Ambiguous
images produce a curious phenomenon: when people see the image change from one
perception to another in a bistable image (like the duck/rabbit image), or when
they see the visual illusion, they laugh. (I realized this phenomenon from
watching Al Seckel’s Ted Talk, Visual
illusions that show us how we (mis)think, posted April, 2007. I recommend
watching it, and listen to the audience, especially during the first third or
so of the presentation while you do.) Now
why should they laugh? And what does it tell us about humor? About mirth? Most interestingly (to us) is how this
phenomenon could help us find a physiological index of mirth. I am wont to think that laughter is an
expression of a subjective feeling of mirth.
You might have noticed that this thinking implies that laughter is
stimulated by the subjective feeling of mirth, that is, first mirth then
laughter. (It could be the other way
around, as the James-Lange theory of emotion would have it, that the
behavior—laughter—precedes the emotion--mirth.) Although a bit speculative, perhaps mirth is
generated by neurons in the ventral striatal reward area in response to a
rewarding cognition and sends its message to the supplemental motor area to
generate laughter. We would like to find
evidence to support this causal chain, at least insofar as subjective feeling
preceding motor response.
A question
then is what generates mirth? Is there
something in common between jokes and bistable images? The hypothesis we plan to test is that the
common “cognition” is comprehension.
With both “getting” jokes and “resolving” ambiguous images is “I get it,”
I see it,” or “I understand it.” Comprehension
is the rewarding cognition” that mediates mirth and laughter, or so we will
test.
The purpose
of the exploration into the physiology of mirth is that something besides jokes
is needed to determine if stroke survivors can experience mirth—feelings of
joy. While it is clear that some stroke
survivors experience mirth—they laugh at jokes, it is not clear if other stroke
survivors do experience mirth. One
difference between stroke survivors who laugh and those who do not laugh at
jokes is the location and extent of the brain lesion caused by the stroke. Jokes are a problem for some stroke survivors
because jokes require intact language but various aspects of language are compromised
for some stroke survivors. Not only
could the damage from the stroke have affected language processing, it could be
also that a stroke damaged the ventral striatal “reward area” thereby
eliminating mirth experiences (I suspect). And too, if we can find a way to
elicit mirth from language compromised patients, can it be used
therapeutically? We need other avenues
to mirth.
Methodologically,
we will collect some neurophysiological measures. We are going to place sensors on the face to
detect activity in the zygomaticus muscle, which runs from the corner of the
mouth to the tip of the ear lobe, to detect even the faintest tendency to
smile. We will connect another sensor on
the forehead just between the eyes to detect activity in the corrugator muscle,
which will register a tendency to frown. In addition to these electromyographic (EMG) responses,
we will connect a third set of sensors to the volar phalanges of the index and
middle fingers of the non-dominant hand to detect electrodermal activity (EDA,
also known as GSR). EDA activity will suggest an emotional response. If the emotional response is related to mirth,
then we expect EDA to be correlated with activity in the zygomaticus but not correlated
with activity in the corrugator. Perhaps I should say correlated more strongly
with activity in the zygomaticus than in the corrugator because a frown will be
associated with a subjective emotional response generated by unjokes, as one
grad student called them—too but hopefully a much weaker one. However, mirth will have to be detected
neurophysiologically and these measures compared between different (potential) sources
of mirth.