Hallucinogens, starvation, and magnets: A new cure for depression?

What do hallucinogens, starvation and magnets all have in common? No, they’re not the key ingredients for a wild and crazy weekend; they are all potential alternative treatments for depression that are being explored by researchers and clinicians alike.

Scientists have long known that the serotonin theory of depression is imperfect, yet few treatment options are available beyond the standard course of cognitive-behavioral therapy and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). In my new piece for Pacific Standard, I explore recent research that has emerged looking at some potential alternatives for depression that are rather… unconventional.

This includes giving people psilocybin, the active ingredient in so-called “magic” mushrooms, which also boosts serotonin levels and crucially taps into the amygdala, the brain’s major emotional center. Another possible avenue involves boosting ghrelin levels in the brain, a hunger hormone that may also play a role in protecting neurons from the destructive effects of stress, particularly in the hippocampus. Alternatively, using high-powered magnets, researchers and clinicians are able to activate certain key parts of the brain that can potentially lead to a suppression of other over-active emotional regions, turning down our feelings of anxiety or depression.

While none of these options is perfect, they do provide an encouraging new perspective, thinking outside the box to treat this condition that will afflict at least one in ten of us at some point in our lives.

You can check out the full story in Pacific Standard here.

Advertisement

Starting up

We’ve all had (or think we’ve had) that million dollar idea. But how do you turn that idea into a reality?

In my new piece for Science Careers, I interview two budding entrepreneurs who are taking their ideas out of the lab and into industry. While the odds aren’t necessarily in their favor (75% of all startups fail), they both say that the learning experience and satisfaction of seeing their ideas come to fruition are worth the struggle.

Read about their process here, starting from the initial idea, to securing intellectual property protection, and the all-important fight to find funding.

Instant gratification as a way out of addiction?

Impulsivity is often seen as a hallmark of addiction — acting without thinking about the consequences of your actions and valuing the immediate reward of a drug-induced high over the future long-term payout of a healthy lifestyle. This type of delay discounting has been linked to a greater risk for drug addiction, but new research suggests that this type of “myopia for the future” may also improve someone’s chances of staying sober when they’re trying to get clean.

My latest piece for The Fix investigates the research behind this paradox, which suggests that those who are the most impulsive have the most to gain from effective treatment, cognitive training successfully improving their self-control. But is this effect a result of the treatment program itself or just a regression to the mean? Check out the article here to find out.

Resisting temptation in the brain

Having spent the last three years studying how difficult it is to say no to our vices, and being intimately acquainted with all that can go wrong in fMRI research, I’m always a bit skeptical of studies that claim to be able to predict our capacity for self-control based on a brain scan. But a new paper out this week in Psychological Science seems to have done a pretty admirable job, tying our real-life ability to resist temptation with activity in two specific areas of the brain.

Researchers from Dartmouth University first tested 31 women on two different tasks: an assessment of self-control and a measurement of temptation. Using an fMRI scanner, they compared where the women’s brains lit up when they were stopping themselves from performing a certain action (pressing a button, to be exact), and when they were seeing images of ice cream, hamburgers, and other tasty treats. As expected, better performance on the response inhibition task was linked to activation in a part of the brain called the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), a region in the frontal cortex known to be involved in inhibiting a response. Conversely, looking at pictures of chocolate and chicken sandwiches activated the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) a deeply rooted part of the brain that’s essential in feelings of reward.

So far, this is all pretty par for the course; you exert self-control, you activate your control center. Looking at something enticing? Your reward region is going to light up. Nothing new or ground-breaking (or even that useful, to be honest). But the researchers didn’t stop there. Instead, they took the study out of the lab to see what happened when the participants were faced with real-life temptations. Equipping them with Blackberry smartphones, the participants were prompted throughout the week with questions about how badly they desired junk food, how much they resisted these cravings, whether they gave in to their urges, and how much they ate if they did cave to temptation.

Comparing these responses to brain activity in the two target areas, the researchers discovered that the women who had the most activity in the NAcc while viewing images of food were also the ones who had the most intense cravings for these treats in real life. Additionally, these women were more likely to give in to their temptations when they had a hankering for some chocolate. On the other hand, those who had greater activity in the IFG during the inhibition task were also more successful at withstanding their desires — in fact, they were over 8 times more likely to resist the urge to indulge than those with less activity in the region. And if they did give in, they didn’t eat as much as those with a smaller IFG response.

Having confirmed the link between activity in these areas and real-life behaviors, the next step is to figure out how to ramp up or tamp down activity in the IFG and NAcc, respectively. One technique that psychologists are exploring is transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS. This involves zapping a certain part of the brain with an electromagnetic current, trying to either stimulate or depress activity in that region. So far, use of TMS in studies of addiction and eating disorders — attempting to enhance self-control and decrease feelings of craving — has been met with limited success. Pinpointing the exact right area through the skull and figuring out the correct frequency to use can be difficult, and in fact, a few studies have actually accidentally increased desire for the substance! Additionally, the effects are often temporary, wearing off a few days after the stimulation is over. Other studies have looked at cognitive training to try to enhance self-control abilities, particularly in children with ADHD, although these attempts have also varied in their success.

Beyond targeting certain psychiatric disorders or trying to get us to say no to that second (or third or fourth) cookie for reasons of vanity, there’s a push to enhance self-control from a public health standpoint. The authors of the current study cite the staggering statistic that 40% of deaths in the U.S. are caused by failures in self-control. That’s right, according to research, 40% of all fatalities are caused by us not being able to say no and partaking in some sort of unhealthy behavior, the biggest culprits being smoking and over-eating or inactivity leading to obesity. Clearly then, improving self-control is not only needed to help individuals on the outer edges of the spectrum resist temptation, it would benefit those of us smack dab in the middle as well.

Happy Friday!

Blind sight: The next generation of sensory substitution technology

Conventional wisdom says that you see with your eyes. But new technology is changing the way we think about sensation and perception, showing that instead of relying on these orbs for vision, we instead really see using the activity in our brains.

My newest piece for Discover Magazine explores three amazing devices that are restoring sight to the blind, circumventing the malfunctioning sensory organs and tapping into the healthy neuro-circuitry underneath. High-tech computers in Google Glass-like devices are converting visual information into auditory and tactile stimuli, allowing the blind to see, drive, navigate, and mountain climb using their ears, fingertips, and even their tongues, the brain translating this information back to the visual cortex.

Check out the full piece here, including a video of one of the devices in action.

This is what Candy Crush does to your brain

What level of Candy Crush are you stuck on? 42? 73? 130? 305? I myself can’t get passed level 140. Yet despite the frustratingly frequent losses and time-outs, I can’t seem to put the game down. So just what is it about this mind-numbingly simple app that has us all so enthralled?

My latest piece in The Guardian explores the addictive nature of Candy Crush — its similarities to slot machines, how it taps into our dopamine learning and reward circuitry, the illusion that we are in control of the game, and how the finite number of lives actually makes it extra enticing when we are let back into Candyland.

While the game isn’t actually harming you (presuming you’re not throwing away money on it), it is a time-sink, so instead of playing another round, check out my article instead!

Humans can smell 1 trillion scents

Smell always seems to get the short shrift of the sensory world. We don’t rely on it to navigate and communicate like we do sight and sound; it doesn’t send shivers up our spine like a soft caress; and no one’s ever claimed a whiff of roses to be “orgasmic” like they might a bite of chocolate peanut butter cheesecake.

But smell will be relegated to the sensory corner no longer! New research published in Science reveals that our olfactory abilities are far stronger than anyone had previously imagined, enabling us to detect more than 1 trillion different scents — 10 million times more than was originally thought.

I’ve got a full review of the article published on The Atlantic, including how the researchers arrived at this staggering number. So check it out, and don’t forget to stop and smell the roses; there may be more in there than you thought.

Read this mind-blowing article in less than 30 seconds!

Ok, maybe not literally 30 seconds. (Or mind-blowing, for that matter; mildly interesting, perhaps?)

By now we’ve all heard about the “insane new app” that allows you to read comfortably at speeds of 500 words per minute, roughly twice the standard reading pace. Topping out at 1000 words per minute, this, according to the experts at the Huffington Post, would compute to being able to get through a 300-page book like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in under 77 minutes, saving dozens of hours wasted delving through JK Rowling’s delightful prose. Just imagine how quickly you could get through a book of poetry this way!

The developers of this platform, Spritz, claim that the magic happens by projecting words one at a time in rapid-fire succession on the screen, a technique known as rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), while also helpfully presenting them at their optimal recognition point (ORP), highlighting the letter most crucial for your brain to process the word. This then negates the time-consuming practice of eye saccades – moving your eyes across the screen as you read – searching for the ORP, typically located in the middle or slightly to the left of the word. Spritz combines ORP and RSVP so that words are not only presented at a blistering rate, not allowing you to internally vocalize Harry’s posh British accent, but also ensuring that they are located at the exact same – and optimal – position on the screen.

RSVP has been around for decades and has long been known to increase reading speeds. However, this technique has also come under criticism for impacting comprehension. One problem with RSVP is that it narrows your focus to only foveal vision, the content presented in the very center of your visual field. Unfortunately, the world (and the page) doesn’t just exist within these confines, meaning that parafoveal vision (the area outside of your direct focus) is neglected. However, a lot of important information is contained in those parafoveal regions, including cues about where to jump to next while reading. RSVP doesn’t allow for the preprocessing of this type of information, meaning you have no insight about what’s coming next in the text. Spritz claims that by placing words at their ORP the need for parafoveal preprocessing is negated because you automatically know where to focus for the next word. However, they don’t offer any solution to the loss of foreshadowing that is gleaned from preprocessing textual content.

Another concern over Spritz’s method is the absence of regressive saccades, the act of reading backwards. Again, reading backwards or re-reading information is undoubtedly time-consuming, but it can also be essential for fully comprehending a passage. What happens if you zone out while reading with Spritz? Better hope there wasn’t anything important that you missed, because there’s no going back, only onwards and upwards!

Dr. Benjamim Gagl, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Salzburg, explains that, far from being unnecessary time-consumers, these visual-cognitive processes are essential for adequate comprehension: “Although, these paradigms [RSVP and ORP] were very useful for various reasons, they are outdated and eye movement evidence suggests that parafoveal preprocessing, as well as regressive saccades, are central to normal fluent reading. Both parafoveal preprocessing and regressive saccades are not possible in a RSVP paradigm, which leads to differences in brain responses when compared to more natural reading paradigms.”

Despite these shortcomings, I have to confess, I was pretty impressed when I tried the beta mode on the company’s website – you can certainly discern what the passages are saying as they sprint across your screen, and it seemed to require less effort than deliberate skimming or other speed-reading methods. However, despite their claims of total comprehension, I did feel like something was lost in terms of processing and retaining content, not to mention the sheer pleasure that can be derived from reading. Previous studies of world-class speed-readers have shown that even among the best, adequate comprehension (roughly 75%) is lost at speeds of 600 words per minute. And any time you need to re-read a passage, in an abstruse piece of literature, say, or with an unfamiliar academic paper, Spritz seems like it would hurt more than it would help.

And then there’s the concern of fatigue. Somehow I doubt I’d be able to manage much more than 20 minutes using the device (I confess, I’m weak) before the words started blurring together and I lost my place – and my motivation. Admittedly though, screen fatigue happens even with conventional reading methods, so perhaps the gain in processing speed balances out the loss in total time spent doing it.

Clearly this app is not for everyone, nor for every purpose. Spritz certainly would have come in handy while I was prepping for my PhD oral defense, trying to skim through the hundreds of papers I’d read over the last three years. But when it comes to my Potter, I think I’ll stick with my internal narration. Expelliarmus!

Also posted on Mind Read.

The science behind the meat sweats

A  friend of mine asked that I write about an important medical condition that will likely afflict us all at one point in our lives (except perhaps vegetarians). A diagnosis involving discomfort, physiological distress, remorse, and possibly embarrassment. I am referring, of course, to the meat sweats.

Following a barbecue, particularly Korean or Argentinean in nature, or a rib-eating contest, one might find oneself feeling flushed, overcome by fatigue, and noticing a telltale dampness underneath the arms. As your body processes what it has just been forced to consume, you might begin to perspire profusely, purging liquid-protein through your pores.

While scientists posit that the meat sweats aren’t actually real, and indeed there are no academic papers dedicated to the topic, we carnivores know better.

There are a couple popular theories regarding the sweats, ranging from the high salt content in many cured meats – your body sweating more in an effort to expel the extra sodium – to the pure adrenaline experienced while eating another formerly living creature (apparently this is even greater if you hunt and kill the animal yourself).

Most likely though, the meat sweats are caused by the thermic effect of protein. While it may seem like every calorie you eat fixes itself permanently to your gut, the energy in food is conserved in several different ways. This includes fueling the process your body must go through to breakdown and digest what it is consuming. Remember the rumor that eating celery actually burns calories? This is purportedly because your body uses more energy to digest the fibrous vegetable than it contains (this is unfortunately not true, though you’re still unlikely to gain much weight on a diet of rabbit food).

As your body works to breakdown a meal, it begins to heat up, and just like any machine, the harder it works, the hotter it gets. Eating a lot of anything can cause this phenomenon, but a diet high in protein is particularly susceptible to turning you into a furnace. This is because protein has more than twice the thermic effect of fat or carbohydrates, with 15-35% of the energy consumed in a steak being required to digest it. This applies whether it’s chicken, hamburgers or tofu you’re chowing down on, though the soy sweats are a lesser-known phenomenon, probably because there aren’t many tofu-eating contests out there.

This thermic effect is one reason diets like Atkins and Paleo have taken off. However, before you dive face first into a plate of pulled pork, keep in mind that fat (the other main ingredient in bacon) has twice the energy density of protein at 9 calories per gram, but only burns off at a measly 5-10%.

So with barbecue season around the corner, try to control yourself and consume in moderation. But if this isn’t possible, prepare yourself a comfortable digestion spot on the couch, maybe with a towel underneath, and get ready to ride it out. At least you can be comforted that science is on your side.

Happy meating!

Spending more time in the dark could boost hearing in old age

Your brain can do amazing things, not least of which is change. Specifically, neurons can adapt and grow new connections to help compensate for a loss in function in other areas. This has been most dramatically shown in children who have an entire hemisphere of their brain removed, usually to treat extreme cases of epilepsy, the other side taking over so that they can still walk, talk and function normally. Another common example of this type of neural plasticity is the improvement of other senses, particularly hearing, after the loss of sight.

In my latest article for The Guardian, I review a study that reports improvements in hearing in mice that have been visually sensory deprived for a week — meaning they were locked in a darkened room. Amazingly, cells in a sensory relay-station part of the brain reorganized to strengthen their hearing after this temporary loss of sight, even in older mice, which were previously thought to be exempt from this ability. While it’s still early days, this finding opens up the possibility for less invasive ways to treat hearing loss in old age.

Check out the full piece here.