Editor’s Selections: Touch, Mirror Neurons, Cat Cognition, and Smelly Lemurs

Editor's Selections 8 Comments
By Jason Goldman

Jason GoldmanJason Goldman selects several notable posts each week from Psychology and Neuroscience. He blogs at The Thoughtful Animal and at Child’s Play.

  • “Touch imagery has always been a useful storytelling tool,” says Livia Blackburne of her eponymous blog. “We talk about warm smiles, slippery personalities, getting caught between a rock and a hard place.” But does touch imagery serve a larger purpose, perhaps helping give structure to human thought?
  • “The idea that mirror neurons support action understanding is by far the dominant interpretation of the function of these cells in the monkey motor system. However, it is not the only interpretation,” according to Greg Hickock of Talking Brains. There are alternative explanations.
  • Anne Corwin of Existence is Wonderful describes a study about causality inferences made by cats, and runs an experiment on her own cats.
  • Hormonal Manipulation of Olfactory Cues, or How to Lose a Guy in 10 days. Body odors are important cues used for social and sexual discrimination. The Olfactics blog describes research with ring-tailed lemurs, which demonstrated that drugs can alter body scents and change behavior.

Was your post selected? Copy the text below and place it on your blog post to display a custom "Editor's Selection" icon!

Editor's Selection Icon<span style="float: left; padding: 5px;"><a href="http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=1627"><img alt="This post was chosen as an Editor's Selection for ResearchBlogging.org" src="http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb_editors-selection.png" style="border:0;"/></a></span>

8 Responses to “Editor’s Selections: Touch, Mirror Neurons, Cat Cognition, and Smelly Lemurs”

  1. Amos Tribe Says:
    January 26th, 2012 at 2:50 am

    They farm gold all day, a lot of times using bots to do it for them. It’s their job. They then sell it for money.

  2. boekhoudsoftware voor particulieren Says:
    September 14th, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    I was reading some of your content on this web site and I conceive this internet site is really informative ! Maintain on putting up.

  3. shoe rack room Says:
    May 16th, 2013 at 11:02 am

    I really feel other internet business owners need to think about this type of site as an example. Fantastically clean and user-friendly styling, and additionally remarkable subject material! You’re experienced here in this kind of topic area :)

  4. cheap oakley eyepatch review Says:
    May 20th, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    “/flash/” “Su nombre”

  5. Oakley Frogskin cheap Says:
    May 20th, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    /scripts/product/enproduct.php?idproducto=

  6. Dr. Lidia Davis Says:
    August 2nd, 2013 at 10:45 am

    We still ignore the renewable energy and are glad with the fossil fuels, it’s not only unsustainable, but is also spoiling the atmosphere slowly. We ought to support every initiative that tries to make sustainable energy generation.

  7. recipe for green banana salad Says:
    November 12th, 2014 at 8:34 pm

    How is this fat burning? It’s just low fat low carb

  8. dustred.xyz Says:
    April 8th, 2017 at 6:24 am

    This is the article which is the source of this debate It presents a false choice to the It makes it seem like we can all choose to consume grass fed beef instead of chicken This is We’re already producing and consuming close to as much grass fed beef as we can, if there’s room ethical for expansion it’s very small 60% of all ~~farmland~~ agricultural land is currently used for beef production, providing 2% of all our calories The places where we’re expanding we shouldn’t because it’s destroying rain forests in South America at an alarming Which means the supply of ethical grass fed beef is inelastic, if the demand increases it will at best mostly increase the Moving demand from chicken to grass fed is therefor Moving demand from chicken, or grain fed beef to plants on the other hand is extremely sustainable because the livestock is fed far more than their weight in This is the real choice we We can therefor make this utilitarian argument: if someone were already eating grain fed beef, it might still be better for the animals if they replaced it with It would reduce demand a tiny bit, making the price fall, making someone else more likely to buy it instead of grain fed the same amount of grass fed beef consumed, but less grain fed, and therefor less Only if we assume the only meat the world consumes is grass fed does the original article work, and even then there’s ethical problems associated with breeding animals with the intention of killing

Leave a Reply

Icons by N.Design Studio. Based on a theme by Ben Swift.
Entries RSS Comments RSS Log in