|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 770
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 6:42 pm: |       |
G'day,
Discussion has started on the wrong board as to whether the Ripper could have suffered from the yet to be named psychological disability of schizophrenia. I know it has been suggested by authors before, but no one has debated the issue. This disability wasn't recognized until 1911, so no medication was available in 1888.
Take a look at this link:
http://www.tmhc.nsw.gov.au/translations/ltmh4.htm
Comments?
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 496
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 8:17 am: | |
Saddam/David,
Regarding your reply on the Mary Kelly, Ripper assumptions thread:
"Once you start giving us your assumptions list, you become responsible for showing exactly how and why the list is justified, by reference straight into the case facts point-for-point, or else you've abandoned reason in favor of mere embellishment, period."
Of course. Why didn't you say so in the first place? English is not my first language and even regarded your last, quite reasonable message (for once), I only understood half of it.
But I see your point. I have actually tried to explain earlier why most of these characteristics fit just Jack the Ripper, and I hate to get repetitious and I fear that if I do that all over again I will be torn to pieces be some (altough I didn't get such strong raving reactions to my profile list as I had expected).
But I'll do my best. The problem is that such a post would probably take up room for two whole archives in itself, but I'll try to find a way to explain them point for point without taking up too much space. I have to get back to you on that later on, though, I actually have ordinary work to do as well - yes, it's true!
Finally, you can't expect any of us here to deliver conclusions solely built on facts, that is asking too much, since you know what kind of facts we are dealing with here. And regarding criminal profiling, it IS based on personal, subjective interpretations and empiric studies of behaviour. There is no other factual or scientific basis for it. I'll do my best in the near future to elaborate my points in the profile, but if you think you will find scientic evidence that supports all of these points, than I am afraid you will be dissapointed.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 130
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Leanne,
I think you'll find Erin's most excellent post on this topic in the previous thread very useful for your understanding of diagnosing schizophrenia. Why? Because the DSM IV is the diagnositc manual, in otherwords, it's what must be shown to give the diagnosis you want to give Barnett.
Now, as he's pointed out, and as Glenn has also mentioned, paranoids are the sub-type of schizophrenia which are mostly likely to be violent (relative to the other sub-types).
However, this sub-type doesn't have speech problems like "echolalia". Their speech is grammatical, they don't repeat things. What is odd about their speach is the topics, the delusions, the obsessions with some topic. They may be convinced that the FBI is trying to frame them, let's say. They often hear voices, sometimes they see things, etc.
Now, your example of "Barnett's repeating "Drinking together", looked more like someone repeating a question simply to help them formulate their reply because they are nervous. So even the example you gave did not look like echolalia. I suggest you go back and read your own post that points out that echolalia is the "parrotting back of questions heard". Echolalia not just repeating some words, it includes the lack of presenting an answer to the question. Barnett answered the questions posed, and did so lucidly, fully, without any paranoid delusions being suggested, etc. Before you go conclude Barnett showed echolalia, it would really help if you understood what echolalia is beyond the one aspect of repitition. I am trying to help you with this, but you seem to be ignoring the information.
Barnett's lack of echolalia, however, doesn't rule him out as a paranoid schizophrenic because we wouldn't really expect such from him. What does rule him out is the fact he shows absolutely no signs of any of the symptoms of schizophrenia, paranoid or otherwise.
He does not appear to show any signs of delusions.
He does not appear to have any hallucinations
He does not appear to have inappropriate emotional resposes (giggling at the inquest, for example), or to have a flat affect (no emotional response; he appears nervous - normal response and appropriate under the circumstances).
etc.
He lost his job, but apparently was still getting some daily work. Not unusual given the area.
He still had normal social connections (visited Mary, played whist with friends, etc).
In otherwords, trying to give Barnett the diagnosis of schizophrenia isn't going to work. He just did not suffer from that disorder.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 502
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 4:43 pm: | |
Excellent post as usual, Jeff. Further comments are completely redundant.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 775
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 7:38 am: | |
G'day,
JEFF: Do you think that was an excellent post of Erin's do ya? I don't! Can you understand it?
For a start, I'm not referring specifically to Joseph Barnett here! Read my opening comment on this board again. I ask for comments on whether or not the RIPPER could have suffered undiagnozed schizophrenia!
Referring back to Erins post on the other board:
* Which one of us can say that the RIPPER never suffered from delusions or hallucinations, feelings of grandeur, beliefs that he was doing the right thing, and couldn't possibly be caught?
* I notice too that Erin uses the words: 'quite rare' and 'usually'. We're researching one individual here, not a percentage!
About schizophrenia, I found on one Website: 'It usually first appears between the ages of 16-20 in men and 20-30 in women.' USUALLY, USUALLY! http://www.au.novartis.com/whatis/
click on 'Fast Facts'.
Back to Barnett for one second:(he was 30 when Mary died and could have been showing early symptoms, which could have been why the relationship was disolving.) I think we'll never find written proof, because sufferers are good at wearing a 'mask' of sanity and hiding their suffering outside the home.
I suggest YOU research about echolalia, stuttering, stammering and schizophrenia on the Internet, because that's what I did for hours. That's how I came up with that example I gave, using an actual question that Joe was asked. Apparently he did this answering EVERY question.
LEANNE
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 10:18 pm: | |
I think years of education in psychology beats websurfing. I know my background, and can guess the background of others here based upon their posts. And of course I know the DSM IV classification that Erin posted is going to be tons better than some random Internet site.
I therefore respectfully suggest, Leanne, that you might not want to diss other people's knowledge on the subject, especially if websurfing is your sole claim to expertise in the area. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 778
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 10:06 am: | |
DAN: Who's had years of education in psychology? Erin, who admits he's not a mental health professional?
We are talking about someone who lived in 1888 here!
LEANNE |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 11
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 1:06 pm: | |
First of all, I wanted to clear something up quickly so that no one else gets the wrong idea: I am a "she," not a "he." 
No, I am not a mental health professional, but my best friend is, and I made sure to check everything I said with her. She worked with schizophrenics for years--violent ones, no less--and she agrees that an unverifed case of echolalia is simply not enough to hang a diagnosis of schizophrenia on. I don't know if you've ever met or seen a schizophrenic, but it's clear after a few minutes even to a layperson that there is clearly something wrong. Their behavior is far too "out there" for anyone to consider it normal. Even the most high-functioning schizophrenic (John Nash comes to mind) is not going to come across as particularly stable, especially if they are unmedicated. My aunt is not schizophrenic, but she does suffer from Bipolar Disorder with Psychotic Features, and when she's suffering a psychotic episode, it's patently obvious to anyone who speaks with her for longer than a minute or so that she is not of sound mind. Even when medicated, she doesn't come across as 100% "normal." Schizophrenics are like this all the time. It is the nature of the disease. The very word "schizophrenia" comes from the Greek words for "split mind." Their psyche is so fragmented that they are virtually incapable (yes, I said "virtually," because some have moments of lucidity, however fleeting) of separating reality from fantasy.
I'm sorry you had trouble with the DSM-IV's definition of schizophrenia. In the United States, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is the "gold standard" of diagnostic instruments. It is what actual mental health professionals (like my friend, the former psychiatric social worker) use to appropriately categorize those suffering from some type of psychopathology. I find the language fairly straightforward, having spent some time studying abnormal psychology, but I realize that may not be the case for everyone. However, when discussing matters pertaining to mental illness, I will always consult those references members of the mental health establishment use in their work. There is a great deal of information available on the internet, some of which is accurate and some of which is decidedly not; under such circumstances, I prefer to rely on recognized authorities for those subjects on which I am not an expert myself.
I am of the opinion that Jack the Ripper, whoever he may have been, did in fact suffer some sort of mental illness. The murder in Miller's Court makes that fairly evident. However, I do not believe, based on the evidence that we currently possess, that Joe Barnett suffered anything more than a simple communication disorder, and even that assessment is a generous one, considering the clear lack of independent corroboration we have in our possession at this time.
P.S. Thank you, Dan. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 1:15 pm: | |
Hi Erin
Is it possible for a person to become mentally deranged at certain times, and afterwards revert to perfect normality, until the next attack? I'm not talking about schizophrenia here, just asking if there is a mental condition that would allow someone to be temporarily mad, and then perfectly normal. Or is this kind of thing only seen in films?
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 134
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 3:42 pm: | |
Leanne,
Since you seem concerned about backgrounds, I'm a University Lecturer in Psychology. My area of research, however, is not clincial nor am I an expert on schizophrenia. However, having studied psychology for a long time, I do know something about these areas.
I also know about the internet, and I highly recommend that if you want to do research you do more than a quick "search" on the net. Get to a library and read some dependable textbooks; more than one. So please, I think I know enough about stuttering, stammering, echolalia, and schizophrenia to make an informed post on the topic.
As for Erin's post, yes, I did understand it. That is why I thought it was excellent. If you have trouble understanding it, then you have trouble understanding what must be shown in order to diagnose someone with schizophrenia. If you don't take the time to figure out what it is you must show, you can hardly be expected to make the diagnosis now can you?
As for "the Ripper", we're talking about an unknown person. Meaning, if we're going to make guesses at what this person might be like based upon the disorder, then we would have to make our guesses based upon what the majority show; majority of schizophrenics. Generally, however, I see nothing in the Ripper murders that prevents them from being committed by someone with this disorder. I don't think, however, the Ripper "had" to be schizophrenic, but it is certainly possible and reasonable to consider the possibility. Meaning, schizophrenic individuals cannot be ruled out.
Where you get this "mask of sanity" notion from I have no idea. Some schizophrenics have their symptoms go into remission for a time period, others do not. They cannot turn them on and turn them off at will? Honestly Leanne, I think you should actually try and learn about "the real schizophrenia" rather than what appears to be Hollywood's version of it. If you take the time to read Erin's excellent post, this will be a good starting point.
Conversations with an unmedicated schizophrenic are noticably strange. They show noticably strange behaviours. If the symptoms are mild enough, they may simply be considered "the odd one", the "strange fellow with weird ideas about some topic". Regardless, they are noticed as standing out and of being strange. They do not have some "mask of sanity" (sounds like a great movie title though).
"Mask of sanity" sounds more like a psychopath/sociopath/antisocial personality disorder. These people can, and often do, appear normal. But then, they are not schizophrenic.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 135
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 3:47 pm: | |
Erin,
Once again, good post.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 522
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 3:53 pm: | |
I agree with Jeff, Erin! You're doing fine.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 523
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 4:04 pm: | |
Leanne,
Why are you so frustrated?
Since we're dealing with Jack the Ripper, a person we know practically nothing about, we must of course use words like "usually" etc. Speaking in general terms and base our anaysis on similar cases and the theories that exists - I think that's more preferable than making up circumstances that could just be fictional, for all we know. When criminal profilers, for example study a case and the criminal, they set out to define a character TYPE, not an individual. Why do you think that is?
I for my part am not necessarily CERTAIN that he was a schizofrenic, but I think there is a great possibility that he was, at least I think he was a man with strong paranoid tendensies.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 5:33 pm: | |
I'm enjoying this.
Thomas 1 Joe 0.
And I haven't even fired a shot.
I'll go back to the bar and let you chaps, and girls, fight it out. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 7:22 pm: | |
G'day,
GLENN: The reason I attacked the words 'quite rare" and 'usually' is that I didn't want everyone to consider odds, ie."The chances are...'
'Mask of sanity' is a term I picked up describing how a person tries to keep their secret from escaping outside their home.
WOLF: Is this a game is it? Wait until you read my book. It's currently 130 pages long, and Joe's psychological health plays no part.
I'll respond to the other posts when I have more time.
LEANNE |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 8:15 pm: | |
Robert, Jeff would probably be in a better position than I am to answer that, but I'll do my best. First of all, I think what you're asking is if people can experience psychotic breaks and then return to "normal." I believe the answer is yes, although it depends on how you define normal. As I mentioned before, my aunt is bipolar (as am I, although not as severely) and occasionally experiences psychotic episodes. Once she's medicated she may seem slightly odd, but she's still mostly in touch with reality. There are also individuals who experience one psychotic episode in their lives and never have another. And of course if someone is suffering from some sort of brain damage (like a tumor, or tertiary syphilis) that affects their front lobes, they might behave in a psychotic fashion until the condition is remedied. A full-blown schizophrenic, of course, is never really going to seem all that normal, no matter how high-functioning they are. And if left untreated, diseases like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder can worsen with age. I suspect my aunt has been bipolar for a long time (at its earliest it begins in the mid- to late twenties, unlike schizophrenia, which is usually evident by the late teens and early twenties) but it was only a few years ago that she began suffering psychotic episodes.
By the way, The Mask of Sanity has already been used as the title of a book. Dr. Hervey Cleckley, a renowned American psychiatrist, first used the term in the early 1940s to describe what we now call sociopaths. If you're interested in the subject, Cleckley's book should be the first one you check out.
Thanks Jeff and Glenn, I appreciate the kind words. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 3:30 am: | |
G'day,
Firstly, I'd like to apologize to Erin for calling her a 'HE'. You can pay me back for that insult if you like!
ERIN: Could you please explore that manual of yours, (or interview your friend), to give an opinion as to what the Whitechapel murderer could have been suffering from? Could he be called a 'psychopath'?
I bought and am reading a book by an Australian psychiatrist John Clarke, and a former London police constable Andy Shea, called 'Touched By The Devil'. It explores psychopaths, from serial killers to fraudsters and stalkers. It says nothing about 'Jack the Ripper', but I feel that it explains the mind that could have been behind his head.
Picking out words, the book uses to describe psychopaths: 'self-centred', 'guilt-free', 'conscienceless', 'excellent liars', 'know no fear', 'believe they are entitled to have whatever it is they want to have', 'ignore the law', but 'know that what he or she is doing is wrong' so can be 'held leagally responsible for their actions'.
JEFF: I never said I was concerned about people's backgrounds!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 781
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 3:54 am: | |
G'day,
Someone better tell 'The Royal College of Psychiatrists' and the 'Transcultural Mental health centre' that they better change their Websites! One says that schizophrenia can start to show between the ages of 15 and 35!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 4:33 am: | |
Erin, thanks for that. I remember reading of how Mary, the sister of essayist Charles Lamb, killed their mother, but only went into an asylum when she felt one of her "turns" coming on. Lamb used to walk her to the asylum, her straitjacket draped over his arm! Obviously she was a lot more "normal" during her lucid periods at home than when she was in the asylum, though I suspect she was never completely "normal".
I don't believe that Jack was a man who went from sanity to insanity and back to sanity, but I was curious as to whether the possibility could be eliminated.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 4:45 am: | |
Jeff, Erin
This is just idle curiosity on my part - nothing to do with JTR - and I appreciate it may be outside your fields, but anyway : everyone will be familiar with the experience one sometimes has just on the point of nodding off, when one hears the voice of a friend or relative - particularly somebody one hasn't met for a while - saying a word or two with a vividness and clearness quite unlike what you get when you just try to "imagine" their voice during daylight hours. I was wondering whether the scientists had found any link to the part of the brain at work here, and the part at work when schizophrenics "hear" their voices (though the schizophrenics are obviously not on the point of going to sleep).
Robert |
Mike E.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
It seems to me, that it would be pretty convenient that Jack IF he was mentally ill, would only be "insane" on weekends and holidays. Which, as we know, is when the murders commonly attributed to him were committed. |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 10:53 am: | |
Hello All I am noy used to these boards yet and everyone is moving round them fast.I just posted yesterday 19th oct.under who did JtR hate etc the reasons why I believe the person to have been schizophrenic.The great number of crazed often frenzied stabbings and horrific but apparently motiveless attacks happen when such a person is under "instruction" {delusional} to carry out the attack.The psycopathic individual may have no compunction about murdering someone but it is more often to do with gain or if sexual tosilence the victim. JtR silenced and then mutilated in a bizarre fashion which was symbolic to JtR but which puzzled everybody else>Symbollism plays abig part in schizophrenia usually very little though in ppsychopathic thinking. Best Natalie.S |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 16
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 12:14 pm: | |
"Psychopath" isn't a term the mainstream mental health community uses anymore. It has been replaced with "sociopath," someone who suffers from "Antisocial Personality Disorder." A personality disorder is not, strictly speaking, a mental illness in the same sense as schizophrenia. A schizophrenic suffers from psychosis, which is the inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. It can actually manifest at any age, although it "typically occurs between the late teens and the mid-30s, with onset prior to adolescence rare (although cases with age at onset of 5 or 6 years have been reported). . . .Schizophrenia can also begin later in life (e.g., after 45 years). Late-onset cases tend to be similar to earlier-onset Schizophrenia, except for a higher ratio of women, a better occupational history, and a greater frequency of having been married." The DSM-IV (from which that passage was taken) goes on to say that the "median age at onset for the first psychotic episode of Schizophrenia is in the early to mid-20s for men and in the late 20s for women. The onset may be abrupt or insidious, but the majority of individuals display some type of prodromal [i.e., precursory] phase manifested by the slow and gradual development of a variety of signs and symptoms (e.g., social withdrawal, loss of interest in school or work, deterioration in hygeine and grooming, unusual behavior, outbursts of anger)."
Antisocial Personality Disorder, on the other hand, cannot be diagnosed before the age of 18. If similar symptoms are exhibited by people younger than 18, it is typically classified as Conduct Disorder. There is a lot more to it than "having no conscience," since by definition "conscience" is a subjective term that belongs more to the realm of metaphysics than to that of mental illness.
According to the DSM-IV, the diagnostic criteria for APS is as follows:
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety to self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
B. The individual is at least 18 years.
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder. . .with onset before age 15 years.
D. The occurence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode.
Most serial killers show, to some degree, antisocial traits. They would be classified, using the FBI's system, as "Organized" killers, since they go to great lengths to avoid detection--moving the bodies, destroying evidence, switching jurisdictions, etc. Their murders are carefully planned and deliberately executed, which is in direct contrast to the behavior (and let's face it, we are in the realm of behavioralism now) of the "Disorganized" killer, who frequently employs the "blitz-style" attack and makes little if no effort to destroy evidence or avoid arrest. They frequently suffer from a serious mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia). For an excellent example of this type of killer (comparatively rare, since they are generally quite easy to catch), check out Ed Gein or Richard Trenton Chase. Now, in my opinion (one shared by John Douglas, as I've indicated previously), the Whitechapel Murderer would lean more heavily toward the disorganized end of the spectrum, although it may be more appropriate to denote his a "Mixed" presentation.
I have to make one thing clear: I use terms like "usually," and "frequently" when discussing mental illness because the contours of human behavior are far too fluid and ill-defined to always fit into a neat and tidy categories we have created. Thus, when you read something like "Schizophrenia typically occurs between the ages of 16-30," you should not take that as some sort of hard-and-fast, sacrosanct rule that can never be violated. If it had been intended that way the word "typically" would have been left out. What we have created are guidelines to human behavior, and in my experience, at least, it is best to view them as such.
I'll have more to say later (I promise I'll get to your question later, Robert, unless Jeff or someone with the knowledge to answer it appropriately steps in first), but for now I have to run, since I have a doctor's appointment shortly and I have yet to even shower!  |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 1:47 pm: | |
Erin, don't go to a lot of trouble over it. As I said, it's just idle curiosity on my part.
PS Don't watch Hitchcock's "Sociopath" before taking the shower!
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 137
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 3:41 pm: | |
Robert,
It's difficult to actually do a brain scan (like fMRI or EEG recordings) on someone who is actually in the process of having hallucinations, but it has been done! I just had a check for some research in this area, and like everything, the field is not universal on it's opinion. However, there is evidence to suggest that auditory hallucinations activate the same brain regions as normal hearing does (so, it's the brain generating it's own sound, so to speak). If you have access to a University Library, you may be able to find the following article if you're interested.
The functional anatomy of auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia
Lennox BR, Park SBG, Medley I, Morris PG, Jones PB, PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH-NEUROIMAGING, 100 (1): 13-20, NOV 20 2000
This study using fMRI, which is basically a measure of blood flow in the brain. When the brain is "doing something", the cells require more oxygen, etc, which causes an increase in blood flow to that area. fMRI measures this increase in blood flow. It takes a few seconds for this change to occur, so the time resoluation of fMRI is not great, but it is very good in locating brain regions. EEG works the other way, it measures the electrical signals produced by certain brain cells. Time resoluation is exceptionally good (less than 1 ms resolution is possible), but figuring out where these signals come from (spatial resolution) is pretty poor. Recent efforts often try and use both techniques as a way of complimenting each other.
Anyway, as I've said, what they found was that the same brain regions are active during hallucinations as during the hearing of real sounds. I believe similar findings have been shown for visual hallucinations implicating visual areas of the brain.
"Normal hallucinations", like when you hear things just before going to sleep, are thought to be much the same thing. As you drift between awake and asleep, the brain doesn't just "switch" from one state to the other. These sounds, etc, would be a result of part of the brain "dreaming", if you will. Dreams occur during REM sleep (REM = rapid eye movement), and during this phase of sleep brain activity is very similar to brain activity when one is awake. As such, activity in auditory and visual cortext during dreams creates our "dream sounds and pictures". As one drifts to sleep, these areas will depend less on direct sensory input and will start to "create their own sensations". Also, this kind of thing is entirely normal. It's repeatedly having hallucinations when completely awake, and without some other explanation (like drugs, for example), that are worrysome.
Hope that answers your question.
- Jeff |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
