Woodpeckers' skulls aren't built to absorb shock, but rather to deliver a harder and more efficient hit into wood.
Woodpeckers hammer their beaks onto tree trunks to communicate, to look for food or to create a cavity for nesting. Spongy bone between the birds' brains and beaks was once thought to cushion their brains from the repetitive blows. But the tissue actually helps their heads tap swiftly and deeply with minimal energy use, much like a well-designed hammer, says Sam Van Wassenbergh at the University of Antwerp in Belgium.
"We had a feeling that this didn't make any sense, this shock absorption [theory]," he says. "A hammer with shock absorption built into it is simply a bad hammer."
[...] Despite the lack of shock absorption, the team found that the birds' brains aren't at risk of a concussion because the impact isn't strong enough. Given the size and weight of woodpecker brains, situated inside fluid-filled cases in their skulls, they would only sustain brain damage if they pecked twice as fast as they naturally do, or if they hit surfaces four times harder than their natural wood targets.
"It's just normal that a smaller organism can withstand these higher [forces]," says Van Wassenbergh, drawing a parallel with flies hitting windows at even higher forces: "They just take off and fly again."
The term "spongy bone" doesn't mean that the bone is soft or can compress, he says. Rather, it indicates that the bone is porous and lightweight – which is critical for flying birds. "The bone is just strong enough for the function that it needs to do," he says.
Journal Reference:
Sam Van Wassenbergh, Erica J. Ortlieb, Maja Mielke, et al. Woodpeckers minimize cranial absorption of shocks [open], Current Biology, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.05.052
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2022, @12:34PM (7 children)
Don't know when I first read about woodpecker brains (long ago), but from memory it was all about the fluid cushion around the brain--which might be a little thicker (or something) than other non-pecking birds?
Where did this idea/theory come from?
> "Spongy bone between the birds’ brains and beaks was once thought to cushion their brains from the repetitive blows."
Are the researchers making up a bogus theory so they can peck it apart?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday July 19 2022, @02:59PM (3 children)
No, they're going by what has even recently been thought was why woodpeckers didn't give themselves concussions.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday July 19 2022, @03:07PM (2 children)
So, the last two sentences in that quote were mine. Seems to be a bug, that isn't fixed. As I had already ended the quote.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2022, @04:31PM (1 child)
Preview?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 20 2022, @08:02PM
All developers have a test server that they can use to make sure an update will work properly.
Some developers even have a separate production server that is NOT the test server!
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 19 2022, @03:11PM (2 children)
I don't know the origins of the spongy bone theory, but I definitely have read about it several places in the past decade.
I am no longer surprised by "new" scientific findings being debunked in favor of prior ones that they attempted to upstage. Scientific publications are far too willing to publish "findings" from people who have little to no idea what they are talking about, and since the journals are "peer reviewed" that only reinforces the ignorance because none of their peers are qualified to make the statements either.
I would be most impressed by a broad collection type of journal that reviews and accepts stories across multiple fields: physics, medicine, mechanical engineering, electronics, digital computing, biology, statistics, ecology, etc. and before releasing any paper for publication into their main journal it must be reviewed by at least the three most appropriate out-of-field peers available, and if they feel that they are less qualified to review the paper than a colleague from another field, those colleagues also are required to review and be satisfied with the soundness of the conclusions presented as well. Papers so published should be independently replicated, with grants if necessary, and after multiple confirming replications _that_ is what I call science. All this feces we fling at each other as "proof" is only a little better than repeating something you heard around the water cooler.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 20 2022, @04:39PM (1 child)
Some people find it easier to get their medical or science information from right wing news channels or radio talk shows.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 20 2022, @05:20PM
Not some, most, especially if you include equally soft sources as MSNBC, the neighbor over the fence, and their cousin the Chiropractor - he's so smart.
Mammalian brains didn't evolve to do science, it is not in our genes or physical structure, it's a social construct behavior, learned and passed down as ideas through education. As such it is not only vulnerable to alternative education, but also simple lack of education.
Part of how the US achieved such decisive victory in WWII wasn't about resources so much as it was effective organization: executing coordinated actions toward the common goal with greater focus and effectiveness than others. They were far from perfect, but vastly improved vs previous military campaigns. In the military it's called discipline, but that's not so different from education. In large armies (and societies) getting good information distributed and suppressing detrimental information from influencing the actions of the troops is essential for effective operations.
In war secrecy and need to know are essential practices that (IMO) have no place in peaceful life. Unfortunately, the arts of obfuscation, misdirection and manipulation through selective information distribution have continued to be developed and deployed on society instead of working toward a society that functions and benefits from transparency and well supported claims.
We've never really had well supported claims easily reviewed and so very few even think to demand them. When supported claims are demanded, such as new drug clearance applications, they are often presented in layperson hostile format, with only the cherry picked good news translated for common understanding and the required presentation of bad news so formatted as to make it seem trivial or ridiculous and irrelevant. Our current regulatory model is having the fox prepare and present our henhouse security reports, because who knows henhouse security better than a fox?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday July 19 2022, @03:38PM (2 children)
No woodpecker ever won the Nobel Prize. Not once in 121 years.
Coincidence? I think not.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2022, @04:12PM
Maybe not a Nobel, but an honorary Oscar!
https://cartoonresearch.com/index.php/animated-characters-at-the-oscars/ [cartoonresearch.com]
Video from the broadcast at the link (funny!)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 19 2022, @04:50PM
>No woodpecker ever won the Nobel Prize. Not once in 121 years.
Clearly a racial or species bias which should be addressed by quotas. /s
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end