Tag-Archive for ◊ Brain ◊

Author:
• Tuesday, August 03rd, 2010

It’s one of the most infuriating things in the world.

Your best friend devours cream cakes by the plateful without putting on weight, but you gain 3lb by glancing at a chocolate bar. Now scientists think they know why.

A study suggests that the ‘propensity for obesity’ may be hardwired into the brain while we are in the womb.

Its findings will be welcomed by the millions of us who have struggled to lose weight despite sticking rigidly to calorie-controlled diets.

Dr Tamas Horvath, of Yale University School of Medicine in the U.S., said: ‘It appears that this wiring of the brain is a determinant of one’s vulnerability to develop obesity.

‘These observations add to the argument that it is less about personal will that makes a difference in becoming obese, and, it is more related to the connections that emerge in our brain during development.’

Britain, like most Western countries, is in the grips of an obesity epidemic with the number of fat people rising sharply since the 1960s.

Dr Horvath and colleagues studied a group of laboratory rats bred to be vulnerable to obesity.

They found that these naturally greedy animals were born with a major difference in the ‘feeding center of the brain’.

Neurons in the brain that are supposed to signal when enough has been eaten and when the body needs to burn off calories are far more sluggish in obese rats because they are inhibited by other cells, the researchers report in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

However, in animals resistant to obesity, these same neurons are far more active – and quickly tell the rest of the brain and the body when enough food has been consumed.

The way the brain develops and whether it is vulnerable to obesity is influenced by genes and conditions in the womb, the researchers say.

Dr Horvath added: ‘Those who are vulnerable to diet-induced obesity also develop a brain inflammation, while those who are resistant, do not.

‘This emerging inflammatory response in the brain may also explain why those who once developed obesity have a harder time losing weight.’

In 1980, six per cent of men and eight per cent of women in Britain were obese.

Twenty years later, 22 per cent of men and 23 per cent of women are obese.

At least 20million people in this country are thought to be overweight, while 12million are clinically obese.

If the trends continue, one third of adults and half of all children will be obese by 2020.

Diet experts say the explanation for the wave of obesity is simple – that in an age of labor-saving devices and home entertainment, most people are doing too little exercise.

At the same time, high-fat, high-sugar foods are more widely available.

The new finding doesn’t explain why obesity is on the rise – but sheds light on why some people struggle to lose the extra pounds they get from a sedentary lifestyle.

Category: News  | Tags: , , ,  | Leave a Comment
Author:
• Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

As a writer, I spend a lot of my time glued to my computer screen: researching and pitching ideas, dealing with emails, keeping abreast of breaking news and, occasionally, even writing.

While recently trying to launch an online magazine, my screen time increased still further and, unable to resist the temptation any longer, I also answered the call of Twitter. Setting aside BlackBerry time at evenings and weekends, I was devoting eight hours a day to digital media.


After a month, strange things started to happen. I found it difficult to concentrate on any given task for more than a few minutes. My mind felt scattered and my focus wandered from email to web page to tweet to email and back again.

Despite working ever more furiously, I would reach the end of a 10-hour day and feel I had achieved almost nothing. What had I learnt? Which of those hundreds of bite-size pieces of information had actually lodged in my brain? What had I created – which is, after all, my primary working function? The answer, frustratingly, was usually very little.

But while distractedly surfing, I discovered what was ailing me. It was spelt out in a piece of research published in March by Lila Davachi, a New York University neuroscientist: my gluttony for digital media came at a price: a severe impact on cognitive function, in particular memory.

In her study, the brains of 16 men and women, aged 22 to 34, were scanned by a functional magnetic imagining machine (fMRI) while they looked at three different pictures: an object, a face and a mountain scene. After viewing the photos, and while their brains were still being scanned, the participants were asked to lie still, rest and let their minds wander.

When they were shown the pictures again, they were better able to remember the details than they were before they took a rest – the daydreaming had improved their recall.

“Our data suggests that if you are not giving yourself a break, you are hindering your brain’s ability to consolidate memories and experiences,” said Davachi.

My constant cyber-hopping meant that I had never really stopped, taken a deep breath and let my poor, overcooked brain rest. Hardly rocket science, then, that my thoughts were so fragmented.

These findings follow the warnings last year by Baroness Susan Greenfield, leading neuroscientist and former director of the Royal Institution, that social networking sites such as Facebook, which has 350 million users worldwide, and Twitter, which generates 50 million tweets a day, risk “infantilising” the 21st-century mind.

Our social-media-saturated brains are, she said, characterised by a short attention span, sensationalism, inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity. Although her remarks received a mixed reception from the medical and scientific communities, they certainly strike a chord with fellow extreme digital media users.

But, is there any solid evidence to suggest that Twittering can really affect our brain function? “Nobody has studied this question directly,” says Dr Gary Small, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind.

“Although a causal relationship has not been confirmed, many studies have found an association between more time with technology and a lower attention span.”

While the speed with which technology has become a crucial part of our lives means that medical research into the phenomenon is still catching up, some doctors believe that our love of the latest technology could be turning into a 21st century addiction.

“I am convinced that we can become addicted to technology, because it involves the same dopamine neural circuits that control rewards in the brain with other forms of addiction,” says Dr Small. “In parts of Asia, rehab centres are helping teens kick their video-game addiction.”

The Capio Nightingale Hospital in London is now also running a course for “addicts”. In February, the hospital reported an increase in social media and technology addiction among those suffering from mental health disorders and burnout. It has dubbed the phenomenon “E-ddiction”. We are, it says, turning into a “tired but wired” society, unable to relax or unwind.

“Technology can cause addiction, burnout and sleep problems, and people need to reflect on how they use it to ensure it doesn’t become a problem,” says Dr Nerina Ramlakhan, a sleep and energy-management specialist at the hospital.

His recommendations for combating E-ddiction include – you guessed it – spending some smartphone-free time each day; leaving laptops and BlackBerries behind when taking a holiday; prising yourself from the office for a lunch-break stroll; limiting the amount of time spent online and on screen; and eschewing cyber-chats for conversations on the phone or face to face. Imagine.

As for me? I rarely use Facebook now and I’ve dumped Twitter. I’ve unsubscribed from dozens of

e-newsletters and allotted fixed times each day to check emails. The long hours I used to spend surfing news sites are now spent pleasurably reading books and newspapers. And my brain seems deeply grateful. I feel less stressed and distracted, I can focus on a single task and retain a great deal more information. For those who are similarly afflicted, I thoroughly recommend a digital detox, and fast.

Author:
• Wednesday, June 09th, 2010

Memorizing patterns in random, confused noise is easier than it sounds. According to a new study, repeated listens alone are enough to teach the brain 100 percent accurate recognition.

“The auditory brain seems to be fairly plastic over fairly short time scales,” said lead researcher Daniel Pressnitzer of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in France.

Researchers subjected volunteers to randomly generated samples of noise that were added to a base of meaningless, complex sound. First perceived as an “indistinct hiss,” the background gave way to the half-second long snippets, which sometimes repeated.

After playing a noise pattern several times, the researchers discovered that listeners nearly always recognized the noise pattern when it played again. Two listens were enough for those with a trained ear, and only about 10 listens were enough for those with less experienced ears.

“It seems like a large number of listens, but you have to remember that the things we played to these people were completely unpredictable sounds. They really just sounded like: psssh,” Pressnitzer told Livescience. “For these sounds that are quite complex and completely unpredictable, it’s a bit like, if you were trying to memorize 20,000 random numbers, and you just have them 10 times replayed for you.”

The listeners were never told that there was anything for them to remember, said Pressnitzer.
Participants could recall the sound weeks later, leading scientists to conclude that this auditory mechanism was not simply fast, but solid and long-lasting.

“That’s quite surprising, because there’s really no way they could have rehearsed in their head whatever it is they wanted to memorize,” Pressnitzer said. “And also, they didn’t really know that we were going to call them and play them the same sounds after a little while, so it just stayed there for some reason.”

The results imply that auditory neurons rapidly adapt to a given sound stimulant, and do so in a manner that plays a “very effective role in the learning of sounds,” the researchers said in a statement.

Previous studies on sound and memory have focused on speech or pure tones, Pressnitzer said. Desire to fill the gap between these two “extremes,” particularly the timbre of a voice and how people learn new sounds, inspired the study.

The study’s results show that auditory memory is as impressive as visual memory, but in different ways, Pressnitzer said. While complex images can be remembered without repetition, audio memory seems to require that repetition take place in order to come into effect.

“Maybe hearing is more tuned to detect repetitions or patterns that reoccur in an environment, whereas vision could take advantage of the fact that even when you take a picture you have a different time limit, so you actually produce your own active exploration,” Pressnitzer said.