Humans living on the Indonesian coast frequently discard halved coconut shells in the ocean, and it turns out that their eight-legged neighbors have been making use of them. Researchers have filmed veined octopi, Amphioctopus marginatus, moving the shell halves by placing their bodies inside the hollowed-out portion, draping their legs over the edges, and bringing the shells along for the ride. When the coconut-carrying octopus feels threatened, it will pull the half shell over its body (or sometimes pulls two halves of a whole coconut over itself), and wait inside their armored home until the threat passes.

Veined octopi have been seen hiding out inside coconut shells before, but researchers hadn't realized that the creatures were deliberately carting the shells around for this purpose. Marine biologist Julian Finn of Melbourne's Museum Victoria caught a lucky glimpse of a veined octopus carrying and using the shells, and has since filmed four octopi doing the same thing.

Finn and other researchers argue that this is the first reported use of tools by an invertebrate species, as this is a sophisticated, costly behavior in which an animal manipulates an object for future plans. While others argue that it does not fit the standard definition of tool use, since the octopus isn't using the object to act on another object, it may still require a sophisticated level of cognition, and we should investigate what makes such foresight possible.

Octopuses use coconut shells as portable shelters [New Scientist]

The researchers first proved this using rats. According to ABC News:

[Neuroscientist Marie Monfils'] team first taught rats to associate a musical tone with a slight electric shock. Playing the tone with no shock generally causes rats to freeze in fear. When her team played the tone over and over again, 19 times, the rats displayed less and less fear. This is standard extinction therapy. However, a month later their fear of the tone returned, strong as ever.

To make the effect permanent, Monfils team jogged other rats' memories of shocks just once, waited an hour for memory reconsolidation to begin, and then played the tone over and over.

"It's very simple and almost naïve to think it would work," Monfils says. But the fearful memories disappeared permanently.

Later, another research group tried the same test on humans, teaching subjects to associate the sight of a blue square with a shock. Using this therapy, they halted the humans' fear responses (measured in sweating) to the blue square. They were also able to retrain the people to fear a yellow square, but not the blue one. This sounds like something straight out of a dystopian 1970s movie, where giant computers would train humans to fear glowing blue squares and glowing yellow squares in order to force them to polish strangely bulbous plastic furniture.

via ABC

Tarr and his team examined how test subjects identified the gender of Caucasian faces by taking 200 pictures of men and women in the same position, under the same lighting conditions. They blurred the faces together and pixelated them (like in the image above). Then they asked their subjects to figure out whether an essentially genderless face was male or female. Overwhelmingly, subjects would guess male if the face had more red in it, and female if it had more green.

So what's the point?

A statement from Brown University, where Tarr did his research, explains:

Across this and related studies, Tarr has determined that observers use the color of a face when trying to identify its gender . . . The finding has important implications in cognitive science research, such as the study of face perception. But the information also has a number of potential industry or consumer applications in areas such as facial recognition technology, advertising, and studies of how and why women apply makeup.

So basically his research is going to help companies that sell makeup to white women? That doesn't sound like a big breakthrough until you consider that it may help resolve the mystery of why anybody would wear green eyeshadow.

Structure and Color in Face Recognition [via Tarr Lab]

The prizes were awarded in a ceremony at Harvard University’s Sanders Theater in ten areas:

• Nutrition: Massimiliano Zampini and Clark Spence for demonstrating that, when the sound of eating a potato chip is modified, the eater believes the chip is fresher and crisper than it really is.
• Peace: The Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology and the citizens of Switzerland for adopting the legal principle that plants have dignity.
• Archeology: Astolfo G. Mello Araujo and Jose Carlos Marcelino for demonstrating how the actions of an armadillo may scramble the contents of an archeological dig site.
• Biology: Marie-Christine Cadiergues, Christel Joubert, and Michel Franc for discovering that fleas on a dog jump higher than fleas on a cat.
• Medicine: Dan Ariely for demonstrating the high-cost placebos are more effective than low-cost placebos.
• Cognitive Science: Toshiyuki Nakagaki, Hiroyasu Yamada, Ryo Kobayashi, Atsushi Tero, Akio Ishiguro, and Agota Toth for discovering that slime molds can solve puzzles.
• Economics: Geoffrey Miller, Joshua Tybur, and Brent Jordan for discovering that a lap dancer’s ovulatory cycle affects the tips she earns.
• Physics: Dorian Raymer and Douglas Smith for mathematically proving that a heap of hair or string will inevitably tangle itself into knots.
• Chemistry: Sharee A. Umpierre, Joseph A. Hill, and Deborah J. Anderson for demonstrating that Coca-Cola is an effective spermicide, and Chuang-Ye Hong, C.C. Shieh, P. Wu, and B.N. Chiang for discovering that Coca-Cola is not an effective spermicide.
• Literature: David Sims for his study "You Bastard: A Narrative Exploration of the Experience of Indignation within Organizations.”

The 2008 Ig Nobel Prize Winners [Improbable Research]

Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and California Institute of Technology have studied the advantages of various placements of two eyes on an animal’s body, which can go beyond mere depth perception:

Most animals—fish, insects, reptiles, birds, rabbits, and horses, for example—live in non-cluttered environments like fields or plains and have eyes located on either side of their head. These sideways-facing eyes give an animal panoramic vision—the ability to see in front and behind itself.

Humans, primates, and other large mammals like tigers, however, have eyes pointing in the same direction. These animals evolved in cluttered environments, such as forests or jungles. Because of their forward-facing eyes, these animals lose the ability to see behind themselves, but they gain a type of X-ray vision that maximizes their ability to see in leafy environments.

Those two eyes focus on slightly different points, allowing us to visualize the area behind some objects:

Demonstrating this X-ray ability is fairly simple: hold a pen vertically and look at something far beyond it. If you first close one eye, and then the other, you'll see that in each case the pen blocks your view. If you open both eyes, however, you can see through the pen to the world behind it.

Unfortunately, although this ability benefited our tree-dwelling ancestors, cognitive science professor Mark Changizi notes that it is less useful to us in our modern life:

"In today's world, humans have more in common visually with tiny mice in a forest than with a large animal in the jungle. We aren't faced with a great deal of small clutter, and the things that do clutter our visual field, like cars and skyscrapers, are much wider than the separation between our eyes, so we can't use our X-ray power to see through them. If we froze ourselves today and woke up a million years from now, it might be difficult for us to look the new human population in the eye, because by then their eyes might be facing sideways."

Scientists Find Our Eyes Evolved for 'X-Ray' Vision [via Science Blog]

According to a release from the National Science Foundation:

Most IQ tests attempt to measure two types of intelligence—crystallized and fluid intelligence. Crystallized intelligence draws on existing skills, knowledge and experiences to solve problems by accessing information from long-term memory.

Fluid intelligence, on the other hand, draws on the ability to understand relationships between various concepts, independent of any previous knowledge or skills, to solve new problems. The research shows that this part of intelligence can be improved through memory training.

"When it comes to improving intelligence, many researchers have thought it was not possible," says [Swiss postdoctoral fellow Susanne M.] Jaeggi. "Our findings clearly show this is not the case. Our brain is more plastic than we might think."

The researchers say they gave four different groups varying degrees of memory-training for roughly one to two weeks. Those with more training performed better on intelligence tests than those without. Say the researchers:

The results are significant because improved fluid intelligence scores could translate into improved general intelligence as measured by IQ tests. General intelligence is a key to determining life outcomes such as academic success, job performance and occupational advancement.

So basically, you can improve your job prospects with memory training. I guess this is the ultimate slap in the face to people still subscribing to the "bell curve" theory.

Plastic Brain Outsmarts Experts [Eureka]

According to a statement about the research from Indiana University:

When information is freely shared, good ideas can stunt innovation by distracting others from pursuing even better ideas, according to Indiana University cognitive scientist Robert Goldstone . . .

This study used a virtual environment in which study participants worked in specifically designed groups to solve a problem . . . In the "fully connected" group, everyone's work was completely accessible to everyone else — much like a tight-knit family or small town. In the "locally connected" group, participants primarily were aware of what their neighbors, or the people on either side, were doing. In the "small world" group, participants also were primarily aware of what their neighbors were doing, but they also had a few distant connections that let them send or retrieve good ideas from outside of their neighborhood.

Goldstone found that the fully connected groups performed the best when solving simple problems. Small world groups, however, performed better on more difficult problems. For these problems, the truism "The more information, the better" is not valid.

"The small world network preserves diversity," Goldstone said. "One clique could be coming up with one answer, another clique could be coming up with another. As a result, the group as a whole is searching the problem space more effectively. For hard problems, connecting people by small world networks offers a good compromise between having members explore a variety of innovations, while still quickly disseminating promising innovations throughout the group.

If you're like most people (and if you like the original Star Wars and Joss Whedon's writing), you probably thought you wouldn't enjoy this blog post all that much. You've fallen prey to what Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert calls a "common affective forecasting mistake" by overestimating how much pain you'll receive from this post. Normally, however, this type of mistake is measured in potato chips.

Gilbert did a series of studies on undergraduates at Harvard that involved two potato chip scenarios. Subjects in group A were presented with a bag of potato chips and a chocolate bar, both of which they were going to eat. Subjects in group B were presented with a bag of potato chips and a tin of sardines. Asked to rate how yummy the potato chips would be, subjects in group A said "so so." Subjects in group B said, "wow totally yummy." (I'm paraphrasing.)

But when they ate the chips, all the subjects reported enjoying them as much as they always enjoy chips. These Harvard students had made an affective forecasting mistake. They'd overestimated how yummy the chips would be when in the presence of sardines and underestimated how yummy they would be when in the presence of chocolate. Neither prediction accurately described how they felt when ultimately eating the chips.

Gilbert suggests that this kind of mistake happens because humans imagining a future experience have more attention energy to burn. They cast their attention around, compare their future experience (chips) to other potential future experiences (chocolate), and then decide that because chocolate is so awesome that chips can't possibly be that great.

But if you're actually experiencing something (like eating a chip), your attention energy is focused on the crispy, oily, salty experience itself. Your mind doesn't wander as much into elaborate comparisons with other potential experiences. And therefore the experience of the chip isn't diminished by comparison with the chocolate. The chip is the chip in itself.

What this means is that when you predict how good or bad you're going to feel about a future situation, more often than not you'll probably be wrong. In fact, I'll bet you can think of at least one example off the top of your head where you severely overestimated how happy or sad something would make you.

So now that you're reading this post, by the way, you're probably enjoying it as much as you normally enjoy posts on io9. That's because you started reading, and stopped comparing it with the COOLEST BLOG POST EVAR, involving nanotech brain surgery and a better Star Wars. Sorry, kids, but you're never going to learn to predict the future correctly if you keep thinking about that.

(With apologies to Daniel Gilbert of Harvard, whose presentation at the AAAS annual meeting yesterday demonstrated that he does this experiment in a much more rigorously scientific way.)

The study focused on scratching, which is a common, slightly-painful thing that everybody does to relieve itches. Researchers stuck people in an MRI brain imaging machine and scratched their legs with brushes for five minutes, watching to see which parts of their brains were active or non-active. Areas associated with painful feelings became less active, as well as areas associated with memory. The researchers say:

We know scratching is pleasurable, but we haven't known why. It's possible that scratching may suppress the emotional components of itch and bring about relief.

The researchers suggest that further study might reveal a way to produce a drug that has the same effects as scratching or cutting does on the brain — thus preventing physical damage while providing the same relief.

Ah, that's the spot [Reuters]

Research suggests why scratching is so relieving [Eurekalert]

Rarely have I ever learned about a new philosophical trend on YouTube, but that's what's great about x-phi. It's all about the outreach. A guy who could be in Weezer, or could be your TA, offers a 3.5 minute rundown of twentieth century philosophical revolutions leading up to the x-phi revolution in this illuminating mini-lecture (note the stuffed deer head and weird music in background). Then there's the x-phi music video, featuring a burning chair (a reference to the idea that the best tool for doing philosophy is an old armchair).

But what kinds of scientific experiments have these radical philosophers of YouTube conducted? Have they located the seat of reason or judgment in the brain? Have they found neurons that twitch when you contemplate the Heidiggerian idea of "das Ding"?

Apparently, no. They spend a lot of time arguing about what counts as x-phi, and adding crap to their Facebook group page. When you investigate the "labs" where x-phi happens, you find out that they mostly study things like how people use language. They don't have EEG setups; they have discussion groups. The one reference I could find to an actual x-phi experiment involved giving people surveys to ask what they thought about a couple of basic ethical questions about the environment. This is not hard science, people.

I'm not going to take these x-phi geeks seriously until they start cutting up brains, torturing mice, and forcing undergraduates to look at weird pictures while strapped into MRI machines.

Experimental Philosophy [The Frontal Cortex]

Now there's scientific proof that a doctored photo can change history. Researcher Elizabeth Loftus altered a photo of the Rome protest, adding a person in a mask, and discovered that people took this tiny change as a sign that the protest had been combative. Apparently:

Participants who viewed the doctored photos said they were less inclined to participate in future protests.

Memory can be manipulated by photos [UC Irvine]