Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Understanding Dreams

Understanding our dreams and the function of dreaming has been task which researchers have preformed numerous studies on. It has been discovered that dreaming involves some of the same higher level visual brain areas that are also involved in visual imagery. A team of researchers led by Yukiyasu Kamitani of the ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan, measured three different individuals brain activity using EEG before, during, and after they slept.  The individuals were woken up when patterns of brain waves were detected while they were asleep. They were then asked about their dream and told to go back to sleep. It was reported that the individuals were each having six to seven dreams every hour. Also the dreams were of common everyday experiences and occasionally of something exotic or strange. Researchers also recorded that the most common key terms that were recurrent in many dreams for the participants were car, male, female, and computer. These categories as well as a few others, were then shown as pictures to each of the participants while their brain activity was measured. It was then compared to the brain activity right before the patients were awoken. V1, V2, V3 are the areas of the brain involved in the earliest stages of visual processing and encoding basic features of visual scenes, which were found to have an arousal in activity. Due to this research, it showed that analyzing brain activity nine seconds before the participants were woken up could predict whether or not they were in a current dream state, with an accuracy of 75%-80%. Not only was this research able to predict whether participants were dreaming or not, but it was also stated by Jack Gallant at the University of California, Berkeley, who was provided with this research, that it seems that our ability to recall our dreams is based on short term memory. He was able to assume this through the research presented to him that showed that dream encoding was most accurate within a number of seconds right before the individual is woken up. This research provided helps us to understand the dream world better. We are able to tell whether or not someone is dreaming, as well as see that similar brain areas which are involved in visual imagery are also found in dreaming.
The following article may be beneficial:

Self Affirmation Enhances Performance

Self-affirmation is a process in which an individual focuses on their strengths. By acknowledging and focusing on strengths the individual is more likely to accept mistakes and see more room for improvement because he/she is able to preserve his/her self-worth.

Lisa Legault of Clarkson University and her colleagues Michael Inzlicht of the University of Toronto Scarborough and Timour Al-Khindi of John Hopkins University arrange many theories. They suggest that because self-affirmation has been presented to make us more accessible to threats and criticism, it should make us more aware and emotionally accept ant to the mistakes we make.

The experimenters added another theory that these effects on attention and emotion could be determined in the form of a well known brain response called error-related negativity, or ERN. The ERN is a marked wave of electrical activity in the brain that happens within 100ms of making a  bad job on a task.

To test their assumption, the analysts randomly selected 38 undergraduates to either a self-affirmation or a non-affirmation condition. In the self-affirmation condition, participants were asked to rank six values aesthetic, social, political, religious, economic and theoretical values - from most to least important.They had five minutes to write about why their highest-ranked value was exceptional to them. In the non-affirmation condition participants also ranked the six values, but they then wrote why their highest -ranked value was not so important to them.

After ranking the values, the participants engaged a test of self-control-- the "go/no-go task in which they were told to press a button when the letter M appears on the screen ( the " go" stimulus) when the letter W (the "no-go" stimulus) appeared, they were not to press the button. If they were to press the button they were given a negative response "Wrong"! whenever they made that mistake.While they were completing the go/no-go task,the participants brain activity was recorded through (EEG).

Results show that participants in the self-affirmation condition had fewer mistakes of commission pressing the button when they were not supposed to -- than did those who were in the non-affirmation condition.

The participants brain activity showed a very significant story. While the self-affirmation and non affirmation groups showed similar brain activity when they answered  right, self-affirmed participants presented a much higher ERN when they made a mistake.The analysts figure that the participants who were self-affirmed  were more accepting to the errors which allowed them to improved their mistakes.

These studies are important because they recommend one of the first ways in which the brain intervenes on the effects of self-affirmation. This article can be useful for those interested in self-affirmation as an intervention tactic in academic and social programming might be intrigue to know that the strategy produces measurable neurophysiologial effects.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121024150800.htm

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Empathy

The article on empathy discusses how emotional empathy is developmental as well as evolutionary. Empathy ranges from feelings of concern for other people, experiencing emotions that match another individual, knowing what the other is thinking or feeling, and anything along the lines of having an understanding of the other individual’s feelings. The article discusses how humans are special in that they can feel empathetic concern for a wide range of others in need. Such as, donating money to the poor, helping out starving children in Africa, sending money or supplying donations to shelter’s providing for the needy. The article also states that those who are more securely attached to their mothers and are provided with care and nurture, will grow to be more empathetic to others; not only to their close relationship partners but also to non intimate people, whereas individuals who were evaluated as avoidant are less likely to forgive, and their relationship is mediated by lack of empathy. I can surely say that I have a great amount of empathy for others. When a friend is in need I am always there to help, I donate to the poor and always took part in food drives held at school. So I can definitely classify myself as someone who grew up to be securely attached and was provided with proper care and nature through my loving parents. The article continues to discuss various studies that have been done to test certain areas of the brain that are activated during certain situations of nurturing babies. There has been evidence which supports parental care to be addictive and includes elements of both dopamine and encephalin signaling, which are activations of the reward pathways. The article focuses on the growth of empathy in humans as we age and how it is a predisposed trait in us all.

empathy


The paper on Phylogenic and ontogenetic perspectives on empathy goes into depth about how the emotion empathy is developmental and evolutionary. Bringing together neuroevolutionary with developmental perspectives to find out how the mechanics come together when dealing with emotions. Empathy is an emotional state or condition that comes as a response for a given situation. Basically, an emotional response. This scientists say, comes, as empathy is an adapted function. This ability drives what humans do, as it is a response mechanism. For instance, if we see a friend crying, or initial response is to help them cope, that is to be empathetic and caring. Without realizing it. Just as mammals develop parenting behavior, they also develop emotions such as separation, pain, love distress etc. those emotions we form arbitrarily. We continue to have kept these emotions as they have rewards. Parental nurturing has its rewards says the article in which parents seek out thus creating a cycle of empathy where care is shown and happiness and love is rewarded.
Infants use attachment as a form of survival. This is another trait humans are biologically predisposed to. Studies show the more attached an infant is, the more empathetic he or she will be towards others. Whereas children who are not exposed to this type of care can result in sociemotional difficulties.
This essay goes over how empathy is a predisposed trait humans are exposed to. This essay is interesting in that, it suggests that if they can figure out the neurobiological underpinnings of sociemotional difficulties they can try to find interventions. I did not realize how many ties empathy had as far as development is concerned. 

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Hakuna Matata


Worrying is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it keeps us in check; propels us to work harder and more efficiently. On the other hand, it limits us, clouding our rationale with irrational thoughts and feelings. It is only human to worry, but when we look at “worrying” from a practical perspective, our brains do a measly job of analyzing the risks and benefits of our actions. David Ropeik, an instructor and the Harvard Extension School, adequately states, “our brains are wired to worry first and think second.” If you have ever experienced a mild panic attack, you know this is true. It is easy to frantically worry about something once your brain has been triggered to do so. But only after your heart rate relaxes, do you realize that you must take some kind of action to solve your problems. NYU neuroscientist, Joseph LeDoux describes that anatomically, “connections from the emotional systems to the cognitive systems are stronger than connections from the cognitive systems to the emotional systems.” This is the connection between the limbic system and the cortex. Thus, our emotions tend to control our thinking, but with a little practice and a lot of will power, the roles can be reversed.

But from where do these irrational fears stem? According to Albert Ellis’ theory, emotion follows an A-B-C model. First occurs an activating event (A), which can either be a small or large occurrence. Then, the event triggers a certain belief (B), usually irrational, which lastly leads to (C), a consequent emotion, in this case, worriedness. So, the solution to worrying less is essentially, thinking more. For more extreme cases, however, cognitive-behavior therapy seems to do wonders.  If the neural circuits to the cortex are sped up or strengthened, the brain can actually be “re-wired” to “change our feelings before they impair our behavior.” In fact, Patricia Riberio Porto and her team of neuroscientists concluded that cognitive-behavioral therapy can actually change the neural network involved in the regulation of anxiety. The goal of this therapy is to change the way your brain processes information and in effect, change the A-B-C flow of an emotional response.

There are a few steps involved in tuning down the brain’s worry center. First, you must examine your irrational beliefs. In order to disconnect the trigger from the response, you must identify the belief that causes you to worry in the first place. Usually, worry stems from a fear that something is not going according to plan or expectations for yourself are not being met. Once these fears are identified, it is easier to calm your instinctual response of “freaking out”. In addition to this, you must talk your way through your feelings. After identifying the irrational belief, you must convince your brain that there is no reason to feel this way. Once that is achieved, it is must easier to live the life Timon and Pumbaa preached. Just say “Hakuna matata!”

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201210/turn-down-your-brain-s-worry-center

The LSD Brain

Psychoactive drugs are known for their profound changes in the visual world, colors that produce sound or taste and the loss of self. These "trips" cause people to enter into the a world all there own. When asked to recall a "trip" users will tell a tale of mythical creatures and flying object, basically, what seems like an alternate reality. The common belief was that LSD increased brain activity in certain regions, but the opposite is now evident.

Psychedelic drugs became widely popular in the 1960s counterculture. Similarities between reports of LSD users and psychosis led researchers to consider that serotonin might help mediate the experience. Scientists now are quite certain that the subjective and behavioral effects of psychedelics are produced by the arousal of certain serotonin receptors. Due to the classification of being a controlled substance, psychedelic researched ceased. It was not until the idea that psychedelics could be implemented into treatments of certain illnesses that research started up again.

With the advent of PET scans, researchers were able to see where psychedelic drugs acted on the brain. LSD users showed increased activation in the prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). This finding corresponds with expectations that the "trips" one experiences while on LSD is an increase in brain activity. A new study done by David Nutt at Imperial College London is uprooting these notions.


In his study, he gave patients either a placebo or an injection of LSD and put them under an fMRI to see what goes on in the brain during a "trip." His results should that brain activity was widely reduced. Blood flow was reduced in regions of the thalamus, the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), the ACC and the posterior cingulate cortex. Also, the more activity was reduced in the mPFC and ACC, the more the subjects felt the effects of LSD. The scans showed no increase anywhere in the brain. The mind expanding effect of psychedelic drugs is produced by turning the dial down on brain activity.

The ACC and parts of the mPFC inhibits the limbic system and other structures. Reduction in response of the ACC and mPFC would allow the limbic system, which processes emotion and perhaps sensory cortices, increase its role. These findings are still speculation because the tests need to be replicated in other labs and the discrepancies of the earlier PET findings need to be explained. What is most interesting in these findings is that the regions that show the most reduction are also the most heavily interconnected in the brain. This means that the brain becomes more fragmented when on psychedelic drugs, this could account for some of the dissociative aspects of acid trips.


Source:
Christof Koch. (2012.) This is Your Brain on Drugs. Scientific American Mind, May/June 2012, p.18-19.

Deadly Sin Gluttony Demystified



neostriatum when viewing pictures of food or favorite drug imaged by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The neostriatum in humans is located above the well-known reward centers of the ventral striatum and nucleus accumbens. When the neostriatum is activated, an increase level of the neurotransmitter enkephalin emerges. 
photoTo test the theory of whether or not this motor area is responsible for reward activation, tests were conducted with rats by injecting them with a synthetic opioid directly to their neostraitum. In the control group, rats ate about 10 M&Ms in 20 minutes then were satiated and stopped eating. The experimental group that received the opioid injections continued eating after 17 M&Ms and did not show signs of ceasing and had to be forcibly removed from the feeding.  Results of these rats equate to a 150 pound person eating 6 pounds of chocolate within an hour, or the 6 boxes of double stuffed Oreos (in oz). Evidence that also suggest that reward seeking regulation is linked to the neostraitum includes that other chemicals injected in the neostraitum, and artificial opioid and other chemicals injected elsewhere had smaller correlations.
       If opioid activation doesn’t surprise you, a finding about taste preference might. In addition to the injection of a synthetic opioiod, a taste preference test was administered to both control and experimental groups. These results showed that the opioid induced rats had no more preference for chocolate. This suggests that the obesity relates to motor compulsion and reward motivation, not simply overeating for the taste. 
       Evolutionary theories suggest why we have an opioid receptors at all within the brain, and Gary Wenk at Ohio State University mentioned that “the brain helps by activating the opiate system as a euphoric reward, counteracting the discomfort of a swelling waist and encouraging us to have one more bite.” In modern society, we lack the need to overeat at every meal, and if anything, fast food corporations exploit this evolutionary desire to eat plentiful, available, fatty foods. Perhaps looking at obesity from the angle of imbalanced motor control may help increase the understanding of the facets of obesity. 
To read more please visit http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=simply-irresistible-overeating

Maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks...


Many people are under the impression that as people grow older, their ability to learn decreases. Just like the saying, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” adults themselves may buy into the idea that they cannot pick up new skills. But hope for adult learners comes from the research done by Barbara Strauch of the New York Times, who investigated how adult brains learn differently than developing brains. While adults may not learn as quickly, new growth is still possible with practice and the correct methods. Because adults have more experiences, the networks in their brains are more developed and rigid. But if adults can try to learn new information in ways that challenge their old assumptions, for example by looking at history from multiple points of view, learners can “jiggle their synapses a bit” and form new neural connections.
           
Strauch’s research also shows advantages to how the aging brain works. Because of the wealth of knowledge that comes from a lifetime of learning, adults are better at understanding the bigger picture, identifying patterns, and even spotting solutions to problems more quickly than their younger counterparts. However, it is healthy for adults to shake things up a bit, try to see things from a different angle, and exercise their brains in the process.

More evidence gives hope to adults who wish to be lifelong learners and pick up skills as they age. In his book Guitar Zero, Gary Marcus explains the process through which he was able to learn to play the guitar as a middle-aged man. All he needed was lots of practice time and a method which broke up the skill into small, manageable parts. This gives hope to all those dreamers who wish they could have been Jimmy Hendrix growing up… or at least Bob Dylan.

Experimental data has also been obtained to support the idea that adults can learn too. A study done by Avi Karni and Giuseppe Bertini showed that with practice, performance on perceptual tasks can be improved. It is believed that neural changes can still be made when adults retain new information over long-intervals. In fact the same mechanisms present in early development appear to promote adult skills as well. This experiment showed plasticity in adult brains such as changes in sensory and motor representations that aided in the retention of new skills.

All in all, while aging brains may require more time or different methods to learn new information and skills, teaching these old dogs new tricks is a very real possibility.

Sources: Karni, Avi, and Giuseppe Bertini. "Learning perceptual skills: behavioral probes into adult cortical plasticity." Current Opinion in Neurobiology 7.4 Aug. (1997): 530-35.
Marcus, Gary. Guitar Zero. New York: The Penguin Press, 2012.
Strauch, Barbara. "How to Train the Aging Brain." The New York Times 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html?_r=0>.

Alternative approach to Depression

In today's society it is very easy to find a  person trapped in the deep hole that is depression. Currently it is estimated that 1 in 10 adults in the United States alone suffers from clinical depression. With all the financial,emotional and physical factors, it is easy to give in to feelings of hopelessness as well as sadness. The first and most common approach to treat depression is medication, specifically psychotropic drugs. In fact since the 1990s the number of antidepressant drugs has risen from 55.9 million to 154.7 million. However there are several other alternatives to treating depression, medication is not necessarily the only option. For what ever reason many of the different choices out there are often over looked, furthermore, one of the most commonly overlooked ones is psychotherapy.

What exactly is Psychotherapy? It is a set of procedures that helps individuals identify the source of their depression or anxiety, show that the origin of the problem is a product of their own imagination, as it is with most patients, and ultimately help individuals to overcome this obstacle. It provides individuals with the skill they need to move on past their negative feelings and improve self-esteem as well as overall health. Psychotherapy is a relatively new field that has ever increasing and promising results. However this procedure is not for everyone, if you're looking for an immediate or miraculous cure to depression, you won't find it here. A person must also be willing to open up and co-operate with a professional in to make progress in their therapy. In the least, psychotherapy is a much safer way of approaching depression since it does not involve the consumption of drugs that psychiatrists still do not fully know the effects of.

In conclusion, it must be stated and shared with the public that there are several other treatment options no only for depression, but for other mental health disorders. One of those treatments is Psychotherapy, while further research is necessary to provide more concrete results for psychotherapy, it does not hurt to give it a shot. So next time you think you need a prescription to fix your illness, consider your other alternatives.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/10/psychotherapy-depression.aspx

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Can you meditate your way to better learning?


Meditation is often associated with stress relief, but a recent study shows that it may actually cause beneficial changes to our brain structure. People who meditate regularly (defined in the study as six hours per week) for at least one year were found to have a thicker cerebral cortex and more gray matter. Both of these areas are related to higher cognitive functions like learning, memory, decision-making, and focused attention. Even lighter amounts of meditation have been shown to have structural effects- meditating weekly for four years has been associated with a higher number of gyri in the cerebral cortex, which may result in better information processing. In terms of specific behavioral benefits, meditation has been linked to better multitasking and concentration, and its stress-battling effects may also help us focus (which in turn helps us succeed in learning and other cognitive tasks).

Still, these associations are far from concrete. These studies have shown a significant correlation between meditation and cortex structure, but they haven't shown any causation. And while scientists have speculated about how meditation might cause structural changes, so far there is no proof for any mechanism. Some researchers think that practicing the focused attention required for meditation alters our neural connections in a way that helps us maintain focus on other tasks and ignore interruptions. But so far, this hypothesis has not been proven. And besides, even the presumed benefits that it explains have been cast into doubt. Separate studies have failed to show long-term increases in cognitive ability, or even any increases at all. It has also been suggested that some studies linking meditation with cognitive benefits are flawed, and that improvements are only seen because they are anticipated. Different results from different studies may also depend on what type of meditation is being studied, and how individuals react to different styles.

Overall, the effects of meditation on cognition have not been not conclusively established, and more research is needed to show whether it affects our brain structure. But in the meantime, it might be worth a shot.

Original news source: http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/10/can-meditation-make-you-smarter/, taken from http://greatist.com/happiness/can-meditation-make-smarter/

How Does It Go Again?

   Have you ever gotten into your car and put up the volume to a song you really liked? You begin to sing  along but realize you don't know the next part to the song so you begin to mumble pretending you know the song. I know I have!
   Well, according to How Do You Know What Comes Next? a study done at Georgetown University revealed how people are able to remember a song or tune and why they usually repeat what they already sang to remember the next lines.  The study showed that to remember a song two different areas of the brain are used.  One area is used to learn the sequence of the song, while the other is used to recall the lyrics.  The study also showed that higher motor areas participate in both of these areas being used. 
   Researchers at Aalto University used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine the activity of the brain in individuals while they listened and recalled music.  These individuals were able to listen to parts of a musical piece for 30 seconds.  They would listen to the specific parts of the musical piece about 20 to 30 times.  They also listened to the entire piece 10 times.  
   The results showed that learning the correct sequence or lyrics to a song requires the use of the brains motor area such as the basal ganglia and the cerebellum; both of which are used to move your muscles to sing.  During the research process both the basal ganglia and cerebellum were active in learning the sequences of the different parts of the melody.  One sound would trigger one neuron, while a different sound would trigger a different neuron. 
   When a person is learning the lyrics to a song or the rhythm of a tune the auditory system send the information to the motor system.  When the song has been learned the activity in the brain moves from the motor area to the auditory and prefrontal cortex, which are areas associated with long term memory and sound.  Lastly, the fMRI used by the researchers when examining the individuals revealed that when a person is trying to recall a certain tune or lyrics it does not take as many neurons to remember the tune or lyrics as it does to learn them.  The researchers compared the process of learning a melody, tune, or lyrics to that of a dominos affect.  One domino triggers the next just like one phrase or melody triggers the next phrase or melody.  
   So next time you are singing or humming a tune and cannot remember what comes next simply repeat the same phrase and you just might remember the rest of your song. 


Article can be read here:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121015161819.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

Intentionally Forgetting: More Than One Solution


Direct Suppression vs Thought Substitution
Our memories make us who we are. However, memory is a two-sided coin when it comes to the pleasurable or painful recall of past events. I’m sure all of us have (at least) a few memories that we would like to forget. And some individuals, like those with post-traumatic stress disorder, suffer from an inability to stop remembering certain extremely negative events.

To better understand this process, the scientists at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at the University of Cambridge sought to discover the neural mechanisms behind intentional blocking of memories from awareness. The two hypotheses of how we intentionally forget are: 1. We directly suppress the memory from entering consciousness or 2. We substitute another more pleasant memory for the one we are trying to forget. It turns out that we can do both! What’s more, not only do we have two methods of forgetting, these methods use completely different neural circuits.

Their study consisted of subjects learning word associations (ex. BEACH-AFRICA). They then used functional magnetic resonance imaging to map activity in two groups: one group was instructed to intentionally try to block out the associated word while the other was given substitute associations (ex. BEACH-SNORKEL) which they were instructed to use to try to supersede the previous associated word (AFRICA). The scientists found that distinct regions of the brain were selectively activated in each method, which were equally effective at blocking memory. Direct suppression led to the inhibition of the hippocampus, which is important for memory retrieval, through the activation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In contrast, thought substitution led to activation of the left caudal and the midventrolateral PFC, areas that deal with selective memory recall and proactive interference.

The discovery of these two distinct neural pathways that both end with the same result (intentional forgetting), could have implications for disorders like PTSD. One circuit may be more suited for certain types of memories, or perhaps certain types of people. Understanding these mechanisms could result in better focused treatments. Of course, more research needs to be conducted to determine if these circuits have differential effects with targets other than learned semantic memories. But this study helps to elucidate the mysterious process of forgetting and the different ways in which we can accomplish that task.


Original article: Roland G. Benoit, Michael C. Anderson. Opposing Mechanisms Support the Voluntary Forgetting of Unwanted Memories. Neuron, 2012; 76 (2): 450 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.07.025

Forging the Key: Enabling Communication with Severely Disabled “Locked-in” Patients


A graphic abstract of the new approach. (Sorger 2012)



Patients with “Locked-in Syndrome” suffer an extreme form of paralysis, one that leaves them quadriplegic and unable to speak. The condition can result from a number of factors, ranging from traumatic brain injury to stroke. Each pathology boils down to damage in the brain stem and lower brain that results in a loss of motor control while retaining consciousness and cognitive function. Researchers have been working for the past several decades to develop ways for these patients to communicate through non-verbal means by creating brain-computer interfaces (BCI’s).  Much of the focus in the field has been on devices that measure the brain's electrical activity through electroencephalography (EEG) and translate that activity into actions, such as moving a cursor on the screen to select items. While relatively portable and inexpensive, EEG-based BCI’s are known to be rather difficult for a patient to learn how to use, requiring hours of training over multiple sessions. Alternative methods for these patients to communicate are needed and one team of researchers in the Netherlands believe they have such an approach.

    A team of neuroscientists headed by Bettina Sorger at Maastricht University have been developing a way to use fMRI to encode and then, through the help of computer software, decode simple messages in real-time. The technology relies on the hemodynamic response, a measure of blood-oxygen concentration that is associated with brain activity, that is measured in fMRI. The technique allows participants to encode twenty-seven unique responses, the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet plus a space for separating words, allowing them to answer questions posed to them by the researchers. While in the MRI machine, participants are presented with the letter that they are to encode and then perform a task that is specific to the desired letter or space. The three tasks include motor imagery, which would entail tracing a geometric shape in your mind; mental calculation, practicing multiplication tables; and an inner monologue, such as reciting a poem. By manipulating the delay and duration of these three tasks, the researchers were able to elicit twenty-seven unique brain responses that they can then later associate with the appropriate character response. 


Sorger and her team created the twenty-seven unique responses shown above by altering three conditions: 1.) The task to be performed, e.g. motor imagery, mental calculation, or inner speech.  2.) The onset delay of the task being formed, meaning how long after the letter to be encoded is placed on the screen do the subjects begin to perform the task.  3.) The duration of the task itself, ranging from ten to thirty seconds. (Sorger 2012)




The whole encoding process usually only takes subjects about an hour, representing a significant reduction in training time from EEG-based BCI’s.

    Data from the encoding process are then fed into a computer program that correlates certain hemodynamic responses with the twenty-seven characters. So then later in the experiment when the subject is asked questions, the decoding program can monitor input from the MRI and produce output in the form of the top three most likely letters that follow from the input it has received. The program can predict the correct letter with its first response with an accuracy of 82%, its second response with 95% accuracy, and its third response with up to 100% accuracy. The researchers can view this decoding and use contextual cues from the question to decipher the subject’s response. Below is an example of this decoding process.


Examples of questions posed to participants and their answers as interpreted first by the computer and then by a member of Sorger's team. (Sorger 2012)
The current publication on Sorger's approach represents only a proof-of-concept, utilizing healthy volunteers, and the technique is still in its infancy. Sorger has high aspirations for the future application of her team's technique, hoping that it will allow locked-in patients that are unable to reach proficiency with EEG-based techniques be able to communicate with caregivers. Although the technology requires the use of an MRI machine in a clinical setting, the short conversations that it would enable could prove invaluable to individuals with no other way to express themselves to the outside world. Sorger also makes it clear that her team's approach is simply another option in group of ongoing innovations to improve the quality of life for the severely disabled. The technology may also serve as a way to establish consciousness in non-responsive patients and allow them to receive the appropriate care, something previously unattainable to physicians. An obvious drawback to the technique is its reliance on immobile and expensive MRI machines that are only available in hospitals and research centers. A possible circumvention of this limitation may lie in other brain-imaging techniques that similarly rely on monitoring fluctuations of blood-oxygen concentration within the brain. Technologies such as functional near-infrared spectroscopy, or fNIRS for short, are less expensive and more portable than their MRI counterparts. Overall, Sorger's and others attempts to, in a sense, look into the mind of individuals represents a growing movement in neuroscience to try and tease out salient aspects of thought by monitoring the actions of the brain. A tantalizing prospect to anyone who has ever fantasized about tapping into the minds of others and exploring the inner world hidden just beneath our skulls.


To watch this approach in action and get a first-hand account from the researchers, follow the link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/video.cfm?id=brain-scanner-may-help-2012-09-18




Original Research Article:
Bettina Sorger, Joel Reithler, Brigitte Dahmen, Rainer Goebel, A Real-Time fMRI-Based Spelling Device Immediately Enabling Robust
Motor-Independent Communication. Current Biology. Volume 22, Issue 14, 24 July 2012, Pages 1333-1338. 
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212005751)











Are GPS systems like the Garmin and I-phone ruining our ability to navigate?

 An article published in the nytimes would suggest so. Like many people, I have become reliant on my I-phone maps, its simple directions and tracking help me get everywhere. For someone with an already faulty sense of direction, it really helps.

 For Julia Frankenstein, the over-reliance on simple tracking systems such as the Garmin poses a big problem to our innate ability to navigate our surroundings. She argues that unlike real-life navigation that involves determining landmarks and larger spatial contexts, simple navigation systems cease to allow us to strengthen cognitive maps that help us with innate navigation. She states that real-life navigation provides a better spatial experience that can change brain structure for the better. One example of this that is cited is the increase in grey matter in the hippocampus seen in a study of London taxi cab drivers who must learn every street in London before receiving their taxi license. 

Does this mean we should all stop using our I-phones?

Rat studies have given us a vast knowledge of the spatial navigation process that is involved in maze-learning. We know that animals can form cognitive mental maps with connections to specialized cells in different areas of the brain such as the entorhinal cortex, pre and para subiculium, retrosplenial cortex, parietal and frontal cortex. We can presume that an increase in the performance of real life navigation would cause certain synapses to become stronger-allowing us to become better navigators -hebbian learning- the author’s main reason why we should stop using navigation systems.

However, I still remain uncertain as to whether the use of virtual navigation would hinder our ability to be good navigators.

First of all, many of the studies testing human navigational abilities are done using virtual navigation strategies (we cannot follow an individual on their daily commute to work while using fMRI) making it hard to distinguish a difference between the brain activity happening in  real-life navigation scenarios vs. the use of a GPS.
A recent fMRI study using virtual navigation also found that not all humans navigate in the same way. 46% of subjects use spatial memory (landmarks) the other 52% used non-spatial memory (distance). In the study, the researchers saw different brain regions activated depending upon how each participant chose to navigate the virtual maze (Spatial-Hippocampus region. Distance-Caudate Nucleus).  While many navigation systems tend to omit landmarks that might be important for certain people, distances are almost always included.  It may be a possibility that whether or not you should use a virtual navigational system depends more upon how you naturally tend to navigate. Until there is more concrete evidence, I know I am going to continue using my I-phone maps. 

Giuseppe, I. Petrides, M. Dagher, A. Pike, B. Iaria, & Bohbot, V. Cognitive Strategies Dependent on the Hippocampus and Caudate Nucleus in Human Navigation: Variability and Change with Practice. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(13):5945–5952.
Derdikman, D. Moser, E. A manifold of spatial maps in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(12): 561-569. 

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Exercising is more than a physical thing.


The main reason why people workout is to build muscle, lose weight and overall, live a healthy lifestyle. Recently, the University of South Carolina did an experiment on mice to see if exercising makes the brain more "fit". The purpose of this experiment was to see if the mitochondria would increase in brain cells, just like in muscle cells. Mitochondria is the tiny "powerhouse" that floats around in a cell's nucleus, which helps create energy.

They had two groups of mice, the active ones and the "loungers", which shared the same environment and routine. The active mice would run on the treadmill everyday for 30 minutes for eight weeks.

After the eight weeks, researchers noticed that the active mice were able to last on the treadmills for 126 minutes but the "loungers" only lasted 74 minutes ... which is not surprising at all. The main point was to see if their brain cells have changed. The brains activity was different all over but the brain cells had developed new mitochondria. This finding was very important because it's a lead on implying that exercise can lead to mitochondrial biogenesis in the brain. 

Dr. Davis, a professor at the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, quoted that "that mitochondrial deficits in the brain may play a role in the development of neurodegenerative diseases". If working out increases the mitochondria, it is possible that a large amount of mitochondria in your brain cells could prevent neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. A re-energized brain after a few workouts also help with being less or not at all fatigue and sharpens your thinking.

As of now, this experiment hasn't been tested on humans but since mitochondrial biogenesis has been proved in human and animal muscles, its possible that it could happen in human brains as well.




http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/how-exercise-can-strengthen-the-brain/

Why we Cringe?


Using fMRIS, researchers were able to see why we cringe at the sound of scratching on a chalkboard.  The research consisted of 13 participants who listened to 74 different sounds and rated them on how enjoyable they were.  The fMRIs were used to moniter the brains response to the sounds.  When there is an unpleasant sound, the auditory cortex and the amygdala interact which processes the negative emotions. Researchers say the cringe is primitive and it could possible be a distressful signal. 

"The 10 most unpleasant sounds, according to the participants' ratings, were:
1.    Knife on a bottle
2.    Fork on a glass
. . Chalk on a board
4.    Ruler on a bottle
5.    Nails on a blackboard
6.    Female scream
7.    Angle grinder (a power tool)
8.    Brakes on a cycle squealing
9.    Baby crying
1. Electric drill
The least unpleasant sounds were:
1.    Applause
2.    Baby laughing 
3.    Thunder
4.    Water flowing"[1]

The article continues to show that the frequencies between 2,000 to 5,000 hertz were the most unpleasant sounds. This range is where our ears tend to be more sensitive.  There is no exact explanation however this is usually the frequency we hear when someone screams.
Understanding the reason behind the brains reaction could help researchers to help to treat medical problems where they have a little tolerance to sound, people who have autism, or disorders such as migranes.