Showing posts with label brain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brain. Show all posts

Friday, January 30, 2015

The Friday Five

Highlighting some of the coolest science news we’ve seen lately.

1. Which will be the best Super Bowl commercial? Science may have the answer!

2. Well, excuse me! It happens to all of us. The science behind brain farts.

3. Twitches, hiccups, yawns, oh my!  The science behind different involuntary behaviors.



Science quote of the week:

“Two things are infinite:  the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” –Albert Einstein

Contributed by:  Bill Sullivan
Follow Bill on Twitter: @wjsullivan

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Heaven or Hallucination?

Benjamin Franklin once proclaimed, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." While most of us can begrudgingly deal with taxman, we have a much harder time facing the Grim Reaper. It is this fear of the finite that has put the notion of an afterlife at the center of many world religions. Like a good book, we simply don’t want our life's story to end, so most people believe that there must a sequel.

Long ago, people used to think that Heaven was up in the sky. Led Zeppelin even implied that Heaven was accessible via a stairway available for purchase. A more modern idea is that Heaven is transcendental, perhaps in another dimension that is inaccessible to scientific instruments.
What does science have to say on the subject of Heaven and the afterlife? Ancient notions that Heaven resides on mountaintops or in the clouds have been dispelled, and our exploration of the universe so far has not uncovered any evidence of a physical Heaven. The failure to find evidence does not necessarily negate the possibility, but our knowledge about the universe has prompted a change in how most people conceptualize Heaven. Since Heaven is now considered by most to be an ethereal realm unreachable to the living, scientific analyses do not apply and the afterlife must remain a matter of faith.
 
However, some argue that there is tangible evidence of Heaven based on eyewitness accounts of people who've been there during a “near death experience”, or NDE. When evidence is put forth, science is obligated to scrutinize the claim. People surviving a NDE awake with an unshakable feeling that they’ve traveled beyond the confines of their body. You may have heard about the recent case of Alex Malarkey, a young boy who was in an automobile accident in 2004 that left him paralyzed. With the help of his father, they penned a bestselling book in 2010 called, “The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven”. But a couple weeks ago, Alex (now 16 years old) admitted that his story was, um, malarkey. Alex now claims that he made up the whole thing as a child because he “thought it would get him attention”. Consequently, the book has been pulled and the million or so people who purchased it are feeling as deflated as a New England Patriots football.

Rock singer Bryan Adams also once thought he'd died and gone to Heaven.
But turns out he was just love-struck.

We are so eager to feast on these personal accounts of an afterlife that a whole new genre of entertainment has been christened “Heavenly Tourism”. Heavenly Tourism is now a big business, even getting a major motion picture in 2014Some cases appear to bring real credibility to the phenomenon, such as Eben Alexander, M.D., the neurosurgeon who wrote the bestseller “Proof Of Heaven” after his NDE. While science is not a system designed to test matters of faith, researchers can examine what is going on in the brain during NDEs.
Flatliners” was a movie from 1990 about a group of medical students who tried to reproduce NDEs in the lab. The real miracle is that most of these actors were able to resuscitate their career after this movie.
Dr. Steven Laureys heads a Coma Science Group in Belgium that studies NDEs very seriously. His research is revealing that patients who have a NDE form memories during this period that are unusually vivid, feeling “even more real than real”. Dr. Laureys asserts that the lucid nature of these NDE memories fools many people, including Dr. Eben Alexander, to believe they were real events. But Dr. Laureys attributes these powerful experiences to a dysfunctional brain.

According to Dr. Laureys, there is no evidence that consciousness exists independent of brain activity. In other words, patients forming memories during a NDE were not dead, and the images they retain were the natural result of residual brain activity, which can persist for some time even after the heart stops beating. Further evidence that heavenly visions are not real is that they can be reproduced when certain parts of the brain are artificially stimulated. Oliver Sacks has also written extensively about how the stimulation of certain brain areas can produce an array of transcendental experiences that feel absolutely real. Psychedelic drugs can have a similar impact on the brain.

Supportive findings have emerged from studies that record brain activity in dying rats. In rats that would be considered “clinically dead” by human medical standards, researchers observed a surge in specific brain activities that are signatures of “hyper-consciousness”, the same type of phenomenon that Dr. Laureys observes in patients reporting a vivid NDE. 

Neuroscientist Andrew Newberg studies the effects that certain religious practices have on the brain, pioneering a new discipline he calls "neurotheology" that aims to identify the biological underpinnings of spirituality. His studies have revealed why NDEs often leave the impression that you traveled down a tunnel towards a bright light. According to Newberg, peripheral vision is lost during a NDE, producing the sensation that one is in a tunnel.
 

The more we study NDEs, the more it becomes clear that there is a neurochemical basis that explains the imagery and sensations. Collectively, these studies raise a red flag about the validity of Heavenly Tourism, so buyer beware. Those offering to be your tour guide may be teaching you more about neurology and psychology rather than what may await us when the brain truly shuts down. Heaven is outside the realm of scientific examination, so the afterlife remains a matter of faith.

It has been posited, however, that our growing scientific knowledge gives less credence to the supernatural, making an afterlife seem highly improbable. Stephen Hawking has proclaimed, "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." John Lennon once asked us to image no Heaven. While the thought of a finite existence is unfathomable to many, the truth is that the only existence we can be certain of is the one we are living here and now. Embracing the possibility that life is a one-take movie can inspire us to do wondrous things with the time we have alive. Knowing that we will not be reunited with friends and family in the Great Beyond should prompt us to cultivate better relationships with them now. The logical course of action is to treat our life as a fragile and precious commodity, taking good care of the body and mind and enabling others to do the same, which interestingly agrees with the prime directive of most religions. 
 


Contributed by:  Bill Sullivan
Follow Bill on Twitter.

For more information:
 
Thonnard, M., Charland-Verville, V., Brédart, S., Dehon, H., Ledoux, D., Laureys, S., & Vanhaudenhuyse, A. (2013). Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories PLoS ONE, 8 (3) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057620

Borjigin, J., Lee, U., Liu, T., Pal, D., Huff, S., Klarr, D., Sloboda, J., Hernandez, J., Wang, M., & Mashour, G. (2013). Surge of neurophysiological coherence and connectivity in the dying brain Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (35), 14432-14437 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1308285110

Newberg AB (2014). The neuroscientific study of spiritual practices. Frontiers in psychology, 5 PMID: 24672504

Blanke, O. (2005). The Out-of-Body Experience: Disturbed Self-Processing at the Temporo-Parietal Junction The Neuroscientist, 11 (1), 16-24 DOI: 10.1177/1073858404270885


Physicist Sean Carroll recently gave a lecture that debunks the notion of an afterlife.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Giving, Getting, and Grey Matter




I give you the Griswold family Christmas tree. Did you see
Rusty there? That’s Leonard from The Big Bang Theory! He
also starred in the one other big budget 1989 Christmas
movie, Prancer. By the way, did you notice that in this
Griswold movie Rusty went from being Audrey’s older brother
to her younger brother.
The Jelly of the Month Club – the gift that keeps on giving. It’s that time of year again, time to feel the love or the loathe, battle the mall or e-tail ‘til you drop. Everyone likes to get gifts, but it seems our brains like giving them more.

Your kids make gifts for you just as you made gifts for your parents. Why, because kids don’t have any money (or maybe they do, more on that below).  You loved it when Ma or Pa unwrapped your macaroni necklace or the intricate drawing of the spaceman being eaten by the dragon.

The reason you thought your gift to them was so great can be explained by how your brain works. Dan Ariely, the behavioral economist, wrote about this is his book, The Upside of Irrationality. People value their own work more than they value other people’s work.

His example in the book had to do with building Lego toys – people would bid more to buy their own products than they would to buy the same products made by others. So the macaroni necklace from you was really a Tiffany original and your drawing put Renoir to shame.

And your parents loved your homemade gifts just as much as you love those from your kids. Why? Because your brain makes you….. er, allows you to. Receiving a gift activates the reward center of your brain. What's more, giving something away feels the same as when you receive something special, your brain doesn’t know the difference.

Research shows that giving a gift activates the same reward centers in the brain that light up when you receive a gift. Giving is a pleasure for the giver just as much as it is a pleasure for the receiver. This is why some Scrooges complain that people give to charity to make themselves feel good, not those they are helping.


If we covered the hands and present, could you tell who was
giving the gift and who was receiving it? Giving and getting
stimulate the same responses in the brain. However, women
are better at picking out gifts and men are better at
accepting gifts they don’t like.
Gift giving might even be more self-serving. In addition to the reward center activation, a 2006 study showed that gift giving activates the part of the brain involved in social connections and altruism. This part of the brain is activated when the gift is of greater benefit to the receiver than to the giver and is a true mark of giving in the best sense.

On the other hand, studies say getting a bad gift can actually harm a relationship. Men that received a gift from their significant other that did not match their known preferences or interests reported having less of a connection to the giver because of the choice. So the key is to pick out a gift that tells the receiver that you know them, you listen to them and you consider their perspective.

Popular theory has it that women are better at selecting gifts for other people than are men. That ain’t so at my house, but don’t tell my wife I said so. I think that women are better in general because they have more practice. They buy gifts all the time; little I’m thinking of you gifts, thank you for your gift gifts, thank you for your thank gift gifts.

That’s my hypothesis, but a scientific group in the Netherlands refused to take my word for it and did a series of experiments. They had men and women rank a series of possible gifts for people they knew and then had the potential recipient rank the gifts as well. Women did better at predicting the recipients’ preferences.

Another experiment in this study sought to determine why women were better. There results suggested that women were more connected with the meaning of the gift to the recipient. In short, women pick better gifts because they think more about the things they give.


Pearl is Mr. Crabs’ daughter and boy is she spoiled. Research
shows that giving kids too many gifts makes them unable to
discern needs from wants and puts pressure on them because
they know deep down that they don’t deserve them all. Now
explain to me why Mr. Crabs’ daughter is a whale!
So the quality of a gift can lead to stronger relationship and feelings of reward for both the giver and the receiver. But beware the power of gifts – you can have too much of a good thing.

Parents that overindulge their children through the giving of too many gifts can do harm. They don’t mean to, quite the opposite. They want to make their kids happy – it’s their job.

However, studies show that too many gifts cause insecurity and anxiety in kids. They can’t react strongly to too many gifts. So they pick one as a coping mechanism – and then they worry that they will offend the givers of the others.

In addition, giving your kids too much (material overindulgence) may lead to problems later in life with responsibility, delaying gratification, and in knowing what is normal.

Dr. David Bredehoft, the preeminent expert in the field warns that overindulgence leads to, “not knowing the difference between needs and wants; needing constant stimulation and entertainment from others; not taking responsibility for their own actions; overeating, overspending, and dysfunctional thinking (increased depressive thoughts). Paradoxically, overindulged children can develop an overblown sense of self-importance which can lead to problems at school, on the job, and/or in relationships.”

The problem continues as the overindulged become parents, “the more children are overindulged the more likely they are to become parents who: feel ineffective; believe they are not in control of their own life or their child’s behavior; think they are not responsible for their child’s actions, and that raising good children is due to fate, luck, or chance.”


This ad shows the brain at work. They tell you that you have to
add the eggs and that this creates “that homemade goodness.”
Do you think that change would be necessary today?
We can sum up gift giving for the kids through another lesson from behavioral economist Dan Ariely in The Upside of Irrationality. In the 1950’s, instant pie crust and instant cake mixes were introduced at the same time. They had pretty much the same ingredients, but the pie crust mix was a hit while they couldn’t give the cake mix away. It turned out that to make a pie, you had to add things to the crust, but the cake mix was the complete product in and of itself. Housewives had no pride in a cake they made from mix because they felt they hadn’t worked for it – they hadn’t earned it.

When manufacturers removed the powdered egg and oil from the cake mix, women started to buy it. They had to add something to create the cake. They took pride in serving it to their family or giving it away because they felt they earned it. It didn’t take much, but some work needed to be involved.

The moral - people value things they earn more than things they are given. The same is true for gift giving and receiving. If you have worked to make sure the gift you are giving is the product of your hard work, thought, and planning, you feel better about that gift. Likewise, if you have some sort of feeling that you deserve a gift and that it holds some meaning, then you will appreciate the gift more.

Too much given too easily lessens the specialness of the holiday season.


Contributed by Mark E. Lasbury, MS, MSEd, PhD



Pollmann, M., & van Beest, I. (2013). Women Are Better at Selecting Gifts than Men PLoS ONE, 8 (12) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081643

Dunn, E., Huntsinger, J., Lun, J., & Sinclair, S. (2008). The Gift of Similarity: How Good and Bad Gifts Influence Relationships Social Cognition, 26 (4), 469-481 DOI: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.4.469

Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., de Oliveira-Souza, R., & Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103 (42), 15623-15628 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0604475103



Friday, November 7, 2014

The Friday Five

Highlighting some of the coolest science news we’ve seen lately.

1. Ever get the feeling that your brain is slowing down? When people say, “Think fast!”, you usually respond in a day or two? Perhaps you’ve been infected by an algal virus (especially if you live in the Baltimore area where this study was conducted). A virus (ATCV-1) that typically infects green algae can also infect human brain tissue, and now a study has shown a link in those who are infected with slowed brain activity.

This algal virus can infect people too, and may make them slower on the draw with shorter attention spans.
 
2. Do you think you know the primary colors? How about the number of senses that we have? You might be surprised at the true answers. Read on to learn the truth about five things we were taught in science class.

3. Everyone’s favorite attraction at the fair is the daring performer who eats and breathes fire. In the video below, you can learn the chemistry behind fire eating and why the performers don’t melt their faces off.
 



4. Thanks to lessons from computer science, it may be possible to “debug” our brains in ways that parallel how programmers edit bad code. Read it now before you get distra---oh, look, a squirrel!

 
5. And now…5 of the craziest science stunts that teachers won’t show you in school. Except maybe this teacher.

 


Science quote of the week:
“Exploring the unknown requires tolerating uncertainty.” –Brian Greene

Contributed by:  Bill Sullivan
Follow Bill on Twitter: @wjsullivan

Yolken, R., Jones-Brando, L., Dunigan, D., Kannan, G., Dickerson, F., Severance, E., Sabunciyan, S., Talbot, C., Prandovszky, E., Gurnon, J., Agarkova, I., Leister, F., Gressitt, K., Chen, O., Deuber, B., Ma, F., Pletnikov, M., & Van Etten, J. (2014). Chlorovirus ATCV-1 is part of the human oropharyngeal virome and is associated with changes in cognitive functions in humans and mice Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418895111

Friday, September 5, 2014

The Friday Five

Highlighting some of the coolest science news we’ve seen lately.

1. The mystery behind Death Valley's 'Wandering Stones' appears to have finally been solved. For decades scientists have debated why hundreds of rocks move across Racetrack Playa, leaving trails behind them. Read this and/or watch the video below to see how this happens.


2. We’ve recently covered some of the things that alcohol does to your brain in this post. Here is a short video that not only addresses the question, “Does alcohol kill brain cells?”, but also explains where this notion originated. Cheers!


3. Now that we know what alcohol does, how about coffee? What does coffee do to the brain? AsapSCIENCE is here to explain in this short video.


4. Economist Richard Reeves uses Legos to demonstrate the chances of upward mobility in America.


5. Richard Feynman’s famous lectures are now available for free here. Go learn some physics from the master who had a knack for making complex principles understandable and entertaining.



Science quote of the week:

“Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.” –Adam Smith

Contributed by:  Bill Sullivan
Follow Bill on Twitter: @wjsullivan

Norris, R., Norris, J., Lorenz, R., Ray, J., & Jackson, B. (2014). Sliding Rocks on Racetrack Playa, Death Valley National Park: First Observation of Rocks in Motion PLoS ONE, 9 (8) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105948

Monday, August 18, 2014

State Fairs and Stiff Beers: Why We Can't Stop Drinking

Recently, the Indiana State Fair served its first alcoholic beverage since 1946. With the popularity of local breweries and wineries on the rise in Indiana – nearly a hundred of each in the Hoosier State – a reversal of the near-70 year alcohol drought at the State Fair seemed inevitable.

The logo for the Beer and Wine Exhibit 2014 at the Indiana State Fair
Meanwhile, in Indiana and beyond, many scientists are buzzing about trying to understand exactly what alcohol does to our brain. From time to time, researchers lace a rodent’s drinking water with varying amounts of ethanol in order to observe how this impacts their zig-zagging through mazes. Despite consuming alcohol for millennia, we remain remarkably ill-informed regarding how alcohol affects the nervous system. Why do we consume alcohol? How does it affect us neurologically in the short-term, and why do we keep going back for more? The answers are complex, but we are beginning to see them without beer goggles.

Going back at least to 8,000 B.C., the pages of history are splashed with examples of alcohol usage, the reasons ranging from medicinal (analgesic and antiseptic), religious (Communion wine), aesthetic (perfumes and cosmetics), preservative (safeguarding of food), industrial (fossil fuels), financial (barter) and recreational (drinking in times of merriment and sorrow to alter one’s mood).  The mighty powers behind constructing the Pyramids of Giza rationed payments for their laborers in measures of beer. The Middle Ages and well beyond saw numerous reports of alcohol (primarily beer) being safer to drink than water - until the Germ Theory of Disease helped make two parts of hydrogen and one part oxygen safe to imbibe. The Royal Navy of the United Kingdom received a daily rum ration until the 1970s, when someone of importance finally became worried that operating heavy machinery might be precarious while under the influence.

Many, then, are the uses of alcohol, and diverse are instances of its enduring consumption, inherent in legions of cultures for thousands of years. For all the other ways in which the world has changed, in some ways the consumption of alcohol seems little different today. As in ancient and medieval times, we drink to please others and we drink to please ourselves.

While the liver is the key organ that metabolizes alcohol, the majority of the effects we feel after having thrown back a few (or a few too many, depending on the occasion) are primarily neurological. It is important to understand that alcohol is more than simply a depressant. Alcohol is a complex drug that causes variable effects based on the amount ingested. It affects a variety of neurological pathways and targets different structures in the brain, resulting in a cocktail of symptoms not easily explained by a single molecular alteration. After minutes of ingestion, alcohol enters the blood stream and readily crosses the blood-brain barrier, typically a highly selective barrier between the circulating blood and brain fluid, and acts on a number of receptors both directly and indirectly. Even moderate alcohol consumption can have adverse effects on sleep patterns and temperature regulation, which is controlled by a small almond-shaped structure located just above the brainstem known as the hypothalamus. While a nightcap may help you feel drowsy, larger quantities of alcohol affect REM sleep, causing restlessness and wakefulness through the course of the night.

Those who have had too much are afflicted with cerebellar defects, such as difficulty walking and impaired motor coordination. Alcohol can also do a number on the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for judgment, cognition, planning, and social interaction. Some reports suggest that alcohol can bind up to 100 independent receptors in the brain, and the various locations of these processes in the cranium determine the specific changes in behavior. Other symptoms associated with drinking include changes in memory and emotion, slurred speech, and blackouts. Small to moderate quantities of alcohol have also been reported to decrease brain volume. 



Low and moderate alcohol users show a decrease in adjusted brain volume based on magnetic resonance imaging results in the Framingham Offspring Study cohort (Paul et al. JAMA Neurology 2008)

Alcohol also alters the release of numerous neuro-transmitters and neuropeptides, which are chemical messengers and protein-like molecules, respectively, involved in transmitting signals in the brain. For example, alcohol decreases the release of glutamate, the key excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain, while increasing the amount of GABA, an inhibitory neurotransmitter, potentially resulting in a slowdown of brain function. All these consequences seem negative, but there’s a catch:  booze increases the production of dopamine in the “reward center” of the brain. This creates a positive feedback loop, making us want more and more of this elixir.

A number of different structures in the brain are affected by the consumption of alcohol. In particular, the ‘pleasure center’ is responsible for the effects of the dopamine reward pathway and the limbic system can lead to changes in memory and emotion

Indeed, there are a number of reasons why libations are such a central part of our life. Here’s a small excerpt. First and foremost, we like it! This pleasure can be explained neurologically by the activation of the dopamine-reward pathway, socially by the fact that it is an event that often brings people together (be it in times of merriment or sorrow), and psychologically by how it is a low risk/high reward activity and relieves stress, helping one cope with emotional turmoil. 

If viewed from an evolutionary perspective, moderate alcohol consumption hardly affects fitness: Although the Porter in Shakespeare’s Macbeth says that drink “provokes the desire but takes away the performance,” science tells us that alcohol can bolster both. So spirits, unlike the painful fear of heights, seem no powerful threat to either survival or procreation. Additionally, the “drunken monkey” hypothesis put forth by Dr. Robert Dudley suggests that we drink because we associate alcohol with a nutritional reward, as our anthropoid ancestors primarily subsisted on ripe fruits that contained low levels of ethanol. Since moderate and chronic alcoholism are associated with a number of vitamin deficiencies, such as folate, vitamin B12, vitamin A, and calcium, I have difficulty believing that alcohol consumption is, in fact, an evolutionary hangover, but this argument has been made from time to time. However, as with most things in life, consuming alcohol in moderation can maximize its positive effects while minimizing the risk associated with consumption.

So as you weave your way to the Grand Hall to the Beer and Wine exhibition at the State Fair, right after having scarfed down your deep-fried Twinkie and a few shucks of corn, if you down that beer (or three, the limit imposed at the State Fair this year), it won’t be because you have to. You’ll swill that brew because you want to.

Contributed by:  Aarti Chawla

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/
Diamond I, & Messing RO (1994). Neurologic effects of alcoholism. The Western journal of medicine, 161 (3), 279-87 PMID: 7975567

NĂ©meth Z, Kuntsche E, UrbĂ¡n R, Farkas J, & Demetrovics Z (2011). Why do festival goers drink? Assessment of drinking motives using the DMQ-R SF in a recreational setting. Drug and alcohol review, 30 (1), 40-6 PMID: 21219496

Paul CA, Au R, Fredman L, Massaro JM, Seshadri S, Decarli C, & Wolf PA (2008). Association of alcohol consumption with brain volume in the Framingham study. Archives of neurology, 65 (10), 1363-7 PMID: 18852353