Can People Guess What Happened to Others from Their Reactions?

Are we able to infer what happened to a person from a brief sample of his/her behaviour? It has been proposed that mentalising skills can be used to retrodict as well as predict behaviour, that is, to determine what mental states of a target have already occurred. The current study aimed to develop a paradigm to explore these processes, which takes into account the intricacies of real-life situations in which reasoning about mental states, as embodied in behaviour, may be utilised. A novel task was devised which involved observing subtle and naturalistic reactions of others in order to determine the event that had previously taken place. Thirty-five participants viewed videos of real individuals reacting to the researcher behaving in one of four possible ways, and were asked to judge which of the four ‘scenarios’ they thought the individual was responding to. Their eye movements were recorded to establish the visual strategies used. Participants were able to deduce successfully from a small sample of behaviour which scenario had previously occurred. Surprisingly, looking at the eye region was associated with poorer identification of the scenarios, and eye movement strategy varied depending on the event experienced by the person in the video. This suggests people flexibly deploy their attention using a retrodictive mindreading process to infer events.     

INTERACTION OF IONIZING AND VISIBLE RADIATION IN MUTATION INDUCTION IN NEUROSPORA CRASSA

Klein , Richard M. (New York Bot. Gdn., New York, N.Y.), and Deana T. Klein. Interaction of ionizing and visible radiation in mutation induction in Neurospora crassa. Amer. Jour. Bot. 49(8): 870–874. 1962.—Conidia of the purple adenineless strain of N. crassa were irradiated with 25 kr of X rays and then exposed to far-red or red radiations or to far-red followed by red radiation. Far-red light, without effect on un-irradiated conidia, augmented the genetic damage caused by X rays as measured by survival (colony count), back mutation to adenine prototrophy, and the induction of mutants affecting colony morphology. Post-X-irradiation with red light ameliorated the severity of X-radiation as measured by survival and back mutation. The potentiation of X-ray-induced genetic damage by far-red light could be completely negated by subsequent exposure to red light.     

Inactivation of rat pineal hydroxyindole-O-methyltransferase by disulfide-containing compounds

Rat pineal hydroxyindole-O-methyltransferase activity in crude homogenates is reduced by treatment with disulfides. Cystamine (IC50 = 128 microM) and selenocystamine (IC50 = 13 microM) are the most potent compounds tested. Reduced cystamine (cysteamine) and diaminohexane are inactive. N,N'-Diacetylcystamine, penicillamine disulfide, and glutathione disulfide are less potent or inactive; but several peptides (oxytocin, vasopressin, and arginine vasotocin) are active. Inactivation by cystamine is time- and temperature-dependent and is accelerated at higher pH. Disulfide treatment of intact pinealocytes also inactivates the enzyme. Addition of dithiothreitol during the enzyme assay completely reactivates inactivated enzyme formed by disulfide treatment of homogenates or intact cells. Rat hydroxyindole-O-methyltransferase is also inactivated in the absence of added disulfides and dissolved O2. This spontaneous inactivation is time-, temperature-, and pH-dependent and can be completely prevented, but not reversed, by dithiothreitol. In contrast to the inhibitory effects of cystamine on the rat enzyme, cystamine does not alter bovine hydroxyindole-O-methyltransferase and increases ovine hydroxyindole-O-methyltransferase activity. The bovine and ovine enzymes do not become inactive in the absence of added disulfides. Together these observations indicate that rat pineal hydroxyindole-O-methyltransferase can be inactivated by a protein thiol:disulfide exchange mechanism. This mechanism may contribute to the physiological regulation of this enzyme in the rat pineal gland but does not appear to be a common feature of pineal hydroxyindole-O-methyltransferase regulation in all species.