Proprioception: The Silent “Sixth” Sense(vox.com)
vox.com
Proprioception: The Silent “Sixth” Sense
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/11/22/20920762/proprioception-sixth-sense
15 comments
The way virtually anything is taught in primary and secondary school and much of higher education, may be pedogogically useful, but is almost always wrong in very major part.
Some of that is in the sense of Wittgenstein's Ladder -- a tool which suffices to gain a level of understanding but then must be discarded. Often also referred to as "lies told to children". Some is institutional and cultural resistance to new idears or release of the old. (This turns up in language, we speak of the sun rising and setting, of good and bad humours, of magnetic personalities, and of sky gods and goddesses, bearded or otherwise, despite varying degrees of disproof or lack of proof of their existence.)
So, yeah, you can pretty much drop most of your early education as being accurate.
That said, if you're interested in sensation and perception, there is an entire division of psychology devoted to that, and amongst the first myths demolished in my own textbook on the topic is the notion of five senses, and in particular that of a unitary sense of touch.
There's hope, if you look for it.
Some of that is in the sense of Wittgenstein's Ladder -- a tool which suffices to gain a level of understanding but then must be discarded. Often also referred to as "lies told to children". Some is institutional and cultural resistance to new idears or release of the old. (This turns up in language, we speak of the sun rising and setting, of good and bad humours, of magnetic personalities, and of sky gods and goddesses, bearded or otherwise, despite varying degrees of disproof or lack of proof of their existence.)
So, yeah, you can pretty much drop most of your early education as being accurate.
That said, if you're interested in sensation and perception, there is an entire division of psychology devoted to that, and amongst the first myths demolished in my own textbook on the topic is the notion of five senses, and in particular that of a unitary sense of touch.
There's hope, if you look for it.
In the UK at least there has been clear improvement in how mathematics is taught, you can tell from the outrage of parents who've been taught an older approach and think the newer methods are "wrong".
In particular children are being taught about basic arithmetic operations in a way that facilitates later showing them the larger picture. For example the consistent application of a "number line" and showing how operations involve counting up and down that line means later successor-of(), exponentiation, and the hyper-operators will fit nicely into the pattern rather than forcing a re-examination of what you learned earlier. Done right you can prime children to be shown Group Theory and just go "Oh, that makes sense" rather than having to re-examine what they learned already from a new perspective. Parents who've forgotten how long it took them to "just know" that 6 x 7 = 42 and don't have a strong mathematical background seem to rage at each iteration and then are further annoyed to discover that those of us who needed more mathematics later actually think these innovations are a good idea because now kids understand "why" 6 x 7 = 42 rather than just memorising it for a test...
In particular children are being taught about basic arithmetic operations in a way that facilitates later showing them the larger picture. For example the consistent application of a "number line" and showing how operations involve counting up and down that line means later successor-of(), exponentiation, and the hyper-operators will fit nicely into the pattern rather than forcing a re-examination of what you learned earlier. Done right you can prime children to be shown Group Theory and just go "Oh, that makes sense" rather than having to re-examine what they learned already from a new perspective. Parents who've forgotten how long it took them to "just know" that 6 x 7 = 42 and don't have a strong mathematical background seem to rage at each iteration and then are further annoyed to discover that those of us who needed more mathematics later actually think these innovations are a good idea because now kids understand "why" 6 x 7 = 42 rather than just memorising it for a test...
Maths is ... one domain.
Concepts of science, both natural and social, philosophy, logic, and history are others.
There's an (IMO) fascinating division in the teacing of skills versus "liberal arts" (ultimately: critical thinking, concepts of power and control) in education. What are now considered "technologies" had their beginning as "practical", "technical", or "servile" arts, contrasted with the Seven Liberal Arts:
- Grammer, Logic, and Rhetoric: the Trivium, from whence, "trivia". Think "input, processing, and output."
- Mathematics, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy: the Quadrivium. Think "quantity/measurement, quantity in space, quantity in time, and quantity in space and time."
This divide remains apparent in both lower ("tracking") and higher education. For the latter, top-tier "prestige" schools, followed roughly by major research universities (science), technical schools and polytechnics, what used to be called "teacher" or "normal" schools in the US (now mostly state college / university systems), two-year and vocational schools.
A huge problem of the pedagogical rigidity is the (usually) unstated goals of educational systems:
- Produce a technically-skilled, but politically pliable, working class.
- Produce a managerially competent, but not revolutionary, mangement and professional class.
- Persist existing power structures.
Observed by many over the years, including numerous 20th and a few 21st century commentators. I find John Stuart Mill's 19th century take interesting for its remove from immediate political machinations and for being possibly unexpected given the popular perception of his writings. See Hans Jensen's description, with cites:
First, the universities were given the task of providing an unceasing supply of ideologically correct candidates for vital positions in government, church, and business. The state was able to make the faculties of the "venerable institutions" of higher education, or rather indoctrination, assume this duty because it controlled appointments and held the purse from which "emoluments" flowed into the coffers of academics. Hence the members of the university "hierarchy" made it their "business, the business for which they ... [were] paid," to "uphold certain political as well as religious opinions," namely those of the "ruling powers of the state" (J.S. Mill, Autobiography and Literary Essays, p. 429 (1981), J.S. Mill, Journals and Debating Speeches, p. 350. (1988) ). Thus the universities pursued with vigor their assignment to inculcate in their students those political and ideological views that were cherished by the power elite. The graduates of the ancient universities were, therefore, well prepared for employment in, and by, those institutions that were instrumental in perpetuating the existing maldistribution of income. All of this might come to naught, however, if the masses of the underclass should achieve anything approaching success in potential attempts at throwing off their fetters.
The state devised a second educational strategy in order to prevent such a calamity from occurring. According to Mill, the "elementary schools for children of the working classes" were given the task of ensuring that the poor would continue to accept docilely their dismal station in life. It was very easy for the state to force the public schools to assume this role. It did so simply by failing malignantly to allocate sufficient funds for the operations of what Mill identified contemptuously as "places called schools" (J.S. Mill, Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, p.200; emphasis in original). These places were therefor understaffed. Moreover, the few teachers who were actually employed were completely "unfit for their work." The pupils therefore were so "wretchedly ill-taught" that they "did not ... even learn to read." And, said Mill with disgust, no attempt was "made to communicate ideas, or to call forth the mental faculties" of the children". (J.S. Mill, Public and Parliamentary Speeches, November 1850 - November 1868, p. 322 (1988). J.S. Mill, Essays on England Ireland, and the Empire, p. 200 (1982)).
Hans E. Jensen, "John Stuart Mill's Theories of Wealth and Income Distribution". Review of Social Economy. Pages 491-507. Published online: 05 Nov 2010.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00346760110081599
Previously noted by me in:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6x7u6a/on_the_...
Concepts of science, both natural and social, philosophy, logic, and history are others.
There's an (IMO) fascinating division in the teacing of skills versus "liberal arts" (ultimately: critical thinking, concepts of power and control) in education. What are now considered "technologies" had their beginning as "practical", "technical", or "servile" arts, contrasted with the Seven Liberal Arts:
- Grammer, Logic, and Rhetoric: the Trivium, from whence, "trivia". Think "input, processing, and output."
- Mathematics, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy: the Quadrivium. Think "quantity/measurement, quantity in space, quantity in time, and quantity in space and time."
This divide remains apparent in both lower ("tracking") and higher education. For the latter, top-tier "prestige" schools, followed roughly by major research universities (science), technical schools and polytechnics, what used to be called "teacher" or "normal" schools in the US (now mostly state college / university systems), two-year and vocational schools.
A huge problem of the pedagogical rigidity is the (usually) unstated goals of educational systems:
- Produce a technically-skilled, but politically pliable, working class.
- Produce a managerially competent, but not revolutionary, mangement and professional class.
- Persist existing power structures.
Observed by many over the years, including numerous 20th and a few 21st century commentators. I find John Stuart Mill's 19th century take interesting for its remove from immediate political machinations and for being possibly unexpected given the popular perception of his writings. See Hans Jensen's description, with cites:
First, the universities were given the task of providing an unceasing supply of ideologically correct candidates for vital positions in government, church, and business. The state was able to make the faculties of the "venerable institutions" of higher education, or rather indoctrination, assume this duty because it controlled appointments and held the purse from which "emoluments" flowed into the coffers of academics. Hence the members of the university "hierarchy" made it their "business, the business for which they ... [were] paid," to "uphold certain political as well as religious opinions," namely those of the "ruling powers of the state" (J.S. Mill, Autobiography and Literary Essays, p. 429 (1981), J.S. Mill, Journals and Debating Speeches, p. 350. (1988) ). Thus the universities pursued with vigor their assignment to inculcate in their students those political and ideological views that were cherished by the power elite. The graduates of the ancient universities were, therefore, well prepared for employment in, and by, those institutions that were instrumental in perpetuating the existing maldistribution of income. All of this might come to naught, however, if the masses of the underclass should achieve anything approaching success in potential attempts at throwing off their fetters.
The state devised a second educational strategy in order to prevent such a calamity from occurring. According to Mill, the "elementary schools for children of the working classes" were given the task of ensuring that the poor would continue to accept docilely their dismal station in life. It was very easy for the state to force the public schools to assume this role. It did so simply by failing malignantly to allocate sufficient funds for the operations of what Mill identified contemptuously as "places called schools" (J.S. Mill, Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, p.200; emphasis in original). These places were therefor understaffed. Moreover, the few teachers who were actually employed were completely "unfit for their work." The pupils therefore were so "wretchedly ill-taught" that they "did not ... even learn to read." And, said Mill with disgust, no attempt was "made to communicate ideas, or to call forth the mental faculties" of the children". (J.S. Mill, Public and Parliamentary Speeches, November 1850 - November 1868, p. 322 (1988). J.S. Mill, Essays on England Ireland, and the Empire, p. 200 (1982)).
Hans E. Jensen, "John Stuart Mill's Theories of Wealth and Income Distribution". Review of Social Economy. Pages 491-507. Published online: 05 Nov 2010.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00346760110081599
Previously noted by me in:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6x7u6a/on_the_...
> Wittgenstein's Ladder
Borrowed from Schopenhauer, who actually made a better point about the goal: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/301471-however-for-the-man-...
Borrowed from Schopenhauer, who actually made a better point about the goal: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/301471-however-for-the-man-...
Thanks.
I've only recently really discovered Schopenhauer (having of course at least heard of him), and find his writing clear and appealing.
Wonderful online essays collection:
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/...
("On Authorship and Style" was posted to HN a few months back.)
I've only recently really discovered Schopenhauer (having of course at least heard of him), and find his writing clear and appealing.
Wonderful online essays collection:
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/...
("On Authorship and Style" was posted to HN a few months back.)
[deleted]
We also have light receptors on the skin. And I'm assuming we have many others we don't know about.
The way we teach about the human condition is very limited, and I only started understanding a bit how my body works after I reached 30 thanks to a lot of self-experimentation.
The way we teach about the human condition is very limited, and I only started understanding a bit how my body works after I reached 30 thanks to a lot of self-experimentation.
For a long time--even after Umami had been identified in Japan--it was still the norm, at least in the US, to teach that there are 4 tastes: salty, sweet, bitter, and sour. (Though, in all fairness, I'm not sure to what degree the US food science community recognized umami until relatively recently.
Umami was named/Identified in Japan in 1908. That's still a pretty recent discovery compared to sweet and salt and the human timescale of discovering and naming flavors. So it isn't surprising that it is still working its way into people's consciousness and vocabulary. It is also subtle compared to the big 4 tastes.
US African here. I din't know what Umami is. Looked it up just now... sounds like it would just be classified as a subtle variation to "salty" to me?
No umami is a rich meaty kind of taste (also found in seaweed, cheese, mushrooms, soy sauce, some vegetables, ...) which has nothing to do with sodium chloride.
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamate_flavoring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamate_flavoring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami
Fat, MSG, oils, etc. all impart a savory-style flavor that is called umami that has nothing to do with salt.
*not African. Phone autocorrected American to African and I've missed the edit window.
In the US, we are taught that this is called "savory".
Savory isn't really the same thing. Savory is mostly a contrast to sweet. So a savory quick bread would be made with herbs rather than fruits. It does overlap some insofar as a bacon bread could also be called savory.
I see. Thanks for clarifying!
Yes, the obvious example is balance. You have a way to know which way you're pointing, yet it's not one of the five standard senses.
I think of it as devices rather than physical process sensors, which are the building blocks. You have cells that can detect things like mechanical pressure or specific chemicals, and you have actuators that can trigger sensors. They get mashed up by evolution to create devices like balance detectors.
I think of it as devices rather than physical process sensors, which are the building blocks. You have cells that can detect things like mechanical pressure or specific chemicals, and you have actuators that can trigger sensors. They get mashed up by evolution to create devices like balance detectors.
Even "touch" as a sense makes no sense. Feeling pressure and feeling heat exchange are completely different senses. In addition to that there's obviously a kind of pain felt by the skin that is neither extreme pressure nor a temperature extreme but an indicator of skin damage.
Then there's proprioception as mentioned in the article, the sense of balance/acceleration as measured in our ears, and together with smell, sound, taste and sight we are already at 9 senses.
And as you mention many of the things we actually perceive are derived from many senses. The "taste" of a steak is a mix of smell and taste, your balance is a mix of sight and your acceleration, temperature is something we can't actually fell but can derive from how much heat enters or leaves our body, "pain" is a giant category spanning nearly all senses, etc.
Then there's proprioception as mentioned in the article, the sense of balance/acceleration as measured in our ears, and together with smell, sound, taste and sight we are already at 9 senses.
And as you mention many of the things we actually perceive are derived from many senses. The "taste" of a steak is a mix of smell and taste, your balance is a mix of sight and your acceleration, temperature is something we can't actually fell but can derive from how much heat enters or leaves our body, "pain" is a giant category spanning nearly all senses, etc.
We also have speed cells, boundary cells, place cells, grid cells... some of our senses might not be auxiliary or primary but rely on another sense which mediates them.
But your body keeps track of its speed and location in any environment regardless of if your senses are impaired (grid cells and place cells rely not only on sight but information gathered from speed and head direction cells), which is as much of a sense as proprioception. We don't even have a word for this, I think. Locoception, perhaps? Posiception? Only two Latin roots I know which fit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_cell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_cell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_cells
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_cell
But your body keeps track of its speed and location in any environment regardless of if your senses are impaired (grid cells and place cells rely not only on sight but information gathered from speed and head direction cells), which is as much of a sense as proprioception. We don't even have a word for this, I think. Locoception, perhaps? Posiception? Only two Latin roots I know which fit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_cell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_cell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_cells
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_cell
"We don't even have a word for this". Isn't it just spatial frequency?
The innate sense of where you are in relation to yourself is proprioception.
The innate sense of where you are in relation to your environment is... spatial frequency?
That doesn't sound right.
The innate sense of where you are in relation to your environment is... spatial frequency?
That doesn't sound right.
> The "taste" of a steak is a mix of smell and taste
And pressure--i.e. texture.
And pressure--i.e. texture.
> kind of pain felt by the skin that is neither extreme pressure nor a temperature extreme but an indicator of skin damage.
Do you mean an itch or a sunburn-type discommfort or something else?
Do you mean an itch or a sunburn-type discommfort or something else?
A particular interest of mine is the perception of being watched. What sense is that?! Dean Radin has some very interesting studies on it, some of which extend to being watched through security cameras.
Evolved instinct is my guess. Makes sense - people watching you don't always have the best intentions.
Wreck a microwave oven or hold a video-streaming phone to your ear, either should be perceptible.
Can you demonstrate your supposed cellphone-detection powers in a double-blind experiment? I sincerely doubt it, but I'd be interested in watching you try.
This is one of those things that would be cool if it was true, but probably isn't.
It's enough radiation to warm and irritate tissue; for me it causes mild swelling. Mild swelling of the brain should be measurable with a cognitive test.
What? How?
With LCD TVs, I haven't noticed them now. But CRT TVs, I could hear if they were on (and muted) in the next room.
Some people are sensitive to some frequencies.
Some people are sensitive to some frequencies.
The CRT noise is an actual sound; CRT flyback transformers tend to vibrate at the horizontal scanning rate of the display and that's audible for NTSC and PAL (at around 15 kHz), if you have good hearing.
An LCD shouldn't whine, but some can (bad capacitors, cheap power supplies, or any number of other causes).
An LCD shouldn't whine, but some can (bad capacitors, cheap power supplies, or any number of other causes).
You can certainly hear one of my LCD TVs, at least when it's working hardest (mostly black screen). Samsung had a capacitor recall program, but it wasn't that bad while that was active. I've been hoping it will die, but no such luck.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetically_excited_...
Ie “coil whine”.. not saying this guy isn’t a nut. But it is possible to hear electronic devices. On a computer streaming video the increased current demands can make power supply coils more audible.
Ie “coil whine”.. not saying this guy isn’t a nut. But it is possible to hear electronic devices. On a computer streaming video the increased current demands can make power supply coils more audible.
You would probably enjoy Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader
[0] https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/empire-of-the-senses-978185973...
[0] https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/empire-of-the-senses-978185973...
The experience of synesthetics seems relevant here. Some people would appear to have the wires crossed on interpretation of the senses relative to others.
The "five senses" thing in particular traces back to Aristotle, who was a smart enough guy in general but seems to also be the source of a lot of bullshit that's still uncritically repeated over 2000 years later.
Maybe not unironically, but unexaminedly? It's not like he was intending to mislead people.
>we have some of the mechanisms needed to sense magnetic fields, but no compelling evidence
Well you can easily sense charge if it's enough to lift your hair. We can also feel electric shock. I'm not sure if you want to categorize those as touch.
Well you can easily sense charge if it's enough to lift your hair. We can also feel electric shock. I'm not sure if you want to categorize those as touch.
Those are actuating nerves that are traditionally considered “touch”. We have separate hardware for sensing magnetic fields.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/10/20/448...
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/10/20/448...
There are no five tastes. There are foods that activate special nerves on the tongue that are none of the five in many non-European cuisines.
The most trivial example I can think of is Sichuan pepper (花椒)
Sichuan pepper is responsible for neurological dissonance. It’s of the citrus family and is a ‘false pepper’.
It creates a numbing sensation and when used with chili peppers of moderate heat, it tricks the mind into thinking that it’s hotter than it really is ..the tingling and numbing sensation leading to the nervous system trigger the same responses as though you are eating something excessively spicy and hot.
I want to say..maybe a rush of endorphins. If you had just the Sichuan peppers alone, there would be no spiciness or heat. Just numbing and tingling. It’s a neat hack.
It creates a numbing sensation and when used with chili peppers of moderate heat, it tricks the mind into thinking that it’s hotter than it really is ..the tingling and numbing sensation leading to the nervous system trigger the same responses as though you are eating something excessively spicy and hot.
I want to say..maybe a rush of endorphins. If you had just the Sichuan peppers alone, there would be no spiciness or heat. Just numbing and tingling. It’s a neat hack.
How about our ability to echo-locate, given enough practice? That seems like yet another sense that goes beyond just hearing, and is probably linked to our proprioception skills.
> Humans have more than the commonly cited five senses. The number of senses in various categorizations ranges from five to more than 20. In addition to sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing, which were the senses identified by Aristotle, humans can sense balance and acceleration (equilibrioception), pain (nociception), body and limb position (proprioception or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature (thermoception). Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, echolocation, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate, and blood carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#...
I think proprioception is also part of the secret to 'athleticism', which is kind of a vague hand-wavey concept but also a very real one (speaking as someone with no natural athleticism myself). Being able to intuitively understand where your body is in space & how to react/move it in the moment is a hidden part of being an athlete, whereas conventional analysis usually just focuses on strength/speed/explosiveness.
I also think there's a very strong cognitive/information processing in the moment aspect to athleticism as well- a general CPU motor that coordinates the speed, strength, proprioception etc. together in the moment. (Another aspect that I noticed I lacked growing up compared to others in sports)
I also think there's a very strong cognitive/information processing in the moment aspect to athleticism as well- a general CPU motor that coordinates the speed, strength, proprioception etc. together in the moment. (Another aspect that I noticed I lacked growing up compared to others in sports)
Conventional analysis of athletes very much includes coordination, which covers a lot of what you are talking about.
> I also think there's a very strong cognitive/information processing in the moment aspect to athleticism as well
This higher level processing is called intelligence, "bodily-kinesthetic" intelligence. It's just an aspect of the intelligence model like IQ or EQ etc.
This higher level processing is called intelligence, "bodily-kinesthetic" intelligence. It's just an aspect of the intelligence model like IQ or EQ etc.
I don't think it's a hidden skill in the context of sports, because it's a baseline that almost every athlete has.
I think it's a huge myth to think of athleticism as a talent and not a skill that can be trained. It's absolutely a skill - my wife was pretty uncoordinated when we met - she never really played much sport or did many outdoorsy activities. She just assumed she was uncoordinated, but after about a year of lifting weights, she's found that her balance and coordination have improved tremendously. She doesn't stumble when walking as much, she's better at doing things like catching stuff out of the air, and she's more aware of where her body is in space - she doesn't bump into things as much.
I think it's a huge myth to think of athleticism as a talent and not a skill that can be trained. It's absolutely a skill - my wife was pretty uncoordinated when we met - she never really played much sport or did many outdoorsy activities. She just assumed she was uncoordinated, but after about a year of lifting weights, she's found that her balance and coordination have improved tremendously. She doesn't stumble when walking as much, she's better at doing things like catching stuff out of the air, and she's more aware of where her body is in space - she doesn't bump into things as much.
Athleticism is absolutely an inborn talent. It certainly can be developed, but just look at any sport where all of the participants started at the same age in life and all received roughly the same number of repetitions/practices- there are logarithmic differences in ability. If we all started playing basketball at age 7 and all went to the same number of practices, by 18 there are just massive, massive differences between different players.
Frankly, this is true of literally every field. Like, imagine we all started in programming at age 10 and all received the same level of instruction- by age 20 there are again just huge, huge differences between where people are at ability-wise. It's unfair and doesn't fit into a lot of meritocratic 'just work hard and you'll end up at the top!' narratives (which are especially popular in the US), but it's sadly true
Frankly, this is true of literally every field. Like, imagine we all started in programming at age 10 and all received the same level of instruction- by age 20 there are again just huge, huge differences between where people are at ability-wise. It's unfair and doesn't fit into a lot of meritocratic 'just work hard and you'll end up at the top!' narratives (which are especially popular in the US), but it's sadly true
> If we all started playing basketball at age 7 and all went
> to the same number of practices, by 18 there are just
> massive, massive differences between different players.
Those differences come from a lot of places, not least that the people who ended up on the better end of the stick almost certainly found every opportunity they could to play basketball outside of practice.
My sister and I both played sports and learned about computers in school. She spent lots of her spare time after school and on weekends shooting baskets in the driveway. I spent that time messing around on computers and taking things apart. Any guesses which of us ended up the better athlete and which the better engineer?
Those differences come from a lot of places, not least that the people who ended up on the better end of the stick almost certainly found every opportunity they could to play basketball outside of practice.
My sister and I both played sports and learned about computers in school. She spent lots of her spare time after school and on weekends shooting baskets in the driveway. I spent that time messing around on computers and taking things apart. Any guesses which of us ended up the better athlete and which the better engineer?
> If we all started playing basketball at age 7 and all went to the same number of practices, by 18 there are just massive, massive differences between different players.
It may be explained by a dedication to a learning, by general abilities to learn, by nutrition, by inborn muscles properties (type I or type II), and probably by a dozen of other factors. I mean, what you'd said doesn't imply that differences in ability to play basketball are due to an amount of inborn athleticism received.
It may be explained by a dedication to a learning, by general abilities to learn, by nutrition, by inborn muscles properties (type I or type II), and probably by a dozen of other factors. I mean, what you'd said doesn't imply that differences in ability to play basketball are due to an amount of inborn athleticism received.
"I think it's a huge myth to think of athleticism as a talent and not a skill that can be trained. "
Do people really believe this? You can get pretty far with training but the top athletes have talent AND work hard.
Personally I was always one of the slowest, uncoordinated and weakest in any sport in my youth. When I was 16 I started martial arts and in a few years got myself from the bottom to someone who is generally regarded as pretty athletic. But I had to put in as much as work as other more talented guys who went on to win championship. Due to my lack of talent unfortunately championships were out of my reach but I am still happy with the improvement and it's probably one of the most important things I have done in my life.
Do people really believe this? You can get pretty far with training but the top athletes have talent AND work hard.
Personally I was always one of the slowest, uncoordinated and weakest in any sport in my youth. When I was 16 I started martial arts and in a few years got myself from the bottom to someone who is generally regarded as pretty athletic. But I had to put in as much as work as other more talented guys who went on to win championship. Due to my lack of talent unfortunately championships were out of my reach but I am still happy with the improvement and it's probably one of the most important things I have done in my life.
But "you can get pretty far with training" is exactly what happens with a skill that can be trained?
Like most or all abilities, it is a combination of inborn talent that varies among individuals plus training and experience.
This is a big part of why a lot of sports like to cross-train their athletes in Ballet. A huge thing that Ballet training gives you is an extremely good sense of where your center of gravity is and how to place your foot under it to stay upright and under control. This is extremely useful for high school football, where "being able to place your foot underneath you after getting hit and ending up in an unusual place in body configuration space" often makes the difference between whether or not you wind up getting tackled.
How “hidden” the importance of proprioception is in a sport depends on the sport. In archery, improving proprioception (not strength or visual acuity) is the primary object of training.
reminds me of a story in “the man who mistook his wife for a hat” by Oliver Sacks, an amazing collection of harrowing psychological tales, where one of his patients–a computer programmer!–has a dream where she can no longer control her limbs, and when she wakes it has somehow come true.
https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-man-who-mistook-his-wife-f...
https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-man-who-mistook-his-wife-f...
Did anyone figure out why this happened? I wonder if this would feel similar to when you sit awkwardly and your leg goes numb - it kind of feels like you're just walking on your bone. Trying to walk with a leg that's 'asleep' is quite a challenge.
I used to have that. It seems that it was the cat, laying on top of the covers. I would try to move in my sleep and be unable to, because I was moving with very little force, and it wasn't enough to overcome the cat. But I'd feel this as my limbs not responding to me. What a horrible feeling!
It quit happening to me once the cat died.
It quit happening to me once the cat died.
Sounds like sleep paralysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis
Happened to me a couple times, but it's been like 15 years since.
Happened to me a couple times, but it's been like 15 years since.
Happened to me a ton as a kid. Now maybe I only get it once every few years. A long time ago I learned I could 'exit' sleep paralysis, and after that I actually began to enjoy it and not try to immediately exit it - it's like lucid dreaming but you're totally aware of the world around you.
I haven't read that, but I'd assume it was the other way around: somehow she lost control of her limbs whilst sleeping and it penetrated her dream.
I've dreamt I'd lost an arm before, only to wake up to find out I'd slept in a position that made the "missing" arm go totally numb.
I've dreamt I'd lost an arm before, only to wake up to find out I'd slept in a position that made the "missing" arm go totally numb.
I recently stumbled on painscience.com blog.
It is a great resource to understand pain and be able to live with it.
https://www.painscience.com/articles/central-sensitization.p...
Physical therapy involves a lot of proprioception retraining that is lost due to injury, surgery or inactivity.
https://www.painscience.com/articles/sixth-sense.php
https://www.painscience.com/articles/central-sensitization.p...
Physical therapy involves a lot of proprioception retraining that is lost due to injury, surgery or inactivity.
https://www.painscience.com/articles/sixth-sense.php
I made a minor personal discovery recently along these lines and would love to hear from others here if they can reproduce it: I can "see" my hands with my eyes closed. That is, if I hold my hands out in front of my face with my eyes closed, I can see a faint image of them in the eigengrau. Further, if I then move my hands outside of my normal field of vision, (say, to my side) the image persists; I can "see" them outside my normal field of vision. While this effect is strongest for my hands, it does extend somewhat to my legs and feet if I pay extra attention.
I'm curious if others can reproduce this for themselves?
My hypothesis is that the visual areas of the brain can get involved when the eyes are closed, and can pick up and interpret the proprioceptive information spatially. It may be that it's always happening, but that the "image" of one's hands is swamped by visual data when the eyes are open. Another hypothesis, I suppose, is that the visual expectation of the hands may be registering or, rather, its absence. You're "seeing" the expectation of the hands that should be there, but are blocked by your eyelids.
I should say that the sensation of seeing the hands is pretty fine, extending to the motions of the fingers. That said, it's easy enough to lose the image or forget it is there.
I'm curious if others can reproduce this for themselves?
My hypothesis is that the visual areas of the brain can get involved when the eyes are closed, and can pick up and interpret the proprioceptive information spatially. It may be that it's always happening, but that the "image" of one's hands is swamped by visual data when the eyes are open. Another hypothesis, I suppose, is that the visual expectation of the hands may be registering or, rather, its absence. You're "seeing" the expectation of the hands that should be there, but are blocked by your eyelids.
I should say that the sensation of seeing the hands is pretty fine, extending to the motions of the fingers. That said, it's easy enough to lose the image or forget it is there.
Funny, a few comments above, before reading yours I experienced exactly that.
I closed my eyes in the dark and tried to touch my two index fingers together in random places instead of just pointing at my nose. Can confirm that I also "see" the position of hands and fingers.
I think what we "see" is mostly out brains doing spatial reasoning and using part of the same systems as used for visual perception.
I closed my eyes in the dark and tried to touch my two index fingers together in random places instead of just pointing at my nose. Can confirm that I also "see" the position of hands and fingers.
I think what we "see" is mostly out brains doing spatial reasoning and using part of the same systems as used for visual perception.
is proprioception really a sense or just the persistence of spatial info in our short term memory gathered from our senses of touch and sight? If I touch something several times with my eyes open then try it with my eyes closed, I can touch it again because I still remember where it was.
Is there some way a human can be said to propriocept things that they neither saw nor touched?
Is there some way a human can be said to propriocept things that they neither saw nor touched?
I think it’s more than just remembering based on sight and touch. Close your eyes, open and close your hand but then leave it open. You probably know exactly what your hand is doing since you last commanded it.
So it’s more like a combination of sight and touch and forward modeling based on muscle input.
So it’s more like a combination of sight and touch and forward modeling based on muscle input.
Proprioception is talked about in yoga as an awareness of body position and muscle tension state state, so its an internal sense and not necessarily the same as touching external objects. You can observe your muscles tension changes to balance without touching or seeing for example.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what proprioception is. Proprioception is the built in feedback in your body together with the right processing which makes you know how your body is oriented and how is it moving. This is independent of sight and touch.
Imagine a robot arm. You have the armature and a beefy electric motor on it. Your task is to make it do some manipulation task. If all you can do is send voltage to the electric motor you will never succeed. You don't know where the arm is at any moment. But even if you would know where it started from you couldn't know how much it moved exactly just by knowing what voltage you sent to it. This is because minute variation in loading and tinny errors would accumulate into huge uncertainty in such an open-loop system. So basically you need something to close the loop. A rotational encoder on your robot arm, or muscle strain measurements on a living creature.
But just having the sensors is not enough. If you want to make the (robot or human) to touch a particular point in space you need to know how to turn the sensor readings into a transformation. I would be lying if I would tell you I know how exactly the human brain does this, but in robotics it's just a few transform matrixes multiplied together.
Imagine a robot arm. You have the armature and a beefy electric motor on it. Your task is to make it do some manipulation task. If all you can do is send voltage to the electric motor you will never succeed. You don't know where the arm is at any moment. But even if you would know where it started from you couldn't know how much it moved exactly just by knowing what voltage you sent to it. This is because minute variation in loading and tinny errors would accumulate into huge uncertainty in such an open-loop system. So basically you need something to close the loop. A rotational encoder on your robot arm, or muscle strain measurements on a living creature.
But just having the sensors is not enough. If you want to make the (robot or human) to touch a particular point in space you need to know how to turn the sensor readings into a transformation. I would be lying if I would tell you I know how exactly the human brain does this, but in robotics it's just a few transform matrixes multiplied together.
A fair question. Depends on how you define touch. But probably the answer is yes, you can propriocept things you don't touch.
Suppose you were to anesthetize all the nerves leading to your skin. If you define touch in a way that's limited to skin interacting with stuff outside the body, then that would neutralize your sense of touch.
But according to the article, there are "piezo2" receptors embedded in muscle fibers. They can tell you how much the muscle is stretched or contracted. So even without using touch or sight, you could tell whether (say) your elbow is bent or straight based on information coming from your biceps and triceps muscles.
One could imagine a body that doesn't have this and works by some combination of dead reckoning (where the brain knows it pulled on the muscles this much, therefore the limb must have moved that much, and keeps a running total), sight, and cues from how the limbs are interacting with the outside world. But the article says it isn't just that. Instead, the brain is getting direct information from muscles.
You could, though, make a case that touch should be generalized and this should be included in it. The article says piezo2 receptors are used both in touch and in muscles. If you wanted, you could define touch to include sensations within the body, where this part of this muscle is touching this other part of the same muscle and feeling that.
Suppose you were to anesthetize all the nerves leading to your skin. If you define touch in a way that's limited to skin interacting with stuff outside the body, then that would neutralize your sense of touch.
But according to the article, there are "piezo2" receptors embedded in muscle fibers. They can tell you how much the muscle is stretched or contracted. So even without using touch or sight, you could tell whether (say) your elbow is bent or straight based on information coming from your biceps and triceps muscles.
One could imagine a body that doesn't have this and works by some combination of dead reckoning (where the brain knows it pulled on the muscles this much, therefore the limb must have moved that much, and keeps a running total), sight, and cues from how the limbs are interacting with the outside world. But the article says it isn't just that. Instead, the brain is getting direct information from muscles.
You could, though, make a case that touch should be generalized and this should be included in it. The article says piezo2 receptors are used both in touch and in muscles. If you wanted, you could define touch to include sensations within the body, where this part of this muscle is touching this other part of the same muscle and feeling that.
You can touch your chin with your eyes closed even though you can't see it and in fact haven't ever seen it. It's possible to lose this sense, too, which pretty much rules out the idea that it's merely a mental model. People with nerve injuries may lose their ability to touch their chins with their eyes closed, as I just described.
All your senses are constructed out of more basic sensory inputs and presented to the rest of your brain as higher-level abstractions. Hearing, for example, doesn't just present the raw noises being heard, but also yields a best-guess about the direction and distance of noise sources, and you can argue that the audio-location function should technically be a separate "sense".
Proprioception being an abstraction over touch and sight data that generates awareness of how your body is arranged in space is a sense in the same manner. And you can definitely get proprioception over more than your own body - partner dancers will quickly develop a felt sense of how their dance partner's body is moving, as well.
Proprioception being an abstraction over touch and sight data that generates awareness of how your body is arranged in space is a sense in the same manner. And you can definitely get proprioception over more than your own body - partner dancers will quickly develop a felt sense of how their dance partner's body is moving, as well.
When you use a tool, the body learns to extend the proprioception 'through' the tool as well.
As a tango dancer I can relate to feeling the position of my partner while dancing. Even weirder is that I can feel my car while driving and if I rent another car it takes me a while until I can also feel this other car as a part of myself.
"The feeling is as hard to imagine as it is to describe. "It's as if you had a blindfold and somebody turned you several times, and then you're asked to go in a direction. The first few seconds, you don't know what direction you're going in." Pure disorientation."
I think might other ways to approximate this. Try lying completely still in bed at night in the dark for 10 minutes or so... after a while you might have trouble knowing exactly how your limbs are positioned (unless, of course, you make a mental note of just how they were positioned when you first laid down, or kept your attention focused on that all along, but if you think of something else, then ten minutes later think about the position of your limbs, you might have trouble). The key in the above exercise is not feeling anything in your limbs that could give you a cluse as to where they're positioned. This makes me wonder if we need some kind of periodic kinesthetic or viseo-kinesthetic calibration to keep our sense of proprioception functioning well.
Psychedelic drugs could also impact our sense of proprioception, as they can just about everything else about our experience. Being in a floation/isolation tank could likewise affect it.
Something else I wonder about lack of proprioception is at all related to the problem some people have of telling right from left.
I think might other ways to approximate this. Try lying completely still in bed at night in the dark for 10 minutes or so... after a while you might have trouble knowing exactly how your limbs are positioned (unless, of course, you make a mental note of just how they were positioned when you first laid down, or kept your attention focused on that all along, but if you think of something else, then ten minutes later think about the position of your limbs, you might have trouble). The key in the above exercise is not feeling anything in your limbs that could give you a cluse as to where they're positioned. This makes me wonder if we need some kind of periodic kinesthetic or viseo-kinesthetic calibration to keep our sense of proprioception functioning well.
Psychedelic drugs could also impact our sense of proprioception, as they can just about everything else about our experience. Being in a floation/isolation tank could likewise affect it.
Something else I wonder about lack of proprioception is at all related to the problem some people have of telling right from left.
The article title and headline sentence confuse the reader.
Proprioception is an interesting and exciting mental process that is important to artistic expression, human growth, mental development, and cultural communication.
Whew. The opera "Nixon in China" has an embedded ballet. The embedded ballet has the uncanny property that in a few minutes it retells the entire story of the opera.
Why is ballet so expressive? Why does the nation of Russia need ballet? Notice on youtube, the Russian dancers are extraordinary. A prima ballerina who came to New York, drew comments that "She dances in Russian." And the untutored viewer could see it too. The nation devotes considerable resources to the art.
What is happening when 1st through 5th graders in an American Elementary school run around and scream at the beginning of the school year? Were they running around to generate huge amounts of propriaceptive signals to the brain? Is the screaming part of the brain sending motor control signals every which way?
Finally, why do opera singers stand up to sing? Except when they are dying or portraying a special propriaceptive statement like kneeling (to pray or be beheaded).
Proprioception is an interesting and exciting mental process that is important to artistic expression, human growth, mental development, and cultural communication.
Whew. The opera "Nixon in China" has an embedded ballet. The embedded ballet has the uncanny property that in a few minutes it retells the entire story of the opera.
Why is ballet so expressive? Why does the nation of Russia need ballet? Notice on youtube, the Russian dancers are extraordinary. A prima ballerina who came to New York, drew comments that "She dances in Russian." And the untutored viewer could see it too. The nation devotes considerable resources to the art.
What is happening when 1st through 5th graders in an American Elementary school run around and scream at the beginning of the school year? Were they running around to generate huge amounts of propriaceptive signals to the brain? Is the screaming part of the brain sending motor control signals every which way?
Finally, why do opera singers stand up to sing? Except when they are dying or portraying a special propriaceptive statement like kneeling (to pray or be beheaded).
Try this fun experiment yourself:
On some long sidewalk (with no hazards on either side) or on a field, find any visible point 20-30 feet straight ahead of you, like a crack in the sidewalk or a leaf, whatever. Now look at it for just a moment (only takes a second or two to imprint its location) and close your eyes. Start walking towards that spot (no peeking), and stop when you think your foot is over the target. You will be shocked at how accurately you estimated the walking distance, and how your body very strongly senses when you've reached the spot. Almost 10 out of 10 times, my foot is perfectly centered over the target (modulo some lateral movement from not walking perfectly straight).
For me, I can somehow "physically" feel when it's close, I can feel when I'm over it, and I can feel when I've gone too far.
On some long sidewalk (with no hazards on either side) or on a field, find any visible point 20-30 feet straight ahead of you, like a crack in the sidewalk or a leaf, whatever. Now look at it for just a moment (only takes a second or two to imprint its location) and close your eyes. Start walking towards that spot (no peeking), and stop when you think your foot is over the target. You will be shocked at how accurately you estimated the walking distance, and how your body very strongly senses when you've reached the spot. Almost 10 out of 10 times, my foot is perfectly centered over the target (modulo some lateral movement from not walking perfectly straight).
For me, I can somehow "physically" feel when it's close, I can feel when I'm over it, and I can feel when I've gone too far.
Alcohol throws off proprioception, which is why it's tested for as part of field sobriety tests, e.g. touch your finger to your nose. Similar decreased capabilities are also one of the reasons why someone getting hypothermic will often start to have an unsteady gait.
I had to re-learn my alcohol limit a few years into martial arts. Turns out I was using the decline of proprioception as a marker for 'last beverage' and the training pushed that to the right. Got a few hangovers before I sorted it out.
Much like optical illusions, there are proprioceptive illusions. The simplest yet most amazing to me is the rubber hand illusion, where you can trick your brain into feeling proprioception of an inanimate object. I highly encourage you to find a friend and try it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion#Rubber_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion#Rubber_...
I find this interesting as I had a somewhat opposite experience when I tried a dark restaurant when visiting Berlin (eating in complete darkness). It was surprisingly rest to relocate utensils and my glass of beer, as I went back and forth between them, stopping and raining to eat.
Of course, the room wasn’t empty and void other sounds, which may have helped me build a general sense of direction and thereby helped me.
Of course, the room wasn’t empty and void other sounds, which may have helped me build a general sense of direction and thereby helped me.
This is a fascinating article. I never realized all the complications involved in propriception and touch.
TL;DR; people with reduced sense of touch have major troubles controlling their bodies unless they see them (own interpretation: due to the lack of feedback on movement). There is a rare genetic condition.
There is no other sense involved, it is the same touch sense, but internal.
There is no other sense involved, it is the same touch sense, but internal.
Some may argue proprioception is provided by touch, but by the same light smell and taste are inextricably linked.
We can also sense heat and humidity to some extent, we have some of the mechanisms needed to sense magnetic fields, but no compelling evidence (to my understanding) exists that demonstrates that we can.
It's just one of those things thats much fuzzier than we think
Many things that we are taught in elementary school have this property