Hello 2015! I can't believe the year passed so quickly and it's already a new year! I had a wonderful winter vacation in the sunny state of Texas, but now it's back to the grad school grind. This quarter is particularly looking to be extremely busy. I'll be taking classes, running my own study, and TAing for the first time. That's a lot to accomplish in just a few months. Luckily the winter weather keeps me inside, so I suppose I'll be more productive.
When it's cold out, why not drive to Wisconsin for some cheese?
As for the main meat of this post, I learned something rather unsurprising, yet interesting, in the class I'm TAing. (TA= Teacher's Assistant) I'm TAing developmental psychology which is an upper divsion psychology course. Before we got into the meat of the class, the professor presented some research she conducted on previous classes. She and several other professors conducted an observational study whereby they looked at technology usage of their students and grades earned in that class. Below are the results.
As you can see, those who didn't use a laptop scored the highest in the course on average. Second highest were those who reported staying on task while using their laptops to take notes in class, although they still earned a significantly lower grade than those with no technology. Students who reported being off-task on the laptop (ie, internet browsing, email, etc) scored just as poorly as those who claimed to be multi-tasking. This result might surprise some, but previous research has shown that humans are incredibly bad at multi-tasking. Having to flit from one thing to another makes us bad at all of them overall. According to this study, you might as well just be off-task!
Personally, I've always noticed that I have trouble focusing on class when I have my comnputer out. I am better at remembering information when I write it, rather than type. It seems old-fashioned, but I much prefer carrying a bunch of spirals around instead of a laptop. I'm just glad real research supports my own habits. I have to wonder, when I'm a professor will I allow my students to use laptops? I think not, though maybe we will be such a technology-driven society that I wont have much of a choice. That's a long way away so I better just focus on surviving this quarter!
If you've ever read Brave New World (and I sincerely hope that you have), then you probably remember the strange hypnopaedic training used to keep people thinking as the World State wants them to. Basically, the State trains citizens from childhood by using softly spoken mantras played in their sleep. These constantly repeated ideas are designed to keep them from rising above their prescribed station in life by cuing them to how they should think. When I first heard of this idea, I thought it interesting but outlandish. I'm not so sure about that anymore.
You see, the Cognitive Neuroscience Lab at Northwestern University has recently delved into a research vein similar to Huxley's idea. In a very easy-to-understand paper, members of my lab tested whether sounds played at night can actually help with memory the next day.
The paradigm went like this- participants learned where 50 objects were located on the screen and each object was paired with a matching unique sound. So they would learn the tea kettle is in the upper right corner and that a kettle whistle is associated with that picture. Next, participants took a nap and during the deep sleep stage, half of the sounds they heard were replayed to them (without waking them up). When they woke up, they were tested on how well they could remember where the objects belonged. Results showed that participants remembered more of the objects that were cued while they were asleep, and were better at closely matching where those images went on the screen. Basically, it seems like playing the sounds reactivated the memory traces during sleep and helped consolidate them to make a stronger memory!
And this research doesn't just extend to visuospatial learning. Another member of my lab showed that participants can better learn to play a keyboard to produce a melody that's been cued during sleep rather than one that hasn't. So it appears this memory reactivation is multimodal, even when we sleep.
I cannot tell you how fascinating I find this research. Currently, I'm working on a project regarding implicit memory but I'm dying to get my toes wet in some sleep-memory research. I just haven't found the right research question yet.
Let me know if these projects bring any questions/ponderings to mind!
I feel like I have some idea of how many people in the creative field must experience their work. There's something very mentally straining in trying to be creative on demand. As a first year graduate student, I am supposed to jump right into research and get my feet wet. In other words, I am expected to have a first year project. Generally, this isn't too much of a problem as advisors constantly have pet projects that they need someone to work on.
However, I was blessed with a very flexible advisor who is happy to let me approach problems that I find personally engaging. That means when I first met with him and asked about a first year project, he lobbed it back into my court and asked what I wanted to do. Thus, I've been asked to be creative on demand.
The thing is, you can't really be creative if you're stressed out. I'm someone who loves to have my entire schedule all planned out and obvious. But you can't plan how to come up with something as big as "what do I want to research?" So it has been a struggle.
But I think if I take some of the pressure off, I might be able to harness that intuitive thinking and come up with a cool first year project.
I know I'm in the habit of having long breaks between posts and I'm trying to break that habit. So while this is a short post, I just wanted to make sure I'm keeping friends and family abreast of my life.
My first day outfit was an EEG dress and neuron jewelry
Speaking of which, I can now officially claim to be a graduate student! Yesterday was my first day at Northwestern University as a first year student. It still really hasn't hit me that I'm actually on my way to earning a PhD within the next 5 years. Sure that's quite a long time, but I couldn't be more thrilled to be on this journey.
Only a day into school and she's anxious to be an over-worked grad student? Yeah, I'm weird that way. I also prefer more structure to my schedule so I'm hoping to settle into a more full routine while still keeping some "me time." That's not to say I don't experience any anxiety. I know I've only just begun, but I'm chomping at the bit to have something to work on. I'm a bit of a work-a-holic and not having a current project makes me feel too lazy for comfort. I'm sure you're shaking your head.
I will do my best to post more often and will hopefully have some interesting fodder in the form of lectures and articles I will soon be devouring.
Ok, I'll try to keep this short because this week is all about moving in. Yes, I've made the big move from Texas to Illinois for grad school in a mere 22 days! But as I start to organize my belongings, I'm reminded of a semantic error I hear all the time. Being neat does not make you OCD. Organizing your desk a specific way does not mean you have obsessive compulsive disorder. OCD is defined as people who "feel the need to check things repeatedly, or have certain thoughts or perform routines and rituals over and over. The thoughts and rituals associated with OCD cause distress and get in the way of daily life." The NIMH do a pretty good job of breaking it down. Basically you can't help but do repeated actions (aka, compulsions) because of obsessive thoughts. These are people who wash theirs hands so much they become raw and painful, but they're still experiencing obsessive thoughts about the germs on their hands. This is a serious mental disorder that is often trivialized.
*crying* Why aren't my bananas stacked?!
I hear friends all the time say, "I so have OCD. This morning I spent 2 hours reorganizing my closet!" NO. JUST NO. You do not have OCD. You have OCPD. This is a personality disorder (which can be a bit difficult to clinical-ize as it is). The best way to describe OCPD is "characterized by a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency." For example, when I was a tiny tot, my mom used to slice up a banana for me as a snack. I would carefully create two towers of stacked banana slices and then eat an equal number of slices from each stack so that they would stay even. Being a 'banana stacker', as my parents used to call me, would be a mild form of OCPD, not OCD. When you avoid doing school work by cleaning out all the old papers you don't need on your laptop, that's mild/symptomatic of OCPD. So yes, I've spent an inordinate amount of time organizing and reorganizing the kitchen in my new apartment. It verges on OCPD, but not OCD. Next time you have a moment of uncontrollable need to clean/organize/neaten/align something, remember that you're experiencing OCPD.
Let me start by saying I am a huge proponent of cycling. I spent all 4 years of my undergraduate experience without a single car, and 2 bicycles as my mode of transportation instead. Although trips to the grocery store required paneer bags and plenty of speed to conquer Austin hills, I reveled in the freedom my bike afforded me. I wont lie and say I never borrowed a roommates car to run errands or never rode the the bus down town. Of course a bike didn't meet all my traveling needs, but in a small enough city like Austin it was just what a broke undergrad needed.
Besides being an avid cyclist, I'm also a consummate neuro-nerd. This TED Talk piqued my interest by catering to both my passions:
Truthfully, this video isn't the first thing I've seen about the issue, but I think it does a good job of summing up a lot of the problems. I see the problem as both based in neurology and psychology.
In terms of psychology, I'm not surprised that drivers treat cyclists differently based on their appearances. Drivers ignoring safety margins because a cyclist is wearing a helmet? I see that happen all the time. In fact, I've heard stories from my dad of truck drivers purposely trying to run cyclists off the roads in the hill country surrounding Austin proper. This is a problem not with the cyclists, but with the perceptions of the drivers. When I bike in my lycra shorts and bike jersey, I am inevitably treated with indifference at best, contempt at worst when on the road. Drivers seem to think I have a 'holier-than-thou' attitude when I'm in my cycling gear and will be particularly rude. That, or they think I'm an experienced rider and thus are not as cautious around me. Now if I ride my bike around town in day-clothes like jeans or a sundress, I'm treated with much more caution by drivers. To them, I assume I appear more inexperienced and thus someone to be careful around.
And this issue I think extends into the relevance of bike helmets. Wear a helmet and you look safer to drivers or more experienced so they take more chances around you. That attitude increases with the more bike gear you use. So psychologically, I would say you're better off riding with out the spandex and helmet.
This was right after my Dad's crash due to an inattentive driver.
On the other hand, neurologically, I think you are responsible for protecting your brain. A fall from a bike can lead to serious concussions and even traumatic brain injury (especially if a vehicle is involved). This past fall, I had a personal epiphany when my Dad was hit by a car and thrown from his bike. I honestly believe the helmet saved his life. He had a fractured cheekbone and stitches along his left eye but his helmet took the brunt of the fall. Without it, he probably would have fractured his skull and wouldn't be alive to cycle today.
Recently I've seen people citing articles that claim helmets don't perfectly protect your noggin- and I agree. You're not wearing 360 degrees of protection and helmets really aren't meant for high speed impact. Still, I see it like not wearing a helmet during a taekwondo match: really a helmet wont protect from an axe kick to the face, but it's most definitely better than nothing.
So now you might be wondering how this is a debate. I see it as opposing forces of needing to protect my brain, while not giving drivers a false sense of security around me. I certainly don't want drivers running me off the road for looking too much like a cyclist but I don't think I can afford to ride on bustling streets without the protection of a helmet. My ultimate decision has been to save my fancy spandex for protected rides/events and just wear street clothes when commuting (I always wear my helmet, just to be safe).
Oh, and if a car ever does threaten me, I usually ride with my keys in my hand. You wouldn't want a large scratch down the side of your vehicle- right?
Sorry, that's a terribly corny title but after hearing about this research I couldn't help it. I'm not talking about the current craze of young adult fiction focusing on Twilight-esque plots. I'm actually referring to some recent research in the mouse model which indicates that young blood may actually help aging animals regain some of their cognitive capacity.
This first article focuses in the regenerative powers of GDF11 for heart hypertrophy. Essentially, they found that by pumping young blood (which has a high concentration of Growth Differentiation Factor 11 in it) into older mice, they could shrink the heart. Intuitively you might think that having a large heart is good, but actually it's not. When the heart muscle enlarges, it becomes less efficient and can be a warning sign for future cardiac problems. Ok, so it may not seem so exciting that 'young blood' can help reverse some of the effects of aging on the heart but what about changes occurring in the brain?
As published in nature, recent research has found that circulating young blood in old animals can also increase synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus. This, in turn, improves cognitive function in the aged mice.
This is the animal model typically used for these studies.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, blood transfusions between animals is nothing new in science. Back in the 1600s, scientists at the Royal Institute tried using blood transfusions to see if it would change the temperament of people. They would give a mad man a transfusion of a docile sheep's blood and would wait to see if it made the man calm and rational again. Many such experiments failed (as there is no real mechanism for changing personality based on blood). Still, they can make for some interesting stories.
But back in track, it seems the field of blood transfusions has once again flourished. I would like to direct you to a final recent publication in science which combines multiple studies into a convincing argument for the effects that young blood has on old mice. Could this pioneering research advent the renewed search for the fountain of youth? Or will popular press turn this into a growing fear of a black blood market?
I think we need to take a step back and realize the research is only occurring in mice. As far as I can tell, we haven't even reached the primate model so there's no guarantee that we would see the same effects in humans. Humans naturally have less GDF11 circulating in the blood stream so we might not see the pronounced effects found in the mouse model.
I do have one suggestion for future epidemiological research. What if we tracked the age of the blood donors and compared that with the outcome of their recipients? Surely there's a database somewhere that could tell us whether people recover faster when they receive a transfusion of young blood versus old? If anyone knows of such a study, I would love to hear the results!
