Your eyes can reveal the accuracy of your memories
We like to think our brains are reliable recorders—but reality says otherwise. From misremembered childhood moments to mistakenly 'recalling' that you took your pills when you didn't, false memories are surprisingly common. And in high-stakes situations like courtroom testimony, these errors can have devastating consequences. Wouldn't it be amazing if there were an objective way to measure just how accurate someone's memory really is?
New research suggests we might be able to do just that—by watching the eyes.
Scientists have known since the 1960s that our pupils tend to widen when we're thinking hard—whether we're remembering something, solving a problem, or paying close attention. But those early studies mostly looked at short-term memory, so it wasn't clear whether the same effect applied to long-term recall.
Then came a curious discovery in the 1970s: people's pupils also dilated when they recognized something they'd seen before. This phenomenon, called the 'pupil old/new effect,' has since been confirmed in multiple experiments. But recent research has taken this a step further, suggesting that pupil dilation may not just reflect whether something feels familiar, but also how clearly and precisely it's remembered.
In a new study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, researchers Ádám Albi and Péter Pajkossy from the Budapest University of Technology and Economics set out to test this idea. They recruited 28 volunteers in Hungary and asked them to study 80 two- or three-syllable words that are infrequently used in the Hungarian language. The words were presented to the participants on a screen at a specific point along the edge of an invisible circle.
Later, participants were shown a mix of old and new words, this time centered on the screen. For each word they recognized, they were asked to recall where it had originally appeared. While participants responded, the researchers tracked their pupil size.
The results were striking. When people recognized a word they'd seen earlier, their pupils dilated—and the effect was more pronounced when participants could precisely remember the word's original location.
Even when people weren't sure where on the screen they had seen the word before but recognized the word as familiar, their pupils still dilated more than when they saw a brand-new word. This suggests our eyes reflect two layers of memory: a general sense of familiarity, and the precision of specific details, Albi tells Popular Science.
So, what's actually going on inside the brain?
'To date, there is no consensus on the precise cognitive and neurobiological mechanisms that drive pupil responses during different forms of memory retrieval, such as recognition,' Albi says.
But one leading theory centers on the concept of attentional salience—how much something grabs our focus. A vivid memory might not just come to mind; it demands attention. That memory could trigger activity in a region of the brain called the locus coeruleus–noradrenergic system, which regulates attention. When activated, this system also causes the pupils to dilate.
This growing understanding opens up some exciting possibilities. 'Pupil dilation could serve as a non-invasive marker of memory quality in settings such as education, clinical assessment, or legal testimony—especially when evaluating the depth or reliability of someone's memory,' Mohamed El Haj, a neuropsychologist and professor at the University of Nantes in France, who was not involved in the study, tells Popular Science.
And because pupil measurement is noninvasive, cost-effective, and methodologically simpler than other brain analysis techniques like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or electroencephalogram (EEG), as Albi points out, it holds real promise for widespread use.
Imagine being able to gauge the reliability of an eyewitness just by tracking their pupils. That future may not be far off.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Archaeolgists Make Surprising Discovery About Ice Age Hunting Tools
A recent study published in Nature Communications has found the first-known evidence of human beings manufacturing tools out of whale bones. Throughout 26 rock shelters and caves within northern Spain and southwestern France, researchers found 173 bone specimens, including 83 tools and 90 fragments. An analysis using Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS) found that 131 of those specimens were whale bones belonging to sperm whales, gray whales, blue whales, fin whales, and right or bowhead whales.'Our study reveals that the bones came from at least five species of large whales, the oldest of which date to approximately 19,000–20,000 years ago,' lead author Jean-Marc Pétillon said in a press release. 'These represent some of the earliest known evidence of humans using whale remains as tools.' The bones bear little sign of water wear, which means they were likely harvested from animals which had washed up on the shore rather than deep-sea hunting. Many of the tools were dated between 17,500 and 16,000 years ago, though the oldest specimen found dates back 20,000 years. In particular, the bones of sperm whales were found to be particularly popular in fashioning spears and other hunting instruments. Over 40 percent of projectile points and 73 percent of foreshafts analyzed were created from sperm whale bones.'What was more surprising to me, as an archaeologist more accustomed to terrestrial faunas, was that these whale species remained the same despite the great environmental difference between the Late Pleistocene and today,' Pétillon told Popular Science. 'In the same period, continental faunas are very different: the ungulates hunted include reindeer, saiga antelopes, bison, etc., all disappeared from Western Europe today.'Pétillon believes ancient people came from far and wide to scavenge whale bones and other parts when they washed up on shore. With further research, he and his team hope to deduce why tools constructed from whale bone declined so rapidly 16,000 years ago. 'The news of a stranding travels fast first, because it smells a lot [from a] long distance away, so people would concentrate from quite far,' Pétillon told New Scientist. 'So, it might not have been the main driver of people going to the seashore, but when that happened, it probably had an influence on the movement of the people who probably changed their planned pattern of movement to go there.'Archaeolgists Make Surprising Discovery About Ice Age Hunting Tools first appeared on Men's Journal on May 30, 2025
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Are we in a sixth mass extinction?
Around 66 million years ago, a six-mile-wide asteroid hit Earth, triggering the extinction of three-quarters of all living species. The age of dinosaurs, which had lasted 165 million years, ended with a fiery crash and suddenly sooty skies. Farther back in our planet's history, volcanic eruptions, rapid climate change, and plummeting oxygen levels have caused at least four additional mass extinctions, with smaller pulses of biodiversity loss also showing up in the fossil record. In each of the five largest events, which spanned anywhere from thousands to tens of millions of years, at least 75 percent of Earth's species died out. These are the most commonly agreed upon major mass extinctions in paleontology. You've also likely heard about a sixth one. Many ecologists and biologists say we're on the precipice (or already in the midst) of another era of mass extinction. This sixth mass extinction, also referred to as the Holocene or Anthropocene extinction, is described as ongoing and caused by human activities. Hunting, overfishing, habitat destruction, human encroachment, and invasive species introductions are the major drivers of the losses incurred thus far. Human-caused climate change is also set to become another factor, as decades of rising temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns, and increasingly extreme weather catch up to already stressed ecosystems. It's indisputable that humans shape life on Earth in major ways, and that animals and plants are dying out at an alarming rate. But is it true that our impact is on par with that of an asteroid? Not all scientists agree. There is no question that Earth is losing species fast. 'Biodiversity crisis is a pretty accurate term' to describe the present moment, says John Wiens, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Arizona. 'Extinction crisis' is another, he adds, 'based on the large number of species that are threatened with extinction.' Five other experts that Popular Science corresponded with for this article all agree on this 'crisis' terminology. In comparison with background levels of extinction, all of our sources said that current extinction rates are much higher. Extinction isn't always a sign of disaster. It's also a natural outcome of evolution. As species diverge, compete, and struggle to survive, not all of them make it long-term. Conditions on Earth shift over geologic time, and those forces inevitably lead to some dead ends on the tree of life. [ Related: Earth's 5 catastrophic mass extinctions, explained. ] However, throughout most of our planet's history, the rate of new species emerging has exceeded the rate of species dying out, says Gerardo Ceballos, an ecologist and conservation biologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Thus, biodiversity normally exists in a positive balance. Currently, we're losing species far faster than new ones emerge. Present extinction rates are up to 100 times faster than background levels, according to one 2015 study co-authored by Ceballos. In that analysis, Ceballos and his colleagues estimated the natural vertebrate extinction rate sits at around two species lost per 10,000 species each century. Then, they compared that statistic with the number of confirmed and likely extinctions recorded on the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. They determined that, even using conservative numbers, the extinction rate for every vertebrate group was between eight and 100 times the background rate. The species losses incurred in the past 100 years would have taken thousands of years to occur naturally, per the assessment. Other counts find the current rate of extinction is even higher. One often cited 2014 study concluded Earth is losing species 1,000 times faster than natural background rates. That analysis also reported the level of loss is poised to accelerate to 10,000 times the background rate in the near future. These numbers vary widely in large part because the estimates of background extinction rates are difficult to pin down. The fossil record is incomplete, so scientists generally rely on mathematical models and reconstructions of the past to determine what was once alive and when it died out. Small shifts in starting assumptions can lead to major changes in the final calculations. The time period you're calculating average extinction rate over and types of organisms you're assessing also impact the result. This same ambiguity in estimating extinction rate persists in the present. Though Wiens describes our moment as a biodiversity crisis, he doesn't believe it meets the bar for a sixth mass extinction. 'No one has provided a quantitative analysis that has really shown that,' he says. If the top five major mass extinctions in the paleontological record each killed off at least 75 percent of species at the time, then the sixth one should theoretically cross the same threshold. Yet so far, the IUCN has confirmed fewer than 1,000 extinctions from the past 500 years–just about 0.1 percent of all known species, according to an analysis co-authored by Wiens in April. We have not catalogued every living species, and the IUCN is far from having assessed all known species. The IUCN database is also biased, skewing towards large, charismatic vertebrates and wealthy regions like North America. The criteria for extinction are strict, requiring extensive surveys, and yet sometimes species reappear after being declared gone forever. Still, the IUCN dataset is among the best windows we have into the state of life on Earth, and it suggests there's a way to go before three quarters of species are gone. [ Related: Earth's 'Great Dying' killed 80-90% of life. How some amphibians survived. ] However, it's worth noting that other assessments estimate a much higher proportion of species have already disappeared. One 2022 paper, which extrapolated extinction rates from data on mollusks, found that upwards of 10 percent of all species may have gone extinct in the past 500 years. And, those like Ceballos who argue a major mass extinction has already begun, point to calculations that indicate we could reach that grim, 75 percent mile marker in just a few centuries. If all IUCN threatened species went extinct in the next 100 years, and that rate of species loss continued, Earth would surpass 75 percent loss of species across most vertebrate animal groups in under 550 years, according to a landmark 2011 review paper. This study published in Nature, remains among the most thorough quantitative assessments of extinction trends. Yet to write every threatened species off as doomed to imminent extinction would be a mistake, says Stuart Pimm, a conservation biologist at Duke University and president of the conservation non-profit, Saving Nature. 'We have no idea what the future is,' he says. And, in the meantime, 'there's a lot of things we can do.' Pimm points to conservation success stories like the rebound of certain baleen whale populations and the stabilization of savanna elephant numbers over the past 25 years. He worries that claims about the sixth extinction might leave the public resigned to what might otherwise be a preventable catastrophe. 'It's not inevitable,' Pimm says. From the paleontological perspective, mass extinctions are something that can only be definitively confirmed in the past tense. They are defined based on the proportion of species that existed before, but not after a cataclysmic event like a major asteroid strike. If there's not yet an after, it's impossible to say for sure what number of lineages died out. There are no crystal balls in science. And in that uncertainty, there's room for hope that we could stop species from sliding off the cliff. But nearly half of all animals are losing population worldwide, according to a 2023 estimate, based on trend data for more than 71,000 species. Barring exceptional levels of investment and intervention, lots of species are already doomed to extinction, says Sarah Otto, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia. 'Many of the extinctions we think that humans are causing haven't actually happened yet. These are the 'living dead' species whose population sizes are small, whose habitats are fragmented,' she explains. 'There's a lot of extinction debt.' [ Related: An 'ancestral bottleneck' took out nearly 99 percent of the human population 800,000 years ago. ] A 2020 report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found that an average of 25 percent of species across animal and plant groups are threatened with extinction within decades, and that the human impacts to blame are intensifying. Without preventative action, as species disappear, 'there will be a further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction,' the report authors write. Species depend on one another for survival, Otto notes. For example, in our acidifying and warming oceans, coral reefs are teetering on the brink. If they go, then the fate of the many species dependent on the infrastructure they provide is unclear. Major losses of marine life could then have knock-on effects on land. Notably, the IPBES report doesn't directly consider the influence of climate change on future extinction rate. If it did, 'those projected numbers could really go up,' says under Wiens' comparatively rosy outlook, he still expects 12 to 40 percent species losses over the next century. And if species don't disappear across their entire ranges, local losses and population declines can still have major repercussions for ecosystem function and human society. The 75 percent threshold is an arbitrary line, Otto notes. Lots can go wrong before we officially place sixth in the world's worst contest. Human impacts on biodiversity 'will be seen in the fossil record,' she says. 'Whether or not it's going to be up there in the top six is really a matter of what we do next.' This story is part of Popular Science's Ask Us Anything series, where we answer your most outlandish, mind-burning questions, from the ordinary to the off-the-wall. Have something you've always wanted to know? Ask us.
Forbes
4 days ago
- Forbes
2 Reasons Why Nostalgia Has A Unique Scent — By A Psychologist
Here's how your sense of smell holds the key to your most vivid and emotional memories. When the aroma of freshly baked cookies wafts through the air, suddenly, you're back in your grandmother's kitchen. You're a child once more, gazing at those golden treats in anticipation. This nostalgic journey is your brain's way of responding to the powerful connection between your sense of smell and your memory. Smell doesn't just evoke memories; it anchors them in emotion, linking past and present in a sensory flash. In a 2016 study published in Brain Sciences, author Rachel S. Herz highlights how smell is not only a powerful trigger for memory, but plays an essential role in enhancing our well-being. She found that smells linked to positive memories can boost positive emotions, reduce negative moods, curb cravings and lower stress, including markers of inflammation in the body. So, how does a familiar scent transport you decades into the past? Here are three reasons why smell is so deeply tied to memory and emotion, and why it's important to make the most of this connection. What makes smell so potent in triggering memory lies in its unique pathway to the brain. Unlike sight and sound, which can take a longer, more roundabout route to reach memory centers, smell has a direct passageway. In a prior study, Herz describes how different senses (smell, sight and sound) trigger memories and emotions. She found that smells, like campfire or fresh-cut grass, brought up more emotional and powerful memories than when the same cues were presented visually or through sound. Picture this — a high-speed train zooming past stations, heading straight for its destination. That's how your sense of smell directly works with the brain. The olfactory bulb, where scent signals are processed, sits close to the hippocampus and amygdala — the very regions responsible for memory and emotion. This proximity gives smell a VIP pass to your brain's most intimate spaces. Herz also explains that smell-induced memories are often vivid and emotionally charged. Think of it like this — while sight might be the photograph in your mind's eye, smell is the living, breathing experience that takes you back to the moment as if it were happening right now. Smell can resurrect entire chapters of your life with startling clarity. Imagine that your mind is a vast library, where memories gather dust on forgotten shelves. A specific smell acts like a librarian dusting off an old book, placing it in your hands before you even realize it's missing. A 2023 review suggests that certain flavors and smells can vividly transport us back to specific moments in our lives, even when other details have long been forgotten. Smells that are linked to childhood often have the ability to evoke powerful autobiographical memories that define your understanding of yourself today. This phenomenon is called the 'Proust Effect.' Researchers highlight how the Proust effect also creates a sense of connection with others and gives life more meaning, reawakening moments that have otherwise faded into obscurity. 'The 'Proust phenomenon' from the eponymous literary anecdote where Marcel Proust took a bite of madeleine biscuit that had been dipped in Linden tea and was suddenly transported to a long forgotten moment in his childhood, occurs when an odor triggers the recollection of a meaningful past personal episode,' Herz explains in her 2016 study. This sensory time travel is rooted in your brain's architecture. A 2012 study published in Neuropsychologia confirms how memories triggered by smells tend to be older, more emotional and feel more like time-travel compared to memories triggered by other senses. Memories triggered by smell come steeped in emotional layers. The smell of rain-soaked earth, known as petrichor, offers a perfect example of this idea. For some, it brings comfort and nostalgia, stirring up memories of quiet afternoons after a summer storm in their childhood. Whereas, for others, that same scent might carry a tinge of sadness, perhaps reminding them of a time they felt loss or isolation. This emotional potency isn't arbitrary. When your brain stores a memory, it doesn't just catalog the details — it renders the feelings too. It's likely that the more emotionally intense the experience, the more strongly the memory is imprinted. So, the next time a familiar scent suddenly brings back a memory, take a moment to appreciate it. Your brain is opening a door to the past, letting you revisit stories and emotions that might have been forgotten. Do you often feel nostalgic? Take this science-backed test to learn if you might benefit from being more grounded in the present: Nostalgia Scale
