Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Animal Study Finds a Brain Circuit That Spurs Bullying

http://ift.tt/298b0Yq


 

Bullies often like being bullies—and an entire line of research links aggressive behaviors to brain areas tied to sensations of reward—sites deep below the organ’s surface with names like the ventromedial hypothalamus and the extended amygdala.

One lingering puzzle is what precedes the aggressive act. What makes a person—or, in this case, a mouse—lash out? A new study, published June 29 in Nature, shows that the thought of being the aggressor simply feels good to certain animals. I had a fascinating talk this week with Scott Russo from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, the paper’s senior author, who described the significance of these findings.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

What did your study find?[

We discovered a brain circuit—connecting the basal forebrain and lateral habenula—that appears to control the motivation of a male mouse to be aggressive and subordinate another male mouse. The significance of these findings is that the circuit seems to be telling an animal that subordinating, or “bullying,” another animal is a rewarding behavior.

To test this, we adapted a conditioned place preference protocol—often used to measure the rewarding properties of addictive drugs, whereby mice were allowed to attack an intruder mouse within one of two environmental contexts: When asked which of the two environmental contexts they preferred, aggressive mice chose the environment in which they were allowed to attack the intruder mouse over the environment in which they had no access to the intruder mouse. Interestingly, the basal forebrain and lateral habenula have been previously shown to support conditioned place preference to drugs of abuse, such as nicotine and cocaine, suggesting that similar neural processes mediate rewarding aspects of aggression and addictive substances.

Does this perhaps provide some indication about the biological underpinnings of bullying behavior in animals in general, including humans?

There is some reason to believe that this is a conserved behavior across multiple species, including humans. For example, previous work in rats shows that when an aggressive male is allowed to attack and subordinate an intruder male, there is greater release of dopamine—a neurotransmitter in the brain that signals pleasure—within a structure called the nucleus accumbens. Although we have to be cautious when interpreting our studies within the context of human behavior, there are some interesting parallels with human antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy. Functional brain-imaging studies suggest that certain basal forebrain areas—notably the nucleus accumbens—are activated when subjects with antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy view images of other individuals hurt or in pain. The results have been interpreted to suggest that they find pleasure in viewing other’s in pain.

Is it conceivable that your findings would have some clinical significance in treating bullies through behavioral therapies or with drugs or medical devices?

We know so little about the fundamental mechanisms driving aggression or bullying behavior that we are probably a long ways away from developing new therapies or treatments for such behavior. However, I truly believe that by gaining a basic understanding of the brain circuits and neurotransmitters controlling complex aggressive behaviors, we will pave the way for future development of new strategies to reduce violence and aggression.

How does this fit within the broader sweep of research that you are pursuing?

The primary focus of my research group had been to identify novel biomarkers [measurable activity] that correlates with depression in humans and then reverse-translate these findings to relevant mouse stress models to determine whether any of these biomarkers actually play a role in causing depression- or anxiety-related behaviors. Over the past decade we have utilized a social-defeat stress model in which a larger aggressive mouse “bullies” a subordinate intruder mouse, inducing a wide spectrum of depression- and anxiety-like behaviors in the intruder. Our studies have provided important preclinical data informing clinical studies of new antidepressant treatment strategies. Despite having some success with such studies, we couldn’t help but ask ourselves whether a better depression prevention strategy might be to mitigate aggression and violence towards others in the first place. Thus, we flipped the question and began studying the bully mouse rather than the socially defeated subordinate mouse.


 



Unlocking the Mystery of How the Brain Creates Vision

http://ift.tt/2938rbj


When you walk into a room, your eyes process your surroundings immediately: refrigerator, sink, table, chairs. "This is the kitchen," you realize. Your brain has taken data and come to a clear conclusion about the world around you, in an instant. But how does this actually happen?

Elissa Aminoff, a research scientist in the Department of Psychology and the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at Carnegie Mellon University, shares her insights on what computer modeling can tell us about human vision and memory. Aminoff is a World Economic Forum Young Scientist who will be speaking at the Annual Meeting of the New Champions in Tianjin, China, from June 26 to 28.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows]

What do you do?
What interests me is how the brain and the mind understand our visual environment. The visual world is really rich with information, and it’s extremely complex. So we have to find ways to break visual data down. What specific parts of our [visual] world is the brain using to give us what we see? In order to answer that question, we’re collaborating with computer scientists and using computer vision algorithms. The goal is to compare these digital methods with the brain. Perhaps they can help us find out what types of data the brain is working with.

Does that mean that our brains function like a computer? That’s something you hear a lot about these days.
No, I wouldn’t say that. It’s that computers are giving us the closest thing that we have right now to an analogous mechanism. The brain is really, really complex. It deals with massive amounts of data. We need help in organizing these data and computers can do that. Right now, there are algorithms that can identify an object as a phone or as a mug, just like the brain. But are they doing the same thing? Probably not.

Nevertheless, the type of information used by a computer to come to the conclusion that it’s a mug might well be the same as the type of information the brain uses. That’s what we are testing right now: how relevant is a computer’s way of recognizing things to the way the brain does it?

So how does the brain recognize things?
There are two ways that information flows. In the first way, which we call “bottom up,” information begins with points of light entering our eyes that fall onto your retinae. These points are processed by our visual systems and transformed into increasingly complex forms, from points to lines to edges to shapes and, ultimately, to objects and scenes. But the problem is that this array of light coming into our eyes is noisy and difficult to interpret, so just progressively making more and more complex interpretations of the light image would be rather slow.

To help solve this problem, our brains appear to use a wide array of “top-down influences.” That is, our experience and memories help us to anticipate and interpret what is in front of us. We’ve all seen a keyboard in front of a computer before, so if I show you a very blurry image of one, your experiences fill in the gaps before you have a clear picture.

Is that possibly why we sometimes make mistakes? The classic “I’m sure I saw someone” moment?
Yes, visual illusions exploit our unconscious expectations. Disconcertingly, these same predictions can also influence our memories. One study I performed looked at false memories. If I showed you an image with an oven in it, for example, you might later recall seeing an oven and a refrigerator, because you typically see ovens and refrigerators in the same space. In fact, one image I used was of my own kitchen, which had a strange set-up. My washer and dryer were stacked one on top of the other inside the kitchen, but when asked to recall the image, many people remembered seeing a refrigerator because that’s what should have been there.

What are you working on right now then?
We have a very good idea of how low-level information is processed. That is, the early bit where points of light are transformed into lines, etc. At the same time, we are also beginning to have a better understanding of how we process very high levels [of information], that is, how a kitchen or a keyboard is represented in our brains. But we don’t know how to connect low-level visual input with such high-level information. And this is where computer vision models are proving to be extremely interesting. As working systems, they actually have to come up with a solution to this problem – how you take points of light and figure out what scene you are looking at.

How do you see these studies being applied in the future?
On the computer technology side, the more we can improve computer vision systems, the more successful they will be in understanding the world in ways that are helpful to us: safer self-driving cars, robots that can make us breakfast, and so on. Right now a robot might see a carpet, four walls and a window. But to get breakfast, I need it to understand, “there is a refrigerator; there is the handle; I can open it and get some milk out.” If we can get computers to that level, they will actually be useful as assistants. For example, such robots would be a massive advance in helping care for the elderly or the disabled.

On the human side, it’s amazing how much we don’t know about how the brain understands the visual scene. That’s really incredible when you consider that the visual scene affects every aspect of our understanding. My expectations at the office and at the swimming pool are going to be radically different. Based on the visual input I receive, my language, my actions, even my goals will be different. The more effective we can be in understanding the environment around us, the more we can build models of how people generally reason about the world using this rich source of information.

This could also have very practical applications for medicine. Some people suffer from what is called topographic disorientation – they have great difficulty navigating in even simple environments. For example, if someone with this disorder were at the theater and went to the bathroom, they would have no way of knowing how to get back to their seat. Because scene understanding is so integral to navigation, better models of scene processing will ultimately help us to better address this disorder.

What are some of the challenges that lie ahead for this kind of research?
We’re still working with crude human neuro-imaging techniques. The tools we have to visualize what is happening inside the human brain are exciting, but each point in our data is actually the average response over millions of neurons, making it very difficult to understand the micro-structure of neural information processing. There are 86 billion or so neurons, each an individual cell that transmits information in the human brain, and we are very far away from neuroscientific methods that will allow us to see how each of these units interact with one another. We’re limited by that.

Where do you see things going next?
There is a lot more to do. I want to understand how visual recognition works both in terms of where in the brain, and when, things happen. And what is the “vocabulary” of vision? From there I would like to see how vision affects other aspects of our cognition, including memory and reasoning.

How can we encourage more women to get involved in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) subjects?
In psychological and neural sciences, if you look at graduate programs and postdoctoral positions, there isn’t as much of a gender gap. But the gap appears when you get to the level of a tenure-track faculty position. There is evidence that simple awareness of this imbalance helps to counteract such gaps. And at all levels it is also critical that we have equal representation. Not just faculty per se, but also on committees, speaker series, conference symposia, award nominations, grant panels, and editorial boards. There is clear evidence that representation of underrepresented groups has a significant impact on ultimate outcomes. And finally, we need to mentor young women scientists to assertively pursue career opportunities.

This interview was produced in conjunction with the World Economic Forum.



LIAM 252 – Your Desires are God’s

The things you want to do, be, have, and express want you! That’s right, the things you desire, provided they are for your growth, desire you. Your desires are actually God’s desires. The music you long to play is God wanting to express that music through you. The things you want to build, write, and create are what God wants to build, write, and create through you. God has placed within you that desire because it is God’s desire to express that to the world through you! All that there is of possibility is seeking expression through humanity. Listen as I explain:

Listen on iTunes or Listen to/download this episode here:

Mentioned in this show:

Subscription/Social Links:

itunes-subscribe-220x80  stitcher-subscribe 

The post LIAM 252 – Your Desires are God’s appeared first on Life Is A Marathon : Life Coaching | Self-Esteem | Personal Development | Personal Branding | Positive Thinking | Community.



http://ift.tt/2933EGK Self Esteem Feeds

Separate and Unequal

http://ift.tt/293u33s

Blue 3D Arrow Seperates Into Two Distinct PathYou have just fallen off your bike. You hit a rock and were thrown over the handlebars onto your back. Ouch.

What do you do now? You go to the doctor. X-rays are taken. Nothing is broken. You get some medicine, you go home.

The next day at work, you are having some trouble with the pain. Your peers ask what’s wrong. You reply that you fell off your bike. They say that’s too bad; hope you feel better. Move on. They don’t think too much of it.

Now, let’s pretend you had a different kind of health issue. Lately you’ve been feeling down. You can’t explain why, you just don’t feel like doing anything. You aren’t hungry, and are disinterested in things that usually excite you. So you go into work and your peers have noticed your mood shift.

They ask about it, wondering if you’re OK. You tell them you’ve been feeling sad and can’t really explain it. They tell you you’ll get over it. You’ll come out of this slump you’re in. Just try a little harder to be happy.

How would you respond if they told you to “just try a little harder” when you’ve got a broken bone? You can’t try a little harder. It takes as long as it takes to heal.

This is a common response when people are talking about depression, and many other mental illnesses. They think it’s your fault, and that you aren’t trying hard enough to get better. But that’s not how mental illnesses work. This opinion is rooted in misunderstanding and generalizations about the impact of mental illness.

This is a primary example of the stigma surrounding mental illness. Many see it as fake and easily overcome. For example, Dr. Michael Karson believes that sympathy given to people suffering from mental illness is detrimental to their getting better. He believes that some mental illnesses are behavioral, and when we excuse the actions of those people, we are reinforcing their behavior.

This only serves to worsen the stigma surrounding mental illness. It gives us the notion that serious mental illnesses are purposely made up by people seeking attention. While this does occur, many people who are faking a mental illness are more likely to also have a real mental illness, according to an article on WebMD.

In a study published in the U.S. National Library of Medicine, it was found that the knowledge of or suspicion of a mental illness can have a negative impact on a hospital stay. This thought held by some health professionals doesn’t bode well for those suffering from mental illness.

In fact, a recent study in the Health Affairs Journal found that doctors don’t follow up with patients suffering from depression as often as they should and are less likely to help these patients manage their illness. This same study also found that most primary care practices aren’t equipped to handle depression as a chronic illness. Although they are not mental health specialists, primary care doctors should be equipped to refer patients to therapists and psychiatrists.

According to Ranna Parekh, the director of the division of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association, there is a separation between mental and physical health.

She says that the longer we continue to refer to them as separate, the longer we will treat and view them differently. Health needs to be an all-inclusive term. This will reduce a separation in thinking that comes along with a separation of terms. When we refer to someone as being in poor health, we are usually talking about a broken arm, or having a harder time breathing, or being slow to get around. Being in poor health needs also to include mental health. Mental illnesses need to have the same amount of credibility and awareness as physical illnesses.

If physical and mental health were thought of as one entity, health, then there wouldn’t be such a separation in thinking about these two things. It would all be talked about in the same breath and making separations and comparisons would be harder to do. It would force us to think of health as a combination of mind and body, not a separation.

There are currently efforts to try to achieve parity in health. For example, The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, passed in 2008, requires that financial requirements and treatment limitations be no more restricting than those applied to physical health care. This exemplifies the movement to end stigma and get to a point where mental and physical health are equals.

This movement needs to happen. There are many people around the world who are suffering from a mental illness. Their suffering is only made worse when they are treated differently and ostracized, and made to feel shameful about something that is normal. The world will be a happier and healthier place once health is an all-inclusive term.

Atthidej Nimmanhaemin/Bigstock

 



Why Facebook loves your reactions - Validational

http://ift.tt/297FQk0

submitted by /u/midriasi
[link] [comments]

Programs to Curb Prescription Drug Abuse Underutilized

http://ift.tt/29c9nuG

JPrograms to Curb Prescription Drug Abuse Underutilized

A new study reports that programs to prevent prescription abuse are in place, but underutilized. The finding comes at a time when prescription drug abuse is a raging epidemic across America.

Celebrity deaths like that of Prince and Heath Ledger have heightened the sensitivity of Americans on the problem. Moreover, the realization that the addiction is a true public health problem — with addictions across the population from teens to seniors — has led legislators to call for programs to combat the abuse.

The new study is informative in showing that programs already exist for the addiction, yet they are underutilized. The report comes out of Maine, one of the U.S. states hardest hit by the “epidemic” of prescription painkiller and heroin abuse. Researchers say that although there have been some positive trends recently, there are also troubling ones.

The study appears in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

Investigators report that in 2014, a high percentage of women in their 80s — 38 percent — had prescriptions for powerful painkilling medications known as opioids.

“That’s very concerning,” said researcher Stephanie Nichols, Pharm.D., of Husson University School of Pharmacy in Bangor, Maine.

For one, she explained, elderly people have a higher rate of respiratory conditions, which makes them more susceptible to an accidental opioid overdose.

What’s more, the study found, women in their 80s were also commonly prescribed sedatives known as benzodiazepines. If one of those medications were combined with an opioid, that would also raise the risk of a potentially fatal overdose, Nichols said.

Prescription opioids include medications like hydrocodone (Vicodin), oxycodone (OxyContin, Percocet), codeine, and morphine. Abuse of these substances is common with the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse estimating 52 million Americans have abused a prescription drug — with opioid painkillers at the top of the list.

In response, most U.S. states have established prescription-monitoring programs (PMPs) — electronic databases that track prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances. Health care providers can use the programs to identify possible cases of prescription drug misuse and help patients get treatment for addiction if needed.

But although Maine has had a monitoring program since 2004, Nichols’s team found that in 2014, many pharmacists were not using it. Of 275 pharmacists they surveyed, only 56 percent said they were using the program.

Doctors and other health care providers use the system, but it’s still important for pharmacists to be linked in, too, according to Nichols.

“Often, the pharmacist is the ‘last line of defense,’ for patient safety,” she said.

Based on the state’s PMP, opioids were prescribed to 22 percent of Maine residents in 2014 — enough to supply every person in the state with a 16-day supply.

That figure is down slightly from 2010, Nichols said. “But it’s still a very large number,” she added.

In an encouraging sign, though, prescriptions for oxycodone and hydrocodone were lower in 2014, but prescriptions for buprenorphine were up sharply. Buprenorphine is an opioid, but it’s typically used to treat opioid addiction.

“I think that’s a positive trend, because we interpret that as an increase in treatment of people with an opioid use disorder,” Nichols said.

Still, she added, more can be done. That includes getting health care providers and pharmacists on board with existing programs and increasing the accessibility and usability of those programs.

Maine has not only a PMP, Nichols pointed out, but also a diversion alert program — which allows providers to see whether a patient has a history of drug-related arrests.

“We have resources to help tackle the opioid epidemic,” Nichols said, “but we’re underusing them.”

A second study in the same issue of JSAD looked at another type of program aimed at curbing prescription drug abuse. The program involves drug “take-backs,” that is local events where people can bring their unneeded or expired prescriptions for safe disposal.

In the study, Itzhak Yanovitzky, Ph.D., of Rutgers University in New Jersey, surveyed over 900 New Jersey adults and found that efforts to raise public awareness of local take-back programs seem to work.

People who’d seen media stories on drug take-back — or even just signs at their local drug store — were twice as likely to have used the programs in the past 30 days as other state residents were.

It suggests that if people are aware of local take-back programs, many will actually use them, according to the study.

Source: Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs



Scharlotte lost 67 pounds

http://ift.tt/2952Jme

Transformation of the Day: Scharlotte lost 67 pounds. Despite being displaced by Hurricane Katrina, dealing with PCOS, working through graduate school and struggling with her weight for years, she never gave up. Today, she’s become an avid runner and competitive deadlifter. Check out her journey. My name is Scharlotte S. I am a wife, mother […]
No related posts.


June 29, 2016 at 02:11AM