Portable sunshine: Earbuds that shine light into your ears(wired.co.uk)
wired.co.uk
Portable sunshine: Earbuds that shine light into your ears
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/02/start/portable-sunshine
10 comments
There's a good discussion about these, including responses from the makers here: "Valkee Scam" http://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2011/09/valkee-scam/
I disagree with what this bit:
There are a number of holes in your skull and your ears are two of them.
Whether or not the brain reacts to light is either proven or disproven depending on whether you find a flaw in this research or can conduct research that finds against it.
The brain isn’t designed to get light in to it. If your
brain is receiving light; there’s a hole in your head.
That’s not healthy!
There are a number of holes in your skull and your ears are two of them.
Whether or not the brain reacts to light is either proven or disproven depending on whether you find a flaw in this research or can conduct research that finds against it.
It just seems very unlikely - that reactivity to light would serve no purpose and hence could be optimized away.
And I think there is something more than "either proven or disproven". If you claim you have an invisible dragon in your garage, it seems very unlikely that you are telling the truth. No need to run experiments for that. (brain and light might be more likely than invisible dragons, just making a point).
And I think there is something more than "either proven or disproven". If you claim you have an invisible dragon in your garage, it seems very unlikely that you are telling the truth. No need to run experiments for that. (brain and light might be more likely than invisible dragons, just making a point).
Evolution does not optimise away. It removes disadvantageous mutations.
This is not an invisible dragon: they have done an experiment and produced a result. If the effect is accurate, measurable and repeatable then it is fact.
If you can scientifically prove the existence of invisible dragons through experiment then I would be prepared to believe in them.
Have you ever seen a germ? An electron? A black hole? Here be dragons!
I think there is something more than "either proven or disproven".
This is not an invisible dragon: they have done an experiment and produced a result. If the effect is accurate, measurable and repeatable then it is fact.
If you can scientifically prove the existence of invisible dragons through experiment then I would be prepared to believe in them.
Have you ever seen a germ? An electron? A black hole? Here be dragons!
Somebody posted a link to a comment on this, which seems to imply that the experiment they did is not really published - it might as well be fiction.
Do you know the invisible dragon story (I think by Carl Sagan)? It is not the same kind of invisible as an electron.
And the bit about science is nonsense. Once you have acquired some knowledge you can use it. For example once you have worked out physics, you can build bridges. You don't need to build 100 bridges for every bridge you want to build to verify that your bridge will stand.
It is true, I don't know the claim here is false. All I am saying is that it is unlikely to be true. That is not science of course. Nobody would publish a paper about a belief.
There are concepts like Occams Razor that are also part of science. We never know anything anyway - we only have degrees of belief.
Do you know the invisible dragon story (I think by Carl Sagan)? It is not the same kind of invisible as an electron.
And the bit about science is nonsense. Once you have acquired some knowledge you can use it. For example once you have worked out physics, you can build bridges. You don't need to build 100 bridges for every bridge you want to build to verify that your bridge will stand.
It is true, I don't know the claim here is false. All I am saying is that it is unlikely to be true. That is not science of course. Nobody would publish a paper about a belief.
There are concepts like Occams Razor that are also part of science. We never know anything anyway - we only have degrees of belief.
Follow the link and there is a published paper. In fact there are two: one showing their experiment with light emitting earbuds and the other showing possible light receptors buried in the brain.
This is not my field (and I assume it is not yours) so I cannot refute their claims. So far they have done an experiment and they have a significant result—in fact it is so significant that it is easily observable (10 out of 13 rather than the expected 6.5). There are three likely reasons for this result 1) Experimental error 2) Placebo effect 3) Brains react to light. The likelihood is probably in that order.
If they, or another team, can repeat this finding in a double-blind test then I will be comfortable in accepting it.
This is not bad science. It may be questionable business practice to move so soon on this (especially before a double-blind test) but it isn't total quackery.
This is not my field (and I assume it is not yours) so I cannot refute their claims. So far they have done an experiment and they have a significant result—in fact it is so significant that it is easily observable (10 out of 13 rather than the expected 6.5). There are three likely reasons for this result 1) Experimental error 2) Placebo effect 3) Brains react to light. The likelihood is probably in that order.
If they, or another team, can repeat this finding in a double-blind test then I will be comfortable in accepting it.
This is not bad science. It may be questionable business practice to move so soon on this (especially before a double-blind test) but it isn't total quackery.
If you are so pedantic about science, then other scientists should be able to repeat the experiment and get similar results. Before that happened, we don't know anything. There have been several people who claimed they invented cold fusion, too. It happens all the time (people claiming wrong things).
I think it's unlikely too - however I think the point being made is that maybe it's not completely optimized away yet. We are not at the pinnacle of evolution such that every part we have serves a clear purpose.
Evolution does not optimise away. If a mutation serves no purpose it remains unless it is replaced for a reason (or a gene has more than one function—God reuses constants ;-)).
What does 'pinnacle of evolution' mean? Sharks and spiders have been around since before dinosaurs so they must be there, surely?
Do we reach it if we hit a suitably low level of child mortality?
There is an argument that we are already at the pinnacle of evolution for our environment and we will remain there until something changes and we are tested and our children start dying. That mostly happens in chunks… everything is fine, everything is fine, everything is fine, bang meteor! although it can happen in smaller steps. Whether we are still evolving in the rich, medicalised west is a matter of debate. The third world certainly has many children dying but the cause is often not something that natural selection can fix: politics & war.
What does 'pinnacle of evolution' mean? Sharks and spiders have been around since before dinosaurs so they must be there, surely?
Do we reach it if we hit a suitably low level of child mortality?
There is an argument that we are already at the pinnacle of evolution for our environment and we will remain there until something changes and we are tested and our children start dying. That mostly happens in chunks… everything is fine, everything is fine, everything is fine, bang meteor! although it can happen in smaller steps. Whether we are still evolving in the rich, medicalised west is a matter of debate. The third world certainly has many children dying but the cause is often not something that natural selection can fix: politics & war.
Maybe a better argument would be the other way round: if that positive effect could be had by shining light on the brain, the skull would be more transparent. Anyway, yes, everything is possible. But I am not betting my money on this...
Years ago I came across an article proposing that the eye first originated as a photosensitive cell in the mass of the brain. At first the cell was binary, it detected light or darkness, and its function had some positive role in the survival of the organism that possessed it. As time passed the cell became specialized and was relocated closer to the skin.
Light penetrates skin, tendon, and bone, albeit in ever smaller amounts. It is not impossible that the brain reacts to light.
Light penetrates skin, tendon, and bone, albeit in ever smaller amounts. It is not impossible that the brain reacts to light.
The flip-side of this is that headphones may be causing depression in some people by blocking light from entering the brain through the ear canal.
Perhaps we should all be taking our earbuds off on sunny days?
Perhaps we should all be taking our earbuds off on sunny days?
I haven't read all of the comments here, but I come from a pretty good neuroscience background and have some thoughts on why this looks like baloney. It's about the way the brain works. The brain itself is not a sensory organ. It processes signals from sensory organs. Information reaches the eye or the skin or the tongue as mechanical, chemical, and optical data but then get transduced into an electrical impulse. Even if there were light receptors in the brain, it's highly unlikely that they would be so specific that activating them would cause positive feelings. That's how information gets processed at the level of our senses, but not in our brains. Individual neurons do not hold individual memories. Nor do they seem to control specific emotions.
If shining light on the brain actually changed the levels of activity, it would have an impact on entire neural circuits, not just on this one process. At least, that's how I see it.
If shining light on the brain actually changed the levels of activity, it would have an impact on entire neural circuits, not just on this one process. At least, that's how I see it.
We'll see who has the last laugh, but for now I feel inclined to say "this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard"...
25 people is not a "clinical study". It is a survey.
The sample size has nothing to do with the distinction between a survey and a study, as far as I know. Either could have a small sample size or a large sample size.
If they got a statistically significant result given some alpha value, then that's a valid result, assuming the experiment itself was set up in a valid way (random sampling, controlled, double blind, etc.). Statistical significance tests take the sample size into account. A large enough difference can make up for a small sample size, and vice versa.
If they got a statistically significant result given some alpha value, then that's a valid result, assuming the experiment itself was set up in a valid way (random sampling, controlled, double blind, etc.). Statistical significance tests take the sample size into account. A large enough difference can make up for a small sample size, and vice versa.
I have said this before in HN, but I'll repeat myself: don't trust this study.
The Valkee company is financially backed by ex-Nokia execs and other people with money and influence in Finland. They have the means to get a small University in Northern Finland to make a study in their favor.
There have been interesting studies about light sensivity in the skin, so why not the brain. However, this study doesn't really prove anything.
Also, don't underestimate the value of placebo in the treatment of mental ailments.
The Valkee company is financially backed by ex-Nokia execs and other people with money and influence in Finland. They have the means to get a small University in Northern Finland to make a study in their favor.
There have been interesting studies about light sensivity in the skin, so why not the brain. However, this study doesn't really prove anything.
Also, don't underestimate the value of placebo in the treatment of mental ailments.
Right! So even as a $185 placebo, its good medicine?
The $185 price probably contributes to the placebo effect. It was expensive so it _must_ work.
You'd be amazed by how many medical studies uses such small sample sizes.
Often its for a good reason for instance when looking at the effectiveness of a surgical procedure in a sub-group or the treatment for a reasonably rare condition. Sometimes it is because of the need to use a random or carefully selected bias group.
But, as a one-time criminologist's statistician used to samples in 1000s (or 100s at least), I have often concluded that it was just bad science.
Often its for a good reason for instance when looking at the effectiveness of a surgical procedure in a sub-group or the treatment for a reasonably rare condition. Sometimes it is because of the need to use a random or carefully selected bias group.
But, as a one-time criminologist's statistician used to samples in 1000s (or 100s at least), I have often concluded that it was just bad science.
Their most recent study presented at a conference in Budapest this week had 89 patients. There's a good amount of information on the Valkee website http://www.valkee.com/uk/science.html#navigation, as well as a more recent article here http://www.arcticstartup.com/2011/11/08/valkees-claimed-bene...
and 25 people is a small enough group that you can do just a few surveys, then pick the group that gives the results you wanted, all without spending very much money.
22/25 will not be caused by random error. That is either a significant find or a systematic error in method.
It is also inconceivable that a University group like this would do that—If they did they would all be in serious trouble.
It will be interesting to see what the double-blind survey finds.
It is also inconceivable that a University group like this would do that—If they did they would all be in serious trouble.
Ten out of 13 patients (76.9%) achieved full remission
It will be interesting to see what the double-blind survey finds.
> It is also inconceivable that a University group like this would do that—If they did they would all be in serious trouble.
What? It is trivially easy to find awful research from universities.
I've been involved (as a lay member of a research review panel) with university students who want to do clinical research. They come to the RRP with a proposal, and we walk through it and point out where they might have problems. It is amazing how many groups ignore things like small sample sizes or double blinding or control groups etc. Those are all basics that any student should have been aware of. And then there are the more subtle things like anonymising data or getting proper consent.
Having said all that, this news release link (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bright-light-into-th...) gives more information about methodology.
Note that they're researching SAD, which is not depression, and is rarer. Most people with depression don't show great results from light boxes.
What? It is trivially easy to find awful research from universities.
I've been involved (as a lay member of a research review panel) with university students who want to do clinical research. They come to the RRP with a proposal, and we walk through it and point out where they might have problems. It is amazing how many groups ignore things like small sample sizes or double blinding or control groups etc. Those are all basics that any student should have been aware of. And then there are the more subtle things like anonymising data or getting proper consent.
Having said all that, this news release link (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bright-light-into-th...) gives more information about methodology.
Note that they're researching SAD, which is not depression, and is rarer. Most people with depression don't show great results from light boxes.
I agree that there are many pieces of bad research—this may well be one of them. Without seeing their full methodology its difficult to judge. There are many ways a piece of research can be flawed.
I disagree that a team of researchers from a University of this standing that is composed like this would run study multiple times and cherry pick the dataset with the result they desire and if they did they certainly would be risking serious professional (if not criminal) damage.
The researchers are:
I disagree that a team of researchers from a University of this standing that is composed like this would run study multiple times and cherry pick the dataset with the result they desire and if they did they certainly would be risking serious professional (if not criminal) damage.
The researchers are:
Markku Timonen1 M.D. Ph.D, Juuso Nissilä1, MSc.,
Heidi Jurvelin1, MSc., Anu Liettu M.D.,
Jari Jokelainen1, M.Sc., Antti Aunio MSc. ,
Pirkko Räsänen3, M.D. Ph.D., Timo Takala M.D. Ph.D.
You're right. These are all people who should know how to conduct a sensible study. I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's good or poor or complete rubbish.
It's also trivially easy to find doctors who are idiots and wingnuts who believe obvious nonsense.
It's also trivially easy to find doctors who are idiots and wingnuts who believe obvious nonsense.
Once they add the ability to play music they'll have a killer product in their hands.
See for example this: http://www.futurity.org/top-stories/skins-eye-like-receptors...
"Skin is able to detect ultraviolet light by using a receptor previously thought to only exist in the eye."
Having light sensitive cells inside your head (in other places than eyes) obviously sounds ridiculous if you believe in intelligent design. However if you think about evolution and how it works, I would say there is pretty good chance all our cells do not have just the functions they absolutely need to have.
Having light sensitive cells inside your head (in other places than eyes) obviously sounds ridiculous if you believe in intelligent design. However if you think about evolution and how it works, I would say there is pretty good chance all our cells do not have just the functions they absolutely need to have.
It's fairly difficult to pinpoint something that humans have that couldn't have been placed there intelligently. Evolution drives organisms, if at all possible, to co-opt anything that develops because of structural constraints. Most of the time it is possible.
This class of traits is something that Steven J Gould named as evolutionary spandrels. So in practice, I would expect the ultraviolet receptors in the skin to have at least one meaningful function. The fact that exposing people to ultraviolet light changes their hormonal balance would tend to suggest this as well. They're definitely doing something.
As a separate argument, a creationist could also provide some information theoretic arguments for why some cells have pointless features. Unnecessary complexity in a biological organism, like in any other computer program, is a dangerous risk. As risk management, we might want to handle that danger by accepting a harmless redundancy and not building an additional subsystem that chaotically interacts with all our other subsystems.
This class of traits is something that Steven J Gould named as evolutionary spandrels. So in practice, I would expect the ultraviolet receptors in the skin to have at least one meaningful function. The fact that exposing people to ultraviolet light changes their hormonal balance would tend to suggest this as well. They're definitely doing something.
As a separate argument, a creationist could also provide some information theoretic arguments for why some cells have pointless features. Unnecessary complexity in a biological organism, like in any other computer program, is a dangerous risk. As risk management, we might want to handle that danger by accepting a harmless redundancy and not building an additional subsystem that chaotically interacts with all our other subsystems.
Skin cells are not part of the nervous system, they apparently use rhodopsin just to regulate melanin. You can make any part of the brain photosensitive by injecting Channelrhodopsin viral vectors, that's an exciting recent experimental area called optogenetics.
You seem to assume that skin cells don't need to detect ultraviolet light.
Commuters have plenty of artificial light around them. Cyclists and walkers would need this more, but it probably blocks out sound. The whole artificial sun-like light thing does make sense, but mostly as a bedroom light.
Even assuming this works reliably, £160 seems overpriced for what's basically a couple of small torches.
This sort of thing just screams bullshit. Yes, I get that light therapy or whatever it's called is prescribed but somehow I doubt that two little LEDs shoved in your ears is anything close to a substitute.
These are aimed for people suffering the winter depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder
That's what I was thinking of. But, like I said, I doubt little ear lights are a substitute for giant light panels.
Then again, maybe they are. It's just too suspicious.
Then again, maybe they are. It's just too suspicious.
At least there's a lot of pretty graphs on their website:
http://www.valkee.com/uk/science.html#evidence
It feels overpriced, but they're competing with daylight lamps, and those are in the 100 - 300 euro range, with most being around 200 euro (I'm currently looking for one, suggestions welcome!). So in that context, they're priced at market-rate.
Off-the-shelf incandescents should do the job: the resulting spectrum matches daylight best compared to other sources (you get close to full spectrum black body radiation, like from the sun). It just becomes a question of supplying enough, but a 100W lamp (or two) near your work area may be enough to boost your mood. I'm no expert on SAD, but from the lighting physics side, "daylight" lamps sound like a scam.
I don't think you're right about incandescents - light from them is much yellower than from a full-spectrum bulb. Question: wouldn't an incandescent have to be at the same temp as the sun to produce the same colour black-body output? (Happy to be corrected here if I'm missing something.)
At home we have a 600W halogen that is much yellower than our 400W daylight box. Subjectively the daylight bulb feels much more natural. That's not to say there are or aren't any benefits for SAD/depression of course.
'natural' until you look out the window to see it's dark, of course. For that reason I tend to prefer the halogen if I want light in the evening - the yellow tone provides plenty of light without trying to pretend that it's daytime.
At home we have a 600W halogen that is much yellower than our 400W daylight box. Subjectively the daylight bulb feels much more natural. That's not to say there are or aren't any benefits for SAD/depression of course.
'natural' until you look out the window to see it's dark, of course. For that reason I tend to prefer the halogen if I want light in the evening - the yellow tone provides plenty of light without trying to pretend that it's daytime.
A 100W incandescent has a color temperature of about 3000 K, while the sun is 5700 K, so yes, it does appear more yellow. Because both incandescents and the sun are essentially black bodies, their color temperature is their actual temperature (the filament in an incandescent is about 3000 K).
Other light sources, such as white LEDs can produce 5700 K light, but their spectrum is actually much different from solar. They can get away with emulating 5700 K with only two or three wavelengths, while a black body emits approximately continuously throughout the wavelengths (this is due to the way correlated colour temperature is calculated; incandescents and the sun waste a lot of energy on non-visible infrared wavelenghts).
For electricity efficiency purposes, LEDs are great, because they don't waste electricity generating wavelengths we don't see (or ones that are cancelled out by other wavelengths). But for SAD, white light is likely not the requirement; our eyes have cells that have different sensory response based on wavelength -- apparent colour is an afterthought. Some of these cells are thought to affect SAD through melatonin inhibition, so the big question would be: what wavelengths are these cells most sensitive too, so we can optimize lights for them? Some cursory googling says that the jury is still out on that one.
tl;dr: colour temperature of light isn't what we should be optimizing for when dealing with SAD, because our eyes have spectrum sensors, not colour sensors. Be wary of marketing hype because you can likely get away with $1 lightbulbs, instead of $300 lamps.
Other light sources, such as white LEDs can produce 5700 K light, but their spectrum is actually much different from solar. They can get away with emulating 5700 K with only two or three wavelengths, while a black body emits approximately continuously throughout the wavelengths (this is due to the way correlated colour temperature is calculated; incandescents and the sun waste a lot of energy on non-visible infrared wavelenghts).
For electricity efficiency purposes, LEDs are great, because they don't waste electricity generating wavelengths we don't see (or ones that are cancelled out by other wavelengths). But for SAD, white light is likely not the requirement; our eyes have cells that have different sensory response based on wavelength -- apparent colour is an afterthought. Some of these cells are thought to affect SAD through melatonin inhibition, so the big question would be: what wavelengths are these cells most sensitive too, so we can optimize lights for them? Some cursory googling says that the jury is still out on that one.
tl;dr: colour temperature of light isn't what we should be optimizing for when dealing with SAD, because our eyes have spectrum sensors, not colour sensors. Be wary of marketing hype because you can likely get away with $1 lightbulbs, instead of $300 lamps.
Has any study been conducted about any possible side effects any such thing would have? after all if light to skull would have been so useful then evolution should have made it so. If it isn't so then either its of not much use or it has some bad effects too.
You misunderstand evolution. The idea is to be good enough to reproduce, not to be optimal. Hence why humans have loads of vestigial crap that serves no purpose.
Apart from reproduction it also applies to survival. And feeling good is clearly on the side of supporting survival. Take tails for example, it does not provide any reproductive support (i believe) and it was unnecessary since we started walking on ground instead of trees so it eventually went away. Same for gills. All i am saying is that if it had good enough use, it would have made some development in the regard however small or trivial it may be.
Also my first question was regarding its side effects, evolution is just something i used to support my question, but my question in general still remains unanswered..
Also my first question was regarding its side effects, evolution is just something i used to support my question, but my question in general still remains unanswered..
> Apart from reproduction it also applies to survival
Still irrelevant, evolution isn't an intelligent concept that looks at every option and picks out the best solutions. What's more, evolution isn't something that happened in the past, it's still happening; we are not the best possible animal, we are probably not the best possible human.
Still irrelevant, evolution isn't an intelligent concept that looks at every option and picks out the best solutions. What's more, evolution isn't something that happened in the past, it's still happening; we are not the best possible animal, we are probably not the best possible human.
But we also have stuff that serves a purpose but without which we would still be good enough to reproduce. Eyebrows for example, are a good shield for your eyes against snow and dust falling from above. I'm happy to have them. But I can't imagine survival ever depending on them. Or is their existence proof that humans at some point in evolution got a real advantage from eyebrows in regards to reproduction? (serious question, I'm not being sarcastic)
The eyebrow may have been of use when humans had predators who attacked in the rain, or it may have been advantageous to a distant ancestor who lived through a one-off natural disaster: a meteor strike or a volcano. It may also be an effective way to communicate silently when your hands are busy elsewhere, or a vital addition to those who use fire.
The eyebrow might also have never been of any competitive advantage without also being a hindrance in any way.
Evolution is all about the death of children. If a mutation leads to the death of its carrier before they can reproduce then it will be naturally selected out of the gene pool. Anything that isn't removed in this way will still remain.
In a smaller way if a mutation helps a parent (or other relation) to raise more children to adulthood then more copies of the mutation will appear in the gene pool.
All mutations start out without a use. Maybe the advantage that an eyebrow brings has yet to be realised.
The eyebrow might also have never been of any competitive advantage without also being a hindrance in any way.
Evolution is all about the death of children. If a mutation leads to the death of its carrier before they can reproduce then it will be naturally selected out of the gene pool. Anything that isn't removed in this way will still remain.
In a smaller way if a mutation helps a parent (or other relation) to raise more children to adulthood then more copies of the mutation will appear in the gene pool.
All mutations start out without a use. Maybe the advantage that an eyebrow brings has yet to be realised.
Try this: shave your eyebrows and then run 5 miles. Ok by now you should have a significant amount of sweat pouring directly into your eyes, does it hurt? are they swollen? can you see well enough to throw a spear at a reindeer?
They're also useful for facial expressions, which clearly have reproductive implications.
That's not how evolution works. Are you saying humans are currently optimal in every possible way?
No i am not saying that evolution leads to optimal development, but just that if it has such good implications then something should have happened in this regard, however small or trivial.
Evolution does not optimal development this is a general misunderstanding. Evolution is not 'survival of the fittest' it it 'survival of the just fit enough'.
Darwin was clear about this, sadly the eugenics movement of the late Victorian age were not.
Darwin was clear about this, sadly the eugenics movement of the late Victorian age were not.