Tag-Archive for ◊ Research ◊

Author: admin
• Saturday, June 26th, 2010

Watching too much TV can be deadly even for the healthy, claim researchers. Every hour in front of the box pushes up the risk of dying from heart disease by 7 per cent, according to a study.

Those looking at their favorite programmers for four hours a day – the UK average – face a 28 per cent rise in the risk. The study from the Medical Research Council says changes in lifestyle could stem the toll from heart disease which causes 193,000 deaths a year and is responsible for a third of the UK’s deaths.

For almost a decade, researchers from the MRC Epidemiology Unit studied 13,197 middle-aged, healthy men and women in Norfolk.

In that time 373 of the participants died from heart disease, according to the findings published today in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

It was found that the amount of time spent watching television was a significant marker of the likelihood of death from heart disease.

Scientists estimated that 8 per cent of the deaths might have been avoided if TV viewing times had been reduced from the UK average of four hours a day to just one hour. That would have saved 30 lives.

Study co-author Dr Katrien Wijndaele warned: ‘Our bodies are not designed to sit for long periods and we should be aware that, as we put in the TV hours watching the World Cup, our risk of heart disease is probably increasing.’

Author: admin
• Friday, June 25th, 2010

In a social situation, it’s easy to tell the difference between a wallflower and the life of the party, but a new study suggests we can also spot differences in their brains.

The results show the size of certain brain regions is related to people’s personalities. For instance, highly altruistic people had a bigger posterior cingulated cortex, a brain region thought to be involved in the understanding of others’ beliefs. Bigger regions are assumed to be more powerful.

“One of the things that this shows is we can start to develop theories about how personality is produced by the brain,” said study researcher Colin DeYoung, of the University of Minnesota.

While people’s personalities are likely shaped by both genetic and environmental factors, the findings might help explain the differences in people’s actions and demeanors from moment to moment, he said, or “what produces the patterns of behavior and emotion and thought that we describe as personality.”

The big five

There are many ways to describe someone’s character — from talkative to anxious to hardworking and organized. Psychologists have found that many traits often go together and have grouped these traits into five overarching categories — extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness/intellect.

Psychologists can get a pretty good picture of someone’s personality by determining to what degree they express each of these traits.

Scientists have only recently begun to link up personality research with neuroscience to try to figure out the underlying brain mechanisms responsible for personality differences.

DeYoung and his colleagues imaged the brains of 116 participants who had previously completed a questionnaire designed to assess their personality in terms of the “big five.”

Next, they matched up all the brain images. Since everyone’s brain is different, the images won’t line up perfectly right off the bat. So the researchers picked one image — from a participant who scored about average for all five traits — to serve as a “reference brain.”

A computer program was then used to squish and stretch the images so that they all lined up with the reference brain. This allowed the researchers to compare all the subjects’ brains, and see how large or small certain brain regions were relative to one another.

Personality in the brain

A connection between brain region size and personality was found for four out of the five traits (all except openness/intellect).

Those who scored high on neuroticism — which indicates a tendency to experience negative emotions, including anxiety and self-consciousness — was associated with a larger mid-cingulate cortex, a region thought to be involved in the detection of errors and response to emotional and physical pain. Neurotics also had a smaller dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, a region implicated in the regulation of emotions.

Extroverts, those who are sociable, outgoing and assertive, had a larger medial orbitofrontal cortex, a region involved in processing rewards. This goes along with the idea that extroverts are sensitive to rewards, which in our society often involve social interactions and status.

Conscientious people, who tend to be orderly, industrious and self-disciplined, had a larger middle frontal gyrus, a region involved in memory and planning.

The researchers note however, that a bigger brain region does not necessarily mean the region has better functioning, although extensive evidence supports this assumption.

The results do not indicate, that people are doomed to embody one personality or another for their whole lives. Though it’s not necessarily easy, personalities can, and do change.

“Our experience can change the brain,” DeYoung said. “And as the brain changes, personality can change,” he said.

Author: admin
• 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: admin
• Monday, January 18th, 2010

In the last few years in the chemical room fresheners and fragrances, is suspected to cause respiratory and other lung problems.

Research found that people who are on fragrances room contained 1.4 dichlorobenzene in blood, a chemical organic that reduces lung function.

The substance is very common chemical found in mothballs, tobacco smoke, and fragrances bathroom.

Meanwhile, another study published by Environmental Health Perspectives examined 953 people health an average age of 37 years for six consecutive years.

After eliminating other factors such as cigarette smoke, the study found 10% of respondents had a 1.4 DCB levels in blood, even worse after being in the fragrances room lung function down 4%.

Numbers four percent is not strong enough to get rid of air freshener immediately. As researchers found if respiratory function decline is indicative of lung damage.

The solution, reduce the use of similar products and more clean room and fresh air flows through.