Tuesday, 15 February 2011

Plastic Brains


It's pretty obvious our brains change.  For starters, an infant brain grows from a 350 gram mini-brain to a massive, 1,300 to 1,400 gram noggin.  To put this in perspective, a rat brain weighs 2 grams, a cat brain weighs 30 grams, and a rhesus monkey brain weighs 95 grams.  So the bigger the brain, the better, right?  There's definitely a trend in this direction, but elephants have 6,000 gram brains and don't really have a shot at the Nobel prize.  

So size is not the only thing that matters.  Although scientists used to think the brain stopped growing new neurons after it stabilizes in size, new research has found neurogenesis, or the birth of new neurons, occurs throughout the entire lifespan.  In other words, your brain is constantly changing.


Another way brains change is through changing functionally and structurally in response to environmental and internal stimuli.  For example, the connections between existing neurons change (e.g. through increasing or decreasing dendritic lengths, spine densities, or synapse formations) in response to what we experience.  In other words, after burning your hand on a stove, your brain learns stoves are hot by strengthening the connections between the locations of the representations for "stove", "hot" and "pain".  

What's more interesting is that the brain can also change in response to internal stimuli, like thoughts.  So, just by thinking about something, you biologically change your brain!  Some cool studies have shown mental simulation of movements activates some of the same neural structures required for the performance of the actual movements (Roland et al., 1987; Decety & Ingvar, 1990). Therefore, mental practice alone may be able to cause changes in the brain (aka brain plasticity), thus promoting learning by allowing people to learn skills faster with minimal physical practice, perhaps by making the reinforcement of existing connections easier and speeding up memory consolidation processes.




Even cooler is how the brains of blind people function differently than those of sighted people.  "Blind" brains use areas typically associated with processing visual information (the visual cortex) to read Braille (Sadato et al., 1996; 1998).  But they're not just using these typically visual-sensory related areas to process different sensory information, they're using their visual cortex to process abstract, verbal/semantic information.  Deprived of visual input, the visual cortex makes itself useful by doing something completely different.  Put simply, it seems like the brain can be reprogrammed.

Which is awesome.

It would be really interesting to test the limits of the brain's plasticity.  For instance, how much information can the brain process?  How complicated can this information be?  If the technology is ever invented, could our brains reprogram themselves to manage and process a direct link to the internet?  Or would we become overwhelmed by this deluge of non-sensory, abstract information?  After reading Feed, by M.T. Anderson, I'm a bit wary of directly hooking myself my brain up into the internet.  Still, the idea of training my brain to handle having instant access to almost unlimited information is alluring.  But really I just want to be on Wikipedia and Facebook ALL THE TIME.

I read this a loooong time ago, but it was incredible.  A bit angsty at times, but MT Anderson is fantastic at coming up with consequences of linking one's brain to the internet.  Some of my favorites include: downloading hallucinogenic drugs, watching movies by just closing your eyes, going online shopping by thinking about shirts.  

Also, this is full of pretty brain pictures: http://fuckyeahnervoussystem.tumblr.com/

Monday, 7 February 2011

I love my parents, but not quite like that

Freud's famous therapy couch

Today I committed the cardinal sin of psychology by citing Freud.

Freud is one of the most famous, creative and mostly wrong psychologists of all time.  Besides prescribing cocaine to his patients (as well as taking it himself), Freud described how men want to sleep with their mothers and women are like castrated men.  I cannot count the number of times people have asked me, "Oh, so I want to sleep with my mother?  You going to psychoanalyze me now? Hahahaha hurpadurp!"  Freud soon becomes the bane of every psych undergrad's existence, as people you barely know will assume you can solve all of their problems by listening to their "crazy" dreams.

Cocaine bad! 

Therapy good!

Many of Freud's theories have been disproved (sorry, cocaine is not a prescription drug).  Plus, "men" develop as females/don't grow a penis unless exposed to specific hormones during their development, meaning female is the default gender and men are just women with funky junk.  Thus, it is quite upsetting when I run into someone who thinks psychology is still just psychoanalysis and that dreams/Freudian slips reveal all there is to know about a person's psyche (and that he/she want to have sex with one of their parents, of course).  

However, some of Freud's other ideas, such as the unconscious and talk therapy, have proven to be genius, groundbreaking events in psychology.  In my aforementioned paper, I discussed Freud's objections to the idea the brain is modularly organized, or has specific, predetermined areas to perform specific functions. (For instance, a modular view would say the brain processes visual information in the occipital lobes, auditory information in the temporal lobes, etc.)  Freud argued against this, promoting a more equipotential view of the brain, where functions are represented as a distributed network across the entire brain, not localized to specific areas.  (More about this idea soon!)  This was another fascinating, genius idea, especially in 1891, before sophisticated brain imaging techniques existed.  In other words, Freud imagined language to (basically) be controlled by a neural network before ENIAC, the first general purpose electronic computer, was built in the 1940s.

ENIAC.  Yeah, my laptop weighs a pound and a half and puts this thing's processing power to shame.

Morals of the story: no, I will not psychoanalyze you, stop pretending you're "so crazy durr hurr hurr" , Freud was brilliant but mostly wrong, the brain is cool but STILL not fully understood, and facial hair + pocket watch + cigar is a winning combo.

Case in point.
Also, this is Freud, in case you live under a rock.
Edit: In case you live under a rock with internet access.

Wednesday, 2 February 2011

Schizophrenia videos and theories


PET scan of two brains.  The left brain belongs to someone with schizophrenia, the right one belongs to a "typical" person (if there is such a thing).  Despite the rainbow colors, the picture isn't pretty (yuk, yuk).  There are clearly functional/biological differences between schizophrenic and typical brains.


Schizophrenia is one of the most interesting and unsettling of studied mental illnesses.  Many people (incorrectly) assume that schizophrenics are violent, dangerous people and avoid them whenever possible.  But really, how are you supposed to react to someone who does not live in your reality?  Schizophrenia also makes me uncomfortable because it forces me to question the reliability of my own senses; if schizophrenics believe they are seeing and hearing things that are just not there, how can I be sure of what I see and hear?

These questions have motivated me to learn more about schizophrenia, and I've stumbled across three interesting theories that I think are worth mentioning.

1) The auditory hallucinations present in schizophrenia are caused by confusing inner thoughts with external voices:
Auditory hallucinations occur in over 60% of schizophrenic patients (Slade & Bentall, 1988), and the World Health Organisation (1973) found that they were the most common symptom observed in schizophrenia.  "Some authors have attempted to explain auditory hallucinations by supposing that they are internal cognitive events that are misattributed to an external source (Bentall, 1990; David, 1994; Frith, 1992; Hoffman, 1986; Morrison et al., 1995). Some support for this comes from findings that auditory hallucinations are accompanied by subvocalisation or covert movements of the speech musculature (Gould, 1950), which also accompanies normal thinking or inner speech (McGuigan, 1978). If auditory hallucinations are a type of inner speech which is misattributed to an external source, this would explain the finding that verbal tasks that block subvocalisation also inhibit the occurrence of auditory hallucinations (Margo, Hemsley, & Slade, 1981; Gallagher, Dinan, & Baker, 1994).

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=48628&jid=BCP&volumeId=26&issueId=04&aid=48627&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=


2) Like the first theory, the auditory hallucinations present in schizophrenia are actually normal phenomena that become misattributed to external sources.  Schizophrenics continuously hear these voices because they become scared and engaged in safety seeking behaviors, including hypervigilance, which makes them fixate on the "voices":  "It is suggested that auditory hallucinations are normal phenomena, and that it is the misinterpretation of such phenomena that cause the distress and disability that are commonly seen in patients experiencing hallucinations with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. It is also proposed that these interpretations of auditory hallucinations are maintained by safety seeking behaviours (including hypervigilance)."

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=48628&jid=BCP&volumeId=26&issueId=04&aid=48627&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=


3) Unrelated to the first two theories, the third theory states that autism and schizophrenia are on opposite ends of a "theory of mind" continuum:  
Wikipedia's entry on Theory of Mind states, "Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefsintentsdesires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own."  People with autism have no theories of mind for other people (and thus have trouble relating to and socially interacting with people), while people with schizophrenia have theories of mind for things that aren't even alive (they can think their chairs hate them, their cat is plotting to kill them, that clouds are catholic, etc.).  I am definitely interested in looking further into this.    




Here's a disorienting video that is meant to demonstrate schizophrenia:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob5vubKWIac


And here's a music video that makes me feel schizophrenic, courtesy of my friend Noah Litvin:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8BWBn26bX0

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

The Brain is Beautiful



Yup, that's a picture of a brain.  Who knew it could be so psychedelic?  My friend Laurie Pycroft found an amazing gallery of pictures of brains and neurons. 


The above is a cross section of H.M.'s brain (artificially colored, of course).  


H.M. was "an epileptic who went under the surgeon's knife at the age of 27--the doctors stopped his seizures, but they also cut into a brain region called the hippocampus and inadvertently destroyed his ability to form new memories. For the rest of his life, until he died in 2008 at the age of 82, he could only hold a thought for about 20 seconds. Yet H.M. could clearly remember things from before his surgery, and could also form new "motor memories"--for example, after many repetitions he performed a difficult drawing task with ease, but had no memory of doing it before. Such results helped researchers understand the role of the hippocampus, which is shown in cross-section at the bottom half of this 2005 image. "

Psych students are beaten to death with facts about H.M.'s bilateral lesions to the medial temporal lobes and the resulting deficits in his memory.  Still, I think it's worth mentioning that while H.M. could not consciously learn anything after his surgery, he could unconsciously learn how to complete new puzzles and learn the layout of buildings by experiencing things physically over and over again.  What's important here is that we seem to have different types of memory, conscious, "declarative" memories (e.g. remembering what you did yesterday), and unconscious, "non-declarative" memories (e.g. learning how to ride a bike, you can't explain it, your muscles just learn how to balance).

Here's another picture I love:


New neuroimaging techniques have allowed us to see some pretty awesome things.

"One new method called diffusion MRI reveals major axon pathways by tracking the flow of water molecules through the brain. While the technique is still under development, researchers think it may have many useful clinical applications. This diffusion MRI image, from 2008, shows the brain of a patient who suffered a stroke in the thalamus and midbrain, resulting in broken and disrupted axon tracts (visible at bottom). Each line represents thousands of axons."


Check out the rest of the pictures at: http://discovermagazine.com/photos/17-the-brain-is-ready-for-its-close-up

Sunday, 30 January 2011

Akinetopsia

My last post got me thinking about the visual perception of motion.  This is obviously a broad topic that has been explored for decades by neuroscientists.  One of the most interesting aspects of the visual perception of motion is what happens when things go wrong and people lose their ability to see movement.

This is a GREAT video that gives a little background on the topic, plus a visual demonstration of what it's like to live in a stop-motion world:

One of the most famous patients with akinetopsia was described by Zihl et al. (1991).  They studied patient L.M., a woman with bilateral lesions of the lateral occipital cortex and area V5 (she had brain damage to both sides of the visual cortex that is involved with motion perception).  Because of this, she was unable to cross a street without traffic lights (because she could not perceive how fast cars were moving), and averse to watching people’s mouths as they spoke (she found the movement disturbing).   Oddly, L.M. was able to see a target was constantly changing position, but unaware of any sensation of movement.  L.M. described this phenomenon as, “First the target is completely at rest.  Then it suddenly jumps upwards and downwards” (Zihl et al., 1991, p 2244).  L.M. could see objects changing position; only the object’s movement between two positions was undetectable.  In other words, she perceived the world as if she was in a low-frequency stop-motion animation.  Such a life is not only distressing but dangerous, as people with akinetopsia cannot perceive any moving dangers, thus putting them at constant danger of being hit by a car.  



Motion changes the way we see

This summer I will be working at the Vision Sciences Laboratory at Harvard University.  I'm really interested to learn more about vision and cognition, so I was digging through their website and found this:


There are a ton of cool visual illusions that I'm sure you've seen before.  This one is especially cool because you know exactly what's happening (objects are changing shape, size, color and brightness), but once they start moving you stop seeing the changes.  This phenomenon is called silencing. 


The silencing of changes in favor of paying attention could make evolutionary sense; after all, isn't it more important for you to pay attention to the fact that a predator is moving toward you than it is to know what color said predator is?

Attack of the tongues!

One of the classes I am taking this term is called Language and Cognition.  During lecture, the professor showed us a real-time MRI of a diva and an emcee singing.  While the point of the demonstration was to show us how the tongue, larynx and lips moved during speech production, all I could think of was how crazy the tongues looked... It's like there's a hyper sea creature hanging out in our mouths!