All Science isn't Good Science

*Note: First of all, I want to apologize profusely for having been away so long for my blog.  I can tell you right now, it wasn't from sheer laziness as would be expected.  In fact my summer was spent working nearly every single day- including through the weekends.  I was hired on by my lab to continue assisting with the data analysis and on days I wasn't there, I worked in Central Market as a cashier.  But now the school year has begun and while I certainly have less free time, I will also have a lot more subject matter to write on.

Maybe this is merely my interpretation, but I believe the first two years of college for a science student are about teaching you "facts" while the second half is devoted to showing how we can get bad "facts" from a poorly designed study.  As a good scientist, one must always examine how the conclusion was reached and whether the experiment is actually sound.  I want to give 2 examples of studies which should not be used in modern science- one because the technology is far out-dated, and the other because of a poor subject selection and subsequent experimental design.

The Tilting Table
The first story I want to tell revolves around the famous psychologist- William James.  He has been quoted for his many insights into memory and cognition though very poetic language.  But did you know he also tried to create the first MRI in the 1890s?

Imagine a man lying on a perfectly flat table which has been balanced beneath him.  James then asked the man to think either about some emotional aspect, or to do a series of logical puzzles.  If this went on long enough, the table would tilt towards the head, as if it had become more heavy. This was the first attempt to understand blood flow as a mechanism for measuring what is being activated.

Keep in mind, this is beyond rudimentary.  It was an extremely clever idea at the time, but has since been outdated with PET scans and fMRIs.  The reason I include it under the heading "bad science" isn't because I'm not impressed with William James.  On the contrary, I find him a fascinating individual.  But I wanted to demonstrate that technology continually advances.  To use outdated technology in a modern experiment can alter the results in a way that is unknown to the experimenter.  The newest technology isn't always the best but we can't use outdated methods if we expect our work to be taken seriously.

The Talairach Brain
Within the past week, I have heard the Talairach brain mentioned at least 3 times and never with any reverence.  And when I learned more about it, I was astounded that anyone would keep it in use as an atlas for modern studies.  Here is, in my opinion, an example of science at its worst.

Talairach is the name of the researcher leading in the creation of this atlas.  An atlas, in neuroscience terms, is a model brain by which you can standardize the areas of activation found using fMRI studies.  It's a template that you lay your own images over to map where you say activation.

Here is an example of a structural scan using an MRI.  I
believe the Talairach model has been overlaid on the original.

But the Talairach model is a terrible choice.  Talairach used only one subject for his template whereas most modern research uses multiple brains which are averaged together to create a model more standard to the population.  The second problem with Talairach was that he used the brain of an alcoholic woman- which by no means has the same structure and function as a normal, healthy brain.  And as if that weren't bad enough, Talairach didn't even scan her entire brain.  He actually just scanned one hemisphere and then flipped it over to create a mirror image.  Normal brains have slightly different function and structure across the hemispheres.  This is a fact that Talairach completely disregarded in favor of ease.

The sad part is there are still some studies today which use the Talairach brain atlas.  Many other atlases have been created since then but the old design persists.  This is why it is important to understand what you are reading in scientific literature and be able to critically analyze it.  Not every published paper is without its faults.  This is an important lesson that I believe the lay public is not enough aware of.

If your brain has as many curves as your body, you've got to be Einstein!

Yes, I'm opening with a very cheesy pick-up line.  Though I will admit, any guy who tried to use that on me would be pretty impressive in my mind. *awkward silence* So.... moving on!  I actually do have a new topic for you today.  I recently read an article in psychology today about the connection between a woman's curves, the intelligence of her children, and the modern obesity epidemic.  Ready?

The article starts out with a reflection on women's body-image issues and how they've changed in the last decade.  The modern fashion seems to be thin is in.  And for most of the population, that's a tall order.  Coming from someone whose curvy (And struggled with my self-image because of it), I know how hard it is to go to a clothing store but feel nothing was made to fit you.  But while more women than ever obsess about their weight and dieting, the modern fashion may not be the right answer for us.

This may be most women's ideal,
but men much prefer the curves.

Take for instance your standard fashion model.  They are so skinny as to be considered bony by some.  They are all flat planes and sharp angles.  And while something akin to this is what most women strive for, the truth is men prefer girls with some meat on them.  Studies have shown men prefer women with curves and fat deposits in places like the butt and thighs.

So what does all that have to do with neuroscience?  Well, the fat stored there is of a particular variety of omega-3 called DHA.  It's important that women store this type of fat because it is a primary component to help feed a growing baby.  DHA is a key ingredient which leads to brain growth and development in a child's life- specifically when they're in the womb or still breast feeding.  So women who store DHA on their hips and thighs have children who have better developed brains.  Evolution leads to men preferring this body shape because it means healthier, smarter off spring.  It all makes sense right?

And as an interesting side note, it is easy to deplete stores of DHA during pregnancy but hard to rebuild those levels in time for a second child.  This might partially explain why most eldest children are the brainiacs of the family.  They received a higher dosage of DHA then their siblings.

I'm probably expanding too far on this hypothesis,
but maybe Nicki Minaj's physical appeal comes
from this evolutionary back ground.

However, this wonderful evolutionary advantageous set-up becomes a problem when you lace people in a calorie rich environment that has few sources of omega-3 fats.  Due to agricultural practices and eating habit, women are getting about half the levels of omega-3 that they used to.  And now women are putting on weight in other areas that are detrimental both to themselves and their potential children.  However, a diet heavy in green vegetables and seafood can help bring up levels of the important omega-3.

I highly suggest reading the full article to get all the implications.  However, I hope I have through;y amazed you at the evolutionary history of curvy women and how our diet through out life can affect our future children.

MRI (More than Really Interesting)

Although many of my friends have left campus for the summer, I have remained to continue working in a lab on campus.  I've had the opportunity to learn much about different research techniques which I think will be of great use to my future.  But one of the most fascinating methods I've learned about recently is the ever-useful MRI.

For a few years I was addicted to this television series.

If you've ever seen a show like Gray's Anatomy or House, you've probably watched scenes where patients go into the donut scanner on a little cot and instantly the doctor starts looking at the images.  Well, obviously the tv shows are playing up the speed at which a scanner can actually operate.  But when you think about it, an MRI scanner is a seriously amazing piece of technology.

First of all, did you know that modern day scanners aren't hooked up to the power grid?  They are actually, to a degree, self-sustaining.  The magnet is essentially miles of wire all wrapped around a tube like a tesla coil.  And although I don't know the exact composition of the alloy used to make the wire, I do know that below 7 Kelvin, the wire has no resistance. And resistance is like friction, it'll eventually wear down a power source such as a battery, just as a ball will eventually quit rolling across the floor because of the friction.  But if you have no resistance, it means that you can keep the power cycling forever, just like a ball that would never stop rolling.

Of course, for all those chemistry geeks out there, they know 7 Kelvin is approximately -450 fahrenheit.  That's pretty damn cold.  So how did engineers deal with this problem?  Well, they built a vacuum.

Essentially, the coils of wire are kept in a bath of either liquid Helium or Nitrogen.  My university's new scanner (which is way cool!) uses liquid Helium to keep the coils at 3 Kelvin, plenty cold to keep resistance at zero.  And to keep the liquid helium from turning to gas, this whole apparatus is kept inside a vacuum.  Can you believe all this is necessary just to run a single MRI?

This also explains why the magnet is never turned off.  Because technically it's not hooked up to a power source (remember, once it's charged it never looses energy because the wire has no resistance), so there's nothing to unplug it from.  In an emergency, the only thing you can do is hit the emergency kill button.  This releases the liquid Helium (which turns to gas and pours out of the building through a specially designed system) and the wire regains resistance so the stored energy in the system dissipates.

However, this method is only to be used in life-threatening emergencies.  Killing the magnet like this can do untold amounts of damage.  First of all, thousands of liters are needed to keep the coils cold enough and Helium is becoming more pricey every day. Last I checked, I believe it priced somewhere around 9 dollars a liter.  Next, the sudden heating of the coils after the loss of liquid Helium can heat them so badly that they melt, meaning you have to replace the entire spool of miles of wire.  And of course, there's always the possibility of damage to the electronics and computers hooked up to the scanner.

Seriously, it's a huge red button that tempts me every time
I walk into the IRC (imaging research center).

So I think more than ever, whenever I see the huge red button that will kill the magnet- I have to resist all temptation  to push the button.  That's one act of impulse that I simply can't afford.

Humans are still Animals

Ok, so maybe we're dignified animals with greater reasoning capacity, memory, and general cognition.  But I think there's way too much of a tendency to put humans in a different category from animals like we're a whole separate branch on the evolutionary tree.  This tends to be more of a social problem based on religious beliefs, among other things.  Just look at the famous philosopher Rene Descartes.  He believed that animals were biological clockwork creatures with no thought processes or souls.

Do you believe puppies have souls?

But I recently read a fascinating article sent to me by my roommate, Emily Mixon.  Seriously, read it cause you'll learn some pretty amazing facts.  Like, did you know bighorn sheep in Canada will grind their teeth to the gums rubbing off hallucinogenic lichen from rocks?  It's some pretty crazy stuff.

But what really struck me was the bit about cutters.  For me, I remember a lot of people being cutters in middle school.  For those of you who don't know the lingo, it's a person who cut themselves not because they're suicidal but because it somehow helps them deal with stress and relax.   At the time, I thought it was completely crazy and probably just people looking for attention.  But there's actually evidence for this type of behavior in the rest of the animal kingdom.

In fact, some breeds of dogs are prone to similar behavior.  In the article, it describes this as grooming gone wrong because the animals will either lick or bite themselves compulsively until they bleed.  I wont go into the details because the article covers them pretty well but there's significant evidence that animals have had problems with such compulsive activities- from mammals to birds.  And thanks to my neuroscience knowledge, I understand an additional layer of this behavior.  Because what person would purposefully pull their hair out or cut themselves?

A bizarre but explainable phenomena.

Well grooming activities and their habitual nature lead to large doses of serotonin being released in the individual's brain.  So over grooming could almost be like a form of self-medication.  The repetition of the activity keeps serotonin (which is highly involved in regulating mood and depression) flowing.  Also, the end result of self-injury causes the body to release endorphins.  Just like a runner's high, this self-synthesized drug dulls pain and gives you that "spacey" feeling of zoning out.  So maybe animals do have some of the same problems we tend to see as uniquely human.

I know there are still plenty of differences between animals and humans.  Our brains are developed to differing degrees.  The body plans from species to species can have huge variance so we can assume one trait or idea will explain the entire animal kingdom.  But we also can't close ourselves off.  We all have a common denominator that can''t be ignored.  Why else would scientists use animal research?  Just a little food for thought.

A Clockwork Orange

In high school, I managed to read A Clockwork Orange.  For those of you who haven't attempted this, be warned that it's  like reading a foreign language.  The author uses words from Russian, Spanish, English, and Japanese to create a very unique street dialect.  The first few chapters are spent trying to figure out what the hell the main character (whose point of view the reader shares) means.  Pretty soon though, you pick up what's going on and you start to realize how truly creepy this futuristic world is.

But it took me watching the 1971 film to start to wonder about the neurological implications of the movie.

One of the key plot points (*SPOILERS*) is that Alex, the protagonist, is brain-washed to feel sick every time that he sees sex or violence or considers doing either of the two.  In the movie, he's portrayed as gagging and nearly throwing up after his "treatment".  I know that the idea behind his brainwashing is that they give him a drug that activates a particular center in his brain and they correlate this with horrific videos of sex and violence to make Alex associate the two.

I suppose this could be considered a form of classical conditioning.  Like Pavlov with his dogs, Alex is trained to match a physiological response with an external stimulus.  So Pavlov's dogs were trained to salivate when they heard a bell.  Alex was trained to feel sick whenever he witnessed or thought about "evil impulses" of violence (and sex).  They even give an example of generalization where the subject is not trained to differentiate to one particular stimulus.  In Alex's case, he was accidentally also trained against Beethoven's 9th.

Not exactly a hero but definitely the protagonist.

But the question I have, is what part of the brain were they activating for revulsion?  I know the amygdala is activated for fear and that can modulate emotions and memories.  But I don't know where the center of revulsion is.  Anyone have a suggestion on what Alex's doctors were activating?

In any case, I do suggest you read this classic novel.  (Yes, it's 50 years old so it's officially a classic.)  It's disturbing and confusing at times but the political messages it contains shouldn't be ignored.  And if you're too lazy to read the book, the movie is on netflix instant play.

Loss

I had a great little blog post all planned out.  I've recently finished this fantastic little book called Proust was a Neuroscientist.  One of the chapters talked about Virginia Woolf.  I've honestly only read a single story by her in high school so I don't remember much.  What I wanted to cover was a discussion about her search for the mind and how all these disparate elements can make up a single person.

A great read.

All of her novels seem to focus on this idea.  And to end my post, I was going to tell how her depression became so crippling that she filled her coat pockets with rocks and walked into the river to drown.  I thought it would make for an interesting little story and then I'd move on to a new topic.  I didn't think I would suddenly be hit by a tragedy of my own.

I lost a very dear friend last week.  It took several calls from various people before I could actually believe he was gone.  He was always my closest nerd friend and my gut reaction was to believe he was actually in a parallel dimension (something akin to fringe which he introduced my family to).  Tragedies are supposed to happen to people who you don't know.  It's supposed to happen to someone else.  Maybe on the news you hear of a death and you think, that's so sad.  But it's never, ever supposed to effect you.

Well I've cried till my eyes are beyond red and puffy.  And I've felt like my chest is going to collapse.  The aftermath has sent me seeking solace in others who knew him.  And we all knew him in a different way.  In each person I discover a new aspect of his personality.  Something that didn't shine as brightly when he was with me but was there all the same.

To some, he was a loving older brother.  Others saw him as a shy, yet smart student.  Others knew him as a hard worker at salt lick or an intense gamer who would pull all-nighters on w.o.w. (world of warcraft) or something of the sort.

I never thought...

To me, he was a constant presence in my life.  A rock I could always call on.  Whenever I saw a reference to star trek, he was the first one I'd text.  If I ever wanted to go see a really goofy action movie, we immediately started planning a date.  Without him, I would never have gotten into Doctor Who or Fringe.  I wouldn't have always had someone who would hang out on a wednesday night- just because we could.

I miss him so incredibly much.  The bad parts of life are supposed to happen to other people.  They're supposed to be stories of people like Virginia Woolf.  But I guess life happens to us all the same.  We suffer and grow and never forget those we lost.  He will never, ever leave my heart.

Sometimes I'm Spock

Psychologists and neuroscientists alike are always trying to come up with theories to explain how we experience the world.  And one of our key components is emotion.  Perhaps you're a fan of the Cannon-Bard theory.  It's the typical idea that "I see a bear, process it as a threat, and then my heart rate begins to pick up."

The Dripping Springs Color Guard my senior year of
high school.  What a fantastic family!

I like to think of the time when I first heard that my high school band won State Championships.  I was standing with my fellow drum majors and color guard lieutenant when they finally gave the score and the big trophy to Dripping Springs Tiger Band.  My brain went something like, we won.  We Won. WE WON! And eventually I felt myself begin to bounce on the balls of my feet with glee.  As my brain bathed in dopamine, I jumped and screamed with my bandmates as they stormed the field in jubilation.

But to be honest, the Cannon-Bard theory doesn't really do it for me.  Maybe I'm part vulcan as my family seems to believe.  (I did have very pointy ears as a child....)  But most of my emotion comes after the fact.

Let's take the generic instance (which could apply to many people) of my interactions with a boy.  We hang out, become close friends, and then I start to notice something.  Every time I'm near this boy, I feel a flush in my cheeks.  My heart, just barely noticeable, begins to pump a bit faster.  I started to notice I would cross my legs the same way as him and lean in whenever we were seated across the table.

Taken altogether, I could see that I liked him.  But it took my own physiological reactions to realize it.  I had to physically feel before my emotions would catch up.  This embodies the James-Lange theory.  In other words, we perceive a stimulus, our body starts to physically react, and then our mind interprets those changes as specific emotions.  I tend to see this almost as a Spock hypothesis.  We have to interpret our own emotions to really see what's going on.  Just like the fictional character from Star Trek, I can't always decipher others' reactions, more or less my own.  I wonder if I bleed green? (*Vulcans have copper-based blood so they bleed green)

Live Long and Prosper

But back to the real science.  Current research says the truth is somewhere between these two theories.  It's a mixture, depending on the situation, types of emotions evoked, and other things.  But until I learn anything definitive, I'm sticking with the belief that I'm a relative of Spock.

The Savory Power of Suggestion

First- a general note.  This semester has officially come to a close.  As relieved as I am, I'm also a bit sad.  I'll really, truly miss my neural systems class.  It was also my primary source of topics for this blog.  However, I plan to seek out other sources and keep up the writing.

Enter today's topic- taste.  For as specific as science becomes on the molecular basis of taste and smell, it will never be able to captivate the truth of what we experience in a good meal.  Because the human mind isn't only just experiencing the food, it's taking in information from far flung sources like memory, vision, and even mood.

I'd like to set the scene with a personal anecdote.  Every year at thanksgiving, we have certain dishes that must be served, without fail.  My brother is quite traditional when it comes to family holidays and after 17 years of thanksgivings, if there isn't the usual version of stuffing on the table he gets upset.

Here's a picture of the dish from last thanksgiving.

So my traditional addition to the feast is a sweet potato casserole with marshmallows melted on top.  I make it every year, without fail.  And to me, it's the best dish on the table.  It's warm and sweet with hints of cinnamon and nutmeg.  I always go for seconds.  But this past winter, a group of my friends decided to have a potluck to celebrate the oncoming winter holidays.  I thought I'd share my traditional dish and made the sweet potato casserole.  But, for some reason it just didn't taste as rich.  It didn't seem to have the same mouth feel or aroma though I followed the recipe to a letter.

My hypothesis for the lackluster experience?  Context.  My dish was meant for family gatherings and feasting and home.  Taken out of context, I didn't have the same assumptions to enrich my experience.  Don't believe me?  Check out this study.

Frederic Brochet, from the University of Bordeaux, decided to pull a rather ingenious prank/test on 57 wine tasters.  He placed two glasses of wine in front of each expert- one red and one white.  He asked them to describe each drink which they did with the usual vocabulary used to describe each type.  Little did they know, the two glasses contained the exact same beverage.  It was just that one had added red dye.  Yet none of the experts called out the deceit.  No one seemed to notice.

As if that weren't embarrassing enough, he pulled a rather similar stunt but this time used the same drink but had it presented in two different bottles.  One with a cheap label and one naming it as an expensive aged wine.  Once again, the experts were taken in.  They described exactly what you'd expect from a cheap or classy wine.

My brother and I have a yearly tradition of hosting "Christmas
Cafe" where we cook a special dinner for my parents christmas eve.
We've gotten quite elaborate with the set-up over the years.

And all of this is due to the interlaced neurons in our brain.  We have many associations with food and drink, and it's certainly not all about flavor or smell.  So next time you want to make a special occasion, you don't have to spend big bucks on a gourmet pizza.  Just make sure you're eating in a special atmosphere with people you love.  Your taste buds wont disappoint.

Mad Hatter- Fact and Fiction

There's nothing like a rainy afternoon to get me perusing the instant play movies on netflix.  And as I am weak (and reeeeeally didn't want to write my philosophy paper just yet), I decided to watch Malice in Wonderland.  If you're looking for a dark twist on the classic Lewis Carroll novel, I highly suggest it!

Problem is, the rain didn't let up when I finished watching.  So I did a government assignment.... And then watched another adaptation from the SyFy channel called Alice.  Oops.  But all this movie watching did get me curious about one particular aspect- the Mad Hatter.

This classic Disney movie actually terrified me as a child.

Disney's cartoon classic depicts him as a lisping, over-energetic, madman who is so demanding at tea time that he eventually drives Alice away.  But if you look at the historical context of the Hatter, you'll find his madness does not fit at all.

The victorian reference to the mad hatter (though he was never called 'mad' in the original book) was explained by mercury poisoning.  Hatters, who made the felt top hats which were so popular during the era, used mercury on the felt for a glossy finish.  The long term exposure to mercury would soak into their hands and lungs and lead to neurological damage.


Specifically, mad hatter disease causes sensory hallucinations, slurred speech, anxiety, tremor and poor coordination, irritability, and depression.  But the strange thing is, virtually none of the reincarnations of the Mad Hatter hold any of these symptoms.  If anything, they make the Mad Hatter too manic and not timid enough.

Of course Lewis Carroll was no physician (he was a mathematics teacher at Oxford) so it's acceptable that he misrepresented the symptoms.  But I find it fascinating to find the fact behind the fiction.

Sorry, this song's been stuck in my head so... now it's stuck in yours!

Anybody in there?

To round out my year in Neural Systems, we concluded class with a discussion on consciousness.  It's the heart of our existence, yet something that can only be experienced individually.  Consciousness is a private experience.  Poets and scientists for decades have tried to express the world they see through their "inner theatre" but words and algorithms will never be enough.  Each experience is unique to the individual in terms of thought.

In terms of this subject, it's extremely difficult to conduct research.  How do we define the mind?  Is it the same as the brain? Or does the brain act as a conduit?  And where does all this leave free will?  The truth is, this realm is better expressed through the help of philosophers.

Descartes opens the dialogue with the view dualism.  That the mind (or moral spirit) is separate from the physical body.  His original view was designed to support the existence of God and was accepted as the dominant philosophical view until a Scottish philosopher by the name of Hume.  He posited the opposite- that the brain is both necessary and sufficient for consciousness.  His theory of physicalism or materialism has since dominated the field.  But modifications on both go far beyond their basic premises.  If you have the time to read some about these two legendary philosophers, I suggest you do so.  They are giants in philosophy and still relevant in neuroscience today.

Two more prominent figures who I'd like to direct my thanks at are the two professors who made my experience in Neural Systems so memorable.  Professor Mauk has been with us for the full year and brought a deep understanding of the chemical and voltage changes involved with the most basic unit of neuroscience- the action potential.  Not to mention, he really tried to bring our learning to something higher than usually experienced in undergrad classes.

I also want to thank Professor Drew.  HE was a recent addition to the staff at the beginning of this semester but made the course engaging and relevant.  I believe this was his first course taught at UT and I'd say it was a complete success!

So thanks so much to Neural Systems!  Both the staff and the fellow students made it an experience which will shape the rest of my career.

That necessary function- sleep

Call me a nerd if you must, but I'm so fascinated by sleep!  I'm beginning to think it will be the topic of my senior thesis and possibly future research (as I want to research and become a professor).  There are just SO many pieces to sleep that we have the tiniest understanding of.  For example, some animals including rodents will die if they aren't allowed to sleep.  Their bodies freak out and start to just shut down.  While there's no evidence that humans will die from lack of sleep, severe cognitive impairments and hallucinations start to appear not too long into sleep deprivation.  And do you know why?

Most of the time we only have this simple understanding
of sleep.

Well.... neither do I actually.  Or scientists if truth be told.  There's no elimination of a toxin that only happens at night.  No replenishment of some hormone for cognitive function.  We just start to fall apart.

Here's another mystery for consideration- night terrors.  These tend to happen in young children.  During non-REM sleep, sufferers start screaming often in a bloodcurdling manner.  Parents have trouble waking up their terrified children and when they do, the sufferers often can't explain what put them in such a terrified state.  It's not believed to be caused by dreams which typically happen during REM sleep.  And the next morning shows no ill-effects from the night's misadventure.

But our biological understanding of this disorder is practically non-existent.
~We don't know why they occur or how.
~They aren't a symptom for any future psychosis or other mental illnesses, but why haven't they been genetically selected against?
~They can occur in adults but are much more prevalent in children.  Why?

And I suppose you could say I have a vested interest in the topic of night terrors.  Around age 4, I began to get them with extreme frequency.  And I'm talking about multiple episodes a night.  This continued, even after medication, for the next several years.  Though the frequency subsided, I still will occasionally have night terrors.  I'm sure it drives my roommate crazy, but if I'm over stressed or have been overstimulated throughout the course of the day, I'm much more likely to have them.

And this one disease is only a tiny facet of the research that still needs to be done in the field of sleep.  I can't wait to see where the research progresses!

What it means to be a Schizo

I find it interesting that while pop culture usually gets the gist of diseases like bi-polar or ADHD, schizophrenia is sorely misunderstood.  I'll admit, I feel into the category of believing a schizophrenic is someone who has multiple personalities.  The essential core of the traditional idea of a "crazy person."  But the true diagnosis of the disease is absolutely nothing like that.  And I find my compassion for sufferers of it has grown exponentially since truly understanding its nature.

This is how most people view schizophrenia, though
technically they are referring to multiple personality
disorder.

Schizophrenia does mean "split mind" but not in terms of personality.  Rather, it refers to the disorganized thought patterns which its victims suffer.  The symptoms of schizophrenia can be essentially split into three camps: postitive, negative, and cognitive.

I should give fair warning that positive does not mean sufferers get some sort of benefit from the illness.  Positive means that on top of regular behavior, patients have these symptoms added on top of normal functioning.  Disordered thinking, delusions (often about either God, the devil, or the president), hallucinations (often auditory), paranoia, and repetitive behaviors fall into this "positive" category.

The extrasensory nature of them makes them positive, whereas negative symptoms take away from normal functioning.  Some of these symptoms could be seen in other types of mental illnesses.  Lack of emotion (emotional flatness), social withdrawal, lack of self-care, lack of goal-oriented behavior, and catatonia (absence of behavior) all fit into the category of negative symptoms.

Lastly, there are cognitive impairments.  Schizophrenics have trouble focusing their attention, using their working memory, reversal learning tasks, initiating goal-oriented behavior, and often take others literally.  Sometimes, if a schizophrenic patient is asked, "think of a sentence and then write it."  They will write on the paper, "it."

With so many different categories of symptoms, treatment of schizophrenia has been extremely difficult.  The possibility of multiple varieties, each with a unique neural basis, has been posited and further research is required.

Language in Animals

Have you ever really thought about the complexities involved with learning a language?  Try for just a moment to list all the grammatical rules involved with language production.  I don't know about you but I can hardly think of 5.  Yet we unconsciously make very complex sentences all the time.  What's more, we're not just parroting what we hear from those around us.  New combinations of words are created everyday!

But this leads us to the question- are human beings the only ones with the capacity to create and use complex language?  The literature on the science is quite divided.  I even have mixed opinions on the matter as I think we do not appreciate the intelligence of most animals.  But is there is one particularly empirical study by a man named Herb Terrace who seems to provide the most unbiased research.

It should also be noted such studies have the added
difficulty of undomesticated behavior such as biting.

He took a young chimp (named Nim Chimpsky after the linguist Noam Chomsky) and had a human family raise him in their urban home.  Due to physiological differences between humans and apes, chimpanzees can not properly vocalize human speech.  So, the family raised their young Chimpsky by teaching him sign language.  He learned about 125 signs which is a pretty decent array.

However, when Herb Terrace returned for rigorous testing, he found no evidence of language use.  Nim could use signs he had been taught, but he could not create novel sentences.

Now I will by no mean argue this is the only such study performed with apes.  The literature is full of evidence and counter-evidence for other species understanding complex language.  Unfortunately many of these studies are hard to assess because of how attached the researchers become to their animals.  Just as pet owners swear their dog knows exactly what they're thinking, researchers are prone to bias about their animals as well.

Reknown linguist Noam Chomsky.

So, I leave the question in your hands- how well can animals comprehend language?

Language in the Brain

I want to start this post by first stating the oft-repeated paradigm that you're either "left-brained" or "right-brained" has almost no scientific basis.  Your brain is basically a mess of biological wires in the form of axons.  Information crosses from one hemisphere of the brain to the other along the corpus callosum as well as other minor pathways.  Without both parts of your brain, you cannot function normally.  (Just look at patients with hemi-neglect.)  That being said, there are certain functions which are lateralized to one side of your brain.  Language -both comprehension and production- is a key example.

There's a particular experiment called the Wada Test which demonstrates this lateralization particularly well.  The participant is injected with a temporary gaba agonist through the left carotid artery.  Gaba is an excitatory signal so by blocking it, you essentially put the left hemisphere of the participant's brain to sleep.  The participant remains conscious, though they lose the ability to use the left side of their brain.

The interesting bit is that they lost the ability to compose speech.  You can ask them questions but they will be unable to reply in a coherent way.  But if you give them a matching task that requires both comprehension and identification, they are able to preform it easily.  Their main impediment is their verbal abilities.

Wada testing

But the really curious part is that this doesn't work on everyone.  Because although nearly all people have their language centers lateralized to the left side of their brain.  About 95% of right-handed people and 70% of left-handed people have their language centers based in the left hemisphere of the brain.  But in those remaining 5% and 30%, they seem to have a less focused center for language.

Not much research has been done on this topic.  It's unknown why left-handed people are more prone to the un-lateralized form.  But one possible indication is an inability to remember/distinguish between right and left.  So if you have a chronic problem of separating right from left and are left handed, there's a good chance your language center isn't in the usual location of the brain.

Attention

You say to your mother "of course I'm paying attention."  But what does that really mean?  In the last few decades, neuroscientists have begun to tackle some of the more difficult behaviors to explain.  And just like the advances in emotion have come a long way from freudian suppositions, our understanding of attention has begun to grow as well.  At least, depending on your definition of attention of which there are many.

Go ahead.  Take a moment to formulate in your mind what the correct definition for attention should be.  Remember you don't want to be too vague but nor can you make it too specific.

Perhaps some of your definitions went like this:
1. Prolonged dedication of neural processes to an external stimuli
2. Information stored in the short term/working memory to be used in current actions
3. Sensory information of which you are consciously aware
4. Using neural processes to monitor the environment for an unexpected outcome
5. The focal center of awareness

All of these definitions have elements we want to intuitively agree with.  However, they also have pieces which don't work in all life situations.  And we're still left with issues such as "is attention a physical or mental process?"

"Can you attend to more than one thing at once and still call it attention?"

"What does it mean to shift your attention?"

My personal favorite definition is that of William James.  He described attention as a spotlight which focuses on that which we are attending to.  Sometimes you can see on the periphery of that spotlight but most of the time you deal with what is in the center of the light.

Famous American psychologist William James.

But basically, I wanted to share today how difficult it can be to define something which we all find intuitive in our daily lives.  Please comment and let us know- What's your definition of attention?

Depression and its Treatments

I deeply apologize.  I've let this past week get the best of me as I have been extremely, ridiculously busy.  My apologies for not updating on the regular basis as I have in the past.  But I really will try to keep to a more consistent schedule from here on out.  And to get started, let's talk about depression!

Ok, so maybe I said that with a bit too much enthusiasm.  It's just the idea of something so hard to pin down- like emotions- coming from a neurological basis fascinates me.  Surely we all want to believe our moods aren't caused by the whims of our neurotransmitters and synapses.

This Van Gogh painting is the first thing to
pop up when you search for "depression"
via google.

But there is plenty of strong evidence that explains depression (or at least most of its varieties) stem from a lack of three neurotransmitters.  Serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine are the main ingredients lacking in a depressed individual.  And most of our modern treatments try to enhance these neurochemicals in some way.

MAO Inhibitors were part of the first generation of anti-depressant drugs.  They blocked an enzyme which breaks down monoamines.  All three of the transmitters mentioned above fall into this category so the MAO inhibitors basically kept them circulating in a persons system for a longer period of time.

Then came the tricyclics.  Their primary focus was preventing reuptake of serotonin and norepinephrine by the surrounding cells.  Once again, this keeps the transmitters in the brain for a longer period of time so they can be more effective.  And tricyclics had less side effects than MAO inhibitors.

The newest of the drug types is SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors).  They act in much the same way as tricyclics except they have even less damaging side effects because they are so much more specific.

This is an image of an actual patient who
underwent the deep brain stimulation surgery.

But even with all the pharmacological changes, the most potent treatment is so radical that it has only been tried on a few human patients.  It's called deep brain stimulation.  Basically, a neurologist places electrodes deep into the brain tissue of their patients and switches them on.  Some about the current of these electrodes affects an inhibitory pathway which quiets the subgenal cingulate part of the brain.  Patients report feeloing immediately relief with none of the lag which drugs possess.  They also feel the immediate change if you were to turn off their electrodes- whether they were aware you were doing so or not.  So this isn't just the placebo effect at work.  I'd be curious to see where this research progresses in the future.  Aren't you?

KO'd but Ok

So I know I've been MIA lately but this weekend was one of the biggest events of the year.  Outside of my passion for neuroscience, my favorite obsession is Taekwondo.  And I really don't mean that martial art you did when you were 7 years old.  My type of Taekwondo is where you gear up in light padding and fight for several rounds against an opponent who could potentially knock you out.

The Texas Taekwondo team of 2011-2012 

And this weekend was the National Collegiate Taekwondo Championships.  My team and I travelled to Boston for a weekend spent full of fighting at MIT against some of the best fighters in the nation.  Everyone's year long training regime really showed through and we were a powerful team to beat.  We came away with 3 silvers (including myself) and 1 bronze.

But I'm not here to just brag.  I also found myself raising the neurological question "what exactly causes a knock out?" At this weekend's tournament I saw a good friend and team member of mine get knocked out. I mean he hit the ground and didn't even try to get up for a good ten seconds.  It was sincerely scary.  Afterwards, I watched them take him to the medic station and put him through several rounds of medical and cognitive testing.  In fact, I was put in charge of keeping an eye out for any concussions.

This is what happened to my friend- though this video is of Aaron Cook and Steven Lopez.

When I asked him about the experience, he said his head was a bit sore now but he didn't remember being hit.  In fact, his memory didn't really start recording again until he was seated at the medic station- he doesn't remember standing up.  So what exactly happened to him?

Well after some internet research, I've come to realize that our understanding of knock outs is a little hit-or-miss.  We know that concussions are caused by the brain slamming into the interior of the skull.  But what about knock outs without the concussion?  Some sources say it's short term damage to the brain stem.  But in truth, I couldn't find much on the topic of knock outs without the concussion.  It seems like this should be an area of more study considering the number of contact sports played.

So in a final word- does anyone know where I could get more information on the nature of knock outs?

NeurOlympics

Instead of learning new information in class yesterday, I was afforded the chance to show the progress I've made thus far- both in the classroom and outside.  Because besides today being an exam day in Neural Systems, it was also the long awaited NeurOlympics!

Free t-shirts went to all competitors!

For those of you unaware of this tradition, allow me to explain the premises.  The UT Synapse Neuroscience Club hosts this trivia game show style competition.  Three teams of 4 compete for eternal nerd glory and pretty sweet trophies.

Trophies were handmade
by the wonderful officer Devon!

Questions ranged from psychology, medicine, neurobiology, ion channels, and so much besides!  I participated as part of the "Basal Gang of Four" along with some friends from the club.  I feared that I hadn't taken enough upper division neuroscience classes to be of any help.  My tea members were all older and further along in their degree plans.  However, I proved myself worthy of a few points.

Still, by the end of the first round (out of 3, plus a bonus round) my team was last.  Amazingly, we only gained speed and points from there.  More assertive "buzzing in" and conferring with team members before answering racked up the points.  I honestly believed we wouldn't do well because of our lagging start.  But when all the points were tallied, we proved victorious!

My lucky neuron jewelry
I wore to battle.

I know this was just a small, nerdy competition done for fun.  But I can honestly say I'm proud of myself.  I contributed to our success and proved to myself that I really am learning more everyday.  I'm definitely no expert but if I keep moving at this pace, I know I can create a successful career in neuroscience!

That's right, the Nernst equation!

Are you a prairie vole or a meadow vole?

Can you believe that less than 5% of all mammals are long term monogamous?  Whereas 90% of birds stay with their mate for life.  These are a few of the interesting tidbits I came across while doing some reading homework on sexual motivation.

I think voles are much cuter than lab rats, don't you?

But I think the most interesting story starts with a couple of voles.  Voles are small mammals similar to mice.  The genetic variation between a meadow vole and a prairie vole is nearly zero yet they display almost completely opposite behavioral characteristics.  Prairie voles are how we human would like to view ourselves.  They pair-bond with their mates and act more or less monogamous by sharing a nest and defending one another.  When they have a litter, they demonstrate better parenting and care for their young for a longer time than their meadow counterparts.

In fact, I think this song fits my characterization of meadow voles:

They don't make for life, share a nesting ground, or care for their young any longer than is strictly necessary.  Yet these two species are nearly identical in genetic make up.  What's causing the difference in their behavior?

Well a bit of research into their brain structures revealed a rather interesting set of differences.  The prairie voles had more receptors for two very specific signal molecules when compared with their meadow counterparts.  In the female prairie voles, there were more oxytocin receptors in circuits related to the reward pathways in their brains.  I mentioned oxytocin in a valentine's day post so feel free to reference back to that for more details on its effects.  But the basics show that it increases motherly behavior in the females.

The other change was found in the male prairie voles.  They show increased numbers of vasopressin receptors in the ventral pallidus.  This signal has sometimes been linked to aggression in the context of mate-protective behavior.  Thus it makes the males more likely to stick around and protect the family.

The brain images on the left are of the males and on the right are the females.

Turns out, there's a short "microsatellite" piece of DNA code that allows for the additional production of these receptors and the bonding behavior seen in the prairie voles.  And while you may think, what's this got to do with me?  Well, there's currently evidence coming to light that that these same systems are in play in human systems as well.  Surely it's a more complicated system but what does your DNA code your behavior towards?  Do you know?

Science on the Radio

I'll be the first to admit that I'm in love with NPR.  My childhood revolves around car trips listening to Prairie Home Companion and long summer afternoons in the garage surviving the Texas sweltering heat by turning up Car Talk.  But while these will always be a part of my identity and connection to my family, I've found a whole new program which meshes beautifully with my passion for neuroscience.  I am referring to, of course, the wonderful programming of radiolab.

I first heard the program while driving home on a pleasant spring day.  It was either their program on sleep or stress but what I really recall was my inability to tear my ears away from the speakers.  I rushed indoors and immediately turned on the stereo inside the house, not wanting to risk missing a single bit.

Really, I just can't support the program enough.  Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich have this great interplay between each other.  One plays the cynic while the other holds out for the brightest conclusion on the many scientific discoveries and experiments explored in the show.  I love that they characterize inanimate things like genes to make biological processes become a beautifully woven story.  I would kill to become one of their researchers and get to interview all the fascinating folks of the science world which they bring in.

I'm sure I seem to be rambling but if you're reading my blog I assume you have an interest in biology or neuroscience or just like to expand your horizons.  If any of these are true, I highly suggest tuning into radiolab.  You can get free podcast versions on itunes, play them directly from the sight, or donate to WNYC to help support the show and get several episodes on a complimentary thumbdrive.

Let's support those who help bring science into the modern world!  It's a complicated story but when told right, it becomes a work of art.

Blame my genetics

I must say, for as hard as I work out I'm always sorely tempted to over eat.  There are so many savory, delicious places to eat in Austin that I'm only beginning to discover.  Gourdough's elaborate donuts covered in all sorts of things (brownies, bacon, gummy worms and more!)  But while I can get myself to salivate over these fabulous treats, I know I can make myself sick from eating too much.  But not everyone can sense that line of where to stop and it's in part due to their genetics.

An example of Gourdough's extravagant donuts.

And while  know the idea that genetics controls your overall body type and weight, I never understood the specifics until now.  Gordon Kennedy was the first to describe the "lipostatic hypothesis" which states brain receives signals about the fat storage of the body and tries to keep it in equilibrium with either feeding behavior or lack of eating.

But sometimes the brain can't receive this signal.  Certain genetic variations lack a specific piece of code that produces a protein.  This protein, now known as leptin, sends the message to the brain that you're full and to stop eating behavior.  But if you lack the genetic code to produce leptin, you're brain thinks you are in a constant state of starvation.  Not only do you feel constantly hungry, your metabolism slows down (as if you are trying to hang on to those last bit of energy producing fat).

Now I'm not here to say that this explains the obesity epidemic in America.   A complete genetic knockout of leptin is fairly rare and can be treated with hormonal replacement therapy.  And of course there are numerous other processes, both in the brain and the gut, that regulate body shape.  But I find it fascinating that we don't have as much control over our appetite.

With all the current hype on the
movie, I couldn't help including
one of my favorite books.

And a special shout out to my friends cutting weight for Taekwondo National Collegiate Competition.  You might be fighting your genetic homeostasis but those few pounds lost will make all the difference in the ring!  Not to mention, we'll be sure to indulge in some of the best food Austin has to offer to bring those leptin levels back up.

Motivation reward? Or frustration?

*Note: Apologies!  I know I usually post 3 times a week but it's been a bit of a trial getting back into the swing of class after spring break.  Not to mention I had a major paper due this week but I will be much more consistent in the future.

At first, I wasn't sure which topic I wanted to discuss as I enter the subject of motivation.  But as I read my Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain, I stumbled across a rather fascinating example of the disconnect between animals studies and application to the human system.

The setup starts with a simple rat test of motivation.  A rat is implanted with electrodes in its brain which, when the animal shows a specific behavior like pressing a lever, it receives a jolt of current in that brain region.  When the electrodes are properly placed, they affect the dopamine pathways between the VTA (ventral tegmental area) and the striatum or prefrontal cortex.

This has long assumed to be a reward pathway due to the behavior of the rats once they learn the trick.  After the rats connect pressing the lever with the stimulation, they will continue to press the lever as much as possible to get that "fix."  It can even get to the extent that the animals with ignore food and water and exhibit only the trained behavior until they collapse from exhaustion.  But what if what the rat is experiencing isn't actually pleasure?

This diagram helps clear up the basic
pathways of dopamine.

Human trials of this nature are (obviously) unexploited.  But the few times that scientists have implanted electrodes into human brains, it has been to deal with disorders like schizophrenia and severe epilepsy.  And when we sample this population, their self stimulation doesn't seem to be providing that orgasmic reward as expected.

The two examples I read describe the observations of Robert Heath on a couple of patients he assisted at Tulane School of Medicine n the 1960s.  One man, when asked what it felt like to self stimulate the  septal area of his forebrain, reported that it was similar to the feeling of building up to an orgasm.  However, when he tried to repeatedly use the stimulation he was left with the frustrated feeling of incompletion.

The other man focused on medial thalamus (though he had other electrodes in different parts of his brain which he could stimulate).  When asked why he repeatedly stimulated this region when it left an irritable sensation, he replied that it was like the feeling of that moment before you recall a memory.  He would continue to self stimulate on the hope that  it would finally dawn on him, though it never did and he was left as frustrated as the first man.

Robert G. Heath of Tulane

Of course, these case studies are no where near perfect.  Both subjects had severe mental discrepancies from the average population.  And the location of their electrode implants are not identical to those found in the rats.   Lastly, it's a very small subject pool shown here.  But we must admit that the experiences of these men leave room for doubt.  Maybe the rat pushing the lever isn't feeling pure euphoria.   Maybe it's just on the cusp and frustratingly can't reach the peak.  We can't be completely sure.

British Virgin Islands

Sorry I've been away for so long but this past week was my university's spring break.  To celebrate the freedom from school, my family took a trip to the British Virgin Islands to sail the seas for a week.  It was an amazing experience where I got to learn to sail, spent hours viewing reefs and their inhabitants, and finally catching up on my much needed sleep.

But while I was snorkeling my time away with all the tropical fish, I found some of the invertebrates didn't have the most savory reputation.  No, I didn't run into any sharks or jellyfish (which are actually my greatest fear).  But I did spot a small, rather unassuming fish which was none other than the puffer fish.  Sometimes called the "fugu" (or 河豚 in Japanese), this fish carries a toxin in its liver, intestines, and skin.  Some Asian countries treat the fugu as a delicacy though chefs must be specially trained to cook the less tainted parts and know just how much is safe to serve.

I don't know the species but this is the exact type of puffer I
saw 3 separate times.

The toxin, called tetrodotoxin, induces light-headedness and a numbing of the lips.  Often this is why the fish is consumed, sort of like imbibing alcohol for the less toxic effects.  But if too much is consumed, it leads to vomiting, a prickling sensation all over the body, rapid heart rate, and some paralysis of muscles.  In bad conditions, it will paralyze the person's diaphragm, making it impossible for them to breath on their own.

Another toxic critter I saw was the cuttlefish.  During our swim around the Baths on Virgin Gorda, we saw a school of 5 cuttlefish swimming along the sandy part of the ocean floor.  I recalled hearing they were poisonous as well so I did some research when I got home.  These guys have a powerful neurotoxins contained in their saliva produced by the bacteria that make their home in the mouth.

I rather thought these little guys were cute!

So I guess my trip wasn't completely devoid of learning.  Next time I'll have to make it a point to do my research before hand and see what other interesting animals surface.

Bicycles and the Basal Ganglia

When I first understood that the basal ganglia is necessary for creating procedural memories, I immediately thought of learning to ride a bike.  Nothing could be more iconic of a learned behavior in humans than those first few tentative pedal pushes as you learn to navigate the two-wheeled beast.  Personally, I'm an avid cyclist both as a commuter and for simple pleasure.  I ride my bikes every single day, yet if you asked me I would be unable to explain all the minutiae of adjustments my body makes to keep me in the seat.

One of my friends plans a monthly ride to explore the city and hit up
some of the coolest bars of Austin.

The ability to ride a bicycle, along with many other habitual actions, rely on the processing of the basal ganglia.  This collection of nuclei are vital for what I consider "physical memory."  The basal ganglia receives general input from the cortex, processes it, and then sends it through the ventral lateral nucleus of the thalamus and on to the frontal cortex.  The frontal cortex is then responsible for issuing a command via the motor cortex for the body to actually do something.  This integration with the motor circuit explains why procedural memory is affected when the basal ganglia is damaged and not declarative memories.

The type of damage that the basal ganglia can receive changes how the afflicted person or animal will act.  Two classic diseases- Parkinson's and Huntington's- have symptoms at opposite ends but due to damage in the same structure.  While it's true that each lose function in a slightly different pathway, it would be a little ambitious of me to try to explain the circuitry with only words.

Let's just leave it with the understanding that the diseases cause damage in slightly different ways.   With Parkinson's, the damage leads to a slowing or even lack of movement.  These are called, respectively, bradykinesia and akinesia.  And at the other end of the spectrum is Huntington's where patients experience hyperkinesia.  It's as if they can't stop themselves from making too much movement.

This figure helps identify some of the structures
within the basal ganglia.

In these two diseases, the ability to moderate inhibition or disinhibition seems to be lost.  So there's either a surplus of movement or a dearth of it.  Research into how the damage occurs and ways to prevent it continue.  But I'm happy to say I have a well-functioning basal ganglia and I can continue to ride my bike to my hearts content!

Science is Hard!

Remember back in the good old days when teachers said "Here's how this works! Just learn the process." and that was it?  I wont disagree that there's a certain element of boredom involved with that style of learning.  But this semester is teaching me that performing real science is so far beyond rote memorization.

It's not easy to get access to up there, huh?

Currently I'm working in a lab on my college campus.  I'm just an undergraduate research assistant but our project is relatively small so I get to handle all aspects of the actual research.  When I first volunteered for the position, I thought all the procedures and general direction of the project were pretty obvious.  We're doing a longitudinal study so it breaks up into neat little chunks.

But halfway through the semester I'm seeing all these sources of error!  I have a bit of OCD and sometimes I wonder whether that's a blessing or a curse for doing academic research.  Let's start with the fact that I do human research.  So we had to start by getting a big enough sample size.  We didn't have grandiose expectations yet you'd be surprised on how difficult it is to even get 10 people to it your research criteria.  There are all sorts of things that can eliminate a person from a psychology study.

And even when they do make it past initial screening, you have to remember that these are people you're dealing with.  People, unlike lab rats, have schedules and plans and can't be kept in a cage in the lab.  So you have to keep an eye on your participants and make sure they keep up with the requirements of the project.  This is particularly important for longitudinal studies.

Ah, and we must also remember the fallibility of technology.  For all the good its done us, our tech is never perfect.  You can have faulty wires or computer programs that wont run or even run out of materials.  Just today, my lab ran out of circular adhesives to use with the EEG and had to run a makeshift version of our preferred methods.  And I've had times when batteries nearly died and the electrical leads on the EEG decided to stop working.  There's just so many little places for a slip up to affect your data.

Obligatory cute baby picture!  Though really I meant to
say I'm still young in my training.

Yet, in a weird way I love that variability.  It makes science hard, but it also keeps it interesting.  You're always striving for the perfect run and the most accurate results.  And a truly good scientist learns to compensate for all the possible external factors.  Trying to design the cleanest. most efficient, most reliability study appeals as an interesting study for me.  But for now, I hope to continue to learn in my current position.