At Minnesota baby research lab, science and surprises



University of Minnesota child brain development

Sophie Sandin isn’t wearing a white coat, but she’s getting ready for a day in the lab. The 18-month-old, in her tie-dye shirt and pink leggings sits calmly in her moms lap while researchers fit her with an EEG cap to monitor her brain waves.

“You get to wear the special hat!” Emmy Higgs Matzner, manager of the University of Minnesota Child Brain and Perception Lab, tells Sophie, who celebrates by holding up the toy in her hand.

In this experiment, baby Sophie is shown a series of photos of men, women and made up objects. A narrator asks prompts like, “Where is the mommy?” and “Show me the daddy.” There are breaks in between so Sophie doesn’t get bored.

The researchers will look at how Sophie's brain responds to the prompts and pictures. It’s a follow up to a previous study from the lab to see how infants process language and begin to categorize people by race and gender.

Sophie’s participating in one of many studies across the University of Minnesota’s catalog of childhood research. The Institute of Child Development has 20 research labs, all studying the ways children and families and their environments relate to each other.

“We’re interested in whether at any age, and then specifically, what age do infants seem to generalize the words ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’ to people that are not their caretakers, but also may map onto kind of the gendered, kind of stereotypical gendered category of maleness and femaleness,” said lab director Charisse Pickron.

university of minnesota brain development 3
Sophie Sandin, 18 months, watches a TV screen with Child Brain and Perception lab director Charisse Pickron. Sophie, 18 months, is shown a series of photos and prompts to gauge her perception of gender with the words "mommy" and "daddy."
Kyra Miles | MPR News

Pickron said the research they do with child participants is slow but it gives parents an opportunity to really see what their child can do. She said society doesn’t really give babies enough credit.

“There is that sentiment that infants are these sponges,” Pickron said. “They’re just absorbing all this information, which is true, but they’re not passive. They’re not just sitting there. And so much of what infants learn and perceive and attend to, they have agency in changing what their environment does around them.”

Pickron said her students often joke that babies are smarter than adults.

“I mean, did you learn a brand new language and learn a new way to move your body in the past three months?” Pickron laughed.

93 faces, and that’s it

Another example of baby prowess from Pickron’s research: Before six months, babies can differentiate all faces, regardless of race. But by nine months and into adulthood that perception of faces narrows.

“So adults and 9-month-olds perform kind of similarly, not being able to differentiate faces of a race they're not as experienced with, and that can have kind of cascading implications for other areas of which we use faces we think about like face recognition,” she said. “I think about it in the justice system of being able to tell, did I see this person or this person in this moment?”

Exploring these implications can be helpful long-term, but these studies have a more immediate impact for caregivers, Pickron added.

“I think the research really informs the foundation of how we build our curriculum and how we imagine our relationship with children and families,” said Marie Lister, who teaches preschool children at the U’s Child Development Laboratory School.

“We really rely on our teachers to have a really deep understanding of child development, how children learn.”

university of minnesota brain development 5
Sophie Sandin, 18 months, runs down the hallways of the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development after taking part in an experiment.
Kyra Miles | MPR News

Lister said the program prides itself on using an emergent curriculum that changes as more research comes out on how children grow and perceive the world around them.

Back at the lab, the researchers only run the experiment as long as the child is willing. Sophie indicates she’s done after looking at 93 faces.

This study started a few months ago, so Sophie is one of what researchers call “pilot babies.” Sophie’s mother, Gianna Rea-Sandin, is a professor of pediatrics at the U. She’s signed up all three of her children for research studies.

“I just know the importance of participating in research,” Rea-Sandin said. “It furthers our understanding of child development — and it gets them out of the house. So it's something for us to do to have them learn and get exposed to other stuff, too. So kind of a win-win.”

Research with infants is a slow process, so it’ll be at least a year until Rea-Sandin gets to see any conclusions from today’s experiment, but she said she’s happy to lay a good foundation for her children — to appreciate science and be a part of it.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


I was watching a Ford truck commercial—you know, the kind that airs during Monday Night Football—and the theme was how good solid blue-collar Americans who own small welding businesses and wear plaid flannel shirts always give 100%. Cue Bob Seger, “Like a Rock.”

Oh wait, that was Chevy. But you get the idea.

Anyway, Ford has obviously gone soft. Anyone who follows sports or business figures on social media knows that giving 100% is for losers. Winners give 110% every day. I know this from watching Shark Tank and that Michael Jordan documentary.

This idea is not limited to athletes and self-made billionaires. There’s another group that really likes to say that you need to exert the maximum possible effort, stretching yourself to the limit, every time, all the time.

The 110% mentality in law practice

Lawyers, of course. Especially in the BigLaw world. It’s a standard part of the culture.

Just ask that prominent “law-bro” recruiter who’s always giving cringey advice. Or that firm that billed a bazillion hours on the Twitter lawsuit.

I chalk up this 110% rhetoric mainly to marketing. It’s the image law firms want to sell to their clients, and also to their associates. They want clients to think they go all out, all the time, and they want associates to feel guilty when they don’t bill as many hours as humanly possible.

I’ve always been kind of skeptical about this idea. For starters, I just don’t think it’s realistic to demand maximum effort, 25 billable hours a day, for days on end. Anybody who has worked in a law firm knows this just doesn’t really happen.

I mean, we’re talking about practice. Not a game . . .

But lately I’ve been thinking about a different objection to the “always be grinding” mentality in law firm culture: does it actually result in better performance?

I hypothesize that lawyers and other professionals might actually perform at a higher level if they ditch the 110% approach.

To test this hypothesis, I did an experiment.

My scientific experiment

I went to the park to test how far I could kick a soccer ball. But here’s the key: I did it two ways.

First, I thought about kicking the ball as hard as I possibly could.

Second, I relaxed and thought about kicking the ball hard, but not as hard as I could.

To keep it scientific, I repeated the experiment multiple times. I mean, like at least three times.

I don’t even need to tell you what happened.

Yes, of course, I got more distance with the second approach. Maybe not every single time, but definitely most of the time.

The same experiment works with driving a golf ball off the tee. If you play golf at all, you already know this. When you walk up to the tee box thinking “I’m going to smack the crap out of this ball,” the result is almost always bad. Unless you are John Daly. But I digress.

The point is that the experiment illustrates a principle well known to sports psychologists, the “85 Percent Rule.”

The 85 Percent Rule

Here’s what people who coach elite athletes already know. Let’s say you tell a world-class sprinter to run the 100-meter dash at 85% effort. Often that results in a faster time than trying to run at 100% effort.

Now, of course, this isn’t a highly scientific theory, and you can quibble with the details. But that’s not the point.

The point is that athletes often get better results when they don’t try as hard as they possibly can.

What gives? Why is that?

The theory is that when elite athletes concentrate on exerting the maximum possible effort, they tense up, and their performance suffers. When they think about giving 85%, they relax and perform better.

Could the same principle hold true for lawyers, and other professionals?

Anecdotal evidence and my own personal experience suggest the answer may be yes.

Do the most effective lawyers give 110 percent?

Have you ever watched a lawyer in the courtroom who just seems to be trying too hard? It can be hard to watch. They’re going all out to try to persuade the judge or jury to go their way, but instead they just sound desperate, or overly aggressive.

And don’t get me started on law firms over-working a file.

On the other hand, think about the most persuasive lawyers you have seen in action. Did they seem like they were straining to exert themselves as much as humanly possible? Or did they seem relaxed and confident?

You don’t even have to say anything, I already know what the best lawyers are like.

Like a rock.

______________________

Zach Wolfe (zach@zachwolfelaw.com) is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation at Zach Wolfe Law Firm (zachwolfelaw.com). Thomson Reuters has named him a Texas Super Lawyer® for Business Litigation every year since 2020.

These are his opinions, not the opinions of his firm or clients, so don’t cite part of this post against him in an actual case. Every case is different, so don’t rely on this post as legal advice for your case.



Source link