TV for Babies?

by Nicole Bronson

Wathing TV by roxeteer

Did you ever watch Barney or Sesame Street growing up?   Nowadays, in addition to Barney and Sesame Street, there are even more TV shows aimed at kids, ranging from a sponge that lives under the sea to a little Spanish-speaking girl who explores with her monkey friend!  There is even an entire TV channel, BabyFirst , which is devoted to TV programs for babies.  Technology, TV especially, seems to be more frequently targeting young kids as well as babies (Christakis & Zimmerman, 2009).  And despite warnings  that early TV exposure should not occur in children under 2 years of age, many parents still allow their children to watch TV younger than this age.  My best friend claims her 2 and 3-year old niece and nephew first started watching TV as soon as they were born! What parents may not know is that by allowing their children to watch TV at very young ages, they may be negatively impacting their children’s future cognitive performance and brains.

A  study conducted at Wake Forest University (2007)  investigated whether or not watching teletubbies teaches 15-24 month-old children new words.  The lead researcher, Marina Krcmar, compared 15-24 month-old children’s abilities to learn new words from teletubbies to their abilities to learn new words from a present adult speaker.  Interestingly, children were much better learning words from responsive adults than from the television program.  Thus, it seems learning new words at very young ages entails interaction with present, human teachers.  Children under the age of 2 may not be reaching their full cognitive and language potential learning from a TV, instead of an adult.

Also acknowledging the importance of determining the relationship between television children’s learning abilities,  the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently released a new policy statement  about technology use by children younger than two.  The new statement was created in lieu of technological advancements and new research that has been conducted since the original policy statement was released in 1999.  The original policy statement discouraged media exposure for children under the age of 2.  Meanwhile, the new policy statement also discourages media exposure for this age group, while additionally providing more scientifically backed reasons for why media exposure should be avoided.  Similar to the Wake Forest University study, this new policy claims children under 2 cannot comprehend what they are watching, and therefore do not get much educational benefit from it.  Additionally, media exposure may exert negative health effects on children under age 2, just as it has been shown to do in preschool and elementary school children.  These negative health effects may include increased aggression, attentional problems, sleep troubles and obesity.  Even simply having the TV on in the background may have negative effects on children under age 2.  Focusing on the TV rather than their child, parents may inadvertently take away from the quality of parent-child interactions.  This long list of potential adverse effects due to early media exposure was sufficient enough for the AAP to reaffirm the claim they made in 1999 and continue to discourage media use by children less than 2 years of age.

With an increasing number of children under the age of 2 watching television, it’s important to understand if television does actually induce detrimental effects and if so, how exactly it exerts these effects.  Adverse effects may be influenced by television’s impact on brain development that is occurring very rapidly in children at an early age (Siegler, DeLoache & Eisenberg, 2011).  Although babies’ are born with the majority of neurons they will have for the rest of their lives, many changes occur within and between their neurons, especially early in life.  One such change that takes place is called arborization, where neurons’ dendrites grow and differentiate.  It literally looks like a tree! The development does not end there, however, as neurons then begin to form connections with thousands of other neurons in what is called synaptogenesis.  So many connections are made, however, that some must be pruned.  This synaptic pruning—loss of neuronal connections—occurs in about 40% of the synapses and is mediated by a “use it or lose it” phenomenon.  Basically experience is key in determining which synapses are used and therefore kept and which synapses are not used and therefore pruned.  Sensory experiences babies encounter early on in life are extremely important then for signaling, which neurons are appropriate to maintain and which are appropriate to prune.  The major concern with TV exposure for babies is that it takes away from critical sensory experiences they would have had if not watching TV.  As most TV watching is a passive experience, children are not being exposed to different types of stimuli—olfactory, tactile, gustatory—they may be exposed to if not watching TV.  A member of the AAP Council on Communication and Media, Dr. Brown, recommends that babies, instead of watching television, engage in unstructured play.  Unstructured play is important for motor development, problem solving and creative thinking and thus contributes greatly to sensory experiences.  Furthermore, with less TV distractions, parents and children may be able to interact more, potentially leading to better language development in the child.  Physical interactions are key for sensory development and cannot be sufficiently replaced by a video.

This is your brain on diabetes

by Clayton Masterman

Photo by Andrew Scott

It is easy to think of memory as a cognitive process, but like everything in our brain it depends on physiological processes to function. New research has revealed that diabetes can have physiological effects that are severely detrimental to memory. Diabetes comes in two forms, both of which have been linked with the degradation of mental processes. Type 1 diabetes occurs because the body fails to create enough insulin, and type 2 occurs because the body’s cells are unable to use the insulin correctly.  Insulin is a hormone secreted by the pancreas that helps cells absorb glucose and create energy. In diabetes blood sugar levels become too high and various complications arise.

Recent studies have shown that both types of diabetes are having an impact on cognitive abilities and memory. Sometimes a diabetic patient can experience diabetic ketoacidosis, which occurs when the body reaches a state where it burns fat for energy instead of sugar. This can have severe complications, the worst of which being a coma.  According to a recent study children that have gone through diabetic ketoacidosis perform worse on memory tests than other children. This research was based on children with type 1 diabetes, but these results aren’t isolated to this form of the disease.

A study performed by Dr. Tali Cukierman-Yaffe found that diabetics are 1.5 times more likely to experience a decline in cognitive performance and 1.6 times more likely to experience dementia than individuals without diabetes. This is complicated by the fact that diabetes is an intensive disease to manage; patients must remain constantly vigilant. If a treatment cycle begins to get off course, things quickly get out of control.

The reason for these effects is not entirely understood. Several studies have examined the influence of other factors such as stress and determined that they increase the risk of mental decline in patients, but that they are not the sole cause. Other studies are pointing to cardiovascular damage caused by diabetes as a mechanism for cognitive decline, leading to a form of dementia similar to pure vascular dementia. (Biessels et al, 2005)  Until the cause is confirmed and a treatment is developed, patients are left with little hope of a way to prevent these issues from occurring. The only real recommendation that exists is for patients to keep on their treatments to ensure that blood sugar levels remain at normal levels. New cases must be diagnosed immediately to make sure treatment begins as soon as possible. Hopefully soon we’ll confirm the cause of this problem and be able to combat it more effectively.

Is screen time ruining our face time?

by Chelsea Boccagno

Everett and Monroe share screen time by cafemama

Imagine yourself in your room, waiting for your friend to come by. He soon enters wearing a yellow cap with dark purple splotches that you find absolutely horrendous. You might instinctively gasp, or widen your eyes. Even worse, he may ask your opinion, and he’ll know from your unconvincing tone that you’re lying when you say you like it. Now imagine that friend sending you a picture of the hat through an online chat. Unable to see or hear you, he can’t know your initial reaction. When he asks your opinion, he won’t know from your typed sentence (“I like it!”) that you actually despise it. It’s obvious that face-to-face communication differs from online interaction: when online, you can’t hear the person’s voice or see any facial expression (and therefore must assume people’s emotions through their use of emoticons or, say, the caps lock button). Regardless, both children and adults use home computers as a frequent means of communication. Yet children are still undergoing social development. Does Internet communication then impact a child’s social growth and understanding of others?

According to a 2005 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, American children between ages 2-17 spend more time using screen media than participating in any other chosen activity, including outside play (Rideout, 2005). Additionally, enhanced access to the home computer increases the child’s total amount of screen time (video games, television, etc.), resulting in decreased face-to-face interaction (Stanger & Gridina, 1999). Modern children just aren’t going to the playground anymore. They might consequently satisfy their urge to interact with others by playing computer games, or having an online conversation. But for children, play has social benefits such as learning how to share and cooperate. Therefore increased indoor time might negatively affect children’s social competence regardless of whether they’re talking to others online.

Besides impacting face-to-face playtime duration, computer interaction may alter the way in which children emotionally understand others. A recent New York Times article expresses concern about technological interaction destroying the intimacy and emotional feedback of face-to-face communication.

Doodle your way to better memory

by Daniele Selby

Doodle and photograph by itselea

How often do you daydream in class? Or when your mother lectures you, or when your friend tells you minute by minute what happened in the their day. Chances are you remember very little of what was said in those encounters. The same goes for studying while watching the television – sometimes it makes it harder to remember what you read. Generally, multitasking while trying to acquire new knowledge has a negative effect. Multitasking while learning can interfere with the recollection of the knowledge later (Schaffhausen, 2006). Yet interestingly, a new study has found some evidence that a specific kind of multitasking, doodling to be exact, can help memory recall.

At Plymouth University researchers performed memory tests on 40 volunteers. During these tests the subjects were asked to listen to a phone call and recall the names and places mentioned during the call afterwards. The call lasted two and minutes. Half of the volunteers were asked to doodle by coloring in shapes on a piece of paper, during the phone call. The subjects were not required to do so neatly, or with any amount of detail and attention. The other half were allowed to do as they pleased during the call. All the subjects were warned that the content of the phone call would be rather un-stimulating, and none were told this was a test of memory. Following the phone call the subjects were asked to explicitly name eight places and eight names mentioned during the call. On average, those who doodled recalled 7.5 of the required pieces of data while those who did not doodle only recalled 5.8.

It is believed that those who doodled were better able to recall the contents of the phone call because they stayed engaged during the call, rather than daydreaming or allowing their minds to wander. While doodling is a form of multitasking and might sound distracting, the level of attention and engagement which takes place while doodling – not drawing – is significantly less than that which takes place when day dreaming. People are more detached from their doodles than they are involved in their daydreams.

When testing memory and/or attention, second tasks are often used to block a particular mental process. If that process is essential to the performance of the main cognitive task at hand, then the performance of the task will be affected. The performance of the task is likely to be impaired if the second task interferes with the mental process. But this does not seem to be the case with doodling. Perhaps the reason we are inclined to doodle in the first place is that it helps us recall things we learn. There is no certain conclusion yet as to why doodling seems to help recall, but maybe this is evidence enough for all of us students to start scribbling.

References

Maron, D. F. (2009, February 26) Doodle Zone. Newsweek. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/186738

Schaffhausen, J.  (2006, July 25) Multitasking May Harm Memory. ABC News. Retrieved March 4, 2010 from, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2230735

Wiley-Blackwell (2009, March 5). Do Doodle: Doodling Can Help Memory Recall. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/02/090226210039.htm

Sinister, or even-minded?

By Heather Kobayashi

Photo by Jeff the Trojan

There’s more to being a lefty than just which hand you write with.  That sentence may sound wrong to some, but a growing body of research shows a many unexpected differences between different-handed individuals.

In everyday speech, there is seeming equivalence between “right” as opposed to wrong and “right” as opposed to left; however, there are some advantages to being “sinister,” or “gauche,” both originally words for left which have become pejorative in modern language.  Left-handers have had disproportionate representation in the White House: including President Obama, 18.6% of US Presidents (8/43) have been left-handed, approximately double the percentage in the general population.  Recent research also suggests that left-handers have a more accurate body sense than right-handers: when asked to estimate arm length, left-handed people estimated both arms as being the same length, while right-handed people tended to underestimate the length of their left arms.  Similarly, left-handed people estimate that both of their hands are the same size, whereas right-handed people estimate that their right hand is larger.    Researchers theorize that this difference indicates a variance in neural networks, the physical pathways of the brain, with right handed people devoting more brain matter to mapping of the right side of their bodies.  Left-handed people, instead of having a larger brain map of their left sides, devote neural space about equally to both halves of their bodies–a decidedly less lop-sided approach.  In fact, lateralization, as distribution of functions between the hemispheres is called, has garnered attention particularly where handedness is concerned.

Brain lateralization may relate to some of the disadvantages of being a lefty.  Geschwind and Behen (1984) found a correlation between left-handedness and a host of immune and respiratory disorders as well as some learning and language disorders. They theorized that the diseases and disorders, brain lateralization, and handedness itself are all due to higher pre-natal testosterone exposure; however, they were also quick to speculate that there are some disorders which have lower occurrence rates among “sinistrals” and cited the higher than average rate of left-handedness in highly skilled professions such as architecture as evidence that left-handed people are not overall less intelligent or healthy.  More recent research has cast some doubt on this theory, asserting that the hypothesis itself is ill-defined (Bryden, McManus, and Bulman Fleming, 1994).  Geschwind and Behan failed to specify what levels of handedness and lateralization were supposed to correlate on the continuums of both scales and a meta-analysis of psychological research shows no particular support of the 1984 findings.  Nevertheless, they still remain heavily cited because no stronger model of handedness has emerged. In addition, studies do show that lefties live, on average, 3 fewer years than their dexterous colleagues (Myers, 2007).  This phenomenon may have its roots in–rather than a psychological difference–the greater number of workplace accidents that befall left-handed people because of mechanical systems designed for righties (a more severe form of the “there are no left-handed scissors” phenomenon in my kindergarten classroom).  Identical twins often have different handedness, so some factor besides genetics must be in effect, but there is also high heritability of the trait (Myers, 2007).  Thus, it remains unclear exactly how handedness, health, and the brain are related.

How the brain reacts to attractiveness

By 105 Student

Composite images, used to evaluate what features raters found attractive

When you see an attractive person walking down the street you may turn your head to look at him or her. When you see everyone else, they may just be blurs as you pass by on the street. What is the reason you look at the attractive person? Why do humans find some people attractive and others not? The answer lies within the brain.

New research being done by psychologist Nancy Etcoff shows that when human beings see an attractive person the reward centers in the brain fire. Not only this, but humans can differentiate between levels of attractiveness by how heavily reward circuits fire in the brain when different pictures of attractive people are shown to them.   Could the reward centers fire so much that one could become addicted to the beauty of one person…perhaps accounting for love? Yes, many other things factor into the development of a relationship, but stimulation of reward centers in the brain surely help the process. As Psychologist John R. Buri has shown, initial attraction to a person is just a powerful wave of neurotransmitters sent our way.  This essentially creates a brain flooding of many different rewards, including Epinephrine, Dopamine, Phenyl ethylamine and Endorphins. Such powerful rewards for such surface level beauty can suggest many things, including an explanation for the commonly held belief that attractive people are more successful in life. This may possibly be because of the physiological response to seeing an attractive face, and with time and repeated exposure, an addiction, or obsession with a certain person. One would be more likely for instance to hire a person they found to be more attractive because they are rewarded chemically in the brain for being around that person.

Does this mean that universally brains can recognize certain features as attractive and that human brains will reward us for seeing beautiful people? Scientist Gad Saad, seems to suggest so in his article discussing the universal beauty metrics he has argued exist in society.  He argues that although there are some different standards of beauty among different cultures, there are universal beauty metrics in our world that exist everywhere, including a universal preference for symmetric faces and clear skin.

Conditioned for a tragedy

by Charlotte Gutfreund

Heroin by JohnnyCashsAshes

K.J., a young heroin user died from an overdose of heroin. He had been hospitalized numerous times for his continued drug abuse, so had had his blood morphine levels (heroin is broken down to morphine once in the bloodstream) recorded numerous times. Interestingly, his blood morphine levels were no higher than they ordinarily were, yet this particular heroin injection proved fatal (Gerevich, Bacskai, Farkas, & Danics., 2005). So what was it that made this high tragically different than his previous ones?

K.J. had not been using heroin as steadily recently, due to his frequent hospital visits, but studies have shown that, although tolerance to heroin definitely increases over continued usage, periods of abstinence do not then, re-lower tolerance (Druid, et. al., 2007), so that could not have been the cause of his different reaction this time. The only thing that was different about the last time he injected himself with heroin was that he was doing so in a different location than he normally did (Gerevich, et. al., 2005).

Surprisingly, this is actually in agreement with a phenomenon shown in other studies. In 1985, Siegel and his colleagues gave two groups of rats continued morphine injections of progressively higher dosage. Each time the injection was given in the same location. The highest location was then given again, and half of the rats were in a new location for this last dose. The rats in the new location repeatedly showed a significantly higher mortality rate, even though they were getting the same exact dose as the other group and the same dose as they had been injected with (and survived) previously. This is because, as a conditioned response to the stimuli present during previous drug use, the body learns to “expect” the drug coming when in the presence of these stimuli, and physiologically prepares itself to “tolerate” the drug (Siegel, et. al., 1985). Tolerance for a drug is caused when long-term use of the drug alters the function of neurons in the brain. For example, with long-term use of opiates, brain neurons begin to require higher and higher levels of the opiate in order to function properly. When frequently exposed to a drug, the brain will alter itself to compensate for the effects of the drug, thereby creating a “tolerance”. An increased tolerance means that the person must use a higher level of the drug to get the same effect, and so their tolerance continually increases (Somers, 2006).

Anxiety, depression and grades

by 105 student

Skinner Hall by Josh de Leeuw

Have anxiety and depression affected your college experience? Of course, most of us have felt a tinge of ennui on a cloudy winter day, moped after a breakup, or cried and pulled out a few hairs studying for finals. But the effects of depression and anxiety disorders can be a serious detriment to college performance.

In the year 2000, 76% of college students reportedly felt “overwhelmed” and 22% were unable to function as a result of their depression (American College Health Association, 2001). Major depressive disorder is characterized by extremely low moods, a sense of worthlessness and lack of interest or enjoyment in typically pleasurable or rewarding activities (Myers, 2006).

Recent studies connecting decreased cravings for pleasure to loss of interest or pleasure in rewarding activities could help to explain poor academic performance of depressed college students. Depressed college students may be less likely to work for grade-oriented rewards.

Stress, eating, and the college student

by Stephanie Scott

Twinkie by nataliej

Stressful situations cause the production of cortisol, a stress hormone.  This hormone causes an increased heart rate, diversion of blood flow to muscles, and metabolic changes, which allows energy to be made ready for use by the muscles.  All of these responses aim to aid in survival in stressful, and possibly life-threatening, situations.  This mechanism works through a negative feedback system, so the stress response is able to quickly shut itself off and allow the body to function normally again.

Generally, this is not the type of stress that college students deal with in their lives. With ever-increasing demands from classes, the responsibility of being on one’s own, possible financial responsibilities, lack of sleep, substance abuse (or decisions about whether to take part in such activity), and trying to figure out how to balance everything, stress levels are often elevated in college students. If students do not learn to manage their busy lives, it can lead to chronic stress.

Chronic stress affects the body using the same mechanism as a regular stress response.  However, chronic stress causes the body to produce cortisol in a routine manner to allow the body to physiologically respond to the stressful situations it is placed in, and these stress responses do not shut themselves off using a negative feedback system. When a response that requires much energy does not shut off, it quickly depletes the body’s energy supply.  This can lead to food cravings– especially cravings for high-energy foods containing much sugar and fat.  These foods are favorable because they tend to be deposited as fat in the abdomen, and abdominal fat is easily accessible by the liver to be used for energy.  Also, these abdominal fat deposits send out metabolic signals that turn off the stress response in the body. Therefore, eating high-energy foods is important when dealing with chronic stress because it allows the body to gain energy deposits so the body can function once previously stored fat deposits have been depleted by energy-consuming stress responses.

Alzheimer’s, sleep and copper

by Robert Rooney and Jesse Greenberg*

Alzheimer's disease brain (note the enlarged ventricles, or holes in the middle)

Named after German physician Alois Alzheimer, Alzheimer’s disease is a terminal brain disorder that gets progressively worse over time.  Alzheimer’s deteriorates and destroys brain cells, causing detrimental effects to memory, behavior and one’s thought process.  A main characteristic of Alzheimer’s is the extensive development of “plaques and tangles.”  Plaques are deposits of the protein beta-amyloid that accumulate in the spaces between nerve cells.  Tangles are deposits of the protein tau that accumulate inside of nerve cells.  Although most people develop some plaques and tangles over time, those diagnosed with Alzheimer’s tend to have a much larger build up of these proteins.  The plaques and tangles are thought to impede interaction between nerve cells and interrupt cell activities necessary for survival.

Scientists are still not sure what exactly causes Alzheimer’s, but current research and evidence point to a few key risk factors.  These factors include, but are not limited to, aging, heart disease, head injury, and genetic history.  While lack of sleep is not considered a risk factor, recent studies suggest it may play a role.

One study performed by members of the Department of Neurology at Washington University, St. Louis showed that plaque levels increased significantly in mice when they were deprived of sleep.  They also found a correlation between beta-amyloid levels and sleeplessness.  The research team also studied a group of male volunteers and found similar correlations.  They found increased levels of beta-amyloid during the time while the men were awake, with the highest peak level around the evening, but the protein levels decreased when the men slept.  Due to the similarities between the results of the mice and the men, the researchers concluded that optimization of sleep time could potentially reduce aggregation of the beta-amyloid protein and slow the progression of AD.

Meanwhile, copper has also been getting a lot of attention from Alzheimer’s researchers.  Over the past decade, the role of copper in Alzheimer’s disease has also been extensively explored, yet two conclusions are being drawn which only serve to cloud our understanding.  The continuing exploration of the interesting relationship between copper and Alzheimer’s disease will hopefully yield an important breakthrough in the near future.