This all suggests that there’s some optimal level of weirdness that dreams should have. Unfortunately, weirdness is not an easy thing to measure. “It’s almost like art or literature,” Hoel said. “A good poem is not completely nonsense, but also not just I saw the flower / the flower was blue. It’s occupying some critical space where things morph and change with the use of metaphor, but not so much so that it’s totally unrecognizable or alien.” He went on, “Maybe that Lynchian distance is precisely what helps big, complex minds the most when it comes to these serial problems of overlearning and over-memorization and overfitting.”
In 2015 the world was divided into two warring factions overnight. And at the center of this schism was a single photograph. Cecilia Bleasdale took a picture of a dress that she planned to wear to her daughter’s wedding and that photo went beyond viral. Some saw it as blue with black trim; others as white with gold trim. For his part, Wired science writer Adam Rogers knew there was more to the story — a reason different people looking at the same object could come to such radically divergent conclusions about something as simple as color.
Mr. Zeller is the editor in chief of the digital science magazine “Undark.” A former reporter for The New York Times, he is working on a book about headaches.
I have headaches. Not the low-grade, annoying, “I’ve got a headache” sort of headaches. I get those, too. Most everyone does, and they are a drag.
No, when I say that I get headaches, I mean that at intervals that are largely unpredictable, a knot of pain rises deep inside my head, invariably sensed behind my right eyeball. It then swiftly clicks up through the intensity scale, racing past that dull ache you might get from staring at the screen too long, leapfrogging over that doozy you had the morning after your brother’s wedding, skipping past the agonizing-but-fleeting stab of an ice-cream headache, and arriving, within a matter of minutes, at a pain so piercing and sustained that I can only grip something sturdy, rock back and forth, and grunt until it subsides.
Mine are what doctors call one of the “primary headaches” — recurring and often excruciating disorders that are not byproducts of another condition (or self-inflicted by last night’s cocktails), but relentless, and in many ways still poorly understood disorders unto themselves. We know them by common names like migraine, which affects tens of millions of Americans, disproportionately women. I suffer from another flavor known as cluster headaches (technically a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia). And there are others, with myriad and imperfectly drawn lines distinguishing them.
If you experience migraines or cluster headaches — and research suggests that more than a billion people worldwide do — you probably know something about shuttling from doctor to doctor looking for someone who “gets it.” You know what it’s like to gladly gobble up pills that don’t really work and that leave you miserable in other ways. And you might even know the same sort of incredulous exasperation that has driven me to wonder, from my fetal position on the bathroom floor: “How is it possible that science can’t fix a damn headache?”
I won’t go so far as to say we’re anywhere near a fix. In many ways, we’re farther from understanding these disorders than we ought to be, given the billions of dollars they extract in health care costs, and the outsize toll they take on people — usually during what ought to be their most productive and creative years. But I can also say with some confidence: There’s probably never been a better time to have a headache.
In March, one of the most coveted prizes in neuroscience, the $1.5 million Brain Prize, went to four scientists who, often working independently of one another and beginning roughly in the 1980s, set about revolutionizing our understanding of migraines and similar headaches. Their work and that of many others has been slow but steady, overturning long-prevailing and facile notions like “the migraine personality” (a derisive category primarily aimed at women), or the idea that stress and a weak constitution were the cause.
They’re not. Rather, primary headaches are true neurobiological disorders and I know this because on a sunny day last spring, and after a few weeks of imperfectly managing excruciating pain with lousy drugs and haggling with doctors and insurance carriers, I stood in my kitchen, hiked down my trousers, and administered into my bottom three (still very expensive) injections of a new elixir — a monoclonal antibody designed to inhibit a neuropeptide called CGRP, short for calcitonin gene-related peptide.
CGRP, discovered only in the 1980s, is a key component in the nervous system’s head pain pathway and appears to be intimately involved in the generation of migraines and clusters. Scientists now believe these headaches arise in part when cerebral structures linked to head pain signaling become hyperactive — a sort of neurovascular communication gone awry. And while the brain itself does not feel pain, it can respond to this errant activity by sending severe sensations of pain to parts of the head that can — quite likely the membranous layers of tissue between the skull and the brain called the meninges. When this happens, patients can also experience increased sensitivity to light, sound and smell, as well as nausea and even vomiting. This can continue unabated for hours, and sometimes days, for some people living with migraine.
This new class of medication, the first of which was brought to market by Amgen and Novartis and collectively called CGRP inhibitors, is changing the lives of many headache patients, and it is no exaggeration to say that a direct line can be drawn between the research honored with the Brain Prize and events in my kitchen that day last spring. Can I say unequivocally that it worked for me? Maybe. I think so. My headaches abated shortly after — though it’s characteristic of clusters to go into periods of remission anyway, only to reappear.
But even if it did work — and welcome as these advances are — any neurologist working today will readily admit that we remain in the Stone Age with regard to many aspects of these most common and debilitating disorders. That is probably the result, at least in part, to historical biases. As Joanna Kempner, an associate professor of sociology at Rutgers University, nimbly laid out in her 2014 book “Not Tonight: Migraine and the Politics of Gender and Health,” migraine headaches in particular have been given inadequate consideration by the medical and scientific establishments. This dismissal, Dr. Kempner argues, was at least partly tied to the fact that migraines surface more often in women, whose physical pain was often ascribed a psychological or emotional origin. And while those diagnoses have now mostly been discarded by the medical establishment, she suggests that gender biases in headache treatment have not.
To be sure, our brains are unfathomably complex organs, and they are difficult to study. But the dynamics that Dr. Kempner identifies almost certainly helped to prolong scientific ignorance of headache mechanics and treatment for decades, and for everyone. Consider, after all, that the Amgen/Novartis antibody was the first drug ever approved in the United States to specifically prevent migraines. The first — and that was a mere three years ago. (Side effects so far generally appear uncommon and mild, though the long-term picture remains to be seen.) Eli Lilly secured approval for its version of a CGRP inhibitor to treat cluster headaches only in 2019, and new classes of CGRP drugs are still emerging. But since the dawn of drug regulation, every other pharmacological dollop aimed at preventing these diabolical headaches — a menagerie of beta blockers, anti-epileptics, anti-depressants and other drugs — were researched, developed and designed for other diseases. They simply seemed to help some people with headaches as a side effect, and so doctors just gave them a go.
In my work as a journalist exploring the modern evolution in headache science, I’ve spoken to many patients who suggested that ignorance, both clinical and cultural, persists. As with so many other pain disorders, Black patients are far less likely to have their head pain properly diagnosed than their white counterparts. And while the World Health Organization places headaches among the leading causes of disability and lost productivity on the planet, our knowledge of headaches, like that of so many other diseases, skews toward the rich world, leaving incidence and impact in the developing world vastly understudied.
At the same time, the new drugs, while remarkably effective for some people, are yet another heartbreaking failure for others, suggesting that a more fundamental neural trigger or target remains elusive. These medications are also not cures, and many patients must continue to take them periodically — even though they can cost more than $600 for a single injection. Many headache sufferers are finding that their insurers will refuse to cover them.
For all the recent progress, funding from the National Institutes of Health for basic research into headache disorders remains incommensurate with their enormous social costs, and far too few young doctors see headache specialization as fertile ground for a career. One young medical student with an interest in neurology told me she was taken aback that her studies focused so heavily on unusual brain disorders, given that headaches are so common — and still so mysterious. “We got so much teaching about other things, which are important too, but way less common,” she said. “I was surprised by that.”
Look, I get it. In a world troubled by all manner of disease and unrest, it can seem absurd to complain about headaches. But this, too, is what makes the path of a chronic headache sufferer — or really anyone with any sort of chronic pain — a uniquely lonely one. The pain won’t kill us, sure, but we can receive prolonged physical beatings, without explanation, at any moment — a merciless cycle that some studies have shown can increase suicide risk. Some headaches are even thought to be capable of administering one of the most extraordinary sensations of pain known to the human body, but they occur in a location that makes them entirely invisible to puzzled onlookers (and for most of history, to scientists, too). And all such pain bears a name — “headache” — so common, so boring and so utterly diluted by its resonance with other, lesser things, that sufferers are often too ashamed to even mention it.
But ask any people who suffer from migraines or similar headaches about the months spent being dismissed or misdiagnosed by unenlightened doctors, or the years spent swallowing or inhaling or injecting hand-me-down, off-label drugs that make them sleepy or stupid, that embrittle their bones or race their hearts, or present a litany of other side effects. They are in your family. Or you work with them. No, they won’t die. But they are very often experiencing inscrutable, exhausting bouts of pain — or living in fear that it’s just around the corner, again.
“The most painful thing to me, aside from my physical pain, is the incredible feeling of loss migraines have brought me,” a young headache patient, just 22 at the time, told me. “I know I am smart, but my schoolwork does not mirror it. I know I am social, a good daughter, a good friend, but I worry my life does not mirror this either,” she said. “I guess the loss I feel is the loss of what I could have been, or could be, or could do, without migraines.”
In March, patients and advocates for headache science once again made an annual appeal to Congress for additional funding for research and other headache treatment initiatives. The yearly Migraine World Summit offers patients and practitioners around the globe online access to experts working at the bleeding edge of research. Headache research centers are busy studying these disorders from Texas to Denmark, there’s a growing market potential in still newer drugs, and clinical trials for other potential therapies — from psilocybin to vitamin D — are in the works.
This upswing in therapeutic interest in headaches is exhilarating and full of anticipation, and the swashbuckling science being done is extraordinary. It really is a fine time to have a headache. But it’s also disheartening that a condition that brings such regular anguish to so many people remains so mysterious — and so undertreated.
Tom Zeller Jr. (@tomzellerjr), a former reporter for The New York Times, is the editor in chief of the digital science magazine Undark. He is working on a book about headaches.
Illustrations by Zeloot.
From the editor:
Meeting the love of your life always feels like the luckiest roll of the dice in a vast, unfeeling universe. Daniel and Kathy are both rising stars in neuroscience research, so they know better than anyone the folly of trying to map the human mind and all its memories. But who could pass up even the slimmest chance to reunite after life, death, and a million miles of empty space?
Author Vanessa Fogg has published many pieces of beautiful, haunting short fiction as well as a novella, available now from Annorlunda Books.
From the author: Neuroscience, sentient space ships, and love that transcends both space and time. This story was first published in the journal GigaNotoSaurus in 2018 and reprinted the following year in Neil Clarke's The Best Science Fiction of the Year: Volume 4
Migraines affect around one billion people – but what happens in the brain during an attack was, until recently, poorly understood.
Peter Goadsby, a professor of neurology at King's College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, helped unravel what happens in the brain during a migraine attack and his insights are already benefiting patients.
(Image: Woman with head in hands, Credit: Ivan Nanita/EyeEm/Getty Images.)
A lot of odd things were preserved virtually intact when Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79 CE, burying the cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii under a thick layer of ash. There were election signs on walls, beautiful mosaics, multi-seater toilets, wooden display shelves, luxurious goblets, and decorative wind chimes shaped like penises. Yes, really. And now, a group of scholars have documented their discovery of human brain cells at Herculaneum. They had been vitrified — that is, turned to glass — by the 984° F gas that accompanied the volcanic eruption.
A Roman isn’t just shards of neuron in a petri dish. He is a cultural being, whose identity can be reverse engineered from the place where he slept, and from the laws that restricted his prospects. And his story isn’t some bizarre remnant of a lost past, either. Many of us live in nations and cities that are still shaped by a history of slavery. The world of the Augustales is closer than you think.
My Favorite Thought Portal posts from August 2020.
Walks thru my neighborhood at dusk whilst listening to audiobooks has become a favorite pastime. I’m not alone in my love of audiobooks.
Rabbits are the only creatures we keep as pets and, just as regularly, eat or wear.
The Pandemic 2021 and beyond.
The science of dreams.
A new ice cream truck jingle.
Corporate Stock footage used to make a music video.
For fear of Fire, America has turned its worldly affairs over to a barbarian game show host.
A new podcast I have fallen in love with.
Cities may be our media hubs, but suburbia makes the news. It’s where horrible violence happens.
The origin of numbers and can fish count?
Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined by mathematician Dr Hannah Fry, comedian Matt Parker and neuroscientist Prof Brian Butterworth to ask where numbers come from and can fish count? They'll be looking at the origin of numbers and whether counting is a uniquely human trait that actually started before the evolution of language.
Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined by comedian Bridget Christie, neuroscientist Professor Penny Lewis and psychologist Richard Wiseman to explore the science of dreaming. Our dreams have fascinated humans for millennia and then Freud came along and told us they really did mean something, and mostly they were about sex and anger. Was he right? Why do we dream and can we find meaning in the content of our dreams? Can our dreams help us solve problems, give us new ideas, help us write a symphony, even if they can't predict the future? The panel also discuss what is going on in the brain whilst we sleep, and how memories are formed and consolidated while we snooze. It turns out the phrase "better to sleep on it" has a strong scientific argument.
Producer: Alexandra Feachem
New research from the University of Washington finds that a natural aptitude for learning languages is a stronger predictor of learning to program than basic math knowledge, or numeracy. That's because writing code also involves learning a second language, an ability to learn that language's vocabulary and grammar, and how they work together to communicate ideas and intentions. Other cognitive functions tied to both areas, such as problem solving and the use of working memory, also play key roles.
Part 1: Déjà vu
"Do we know what causes déjà vu?" asks Floyd Kitchen from Queenstown in New Zealand.
Drs Rutherford and Fry investigate this familiar feeling by speaking to world-leading reseacher Chris Moulin from the University of Grenoble in France and memory expert Catherine Loveday from Westminster University. Plus, they find out why early investigations classed déjà vu as a type of paranormal phenomenon.
For most of us, it's a fleetingly strange experience, but for some people it can become a serious problem. Lisa from Hulme in Manchester started experiencing déjà vu when she was 22 with episodes that could last all day. The origin of her déjà vu has been the key to helping psychologists investigate its cause.
Part 2: Randomness
"Is anything truly random, or is everything predetermined?" asks Darren Spalding from Market Harborough.
Hannah and Adam go in search of random events, from dice throws to lava lamps. Can we predict the outcome of any event?
"How do computers manage to pick random numbers?" asks Jim Rennie from Mackinaw in Illinois. Random numbers are vital for things like cyber security and banking. But true randomness is surprisingly hard to produce, as the team discover.
Joining them for this case we have a random selection of experts: mathematician Colva Roney-Dougal, technology journalist Bill Thompson, Science Museum Curator Tilly Blyth and quantum physicist Jim AlKhalili.
Presenters: Hannah Fry, Adam Rutherford Producer: Michelle Martin
Main Image: A fan of the New York Yankees holds up a sign which reads "It's Deja Vu" at the Yankee Stadium, New York City 29 Oct 2009. Credit: Jed Jacobsohn / Getty Images
me listening to the random part of this podcast:
Ardelia Mapp: "Clarice, doesn't this random scattering of sites seem desperately random – like the elaborations of a bad liar?" Clarice Starling: "Desperately random." What does he mean? Ardelia Mapp: Not random at all, maybe. Like there's some pattern here …? Clarice Starling: But there is no pattern, or the computers would've nailed it. They're even found in random order.
This episode of The End of the World podcast had me thinking a lot about a book I just finished, Knocking on Heaven's Door by Sharman Apt Russell, the boundless expansion of consciousness, humans inability to stop using a technology even tho it is damaging us, and this short story I wrote, Everybody Poops, about a toilet cleaning robot.
Most of the time, a word is an arbitrary label: there’s no particular reason why a cat has to be associated with the particular string of sounds in the word “cat”, and indeed other languages have different words for the same animal. But sometimes it may not be so arbitrary. Take these two shapes: a sharp, spiky 🗯 and a soft, rounded 💭 and these two names: “bouba” and “kiki”. If you had to assign one name to each shape, which would you pick?
(Here’s a pause to let you think about it.)
If you said that the spiky shape was kiki and the round shape was bouba, you’re like 90% of English speakers who answer this question. But does this work the same way for speakers of other languages? What about languages that don’t have a /b/ or a /k/ sound, or that have other features, like tone?
In this episode of Lingthusiasm, your host Lauren Gawne talks with guest linguist Dr Suzy Styles about how language interacts with your other senses like vision and touch, and doing research across different cultures and languages. Suzy is an Assistant Professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, and runs the BLIP (Brain Language Intersensory Processing) lab.
...Dyer remains optimistic about the validity of his team’s results. He also says that this research suggests that the ability to conceptualize zero could be more common than we think—ancient humans, he postulates, likely had the potential for zero processing, cognitively speaking.
“We had some human ancient cultures which appear not to ever have used the concept of zero… but as we look across animal species, we see that their brains are capable of processing this information,” says Dyer. “So ancient civilizations had brains that for sure could process zero. It was just something about how their culture was set up; they were not so interested in thinking about number sequences.”...
FOR YEARS, we have been warned about the addictive and harmful impact of heavy smartphone and internet use, with physicians and brain specialists raising red flags regarding the cognitive price of these technologies. Many of us now recognize that we are addicts, often joking about it in an attempt to lessen the seriousness of this realization. But what had been missing to really drive the fact of digital dependency home was an admission by those who design the technologies that such was their intended goal. This has now changed as a cadre of IT professionals recently broke their silence on the subject, revealing the motivations behind the creation of some of the world’s most popular apps. . .