
Visualized Heartbeat Can Trigger ‘Out-of-Body Experience’ - chanux
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/visualized-heartbeat-can-trigger-out-of-body-experience.html
======
petercooper
Potentially an interesting weekend project for someone with an Oculus Rift and
a USB heart monitor :-)

~~~
stinos
side-project: figure out how high the latency can get before the effects
become less apparent. Eg does it still work if there's a delay of half a
second between your heart actually beating and you hearing/seeing the sound?
Or two seconds?

~~~
pygy_
The heart beats at a minimum of 60 BPM (except in endurance athletes where the
resting frequency can drop lower).

One second of delay or more would offset the flash after the next beat, and,
since the heart frequency varies slightly spontaneously, it would probably
prevent the phenomenon... or maybe not :-)

------
frozenport
This has a direct impact to virtual reality and videogames. Imagine if we
integrated this kind of emersion in video game?

------
samstave
I really dislike it when an article talks about something such as head mounted
display, projected image of the body, outline of light around the body AND
don't have a freaking picture of what that looks like from the actual system.

"We showed users this picture" \-- and doesn't include the picture!!

------
pcunite
Reading the title of this reminded me of a scene from a movie about Howard
Hughes. He was telling his staff that he could not sleep because he kept
"hearing his heartbeat all night long". Strange ... don't think I'll try this.

~~~
graeme
That sounds like pulsatile tinnitus. I have it in my left ear following a bike
accident where I hurt my jaw.

Dentist said it might happen, and was nothing to worry about. You get used to
it pretty fast.

------
fargolime
An OBE can range from a feeling of being located somewhere else, as in this
study, or, in my experience, a full-on alternate reality that is every bit as
real (albeit different) than this reality. I've learned that our brains (if
these experiences are truly contained within it) have the ability to imagine a
full reality that is indistinguishable in its "realness" than the one you're
experiencing now as you read this.

~~~
spyder
Yes, dreams too can feel extremely real. Also there is lucid dreaming [1] when
you realized you are dreaming but the dream environment still feels real.
There are claims that brainwaves can be altered with listening to binaural
beats [2] because they sync to them and can induce OBE and lucid dreaming, but
these claims are unverified and sounds like pseudoscience.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats)

~~~
sbirchall
To add to this, there is also a form of this known as as Astral Projection [1]
and there is a great body of esoteric teaching about the common experiences of
people who have achieved this. One may achieve access to a "place" known as
the Astral Plane[2] that is said to be occupied by certain energies and
entities, some of which can impart wisdom and some that can actually inflict
psychic damage.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to make up their own mind on the
legitimacy and effectiveness of such practices. I think, like any practiced
meditation, it is a matter of deep personal preference whether one sees
through the mysticism or is stopped short by it.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_plane](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_plane)

~~~
fargolime
Good info. To me, OBEs and lucid dreams are the same except that in the latter
I was asleep before the experience began. I've had many of both but prefer the
lucid dreams because in those I'm "hyperspaced" into them with no effort on my
part. In the OBEs I have to move from my sleeping spot to someplace
interesting, even if it's just the backyard.

I don't know if I've every astrally projected, but have met many spirits, who
are just people (albeit non-physical) in what I call the spirit world. I don't
see it as mystical. I try to keep an open mind about what the reality is (i.e.
all in my head and dead is dead, or we're part of something larger and
immortal) but lean toward immortality.

------
benjamincburns
This is one hell of an odd thing to do out of the blue. I wonder what gave the
authors the thought "hey, maybe if we make a bright outline pulse in time with
the person's heartbeat." Was there prior research to suggest this, or were
they just taking a bit of artistic license to add some mysticism?

I honestly wouldn't be too surprised if they were trying to replicate
someone's drug-induced hallucinations...

~~~
s_baby
>Was there prior research to suggest this, or were they just taking a bit of
artistic license to add some mysticism?

Research on brainwave entrainment and biofeedback.

They've done similar things with EEG machines, binaural beats, electric
stimulation, etc...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwave_entrainment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwave_entrainment)

------
lutusp
A perfectly absurd, onanistic study, and typical of psychology, but you know
what? I wish they would stop calling this "science". It's embarrassing to real
science and scientists.

Next they'll claim that walking to the corner drugstore produces an out-of-
relationship experience.

~~~
scott_s
I'm curious why you say this. Note that they do not mean to imply that the
participants _actually_ believe they are out of their body. Just that the
contrived situation they were in induced that sensation. And if they are able
to reliably induce that sensation in people through that situation, then I
think it's worth investigating why.

~~~
lutusp
>> I wish they would stop calling this "science". It's embarrassing to real
science and scientists.

> I'm curious why you say this.

Because it's not science?

> And if they are able to reliably induce that sensation in people through
> that situation, then I think it's worth investigating why.

Yes, but psychologists never seem to get around to asking "why", only "what".
There's a bit more to science than observing interesting phenomena and
publishing descriptions. Psychology is in the midst of a historical upheaval
because they only describe things and don't try to shape theories --
explanations -- about what they describe.

Scientists eventually get around to crafting theories about their observations
-- theories that can be applied to new observations, that predict things not
yet observed, and that can be falsified by new evidence. Psychologists don't
do that -- over a period of decades, psychologists has given up on theory-
shaping and now limit themselves to observing and reporting what they
observed.

And the chickens are coming home to roost. The director of the NIMH has
recently decided to phase out the DSM, psychology's "bible" and a central
authority for psychological clinical work, on the ground that it's not
scientific:

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
dia...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
diagnosis.shtml)

A quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at
best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength
of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has
ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. _The weakness is
its lack of validity_."

In the long term, neuroscience will produce the sorts of explanations --
theories -- that psychology seems unable to produce. That time hasn't arrived,
but current events suggest it's not too soon to begin to phase out
psychology's failed effort to craft a theory of mind.

~~~
scott_s
But psychologist do have theories-of-the-mind to try to describe _why_ we end
up thinking the things that we do. They are not complete, but it's not like
they're not trying at all. And while there is more to science than publishing
descriptions, it is still _part_ of science.

I think that not limiting research to the DSM makes sense. The DSM is a
_clinical_ tool. It is necessarily a symptom-based descriptions of mental
disorders. Steven Novella of Science Based Medicine explains this quite well:
[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dsm-5-and-the-fight-
for-...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dsm-5-and-the-fight-for-the-
heart-of-psychiatry/)

(I actually heard this line of talk from him on the podcast The Skeptics Guide
to the Universe, on which he is the host:
[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/](http://www.theskepticsguide.org/))

~~~
lutusp
> But psychologist do have theories-of-the-mind to try to describe why we end
> up thinking the things that we do.

That's false. Psycholgists and psychiatrists do not craft or test falsifiable
scientific theories -- they publish descriptions without explanations.

> They are not complete ...

They're not scientific. They lack essential properties that a scientific
theory most have, primarily falsifiability, but including the ability to
predict observations not yet made, and the ability to produce consensus --
accepted principles -- among different workers in the same field.
Psychologists and psychiatrists famously disagree on even the most basic
things. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There
are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients
with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other
disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are
especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients
have."

> And while there is more to science than publishing descriptions, it is still
> part of science.

Not without falsifiable theories. Remember that falsifiability -- a practical
way to compare ideas to reality and abandon ideas that fail the test -- is
essential to science.

The difference between psychology and astrology is that astrology has clearly
stated theories, theories that have been tested and found wanting.

~~~
jessedhillon
> _That 's false. Psycholgists and psychiatrists do not craft or test
> falsifiable scientific theories -- they publish descriptions without
> explanations._

You know nothing about the current state of psychological research and should
stop posting.

~~~
lutusp
> You know nothing about the current state of psychological research and
> should stop posting.

A productive argument. You may be surprised to learn that the current director
of the NIMH shares my views and is acting on them:

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-
scientific-backlash-against-the-dsm.html)

Quote: "When Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute of Mental
Health, came out swinging with his critiques of the American Psychiatric
Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a couple
of weeks ago, longtime critics of psychiatry were shocked and gratified. Insel
announced that that the D.S.M.’s diagnostic categories lacked validity, that
they were not “based on any objective measures,” and that, “unlike our
definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma or AIDS,” which are grounded
in biology, they were nothing more than constructs put together by committees
of experts. America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many
had been saying all along: _that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of
inclusion in the medical kingdom_."

Maybe Insel should take your sage advice and "stop posting" as well. Or maybe
you could learn a bit more about this topic.

~~~
jessedhillon
You know, when you post links to the articles you quote from, people can read
them and see if the opinions expressed support your thesis. In this case
you're posting an article where the NIMH director wonders aloud whether a
diagnostic manual hasn't become the proverbial territory itself. Much, much
less strong of a claim than yours.

Second, your original claim is that this research posted here today is empty,
navel-gazing non-science. And still your efforts to show that this claim is
true are also wanting, but not for a lack of heat and bluster.

~~~
lutusp
> In this case you're posting an article where the NIMH director wonders aloud
> whether a diagnostic manual hasn't become the proverbial territory itself.

The director isn't merely "wonder[ing] aloud", has has announced his intention
to phase out the DSM entirely, replace it with a more evidence-based approach,
one that tries to explain, rather than merely describe. In other words, he's
saying what I say in this thread.

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-
scientific-backlash-against-the-dsm.html)

Quote: "When Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute of Mental
Health, came out swinging with his critiques of the American Psychiatric
Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a couple
of weeks ago, longtime critics of psychiatry were shocked and gratified. Insel
announced that that the D.S.M.’s diagnostic categories lacked validity, that
they were not “based on any objective measures,” and that, “unlike our
definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma or AIDS,” which are grounded
in biology, they were nothing more than constructs put together by committees
of experts. America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many
had been saying all along: _that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of
inclusion in the medical kingdom._ "

In case you're wondering how the current discussion conflates the DSM, a mere
book, with psychiatry and psychology, large established fields, it's because
the DSM is to psychiatry and psychology what the Standard Model is to physics
-- it represents a distillation of research efforts spanning decades.
Therefore to reject the DSM is to reject psychiatry and psychology as serious
science.

> ... your original claim is that this research posted here today is empty,
> navel-gazing non-science.

I suggest that you limit yourself to things I've actually said. But, without
either producing a new, empirical, testable theory, or comparing the outcome
to an existing theory, the article can only describe the sort of instantly
forgettable observation that plagues modern psychological research. That's
what's wrong with modern psychological research -- it doesn't lead to
consensus, to established principles, principles that might turn psychology
into a science.

------
baxter001
A novel way of reproducing:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisensory_integration#Rubber...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisensory_integration#Rubber_hand_illusion)

