[recycled material - first appeared here]
Three recent, separate studies have illustrated how chemicals and chemical levels can influence thoughts, feelings, behavior: human psychology. In two of the studies, the chemicals were endogenous, or internally produced, in the third, exogenous.
1) Dopamine and pleasure.
The first sentence to the news release tells it:
Enhancing the effects of the brain chemical dopamine influences how people make life choices by affecting expectations of pleasure, according to new research from the UCL Institute of Neurology. [bold added][source]
Drugs that influence dopamine levels in the brain include cocaine, nicotine, and amphetamines. Caffeine, too.
2) Carbon dioxide and fear.
Yes, your body creates carbon dioxide. Oxygen comes in through the lungs, carbon dioxide out. Higher levels of carbon dioxide have been found to trigger fear and anxiety.
A new study by University of Iowa researchers shows that carbon dioxide increases brain acidity, which in turn activates a brain protein that plays an important role in fear and anxiety behavior. [source]
Like the above on pleasure, this finding on fear has important mental health implications.
[T]he study team, including first author Adam Ziemann, M.D., Ph.D., found that making brain tissue less acidic (raising brain pH) blunted fear behavior produced by carbon dioxide and reduced learned fear. [bold added]
This is your brain; this is your brain with an altered pH. This is your emotional state and behavior; this is your emotional state and behavior with acidic brain tissue.
3) Phthalates and effeminate play.
Phthalates do not naturally occur in the human body. They are used by industry to soften plastics. When humans are exposed to these the can be absorbed. And when in a mother’s body, the can influence the developing fetus.
Phthalates are also found in vinyl and plastic tubing, household products, and many personal care products such as soaps and lotions. Phthalates are becoming more controversial as scientific research increasingly associates them with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities, and reduced testosterone in babies and adults. [source]
The news release containing the above information reported this very interesting finding:
In Swan’s study, higher concentrations of metabolites of two phthalates, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP), were associated with less male-typical behavior in boys on a standard play questionnaire….Girls’ play behavior was not associated with phthalate levels in their mothers, the study concluded.
Phthalates have previously been recognized as anti-androgenic compounds: they act against or disrupt the male hormones. How could the mothers’ exposure to this chemical affect their boys’ style of play?
Swan hypothesized that phthalates may lower fetal testosterone production during a critical window of development – somewhere within eight to 24 weeks gestation, when the testes begin to function – thereby altering brain sexual differentiation. [bold added]
Who knew that studying chemistry in school could aid your understanding of human psychology? We now know better.
Genes aren’t static things. Which makes the whole “is it nature” (innate/genetic) or “is it nurture” (environmental influence) such a tough issue. Just as genes can determine what environmental influences we are sensitive to, it is becoming clear that environmental influences can determine the activation of specific genes. It’s called epigenetics, and it’s a brave new world of nature-nurture entwinement.
Consider a recent psychological finding on early childhood experience and mental health. The study was on orphaned children and how their early lack of loving care may have actually influenced their genes. Nurture changing nature:
The team found that in the institutionalized group, there was a greater number of changes in the genetic regulation of the systems controlling immune response and inter-cellular interactions, including a number of important mechanisms in the development and function of the brain.
“Our study shows that the early stress of separation from a biological parent impacts long-term programming of genome function; this might explain why adopted children may be particularly vulnerable to harsh parenting in terms of their physical and mental health,” said Grigorenko. “Parenting adopted children might require much more nurturing care to reverse these changes in genome regulation.” [emphasis added; source]
Fascinating. I eagerly await more findings.
I believe cell phones pose a serious cancer risk. If you grind them up and eat them.
Okay, seriously now. I believe that cell phone use could be a cancer risk. But hold on, hold on. At present the best science suggests that the risk, if there is one, is very very small.
A new piece of research on the topic should be reassuring to cell phone users. Actually, the research is the latest installment of a multi-year study: a new data point from further down the line.
Danish researchers found no evidence that the risk of brain tumours was raised among 358,403 mobile phone subscribers over an 18-year period. [source]
Like good skeptics, as the better scientists certainly are, the researchers themselves make this cautionary note:
“However, as a small to moderate increase in risk for subgroups of heavy users or after even longer induction periods than 10-15 years cannot be ruled out, further studies with large study populations, where the potential for misclassification of exposure and selection bias is minimised, are warranted.”
If I recall correctly, a number of people have criticized this Danish study because it is funded (in part) by the cell phone industry. Which brings up two points:
1. While “who funds a study” is important to disclose, it doesn’t mean we are then justified in completely dismissing the finding, particularly if it is peer-reviewed. It just raises a flag of caution. Look closer for the possibility of bias.
2. Second point: We need more public funding of science! Doing good science costs money. To better remove the possibility of bias, we should change the source of funding. But where there is no other source, what can a scientist do?
I am also aware that there a number of small-scale experiments out there, performed on rats and other non-human subjects, that suggest microwave radiation like that emitted by cell phones can influence the biology of the brain. (Via general heating, most likely.) While this is something to note, these are small-scale studies under special conditions. Which doesn’t mean we completely dismiss them, but that we put them in proper perspective.
Do cell phones pose a risk to health? In terms of cancer — maybe. But if so, it is presently looking like the risk is very small.
On second thought, cell phone use is, in fact, a great risk to health. As a final note of the soap-box variety–I wish a lot more attention were going into the bigger danger of cell phone use. Namely, the operation of this few oz. device while simultaneously operating roughly 3,000 pounds of automotive machine at rapid speeds.
Holy crap! Now that’s risk. Not only to the user, but to other folks on the road.
Is memory quantized? Does it come in distinct units with a minimum size? In this case, the measure would be duration. According to new research by a Norwegian team of neuroscientists, there may be a smallest unit of memory.
Their findings show that memory is divided into discrete individual packets, analogous to the way that light is divvied up into individual bits called quanta. Each memory is just 125 milliseconds long — which means the brain can swap between different memories as often as eight times in one second. [source]
Using an ingenious experiment on rats, the researchers were able to change the rats perceived physical environment nearly instantaneously (via lighting schemes). Having mapped the unique brain activity for each environment, the scientists were then able to see what happens in the brain when going from one scheme to the other. There was no “melding” or combining of memories, but rather a discrete switch between. The rats’ brains showed activation of “In place A” or “In place B” of durations as brief as one eighth of a second.
Is 125 milliseconds the speed of recognition? Interestingly, the rats’ brains didn’t take on a transitional state of “In place AB.” One can only imagine that the small rodents were for a moment in a state of “Where the #$*! am I?” Or something.
Interesting.
I just hope Deepok Chopra doesn’t use the above finding as support for his Quantum Mind bologna. For although memories may have a smallest duration, that doesn’t mean we are all linked by some unseen field of cosmic consciousness. To use the words of my favorite coach: “It is what it is.” At least until further study.
A new study suggests that the idea of “with age comes wisdom” is a glass half-full. And that is better than half-empty.
The news release title declares:
Clinical study shows young brains lack the wisdom of their elders
That’s the glass half full–that elderly brains apparently have more wisdom the young brains. The glass half full is that their brains aren’t as fast.
You may wonder what the researchers meant by “wisdom” and how they measured it, as I did. Upon reading the article a second and third time, I gather that with the word “wisdom” the researchers were referring to a brain’s ability to allocate its resources. Efficiency. And this was measured by psychological tests and functional neuroimaging.
What the article and the researchers did a poor job expressing was not only the half-empty part, but also specifying exactly how full the darn glass was. I’m not sure. But I did read this seemingly research-summarizing sentence:
“When it comes to certain tasks, the brains of older adults can achieve very close to the same performance as those of younger ones.”
Ahhh. Very close. That’s not quite half-full, if you ask me. And the article title surely emphasizes the half-empty part of having a young brain.
Congratulations grandma and pa! Your consolation prize for getting old is a brain that can pretty much compensate for a speed slowdown by increased efficiency!
Those poor green-behind-the-ears upstarts! They’re quick, but they don’t have our ability. Which makes us . . . if not better, very nearly as good!
Can we please call a spade a spade, a cane a cane?
Recent Comments