aristotelian perspective). He is likely to focus on short term aspects such as: Grasping the current melodic pattern or focus on his own ability to perform the piece. Focusing on your grasp of melody will make you tend to play faster since your fascination will come from the melody itself, and not from what it represents, or could represent. If you are interested in pushing your ability to perform, like many beginners are (for good reason), you might still tend towards a faster pace since it is simply more challenging neurologically, and might boost the so called "muscle memory".
In any case, altering the tempo is altering the piece, and no skillful music performer is supposed to do that against the composer's wish!
My own experience is both from playing and composing, even though I have only been doing the latter for quite some time now.


Can ESP and out-of-body phenomena be understood as a form of dreaming or hallucination? Currently reading about psychedelic experiences, and it is noted in Wikipedia that:

  Level 4 psychedelic experience

    Strong hallucinations, i.e. objects morphing into other objects. Destruction or multiple splittings of the ego. Things start talking to you or you find that you are feeling contradictory things simultaneously. Some loss of reality. Time becomes meaningless. Out-of-body experiences and ESP type phenomena. Blending of the senses. Can be achieved with strong doses of LSD, strong doses of psilocybin mushrooms, strong to heavy doses of peyote, and common to strong doses of ayahuasca.

Notice the italicized parts.
My hypothesis is: If someone has an out-of-body experience/ESP experience, then he/she is having strong imaginative visuals about being in a certain environment - particularly, the current environment because that someone has dissociated with reality to some extent

I don't know much about the biochemistry of anesthetic effects on the brain. However, I suppose that the anesthetics in a surgery environment, for example, can have dissociative effects once administered intravenously. From the reports I've read, during the surgery, the individual can describe the environment perfectly while he/she is "asleep" - or being operated on.

A person under the influence of psychedelics also dissociates from reality, similarly indeed; the senses blend and the ego disappears, much like in a sleep state. Unlike sleep, anesthetics or psychedelics don't easily bring the person back to reality due to the person being under the influence.

My inference is that these individuals can "wake up" during surgery, for example, in the sense (or lack thereof) that they aren't able to feel pain or some external stimuli. They also can't open their eyes. I suppose that it may have something to do with their brain waves on why they are able to possess the ESP quality, or why they are having an out-of-body experience (which, I hypothesize, entails the person being awake but perceiving nothing).

My conclusion is then that the person is awake, is not perceiving anything, AND (most importantly) is using the brain to visualize the environment - much like we imagine things when we daydream. Perhaps the person is even dreaming!

So as a corollary I propose the person is dreaming in certain cases where ESP is reported, but under the influence of meditative states and/or drugs (of some kind).

Question

Is the out of body experience or ESP caused by a form of day dreaming, hallucination, or altered state of consciousness?

In some form yes if patient is mesmerized by visual heartbeats, acording to Sciencedaily. Also is connected to someones beliefs. But in my opinion could also be induced by drugs in mices.

So, out of body experience could be umbrella term for more than one phenomenon. Some of them could be caused by hypnotics, some not. I'm not sure if those experiments could negate afterlife, because all of them are conducted while subject is alive. It is not that kind of experimental design.

1) Jane Aspell and Lukas Heydrich. Turning body and self inside out: Visualized heartbeats alter bodily self-consciousness and tactile perception. Psychological Science, 2013

2) University of Manchester. "'Out-of-body' Experiences May Come From Within." ScienceDaily, 24 Aug. 2005. Web. 1 Sep. 2013.

3) Jason J. Braithwaite, Dana Samson, Ian Apperly, Emma Broglia, Johan Hulleman. Cognitive correlates of the spontaneous out-of-body experience (OBE) in the psychologically normal population: Evidence for an increased role of temporal-lobe instability, body-distortion processing, and impairments in own-body transformations. Cortex, 2011;**

4) Disturbances In Brain." ScienceDaily, 6 Mar. 2007. Web. 1 Sep. 2013.

5) http://www.pnas.org/content/110/35/14432


Theoretical grounding for Agile/Scrum methodologies in software development Agile and Scrum methodologies are well known and often studied and written about in software development. But these methodologies are about managing the activities and the workplace itself.

Are there psychologic or sociologic theories (like those studied in Industrial and organizational psychology) that could explain the effectiveness, or lack of it, of Agile / Scrum methodologies?

I am aware of experimental work on the topic, like that by Elizabeth Whitworth. However, I am not interested in empirical studies about the effectiveness of using Agile / Scrum. I am interested in theoretical justifications for why we would expect Agile/Scrum to be effective or ineffective based on what we know about social and io-psychology. Are there existing psychological or sociological theories that explain the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Agile/Scrum?

Related questions on SE:

How to integrate work done by an overachieving developer out of band
Does Scrum turn active developers into passive developers?
How can we make Agile enjoyable for developers that like to personally, independently own large chunks from start to finish

Theoretical integration is unknown to me, and i suspect that many I/Os have not yet heard of scrum and agile. These are relatively new even in their native industry(software).
If i had to write my comprehensive exam paper on it, I'd pitch you two models. First, an oldie but a goldie, the Job Characteristics model (Hackman and Oldham). This model has identified reliable job environment features that tend to drive engagement. You could map these features onto some of the features of an agile environment:

Skill variety (agile can offer that);

Task identity (if they let you see through your project, and the execs don't override creative control, this may be available in
agile)

Task significance (this is probably independent of agile; may or may not get this)

Autonomy (agile can really offer this for the development team; this is probably the number one reason agile may be effective because it
separates the development team from the command and control of
management that is typical of waterfall methodologies)

Feedback (i think this is one of the goals of agile is more quick and dirty feedback on your prototypes; anyway feedback motivates people)
The second pitch I would make is a social psychological/sociological theory referred to as social exchange theory (e.g., Blau). The core of this theory is that people develop certain quality relationships with others they exchange with. The way this exchange occurs and how frequently can affect relationship quality. There may be two really general types of relationships: economic and social. Economic exchanges are highly equal, visible, short-term and focused on the thing being exchanged (this characterizes a lot of employee-employer relationships). Social exchanges are less concerned with the urgency and equality of transactions, and are more concerned with longevity, empathy and belonging in the relationship (many organizations try to create this with culture; people want this because it can cause employees to give effort selflessly).

Agile may in some cases appeal to this social exchange type of relationship. A lot of effort, creativity, and risk is exchanged and tolerated among teammates without any immediate monetary reward or sometimes without much awareness from management. Due to the frequency of exchanges with team members in agile methodology, perhaps the relationship development process is accelerated. This would yield more committed and engaged team members, at least when they're working within those teams.
Oh, and the goal setting theorists will insist that it boils down to frequently setting challenging, specific and committed to goals.
Hope this helps.


Help to find the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) I'm looking for the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) as per ICD-11 proposals, but I can not find it. It was previously called the
ICD-11 Trauma Questionnaire (ICD-TQ). Can someone help me?

I would suggest going to the source which is Cloitre, et al. (2018)

The ITQ is a brief, simply worded measure of the core features of PTSD and CPTSD. It is consistent with the organizing principles of the ICD‐11 to maximize clinical utility and international applicability through a focus on a limited but central set of symptoms. The measure is freely available and can be found in the body of this paper.

References
Cloitre, M., Shevlin, M., Brewin, C. R., Bisson, J. I., Roberts, N. P., Maercker, A., ... & Hyland, P. (2018). The International Trauma Questionnaire: development of a self‐report measure of ICD‐11 PTSD and complex PTSD. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. (In Press: September 2018) doi: 10.1111/acps.12956


Is there an easy way to tell whether I woke up during REM or non-REM sleep? I wake up during the night. Is there an easy way to tell whether I've woken up during REM or non-REM sleep?

One way could be to look up the time, calculate how long I've slept and then take into account that, "An adult reaches REM approximately every 90 minutes"...

Are there other ways?

I tagged dreams here too because I think that's a prominent characteristic of REM sleep that might help you judge this. If I'm wrong, please remove the tag...but I don't think people remember dreams as often when they wake during non-REM sleep. That might be one cue, though I'm not certain of this.

Another idea off the top of my head would be recording yourself. Since REM = "rapid eye movement", you could probably tell whether you were in that stage before awakening if you trained a digital video recorder on your face (e.g., over your head, attached to a bedpost or headboard, aimed down at your face), and happen to sleep facing up sometimes. Rapid eye movements are noticeable through eyelids (kinda looks like a cat moving around underneath bedsheets—the raised hemispherical shape shifts around a lot), so given a decently high-resolution video recording of yourself, you could probably check this upon waking, or whenever afterward. If you don't see much eye movement, you might guess that you're not in REM sleep, though I'm not 100% sure you could make this judgment without error by yourself.

A relatively foolproof third option would be to sign up for a sleep study! I believe they routinely monitor brain waves that are more definitional, physiological markers of sleep stages. That might cost you, though.


Does classical music enhance intelligence in children more than other genres? This question is based on a previous question I have written on Parenting SE: Does playing classical music for infants and young children make them smarter?

Question:

  Are these claims actually saying classical music is more intelligence enhancing than other forms of music? If so, is that true?

As a composer, I would find this interesting because I think certainly there are many different kinds of music and it seems very surprising to single out one genre as requiring more intelligence.

For instance, suppose you say Mozart is more sophisticated then the Boss (Bruce Springsteen) and therefore more intelligence promoting.  By that logic then, Schoenberg's music should be better for children than Mozart since Schoenberg is certainly more complex than Mozart (e.g. chromatic vs diatonic scales; polymeter vs single meter). But I would never play Schoenberg for my child instead of Mozart because I find Schoenberg unnatural to listen to because it is so weird and complex. The point is I think simply saying classical music is more sophisticated or superior isn't a very meaningful distinction and greater clarification should be given about why classical music in particular enhances learning (if in fact that has any basis).

Another way of saying this is, why doesn't music in general enhance it then?  Why classical music in particular?

A great overview of this topic is available in Chapter 6 of the book The Invisible Gorilla by Chabris & Simons. My answer is based, in large part, on their summary of the topic.

The "Mozart Effect" was originally reported by Rauscher, Shaw, & Ky (1993). In the experiment, college students completed a set of typical IQ tests. Before taking the tests, the participants were randomly assigned to either (1) listen to 10 minutes of Mozart, (2) listen to 10 minutes of relaxation instructions, or (3) sit in silence for 10 minutes. They reported that participants who listened to Mozart scored an average of 8-9 IQ points higher on the tests than the other groups.

The effect turns out to be difficult to replicate. This is nicely summarized in the introduction of Steele, Bass, & Crook (1999), who also conducted a replication of the original design and found no evidence of a Mozart effect.

Your question is specifically about classical versus other kinds of music, and this is indeed a topic that has been researched as a follow-up to the Mozart Effect. One theory that arose to explain the Mozart Effect (even though the effect itself may not be all that reliable!) is that it has nothing to do with classical music in particular. Rather, the effect is simply about arousal and mood. Listening to music may not increase your intelligence, but it might make you more alert and engaged than sitting in silence or listening to a relaxation script. Schellenberg & Hallam (2006) reported a study in which participants (8,000 British school children!) listened to either (1) a Mozart string quintet, (2) three pop songs, or (3) a discussion about a science experiment. The children who listened to the pop songs performed significantly better than the others, and there was no benefit of Mozart over the science discussion. Nantais & Schellenberg (1999) demonstrated that there was no overall difference between listening to Mozart or an excerpt from a Stephen King story, but participants did tend to do better if they got to listen to the thing they preferred! One explanation, then, is that listening to something you like before taking an IQ test increases your performance (or, conversely, listening to something you don't like decreases performance).


What is the difference between spike-triggered averaging and reverse correlation? I'm interested in the difference between spike-triggered averaging and reverse correlation.

In some papers (i.e., Schwartz, Odelia, et al) I see the term 'Spike Triggered Averaging'.
In others, (ie Ringach et al 2004) I see the term 'Reverse Correlation'.
According to wikipedia, they are the same:

  Spike-triggered averaging is also commonly referred to as “reverse
  correlation″ or “white-noise analysis”

I was wondering though: Is there a subtle difference between  spike-triggered averaging and reverse correlation?

References

Schwartz, Odelia, et al (2006). "Spike-triggered neural characterization." Journal of Vision 6.4
Ringach, Dario, and Robert Shapley. "Reverse correlation in neurophysiology." Cognitive Science 28.2 (2004): 147-166

There's the naïve version of spike triggered averaging, and the sophisticated version. Both of them are consistent estimators for a linear-nonlinear system under certain conditions (Paninski, 2003).
If your stimulus is $x_i$ and your spike count in a small bin is $y_i$, naïve version is
$$\mathrm{STA} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_i x_i y_i$$
The sophisticated version is equivalent to linear regression where a (pseudo-)inverse of the stimulus covariance is premultiplied to the naïve version. The naïve version converges slower in general.

In short, both of them are trying to estimate the same thing and will converge to the same thing, and sometimes called the same thing. However, it could refer to different things too, so read the methods section of papers before figuring out which one is which.

Paninski, L. (2003). Convergence properties of three spike-triggered analysis techniques. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 14, 437–464.
Dayan, P. and Abbott, L. F. (2001). Theoretical neuroscience: Computational and mathematical modeling of neural systems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. http://amzn.to/1nGUdII


Is a person with a psychopathic disorder aware of it? A (former) friend of mine shows lots of symptoms of a psychopathic disorder.

Years later after we both met the last time, I'm still not sure whether he is/was aware of this disorder or not.

So my question:

Is a person with potentially psychopathic behaviour aware of why he behaves like he does or not?

Plus: If he is aware, do such persons usually suffer from that knowledge/disorder or like it?

Sometimes they are aware.

For example a manic-depressive is mostly aware of having a psychological problem during his depressive phases, but will usually perceive himself well while manic. Schizophrenics often understand that they have delusions, but many of them can only understand this while they are in a non-delusional phase.

Sadists are often aware of being deviant, but usually enjoy what they do. Manics don't suffer either, but feel grandiose.

Edit

Oops, I read "psychiatric disorder" instead of psychopathy. So obviously most of what I wrote is beside the point here. Read what I wrote about sadists and ignore the rest. Sorry.

Source: Working in a psychiatric ward.


Name this partner selection experiment where participants can see the value of others but not themselves and seek to pair with high value others? A group of students is given playing cards to put on their head. They do not know the value of their card but can see the value of others.

The goal of each student is to partner with the highest value card they can find.

Experiment results indicated that students were able to infer their value from the number of approaches they received, and tended to partner with  values similar to their own.

This study was cited in a popular science book published a few years ago - can anyone remember the book title or name the experiment?
Many thanks.

I did not find a textbook that mentioned this activity, but I found several articles that describe this Pairing Game. Ellis & Kelly (1999) describe two variations on the game and its use in the classroom. Lewis & Gurung (2003) describe expanding the original game in order to teach additional relationship and social psychology theories. Elias & Pratkanis (2006) review a range of in-class psychology exercises, including the Lewis and Gurung paper. Eastwick & Buck (2014) describe making the game more complicated (but also more realistic) by incorporating a social relations model.

Eastwick, P. W., & Buck, A. A. (2014). Too Much Matching A Social
Relations Model Enhancement of the Pairing Game. Teaching of
Psychology, 41(3), 246-250.
Elias, S. M., & Pratkanis, A. R. (2006). Teaching social influence:
Demonstrations and exercises from the discipline of social
psychology. Social Influence, 1(2), 147-162.
Ellis, B. J., & Kelley, H. H. (1999). The pairing game: A classroom
demonstration of the matching phenomenon. Teaching of Psychology,
26(2), 118-121.
Lewis, B. P., & Gurung, R. A. (2003). Mixing, matching, and mating:
Demonstrating the effect of contrast on relationship satisfaction.
Teaching of Psychology, 30(4), 303-306.


How strong is the need to belong? Are there any studies that measure the need to belong?

Does this need vary greatly from person to person or is there a tight deviation?

What would explain why some have very little need to belong vs. those with a very strong need.

Also, to what extent will an individual forgo other needs to fulfill this need?

In partial answer to your question, yes, there have been several studies involved in this particular field.

Some findings include:

According to the article "The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation" (Baumeister and Leary, 1995), concluded that

  that human beings are
  fundamentally and pervasively motivated by a need to belong,
  that is, by a strong desire to form and maintain enduring interpersonal
  attachments. People seek frequent, affectively positive
  interactions within the context of long-term, caring relationships.

An important finding in that paper is that their research found that humans more readily make social bonds and resist dissolving them.  Essentially, we tend to 'stick around' rather than walk away.  Specifically (from the article:

  Not only do relationships emerge quite naturally,
  but people invest a great deal of time and effort in fostering
  supportive relationships with others. External threat seems
  to increase the tendency to form strong bonds.

Further, according to "Psychological need-satisfaction and subjective
well-being within social groups" (Sheldon and Bettencourt, 2000), concluded with a key point related to your final question (bolding mine):

  that formal group membership may come
  with some trade-offs: one gains a more distinctive group identity, but may sacrifice
  some personal freedom. Conversely, it seems that members of informal groups are able
  to feel greater autonomy and individual uniqueness within such groups, but they may
  not derive as much pride or sense of identity from comparing their group to other
  groups (Brewer &Pickett, 1999).

I hope this helps a bit.


What is the cognitive mechanism that creates strong feelings, from environmental organization and appearance? After doing a home remodel, I leaned that within the interior design community, most professionals refer to their work by the "vibe", "energy" and "feeling" their design of a room (or house) creates, within the individual occupying the property.

A simple example, a wood log cabin designed home creates a very different "feel/vibe" than a sleek modern home.

Cognitively speaking, what exactly is this "vibe" and "energy" that is referred to and what is happening within an individual that causes it?

Also, are some people more sensitive to the "vibe" the environment gives off and why?

Any help is appreciated.

I wouldn't take these terms too literally. I'm no interior designer, so I can't really rule out special meanings within the trade, but my impression of common usage is that these are informal, rough synonyms for the emotions evoked by the aesthetic characteristics of an environment. Urban Dictionary may be an unlikely source for an authoritative definition of vibe, but I'm inclined to endorse this particular definition anyway:

(Noun)A distinctive emotional atmosphere; sensed intuitively.
"It gave me a nostalgic vibe".
"That man gives off bad vibes"

From this, it's apparent that emotions and intuition play a role in "vibe" perception. Emotion is fairly basic in phenomenology, so it seems sufficient to say that stimuli that provoke emotion can thus be said to possess or influence "vibes". The additional specification of intuition implies to me that the experience is somewhat beyond the person's complete, rational comprehension. Maybe some subjective sense of confusion, uncertainty, or non-rational (though not necessarily irrational) processing is also inherent in the experience of a "vibe". As a snide aside, there's at least some confusion implicit in the misapplication of vibration and (electromagnetic? thermal? paranormal?) "energy" as metaphors for aesthetic qualia. This is probably the philosophical equivalent of what they mean to say, and much more carefully defined.
IMHO, your second question is much more interesting. Indeed some people may be more sensitive to "vibes" or qualia. A lesser-known personality trait I've always found really fascinating is absorption. It subsumes several interesting tendencies involving attention responsiveness and regulation, including:

Intensity of experiences, both real and imagined
Capacity for the flow experience of deep task engagement and loss of self-awareness
Susceptibility to hypnotism, daydreaming, nightmares, and psychopharmacological effects

Absorption relates strongly to openness, which is much better known as a personality trait. Supposedly composed of six facets (these are somewhat more a matter of debate), openness relates to absorption primarily through the fantasy, feelings, and aesthetics facets (Glisky, Tataryn, Tobias, Kihlstrom, & McConkey, 1991). Again, I can't say for sure, but I'd bet that these feelings and aesthetics facets would be particularly relevant to individual differences in the sort of sensitivity you have in mind.
Reference
Glisky, M. L., Tataryn, D. J., Tobias, B. A., Kihlstrom, J. F., & McConkey, K. M. (1991). Absorption, openness to experience, and hypnotizability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 263–272.


Comprehensive encyclopedia of nootropics for medical researchers and practitioners Is there a clinically-researched and tested encyclopedia (or similar resource) covering all available nootropics currently known?

The Wikipedia article was a helpful first stop; but I'm searching for something more comprehensive and specifically for medical professionals.

The closest I could find was the Encyclopedia of Mind Enhancing Foods, Drugs and Nutritional Substances, by David Group.

Edit (09/14) -- Two years after writing this answer, I need to alter it slightly.  Examine.com is a website dedicated to aggregating information on nootropics and other supplements/chemicals.  It is often incomplete, but having a singular hub for academic/industrial research is nearly indispensable.   I don't know if it satisfies what you're looking for, OP, but if you haven't, take a look at it.

I am not a "medical professional", but honestly I strongly doubt something like this exists.

"clinically-researched and tested" would require huge amounts of money and time in a coordinated fashion.  This isn't something often performed for 'nutritional supplements'.  Ever seen the warning on vitamin bottles, something along the lines of "These statements have not been verified by the FDA"?

That's only for the supplements.

For newer pharmaceuticals, the process is HUGELY complicated.  Multiple animal trials, regulatory approval, multiple courses of human trials, more regulatory approval, and even more hoops to jump through before it can be sold by pharmacies (this process is easier in Countries will more lax regulation - hence why, for example, Modafinil is obtainable in a number of countries outside the US; well, that and lax patent laws).

Moreover, nootropic supplements are more touchy/personalized than most drugs.  For example, we don't exactly know how SSRI drugs work, yet we prescribe them by the millions (if not billions).  We know even less how some nootropics work.

And finally, we have not reached a point of diagnostic science to be able to say, "You could use a course of DrugA and DrugB, but stay away from DrugC and Foods fA, fB, and fC".

Until we're closer to that point, it's all a guessing game.

(one last thing - from my understanding, a lot of doctors have no idea of the deeper details of the drugs they prescribe; they're given all the 'info they need to know' by the pharma reps - another reason why a comprehensive compendium doesn't exist)


Are there neural loops within a column or an area of the cortex? Neuronal networks can make loops because a neuron has a direction (from dendrite to axon).

What's the smallest area in the cortex where we can find a loop and what are these loops?

I understand there are loops between different cortical areas through the white matter.

Experiments, like this one, show there are interactions between cortical layers. But it doesn't necessary mean there are loops.

Other experiments, like this one,   looking at signals propagation in pieces of cortex with a  cut showed the propagation could  somehow circumvent the cut and keep propagating. Again it shows the existence of some local circuits but not necessarily loops.

Do we have a proof of local loops in the cortex?
How large a piece of cortex has to be to contain a loop?
What are these loops?

I've read evidence for single-neuron, two-neuron, and larger loops/cycles throughout the cortex, including intralaminar, interlaminar, and interareal neural loops. But it would take me far too long to back that statement up.

Instead, I offer a list of papers to get you started. I've read all these papers, and they all provide evidence for neural loops in the cortex, especially two-neuron loops. Within these papers, search for "loop", "reciprocal", and, if you're interested in single-neuron loops, "autapse".

References

  Alonso, J.-M. (2002) Neural Connections and Receptive Field Properties in the Primary Visual Cortex. The Neuroscientist. 8(5):443-456
  Feldmeyer, D. (2012) Excitatory Neuronal Connectivity in the Barrel Cortex. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy. 6(24):1-22
  Rockland, K.S. and Knutson, T. (2000) Feedback Connections from Area MT of the Squirrel Monkey to Areas V1 and V2. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 425:345-368
  Thomson, A.M., West, D.C., Wang, Y., and Bannnister, A.P. (2002) Synaptic Connections and Small Circuits Involving Excitatory and Inhibitory Neurons in Layers 2-5 of Adult Rat and Cat Neocortex: Triple Intracellular Recordings and Biocytin Labelling In Vitro. Cerebral Cortex. 12:936-953


Converting human's memory into digital data I am wondering whether converting someone's memory into digital data is possible or not. It may sound ridiculous. However, if chance is not 0 then what kind of studies might be used? What kind of theories and facts can be used to make convert someone's memory into digital data?

I just watched these two videos and now I am even more excited thinking about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqKTdIZIBfU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te6VFZeaADY&index=2&list=PLzCrlK3-4PXyOs4nuDpYSTScUYFJt3L4l
(Second video starts at 7:56)

Thank you very much

I am wondering whether converting someone's memory into digital data is possible or not.

Not today, but it is an active area of research.

One non-profit foundation, headed by computational neuroscientist Dr. Randal A. Koene (see also his personal website), that is working in this field is Carbon Copies.

Dr. Koene, in collaboration dozens of others and the Center for Neurogenomics and Cognitive Research (CNCR) (2nd link) has developed simulation software called Netmorph:

  "NETMORPH is a simulation environment for the developmental generation of 3D large-scale neuronal networks with realistic neuron morphologies. In NETMORPH, neuronal morphogenesis is simulated from the perspective of the individual growth cone. For each growth cone in a growing axonal or dendritic tree, its actions of elongation, branching and turning are described in a stochastic, phenomenological manner. In this way, neurons with realistic axonal and dendritic morphologies, including neurite curvature, can be generated. Synapses are formed as neurons grow out and axonal and dendritic branches come in close proximity of each other.".

Also, Wikipedia has a webpage on Mind Uploading and Extracellular Recording.

The ability to make direct electrophysiological recordings from populations of neurons requires multiple parallel recording channels and high sampling rates (>10KHz) in order to properly characterize action potentials.

Electrodes can be placed on the scalp to record electroencephalograms (EEGs), but that is only the summation of the synchronous activity of thousands or millions of neurons that have similar spatial orientation. There are 64 channel neural probes available to record the action potentials (APs) of individual neurons, but the human brain has around a hundred billion of them:

  "The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 10$^{11}$ (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10$^{15}$ synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 10$^{14}$ to 5 x 10$^{14}$ synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [Source: "Do we have brain to spare?" (Jun 27 2005), by David A. Drachman].

  It may sound ridiculous. However, if chance is not 0 then what kind of studies might be used?

Less than "ridiculous", less than possible too. You would need to install a trillion probes or find a means to externally measure with sufficient resolution, and make low error and low noise measurements. Still it's possible to measure very tiny portions of the human brain, or much smaller brains.

Perhaps neurophotonics can be combined with magnetoencephalography (MEG) to derive a means to obtain high resolution measurements simultaneously over a much larger area.

  What kind of theories and facts can be used to make convert someone's memory into digital data?

You can make digital and analog recording of a small section of the brain today, playing it back into another brain or interpreting the information is another matter entirely.

Even identical twins do not have identical genetics (due to copy error or copy number variation (CNV)) or identical brains, see Psychology Today's article: "Identical Twins Are Not Genetically Identical. In addition to recording the information you would need to remap from where it was read to where it was written, much like creating an .ISO file from a CD and burning it to a new disk; a procedure some people find challenging.

National Geographic's YouTube channel has a video titled: "National Geographic Live! - Mapping the Brain | Nat Geo Live" which provides a more in-depth yet accessable explanation, as does the TEDx Talk's channel video titled: "Human brain mapping and brain decoding. | Jack Gallant | TEDxSanFrancisco".

More advanced than the EEG and the functional magnetic resonance imaging or functional MRI (fMRI), which measures brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow, is the magnetoencephalography (MEG) functional neuroimaging technique. Even state of the art equipment has limited resolution.

See the Scientific America article about Nature's publication: "A Massive Global Effort Maps How the Brain Is Wired" (Oct 2 2015) which discusses the Human Connectome Project where by the end of the project they will have amassed a petabyte's (10$^{15}$) worth of pictures.

  "HCP collaborators worked with Siemens Healthcare in Erlangen, Germany, to soup up a standard MRI scanner. It generates a 3-tesla magnetic field—comparable to that in standard machines—but can control the field more precisely. MRI scanners use gradients of magnetic fields to aim at parts of the brain, and the stronger gradient of the HCP machine offers faster imaging and better resolution. That creates more-detailed images of axon bundles. A version of their machine is now available commercially, known as the MAGNETOM Prisma (an MRI).".

$$\text{CFT CMEG 275}$$


Resources for adults supporting a partner with childhood sexual trauma This may be not the appropriate community, but I am looking for resources - books or articles - about how to improve the affective support towards an adult who suffered childhood sexual abuse.
I am starting a relationship with a person in her 30s who suffered constant sexual and physchological abuse as a child. She did not realize it until a few years ago, and she is going to therapy now. I am not trying to replace the professional help in any way, I just want to understand how to better support her when she talks about the things she had experienced, or when she feels guilty or unloved. I am doing my best to make her feel safe and loved, but sometimes I just don't know what to say.
I did some research, but found only books or articles for professional treatment, or guides on how to detect it. I understand the vastly difference between individual cases, but this is something so unrelated to my experience that any guidance will be very helpful.
Note: I am an academic researcher - on a completely different field -, so I might be able to cope with some technical terms or dense books.

Rape and sexual assault definitely does not only affect the assaulted, but also the friends and family as they can feel helpless, not knowing what is best to do to help and support the assaulted.
As I mentioned in the comments, support groups such as

RAINN (US)
Call 800 656 4673 or 800 656 HOPE
https://www.rainn.org and
Survivors Trust (UK)
Call 0808 801 0331
https://www.thesurvivorstrust.org
See also: https://www.thesurvivorstrust.org/national-helplines for other national helplines

provide support to survivor's partners, friends and family too.
The following books are recommended by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

Allies in healing: when the person you love was sexually abused as a child, by Laura DavisISBN: 978-0060552992Laura Davis is also the author of the well known book for survivors called The Courage to Heal Workbook which is a companion to the main book The Courage to Heal she co-authored with Ellen Bass
Allies in Healing is available through Amazon as a Kindle book for a much cheaper price than a printed copy if that suits you.

Ghosts in the bedroom: A guide for partners of incest survivors, by Ken GraberISBN: 978-1558741164
Ken Graber draws from personal experience to show how partners can accept responsibility for their own issues, support the recovery of the incest or sexual abuse survivor, and work toward solving relationship problems together.


Definitions of consciousness It seems to me that many people know for themselves some extraordinary things about consciousness but rare are the people that can provide a definition of it. I have never met two people providing the same definition of consciousness (I never talked with specialist of the field though but only to general and evolutionary biologists).

Is there any, globally accepting definition of consciousness in cognitive science? What is it? If not, can you please provide a little review of the definitions that are most often used in scientific research. Critics for each definitions are welcome.

Consciousness is what makes us what we are; however it is very difficult to examine our internal workings and form an external definition for something everyone uses everyday. This is mainly because the mechanisms of consciousness are still a mystery.
Here are two well accepted definitions.

Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is. As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."
Philosophers since the time of Descartes and Locke have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness and pin down its essential properties. Issues of concern in the philosophy of consciousness include whether the concept is fundamentally valid; whether consciousness can ever be explained mechanistically; whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how it can be recognized; how consciousness relates to language; whether consciousness can be understood in a way that does not require a dualistic distinction between mental and physical states or properties; and whether it may ever be possible for computing machines like computers or robots to be conscious.

-wikipedia

In 1994 David Chalmers published a paper explaining why consciousness is such a challenging phenomenon to understand. Although he wasn’t the first to discuss these challenges, he was the first to categorize them into two types of problems: “easy” problems and the “hard” problem. Easy problems involve the explanation of how the mind integrates information, focuses attention and allows us to report on mental states. Though not a piece of cake, such problems are easy because solving them only requires that we determine the mechanisms that explain these behaviors. Easy problems are physical by nature, falling within the empirical domains of psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience. Given the current trend in science of the mind, we’re confident that one day we will solve these problems.
The hard problem, by contrast, may never be solved. Specifically, the hard problem is determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter. What makes it hard is that we cannot just point to some physical mechanism to solve it, for that would be the solution to the easy problem. Instead, our goal is to explain why certain physical mechanism gives rise to consciousness instead of something else or nothing at all. Consider an analogy from physics: knowing every equation predicting how mass and gravity interact does not tell us why they interact in the way they do. To understand why mass and gravity interact, we must appeal to highly esoteric explanations involving relativity, quantum mechanics or string theory.

-What is Consciousness?


How valid is Lumosity's Brain Performance Index and what normative information is available? Background

There is a test called Lumosity's Brain Performance Index.
A sample profile of scores might be:

Speed           680
Memory          707
Attention       277
Flexibility     304
Problem Solving 900
Overall BPI     573

I'm interested in how to interpret a profile of scores.

Questions

What validity information is available for the BPI?
What normative information is available for BPI? In other words, how could the sample profile of scores be interpreted both absolutely and relative to other groups of people?

General thoughts on brain training:
Lumosity is a commercial tool that aims to improve brain functioning. In general, I am sceptical of the potential for "brain training programs" to improve cognitive functioning in a generalised way (e.g., see this Nature discussion). Practice is powerful, but tends to be domain specific. So if you want to become skilled in brain training tasks, then do brain training exercises, but if you want to become skilled in a particular domain of life, then study and get experience in that domain. While I can see the value in researching the topic, I can also see the potential for sellers of "brain training" programs to exploit people's concerns about their mental shortcomings or about fears of mental deterioration with ageing.

Normative data: From what I can gather from this review, Lumosity has lots of normative data based on existing users which you can use to compare your performance. However, I imagine this is proprietary information that they would be reluctant to publish in a useful form.

There was an unpublished report I found by Cruz et al based on a small sample of young adults. The following summarises Table 2:

Number of days        4.75 ± 3.18
Number of sessions    10.79 ± 9.31
Median (IQ R )        9.00 (2.25‐17.75)
Minimum‐Maximum       0 ‐ 34
Overall BPI           676.93 ± 323.94
Lumosity points     173.43 ± 158.89

Validity of the BPI:
The website writes:

  Your Overall BPI is your average BPI across each of the four cognitive
  areas: attention, memory, processing speed and cognitive control.

It also states

  "We then evaluate your game scores and use a proprietary algorithm to
  derive your BPI"

Performance on almost all cognitive tasks are intercorrelated to some extent, and if you take the average, or preferably the first principal component, of a battery of cognitive tasks, it will tend to have a general factor, which will have some loading on g. Of course, if the tests are of a particular type, this might lead to different outcomes.

I could not find any validity data on the website whereby BPI scores are correlated with other measures. Thus, it is unclear what relationship BPI has with other ability measures, or IQ for example.

In general, practice effects on cognitive tests are seen as a source of error variance. What a test measures after people have taken the test many times may be very different. In particular, the degree to which the test correlates with a domain general quality of interest may be reduced. Instead, the test may start to reflect a domain specific adaptation. Also, if people differ in the amount of practice, this would compound the measure of a domain general ability.

Overall thoughts:
In general, the target market for Lumosity's product seems to be consumers. In contrast, tests like the WAIS or the CANTAB have a target market which is researching and applied psychologists. In the consumer market, it is typical for companies to use "proprietary algorithms" and for there not to be a test manual with extensive validity data. While this might make commercial sense, it limits the scientific value of such instruments.

References

Cruz, A., Canelas, A., Machado, F., Pedreira, J., Barroso, J., Beir\~ao, L., Freitas, L., Belo, L., Seabra, M., Portero, M. & others (). Brain Fitness--Clinical Trial to Measure the Effect of Cognitive Training in Brain’s Capabilities. PDF


"Memory and the Computational Brain" by Gallistel & King I am looking for opinions on this book particularly whether it is a suitable intro to the field of cognitive neuroscience. What I would not like is a book that is really a collage of introductory articles that bear little relation to one another. Several of the introductory books on Amazon are that way. That is no way to learn a subject, imo (but I digress).

Gallistel and King begin with Shannon's information theory, but do not imo go very far into the physiology of neurons nor do they discuss how the codes derived from brain activity are connected to human or animal behavior. What I am looking for is more comprehensive and thus a longer book. Is there such an introductory book?

If you are interested in information theory and neuronal physiology, you shouldn't be looking for an intro to cognitive neuroscience, but rather cellular neuroscience.  Most applications of information theory in modern neuroscience are related to neural coding.  The classic (and recently updated) text is Kandel's "Principles of Neural Science".  Byrne and Roberts' "From Molecules to Networks" has a more quantitative approach, but is not as comprehensive.


What is it about our brain that breaks when we hear ourselves with a delay? If you've ever heard an echo of yourself on phone or video chat, you've probably noticed the phenomenon that you completely forget what you were talking about when you hear yourself talking.

Have there been any studies that explain why this happens?

I think there was an XKCD comic about it but I can't find it right now.

This phenomenon is called delayed auditory feedback. Why is still an open question, but two theories are:

Servomotor hypothesis: delayed auditory feedback creates an error signal, which the motor systems uses to attempt to correct the motor output.
Distruptive rhythm hypothesis: Speech is too fast for error correcting feedback (i.e. speech is feedforward), delayed auditory feedback disrupts the rhythm of motor output.


How are people able to wake themselves up after a pre-specified amount of time? Auto-suggestion seems to work. Several people I know seem to be able to tell themselves "I'll wake up after 'N' hours/minutes", and do so within a minute or two of that duration.

I thought for a moment that it might be that the duration defined is typical to the person, but even defining a weird figure (e.g., 23 minutes), it appears to work just as well as that person's regular duration of 15 minutes.

Personally it works for me sometimes (usually when I'm under pressure), other times it does not.

How does the brain/body know to power-up after N minutes?

There is quite a lot of research on self-awakening (see this search on Google Scholar for self awakening). Hopefully someone else more familiar with this literature can add a more authoritative answer about the mechanisms of self-awakening. In the interem I briefly extract some relevant points from  Ikeda and Hashi (2012). The study does not directly address biological mechanisms. However, understanding the reliability of self-awakening and the correlates of the ability to self-awaken is presumably relevant to forming such an understanding.

First they summarise some existing research:

  Both the accuracy and success rate of self-awakening have been
  experimentally examined. More than half of the people who have the
  ability to self-awaken suc- cessfully awakened within 30 minutes of
  the predetermined time. For example, seven participants succeeded on
  nine of 14 days (64%) in a sleep laboratory, and 15 participants
  succeeded on 35 of 44 nights (80%) at their homes. Survey studies
  indicate that many people habitually self-awaken in daily life; for
  example, 52% of 269 adults (aged 21−84 years) and 10.3% of 643
  university students6 reported habitu- ally self-awakening. People who
  have a habit of self-awakening in the morning have regular sleep/wake
  schedules, tended to have a morningness chronotypology, awakened
  comfortably in the morning, and had less daytime dozing.

In their own study they found:

  The present study investigated self-awakening, both habitual and
  inconsistent, compared to awakening by external means in relation to
  sleep/wake schedules for five consecutive years in 362 students
  (starting at mean age 15.1 ± 0.3 years). Students who self-awakened
  consistently for five consecutive years (5% of all students) went to
  bed earlier than those who inconsistently self-awakened (mixed group,
  40%) or consistently used forced awakening by external means (56%).
  Awakening during sleep was more frequent and sleep was lighter in the
  consistently self-awakened group than in the mixed and consistently
  forced-awakened groups. However, daytime dozing was less frequent and
  comfort immediately after awakening was greater for the consistently
  self-awakened group than for the mixed and consistently
  forced-awakened groups.

Reference

Ikeda, H., & Hayashi, M. (2012). Longitudinal study of self-awakening and sleep/wake habits in adolescents. Nature, 4, 103-109. PDF
Bell CR. Awakening from sleep at a pre-set time. Percept Mot Skills. 1980;50(2):503–508.
Lavie P, Oksenberg A, Zomer J. “It’s time, you must wake up now.” Percept Mot Skills. 1979;49(2):447–450.
MoorcroftWH,KayserKH,GriggsAJ.Subjectiveandobjectiveconfir- mation of the ability to self-awaken at a self-predetermined time without using external means. Sleep. 1997;20(1):40–45.
ZepelinH.REMsleepandthetimingofself-awakenings.BullPsychon Soc. 1986;24(4):254–256.
Zung WW, Wilson WP. Time estimation during sleep. Biol Psychiatry. 1971;3(2):159–164.
Matsuura N, Hayashi M, Hori T. Comparison of sleep/wake habits of university students with or without a habit of self-awakening. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2002;56(3):223–224.


Does the concept of employee engagement add anything over and above traditional concepts? The concept of "employee engagement" is popular in organisational consulting
settings. A quick Google for "engagement survey" will yield many results.
However, in some respects the concept often seems defined in terms of some combination of satisfaction, commitment, and motivation.

Does the concept of employee engagement add anything new over and above satisfaction, commitment, and motivation?
To the extent that it does overlap with previous constructs, does it still have value?

A few basic observations:

Typical self-report measures of engagement and job satisfaction tend to be highly correlated (I'll try to find a reference later, but I think in the r =.7 range).
As with many organisational psychology terms that bridge the scientific-practitioner divide, engagement has been operationalised in a wide range of ways.
Volume 1, Issue 1 of Industrial and Organizational Psychology has a focal article and a large set of accompanying commentaries on the meaning of engagement and its value as a concept. See this pdf of the focal article.


Is this Auditory Processing Delay? Would a person exhibiting some of these symptoms be a candidate for Auditory Processing Delay, or does it possibly suggest some other sort of diagnosis?

Some basic symptoms/examples:

A seeming inability to follow directions.  When zipping a suitcase the other day, subject was instructed to, "Open the top compartment and close the side."  Subject opened both up.  When asked, "Can you repeat what I just said to you?"  He paused, correctly repeated the instructions and understood his error.
An almost comic inability to remember song lyrics or tunes.  He is completely tone deaf and can't even recall simple children's songs, even after excessive amounts of repetition.
While carrying some boxes last week, subject was about to crash into some things.  Someone shouted, "Watch out!" and he kept walking, knocking over some things.  When questioned after, he said, "I didn't know what that meant!"  "Stop?" was suggested, "Do anything but continue doing what you're doing?"  "I guess," he replied, "I didn't think of that."
Frequent excuses of "I forgot" when given a list of instructions/tasks.

Research into auditory processing deficits is a minefield and there is no real consensus as to what is and is not a deficit in auditory processing. Further, and possibly more relevant for individuals with, or dealing with, a processing disorder, is how to treat/manage the disorder. Again, unfortunately, there is no real consensus on the issue. Ferguson (2009) presents a relatively non-technical overview of the issues.

--

Ferguson MA (2009) Diagnosing Auditory Processing Disorders. ENT News, January/February.


How many bits of data would it take to represent an entire life as a film? Imagine your life as a film. Add all the stuff you know.

Is it possible to express this amount of data in bits? (A rough order of magnitude would be ok.)

See also: Partitions and Savants:

This is a tough question, and there's a few routes to go. When we are watching this life played back, do we want to be able to go to any arbitrary moment and observe what was happening, or do we only want to watch life as we watch it? This would be the difference between recording all information that bombards our brain, or just the information that we are attending to.

We'll go with the first one, as this will be easier.

I'm going to ignore 'thoughts', and just look at information as it enters the body.

We need to know a couple things before we start.

What is the data rate of our eyes?
What is the data rate of our ears?

As these are our most dominant senses, if we want a few orders of magnitude for information, we will get it from these two.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine say that the data rate for the eye is about 10 million bits per second, or about 1.25 Mb/s.

Our eyes have about 120 million cells, and they sample at roughly 30 Hz. Determining the number of 'bits' is hard, as eyes have a nonlinear response, so the amount of information they are transmitting is dependent on what the cells are observing. I will trust their number.

As vision is our most powerful sense, and accounts for over 40% of the processing in our brain, we know that the majority of the information will be from the eyes. (EDIT: This is incorrect, see the data below.)

Now onto the ears - our ears can hear up to about 20 KHz, and to actually pick up these sounds we need to sample at twice that frequency, or 40 KHz.
That doesn't tell us how much information we actually get though.
This question on Yahoo! Answers goes a little bit deeper, specifying that ears cannot distinguish information that is represented in more than 16 bits.

This is kind of an interesting way to determine the sensitivity of our ears, as we don't have to wonder 'well, how well can I distinguish what I hear?', rather the question is 'We have these samples of audio, and people can't hear the difference between them, therefore our ears cannot transmit this much information'.

So we have eyes and ears, and we now need to do some math.

I'm going to assume all these rates are fixed, the actual information that is transmitted is nonlinear as the spike trains from our cells change depending on what they are sensing.

I wrote a little python program, available here.

  With the information from above in hand, we have the following:

  Eyes data rate is 2.4 MB per second.

  Ears data rate is 687.5 MB per second.

  over 60 years, our eyes will transmit 4.2 PB

  over 60 years, our ears will transmit 1.2 EB

  The total information we will receive will be upwards of...

  1.2 Exabytes

Now this sounds a little silly, do our ears really transmit more information than our eyes? Actually yes, because they are sampled so much more frequently.
The eyes sample at roughly 30 Hz, whereas the ears sample at 44 KHz.

This analysis ignores the number of cells, and is likely incorrect for a number of reasons. We ignore the other senses, as well as information being sent between brain regions (processing of information).

This question brings up an interesting point though, the raw information that we receive is meaningless, only through successive iterations of information abstraction (what neural networks do, they operate on regions of information, gaining a higher and higher level picture) can we begin to distinguish the world as it is. When we see something, we can immediately break the world apart into segments, we know what can move, we know where things are, we know when we put them there. This isn't information that we were given at our current place in time, it's rules that we have learned about what we see in the world through a lifetime.

Additional source of information:
How many colors and shades can the human eye distinguish in a single scene? This Photography.SE question goes into logic about how much information we can discern, more closely matching the analysis on the Ears, rather than the research data that we used.


Yerkes-Dodson Law and Drugs According to the Yerkes-Dodson Law, there is optimal point of arousal and performance. Suppose a person takes a stimulant such as Adderall. This would increase his arousal. However, it may increase his anxiety (e.g. side effects). Would combining a "downer" (such as alcohol) with an "upper" (such as Adderall) maximize productivity? This is assuming that at a baseline level, a person cannot maximize his productivity.

I think in this case, you should look at 2 graphs of optimal performance. So one inverted bell curve (Yerkes-Dodson Law)for the stimulant, and another for the 'downer'. So in this case, each has their own optimal productivity, and an interaction of the 2 isn't just a simple combination, because this would be a third graph altogether. So unless there is something you know of the exact interation effect of the particular stimulant, and particular depressant,I wouldn't risk mixing them for optimal productivity.


Why do one's surroundings still seem to rotate when you stop whirling around? When you spin your head around in circles, the world appears to continue to spin.

Why do one's surroundings still seem to rotate when you stop whirling around in a circle?
What is happening in the brain?

On each side of your head, in the middle ear, there is a system of canals in which displacement of a group of hair cells measure the movement along the 3 axes (the canals are tilted a bit back from 90°, so the coordinate system is not identical with that of the head).

So, when you move your head around and around as your body "whirls", the cupula of the horizontal canal (HC), which encases the hair cells, moves in the opposite direction and displaces the hair cells, causing the firing of action potentials. Once your head stops, the viscosity of the fluid in which the cupula is suspended prevents it from snapping right back to it's "default" position, so action potentials continue to be fired, and your nervous system (falsely) senses that your head is still moving.

 Courtesy of Scholarpedia Vestibular System


Does initial 0-3 years of age have any effects for a permanent bonding to happen between the parents and their children? My brother (age: 37) is least attached to our parents. At the time of his birth, our parents had left him with our grandmother. He saw our parents, for the first time, at the age of 3 years. He has lived with them after that till his high school.

I was wondering whether initial 0-3 years of age have any effects (positive/negative) for a permanent bonding to happen between the parents and their children?
Or it isn't about age at all?

Disclaimer:

~ Firstly I would like to say that there could be many factors as to why your brother is least attached to your parents, that may have nothing to do with the separation between 0-3 years. ~

For the purposes of keeping this succinct, I will discuss only the effects of bonding from 0-3 years of age.

Introduction:

This is an interesting question, as much research has been done on the effects of child abuse and neglect on attachment, in this case you are discussing a (I'm assuming) healthy child from within a loving family environment.

A number of factors would also affect the attachment of such as child, in terms of why he was separated from his parents for those years.

Overview of Development:

Firstly there is no denying that the first three years have significant affect on how brain development, including attachment styles.

I have added yellow boxes for highlighting.

Image courtesy of:
 Rethinking the brain: new insights into early development - book by  Rima Shore

Attachment 0-3 years:

Studies would suggest that the first three years are vital for forming attachments with caregivers. A child cannot form an attachment with someone they have not met.

  A central component of attachment theory is the notion that caregivers
  must be present and accessible in order for their children to become
  attached to them.  (1)

Separation:

It has been shown that any separation between mother and child within the first three years is detrimental to that relationship. This is assuming the mother and child already have a relationship.

  His early work demonstrated that separations as brief as one week in
  duration could negatively impact the quality of the relationship
  between mother and child (Bowlby, 1969/1982).  (1)

So the same theory would apply for other caregivers in the first three years of life, in this case the grand parents.

  According to attachment theory, a secure attachment is derived from
  the child’s appraisal of his/her mother’s (or other attachment
  figure’s) availability. (1)

At this age, a child is not able to reason and can only process experience emotionally, so any parental absence is beyond comprehension of the child. The more damaging aspect of this, however, is the removal of the child at the age of three years from his/her primary caregivers (in this case the grand parents). I do not know what the situation was after your brother was returned to his parents, so it would be conjecture to discuss this in any detail.

  As previously mentioned, the reason for the separation, where the
  child stayed, and who provided care are all potentially informative
  for helping to understand the effects of separation on parents and
  children. A maternal separation is quite likely not as distressing to
  an infant if he/she is left in the care of another attachment figure
  to whom he/she is securely attached (1)

In conclusion:

It would seem that a child's complete separation from his/her parents until three years of age, would have an impact on the degree of attachment within those relationships. The people in the childs life in the first three years of life, would have closer attachments.

An observations, it is even shown in cases where children are left in abusive homes fare better with attachment styles than children who are removed and placed into foster care. Given this, the disruption to early relationships between child and caregiver is significant and has long term outcomes; in this case, the long term effect of such absence would damage the attachment to his parents.

References:

(1) Early Mother-Child Separation, Parenting, and Child Well-Being in Early Head Start Families
Kimberly Howard, et al PDF
doi:10.1080/14616734.2010.488119
Reversing the Real Brain Drain
Early Years Study  PDF
Unicef, Early Childhood Development
The key to a full and productive life  PDF


What personality traits affect ability to cope with pain? It has been shown that pain impairs cognitive function,  in this question and the following studies on the effects of  headaches on cognition. Moor et al write

  It must therefore be emphasised that headache pain appears to impair
  general task performance, irrespective of task complexity, rather than
  specific attentional mechanisms. Headache pain has an effect on the
  core cognitive components necessary for the successful completion of
  tasks, and in particular those involving the updating of the cognitive
  system.

Eccleston et al have shown that the  degree to which pain disrupts  cognitive processes  is  related to facts regarding the pain and the individuals psycho-social activities.

  The interruptive function of pain depends on the relationship between
  pain-related characteristics (e.g., the threat value of pain) and the
  characteristics of the environmental demands (e.g., emotional
  arousal).

So, it seems that there is physiological and psychological factors that contribute to why pain interferes with cognition.

Are there personality traits that correlate with an individual's ability to cope with pain?

References

Headache impairs attentional performance.  Moore DJ, Keogh E, Eccleston C.  Centre for Pain Research, The University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.
Pain demands attention: A cognitive–affective model of the interruptive function of pain.  Eccleston, Chris; Crombez, Geert   Psychological Bulletin, Vol 125(3), May 1999, 356-366. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.356

Gathered from M. Pecina et al., “Personality Trait Predictors of Placebo Analgesia and Neurobiological Correlates,” Neuropsychopharmacology, doi: 10.1038/NPP.2012.227, 2012:

  A recent study has found that personality traits appear to influence
  how strongly a person responds to a placebo treatment for pain.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201301/personality-and-pain-relief

  Pain relief tended to be stronger in participants who rated themselves
  higher in the personality traits of ego resiliency and agreeableness
  and lower in neuroticism.
  [...]
  The facets that predicted placebo response most strongly were high altruism and straightforwardness (facets of agreeableness) and low angry hostility (a neuroticism facet that is also related to low agreeableness).

More thorough explanations are found in the link provided.
Further information on the same study:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33300/title/Personality-Predicts-Placebo-Effect/