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.

With some surveys claiming that 90% of children younger than 2 have been exposed to technological media, learning about what adverse effects might result from TV watching needs to be brought to the forefront of the research world.  Sadly, little research has been done specifically on children under age 2 with regard to media exposure.  Naturalistic, longitudinal studies should be conducted from birth to adulthood to see what possible correlations can be made between early media exposure and negative future consequences.

With my parents claiming I watched Barney and Sesame Street earlier than 2 years old, I can only imagine what synapses might have been pruned and put me at a disadvantage now.  The next time you’re inclined to pop in a video for those 1-2 year olds you babysit, think twice.  You might just be taking away from the valuable nature of human interaction and sensory experiences!

References

BabyFirst (2011).  In www.babyfirsttv.com [Web site].  Experience babyfirsttv.  Retrieved December 6, 2011 from: http://www.babyfirsttv.com/parents/tv#how-babyfirsttv-born

Carey, B. (2011, October 18).  Parents urged again to limit TV for youngest.  The New York Times.  Retrieved December 6, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/health/19babies.html?_r=2

Christakis, D. A., & Zimmerman, F. J.  (2009).  Young children and media: Limitations of current knowledge and future directions for research.  American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 8, 1177-1185.

Council on Communications and Media.  (2011).  Media use by children younger than 2 years.  Pediatrics, 128, 5, 1040-1045.  doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-1753

PBS Parents (2011).  In www.pbs.org [Web site].  TV and kids under age 3.  Retrieved December 6, 2011 from: http://www.pbs.org/parents/childrenandmedia/article-faq.html

American Academy of Pediatrics (2011, October 18). Babies and toddlers should learn from play, not screens. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 16, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111018084628.htm

Wake Forest University (2007, June 27). Turn off TV to teach toddlers new words. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 16, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627221722.htm

Siegler, R. S., DeLoache, J. S., & Eisenberg, N. (2011). How children develop. New York: Worth Publishers.

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.

References:

New York Times, “Diabetes Background”. Retrieved March 29, from http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/diabetes/background.html

University of California – Davis (2009, October 19). Diabetic Episodes Affect Kids’ Memory. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/10/091019134718.htm

Tel Aviv University (2009, March 12). Diabetes Linked To Cognitive Deterioration. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/03/090305121659.htm

University of Edinburgh (2010, February 27). Stress raises risk of mental decline in older diabetics, study shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222100807.htm

Biessels, Geert Jan. Staekenbord, Salka. Brunner, Eric. Brayne, Carol. Scheltens, Philip. (2005). “Risk of dementia in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review”. The Lancet Neurology, Volume 5 (Issue 1). Pages 64-74.

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.

In addition to online conversation stripping away visual and auditory social cues, it allows us to conceal our emotions or come across in a way we don’t mean to, such as appearing angry when using capitals. We might even have a different “online personality” (e.g. someone who uses excessive periods may falsely seem solemn). Though a child would first have to understand emotions like anger or seriousness in order to identify them, might the child partially obtain this understanding through internet language techniques and — something they can easily identify —emoticons (smiling faces, crying faces, etc.)?

Empathy, the ability to identify with someone’s emotions, thoughts and behavior, keeps humans connected. If we were unable to emotionally relate to others, we’d never understand their actions or intent; we wouldn’t form stable attachments, which require sensitivity and responsiveness to how someone is feeling.  Empathy is therefore fundamental to understanding others, and this understanding is crucial for our survival as social beings. To examine whether computer interaction might affect how children develop empathy, we must look at how it is acquired.

One cue, facial expressions, is critical to social understanding. According to psychologist Jukka Leppänen (2011), emotion perception isn’t innate but learned, and continues to develop throughout late childhood and early adolescence. The interpretation of facial expressions isn’t tied to a specific point in development and is thus modifiable by later experiences (Leppänen, 2011). We can then infer that the discrimination of vocal tones is also learned. Unfortunately, the specific duration and type of experience needed for optimal development is unknown. But what we can take from this is that we do not possess a full sense of empathy from birth; its development extends well into childhood. Children who use the Internet will of course have other means of interaction, through their caregiver and/or schooling (which incorporates play). However, it’s important to look at how a child experiencing both forms of communication (face-to-face and online) may develop a nuanced form of empathy.

Similar to the way one’s culture influences how one empathizes, perhaps Internet interaction — an unnatural and less intimate form of communication —

shapes a child’s sense of empathy. Would, for example, a child’s perception of someone having two personalities (online vs. physical) change the way in which the child values and connects to the other person through either or both media? Do emoticons play a role in a child’s perception of emotion? Does the potential incongruence of an emoticon and perceived textual emoticon (e.g. “I’m going to beat you up =)”) result in a child’s skewed understanding of facial cues? If so, would this cause social problems, since misreading facial expressions is related to social anxiety in children?

In what way do the reduced social cues through online communication affect one’s social development, and does this nuance hinder our formation of attachment? Will it increase aggression, or social inhibition? These are questions that future research must address for a broadened understanding of the impact online interaction has on a child’s social development.

References

Clark, C. (2011, March 31). Misreading faces tied to child social anxiety. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331103957.htm

Leppänen, J.M. (2011). Neural and developmental bases of the ability to recognize social signals of emotions. Emotion Review, 3, 179-188.

Rideout, V.J. (2007, June). Parents, children & media: A Kaiser Family Foundation survey. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/7638.cfm

Stanger, J.D., & Gridina, N. Media in the home 1999: The fourth annual survey of parents and children. Washington: The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, 1999.

Stout, H. (2010, April 30). Antisocial networking? The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/fashion/02BEST.html?pagewanted=all

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

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.

Then there are the ways in which being left-handed affects not the body, but perspective.  In another recent study, researchers asked left-handed and right-handed people to place “good” or “bad” objects into one of two identical boxes.  While right-handed people placed the good things in the right-hand box, left-handed people did just the opposite; this tendency was also reflected in product choices. (University of Granada, 2010)  It appears that while right-handed people tend to associate rightness with rightness, as it were, left-handed people have the opposite associations.  In this way, a simple change in sensory-motor experience seems to override cultural (linguistic) norms and simple spatial properties are linked to abstract concepts.

While some of these behaviors may seem trivial, they all point back to the infinite feedback loop which is the brain: behaviors shape neural networks which further influence behaviors.  Neural patterns and pathways, formed by genetics and experience, shape actions both large and small, serious and trivial.  Handedness is one of the many ways in which scientists can compare the way that different brains works and how that manifests itself in everyday life.

References

Association for Psychological Science (2009, November 5). Vast Right Arm Conspiracy? Study Suggests Handedness May Affect Body Perception. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091104152304.htm

Bryden, M. P., McManus, I. C., & Bulman-Fleming, M. B. (1994). Evaluating the empirical support for the Geschwind-Behan-Galaburda model of cerebral lateralization. Brain and Cognition, 26(2), 103-167.

Geschwind, N., Behan, P. O., & Galaburda, A. M. (Ed.). (1984). Cerebral dominance : the biological foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Holder, M. K. (2009). Famous left-handers. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~primate/left.html

Myers, David G. (2007). Psychology (eighth edition in modules). New York: Worth Publishers.

University of Granada (2010, February 2). Right-handed and left-handed people do not see the same bright side of things. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100128101901.htm

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.

This advantage plays to all sorts of parts of life. Human beings want to see attractive people in their daily lives, on their television screens, and on their magazine covers, in order to receive physiological stimulation from seeing physical beauty.  The brain seems to suggest that beauty is important enough to receive a chemical stimulus to force us to surround ourselves with beautiful people. The chemicals released when one is happy are the same as when we see beauty or when we are addicted to drugs. This seems to point to an advantage that beautiful people have. Although many other factors contribute to success in society it seems like the saying it pays to beautiful may after all be very true.

References:

Buri, J. R. (2010, February 16). Love bytes: Insights on our deepest desire, Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-bytes/201002/love-first-sight

Diller, V. &  Marano, H. E.  (1997, September 1). Physical attractiveness survey, Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199709/physical-attractiveness-survey

Aharon, I.,  Etcoff,  N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C.F., O’Connor, E. &  Breiter, H.C.,  (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence, PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11709163

Saad, G.  (2010, April 6). Beauty: Culture-specific or universally defined? Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201004/beauty-culture-specific-or-universally-defined

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).

The stimuli present during repeated drug use can elicit very distinct neural reactions in other ways too. Deroche-Gamonet, et. al. allowed to rats to self-administer themselves with cocaine by nose-poking in a certain hole. One group of mice was given a particular cue light every time they were injected with cocaine, the other group was shown no light, and both the groups showed generally similar cocaine-usage patterns. Then, the light stopped being shown to both groups for a prolonged period of time and both groups’ cocaine craving (based on the frequency with which they nose-poked for it) stabilized. But, when reintroduced to the cue-light, the cue-light group’s cocaine use increased drastically, even though the light originally did not seem to affect their use (Deroche-Gamonet, et. al., 2002). This indicates how a stimulus conditioned to be associated with drug use can spark a craving for the drug later on because of learned conditioning.

Originally neutral stimuli can having varied effects when they are associated with repeated drug use. But, although these stimuli can seem completely inconsequential, they can mean the difference between life and death, as with K.J., or the difference between sobriety and relapse.

References

Deroche-Gamonet, V., Piat, F., Le Moal, M., & Piazza, P. V. (2002). Influence of cue-conditioning on acquisition, maintenance and relapse of cocaine intravenous self-administration. European Journal of Neuroscience, 15(8), 1363-1370.

Druid, H., Strandberg, J. J., Alkass, K., Nyström, I., Kugelberg, F. C., & Kronstrand, R. (2007). Evaluation of the role of abstinence in heroin overdose deaths using segmental hair analysis. Forensic Science International, 168(2-3), 223-226.

Gerevich, J., Bacskai, E., Farkas, L., & Danics, Z. (2005). A case report: Pavlovian conditioning as a risk factor of heroin ‘overdose’ death. Harm Reduction Journal, 2(1), 11.

Siegel, S., Hinson, R. E., Krank, M. D., & McCully, J. (1982). Heroin “Overdose” death: Contribution of drug-associated environmental cues. Science, 216(4544), 436-437.

Somers, T. (2006). Opiate Addiction. Retrieved from The Society for Neuroscience: http://www.sfn.org/skins/main/pdf/brss/BRSS_opiateAddiction.pdf.

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.

In one of these studies, participants played a video game involving a hard button-pressing task and an easier button-pressing task to obtain a greater or lesser monetary reward. Participants were informed of the probability of winning the reward before completing the task and then were allowed to choose which tasks they completed. Researchers observed that participants with symptoms of depression (loss of pleasure in activities) were less likely to attempt the harder task for a larger reward, especially if there was a lower probability of winning the reward.

The age range of the typical college student, 15-24, is included in the age group of individuals most likely to have major depressive disorder (Blazer, Kessler, McGonangle, & Swartz, 1994). Among college students, an increase in levels of depression has been expressly related to an increase in levels of college stress (Dyson & Renk, 2006; MacGeorge et al., 2005). Stressors in college can include academic requirements and the transition from home to college life (Ross, Neibling, & Heckert, 1999). New research from the University of Michigan shows that college students with depression are twice as likely as their peers to drop out of school. Symptoms of loss of interest and/or pleasure in activities were shown to be related to lower grade point averages. Students with both depression and anxiety showed especially poor performance in school.

Anxiety disorders are characterized by constant, severe anxiety and tension, whose causes are not always identifiable (Myers, 2006).  Recent studies show that anxious students have more difficulty avoiding distraction and alternating attention from one task to another than less anxious students. The research also demonstrated that while those with anxiety can do as well as those without, they could only do this with greater effort and in some cases, long term stress.

References

American College Health Association. (2001). National College Health Assessment: Reference group report, Spring 2000. Baltimore: Author.

Blazer, D. G., Kessler, R. C., McGonangle, K. A., & Swartz, M. S. (1994). The prevalence and distribution of major depressive disorder in a national community sample: The National Comorbidity Study. Comprehensive Psychology, 35, 130-140

Dyson, R., & Renk, K. (2006). Freshman adaptation to university life: Depressive symptoms, stress, and coping. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1231-1244.

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (2009, June 26). Anxiety’s Hidden Cost In Academic Performance. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/06/090623090713.htm

Myers, David G. Psychology Eighth Edition in Modules. New York: Worth, 2006.

Ross, S. E., Neibling, B. C., & Heckert, T. M. (1999). Sources of stress among college students. College Student Journal, 33, 312-317.

University of Michigan (2009, July 7). Students With Depression Twice As Likely To Drop Out Of College. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/07/090706161302.htm

Vanderbilt University (2009, August 16). Worth The Effort? Not If You’re Depressed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/08/090812181437.htm

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.

When college students are dealing with chronic stress, it is easy to see how weight gain could be promoted.  Though it is important to get the high-energy foods to allow the body to deal with stress, these foods can also lead to significant weight gain.  When stress is also paired with other new things in college, such as an abundance of unhealthy foods and unhealthy substance abuse, weight gain is not unlikely.  While stress may not be the only reason for weight gain, learning to deal with and reduce stress is extremely important.  It is not healthy to deal with stress only through eating.  Students must also learn to handle their stress in other ways, such as exercise, meditation, dealing with situations before they become troublesome, or just generally finding a better balance in their lives.  If people do not learn to gain more control over their lives and do not learn to deal with and reduce stress, they may carry these habits out of college, and this strongly contributes to the obesity epidemic affecting our country.

References:

Estroff Marano, H. (2003, November 21). Stress and Eating. Psychology Today, Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200311/stress-and-eating

National Health Ministries. (2004). Stress & The College Student. Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/depts/wellctr/docs/Stress%20and%20the%20College%20Student.pdf

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.

Two recent studies, one by Exley and another by Jiang, both  seem to point to the conclusion that copper reduces plaque build-up in the brain.  This plaque is more specifically a clumping of the amyloid beta, a peptide present in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients.  An earlier study from the Department of Psychiatry at the Saarland University Medical Center  found lower levels of copper in post-mortem Alzheimer’s patients. Another study, by Bayer and Multhaup, found a positive correlation between copper levels and scores on an Alzheimer’s specific cognitive processing test.  All these data might suggest that there is a relationship between copper deficiency and Alzheimer’s disease, but it is too soon to jump to that conclusion.

While the above studies seem to point to copper as a possible light at the end of the dark tunnel of Alzheimer’s Disease, there is a school of thought among other scientists that claims copper may be the cause of this darkness, not its remedy.   The University of Rochester Medical Center’s research team describes how copper damages LRP, or low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein.  LRP seems to be responsible for removing amyloid beta from the brain.  If copper damages the LRP molecules, the result is the build up of amyloid beta plaque in the brain.  Zlokovic performed a study testing the effects of copper on mice.  The results are as follows: After ten weeks, the rats that were given water with copper had twice as much copper in their brains’ blood vessel cells and one third more amyloid beta than that of the control group.  A  similar study in 2003 on rabbits yielded strikingly similar results.

Until someone can put the pieces of this copper puzzle together, it is too soon to tell whether copper is a help or a hindrance in avoiding Alzheimer’s.

*Editor’s note: This is a combination of two articles written by the two authors.  The fault for any awkward transition is mine.

References

Alzheimer’s Association, (2009).  What is Alzheimer’s?  Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_what_is_alzheimers.asp#Alzheimer

Alzheimer’s Association, (2009).  Alzheimer’s disease risk factors.  Retrieved December 5, 2009, from http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_causes_risk_factors.asp

Bhattacharya, S.  (2003, 12 August).  Copper link to Alzheimer’s disease.  New Scientist.  Retrieved October 4, 2009 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4045-copper-link-to-alzheimers-disease.htm

Case Western Reserve University (2005, October 4). Intake Of Dietary Copper Helps Alzheimer’s Patients. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051004084327.htm

Enersen, O. D.  (1994-2009).  Who Named It?  Retrieved December 5, 2009, from http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/177.html

Hill, C. (2008, September 18) Neuropsychological Testing Used In The Evaluation Of Alzheimer’s Disease. About.com: Alzheimer’s Disease. Retrieved December 7, 2009 from http://alzheimers.about.com/od/diagnosisofalzheimers/tp/neuropsychtests.htm

Holtzman, D. (2009) Amyloid- Dynamics Are Regulated by Orexin and the Sleep-Wake Cycle. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1180962

Keele University (2009, October 13). Protective Role For Copper In Alzheimer’s Disease. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008133457.htm

University of Rochester Medical Center (2007, November 8). Copper Damages Protein That Defends Against Alzheimer’s. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107074329.htm