Month: March 2015

Why do we cut short our decision-making process?

gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Beliefs, Cerebrum, Dopamine, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Serotonin , , ,

This 2014 Zurich study found that people adapt their goal-directed decision-making processes in certain ways.

First, the researchers found that the subjects usually acted as though the computational cost of evaluating all outcomes became too high once the process expanded to three or more levels. Their approach to a goal involved developing subgoals. For example, for a three-level goal:

“Level 3 was most frequently decomposed into a tree of depth 2 followed by a depth-1 tree.”

A level 3 tree had 24 potential outcomes (24 outcomes = 3*2x2x2) whereas a level 2 tree followed by a level 1 tree had 10 potential outcomes (10 outcomes = 2*2×2 + 1*2).

Second, the subjects memorized and reused subgoals after their initial formation. The researchers found that this practice didn’t produce results significantly different than the optimal solutions, but that could have been due to the study’s particular design. The design also ensured that the subjects’ use of subgoals wasn’t influenced by rewards.

Further:

“It is known that nonhuman primate choices, for instance, depend substantially on their own past choices, above and beyond the rewards associated with the decisions. Similar arguments have been made for human choices in a variety of tasks and settings and have been argued to be under dopaminergic and serotonergic control.”

Third, ALL 37 subjects were unwilling to evaluate decisions that had initial large losses, even if they could see that the path to reach the optimal solution went through this loss outcome! The researchers termed this behavior “pruning” and stated:

“Pruning is a Pavlovian and reflexive response to aversive outcomes.”

The lead author relied on a previous study he coauthored to elaborate on the third finding. One statement in the previous study was:

“This theory predicts excessive pruning to occur in subjects at risk for depression, and reduced pruning to occur during a depressive episode.”

The current study’s subjects were screened out for depressive conditions, though. They were somewhat conditioned by the study design, but not to the extent where their behavior could be characterized as Pavlovian responses.

Fourth, the subjects’ use of larger subgoals wasn’t correlated to their verbal IQ.

So, what can we make of this research?

  1. Are shortcuts to our decision processes strictly a cerebral exercise per the first and second findings?
  2. Do we recycle our decision shortcuts like our primate relatives, uninfluenced by current rewards?
  3. Or is it rewarding to just not fully evaluate all of our alternatives?
  4. Do all of us always back away from decisions involving an initial painful loss, even when we may see the possibility of gaining a better outcome by persevering through the loss?
  5. Is it true that we excessively cut decision processes too short – such that many of our decisions are suboptimal – when we’re on our way to becoming depressed?
  6. Are we overwhelmed when depressed such that we don’t summon up the effort to cut short or otherwise evaluate decisional input?

Let me know your point of view.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/10/3098.full “Interplay of approximate planning strategies”

Research that identified the source of generating gamma brain waves

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Acetylcholine, Cerebrum, Neurochemicals , , ,

This 2015 Harvard rodent study found that specific brain neurons trigger cortical band oscillations in the gamma wave length. The cell type:

“Has increased activity during waking and is involved in activating the cerebral cortex and generating gamma oscillations, enabling active cortical processing.

Cortical gamma band oscillations are correlated with conscious awareness.”

1. News coverage of the study misreported the research’s consciousness findings by regurgitating the Harvard press release word-for-word. Several speculations thrown in by the PR staff weren’t supported by the findings regarding:

  • “Awareness of consciousness;
  • Aware of the lower levels of consciousness and their contents.”

2. The researchers used optogenetic stimulation of neurons, similar to the Activation of brainstem neurons induces REM sleep study. The current study took the extra step of lesioning cholinergic neurons to ensure the activity studied was due to the target neurons.

3. The neurons generated gamma waves by simultaneously turning off all receptor neurons, then simultaneously switching them all back on. The researchers said:

“Our results are surprising and novel in indicating that this presumptively inhibitory”

neuron type acted this way.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3535.full “Cortically projecting basal forebrain parvalbumin neurons regulate cortical gamma band oscillations”

Pulling on the chain of causes and effects with insulin resistance

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Cortisol, Dopamine, Neurochemicals, Stress , , ,

This 2015 Harvard rodent study found multiple undesirable symptoms and attributed the cause to insulin resistance, which is itself a symptom.

Humans most often develop the symptom of insulin resistance due to causes other than genetics, such as a result of abnormal eating behaviors, which are symptoms of other causes.

Use of insulin-resistant-due-to-genetics mice may have misdirected the researchers to lose focus that their ultimate task was to find ways that their research can help humans. If helping humans was the researchers’ focus, it may have occurred to them to develop evidence for how “something” caused symptoms such as abnormal eating behaviors, that in turn caused a symptom of insulin resistance.

The study’s unexamined causes included why genetically insulin-resistant mice developed symptoms of anxiety and depressive-like behaviors between early adulthood and late middle age. Examples of undesirable symptoms described in the supplementary material included:

  • Higher body weight in late middle age, especially in females;
  • Depressive-like behavior in both sexes by late middle age;
  • Higher corticosterone levels in both sexes by late middle age, even when unstressed; and
  • Higher corticosterone levels in late middle age when stressed, especially in males.

It’s remarkable how researchers consistently get caught in a loop of studying only symptoms, paying little attention to studying causes, then suggesting various medications and treatments to suppress the studied symptoms.

It’s not surprising then that there’s no explanation of why and how symptoms develop. The study designs seldom include trying to show causes for the effects in the first place!

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3463.full “Insulin resistance in brain alters dopamine turnover and causes behavioral disorders”

How do we assess “importance” in our lives? An example from scientists’ research choices

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Beliefs, Cerebrum, Primal Therapy , ,

This 2015 Virginia study found that scientists preferred research projects that had the potential to make:

“Deeper vs. broader contributions.

The scientists surveyed considered a hypothetical broader study, compared with an otherwise-comparable deeper study, to be riskier, a less-significant opportunity, and of lower potential importance.”

What were underlying motivations for subject scientists to become the Big Frogs in tiny puddles?

For example, if scientists recognized that there was an opportunity to positively influence a great number of human lives with a “broader” study, such as the hunger research proposed in Do the impacts of early experiences of hunger affect our behavior, thoughts, and feelings today? why would they prefer a “deeper” study such as starving fruit flies?

These researchers said that “scientists’ personal dispositions” accounted for this finding. I agree, but not for any of the specific reasons they stated.

Subjects’ “lower potential importance” judgments were key, and bear closer examination. The study’s supplementary material showed this consideration was made on a sliding scale in response to a question:

“Would you describe Project A (B) as potentially very important?”

The “lower potential importance” finding was an accumulation of each scientist’s personal judgment of a project described as:

“A broad project that spans several topical domains, including at least one that coincides with your area(s) of expertise and interest.

compared with:

“A focused and specialized project that fits your particular interests and leverages your deep expertise in a specific area.”

Weren’t personal judgments of the hypothetical project’s “potentially very important” aspect how each scientist predicted the project would make them feel important?

Given vague project descriptions in above quotations, I assert that their judgments’ contexts were “important to me” rather than “important to science” or “important to society” or important to some other context.

A relevant hypothesis of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy that applies to the “lower potential importance” finding is: the need to feel important is a defense against feeling unimportant due to early experiences of neglect.

Using principles referenced in the hunger post, the need to feel important is:

  1. A derivative need;
  2. A substitute for an unfulfilled need; and
  3. Caused by the impact of an early unmet need.

A corollary is that if an infant didn’t have early experiences of neglect, and their early needs were met, they likely wouldn’t develop derivative needs such as the need to feel important as they progressed through childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

Are people motivated to act like the scientists who were subjects of this study? Do we make career and personal choices based on whether or not our work and other people make us feel important?

See my Welcome page and Scientific evidence page for further elaborations of this topic.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/3653.full “Different personal propensities among scientists relate to deeper vs. broader knowledge contributions”

New role discovered for a speech area of the human prefrontal cortex

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Brain hemispheres, Cerebrum

This 2015 human study found that an area in the left hemisphere of the prefrontal cortex involved with speech has characteristics not previously known:

“Broca’s area coordinates the transformation of information across large-scale cortical networks involved in spoken word production.”

The study found that this area:

“Disengages when we actually start to utter word sequences.”

It was previously thought that the Broca’s area was active during speech.

I looked throughout the study, footnotes and references, and couldn’t find the list of words that were used. The study would have shown more promise if the researchers had made an effort to include words with emotional content. For example, it’s possible that the Broca’s area may have different activation patterns when speaking with emotional content, or that it may account for part of the slowdown that normally occurs when we speak with feeling.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/9/2871.full “Redefining the role of Broca’s area in speech”

Do the impacts of early experiences of hunger affect our behavior, thoughts, and feelings today?

gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Epigenetics, Primal Therapy , , , , , , ,

This 2015 worldwide human study Hunger promotes acquisition of nonfood objects found that people’s current degree of hungriness affected their propensity to acquire nonfood items.

The researchers admitted that they didn’t demonstrate cause and effect with the five experiments they performed, although the findings had merit. News articles poked good-natured fun at the findings with headlines such as “Why Hungry People Want More Binder Clips.”

The research caught my eye with these statements:

“Hunger’s influence extends beyond food consumption to the acquisition of nonfood items that cannot satisfy the underlying need.

We conclude that a basic biologically based motivation can affect substantively unrelated behaviors that cannot satisfy the motivation.”

The concept of the quotes relates to a principle of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy – symbolic satisfaction of needs.

I stated two fundamentals of Primal Therapy in An agenda-driven study on beliefs, smoking and addiction that found nothing of substance:

  1. The physiological impacts of our early unmet needs drive our behavior, thoughts, and feelings.
  2. The painful impacts of our unfulfilled needs impel us to be constantly vigilant for some way to fulfill them.

Corollary principles of Primal Therapy are:

  • Our present efforts to fulfill our early unmet needs will seldom be satisfying. It’s too late.
  • We acquire substitutes now for what we really needed back then.
  • Acquiring these symbols of our early unmet needs may, at best, temporarily satisfy derivative needs.

But the symbolic satisfaction of derived needs – the symptoms – never resolves the impacts of early unfulfilled needs – the motivating causes:

  • We repeat the acquisition behavior, and get caught in a circle of acting out our feelings and impulses driven by these conditions.
  • The unconscious act-outs become sources of misery both to us and to the people around us.

In his book “Primal Healing” Dr. Arthur Janov gives two examples of critical periods only during which early needs can be satisfied:

  1. Being touched in the first months of life is crucial to a child’s development. The lack of close contact after the age of 5 wouldn’t have the same effect.
  2. Conversely, the need for praise at 6 months of age may not be essential, but it’s crucial for children at age 5.

As this study’s finding showed, there’s every reason for us to want researchers to provide a factual blueprint of causes for our hunger sensation effects, such as “unrelated behaviors that cannot satisfy the motivation.”

Why not start with hunger research? Objectives of the research should include answering:

  • What enduring physiological changes occurred as a result of past hunger?
  • How do these changes affect the subjects’ present behaviors, thoughts, and feelings?

Hunger research that would likely provide causal evidence for the effect of why people acquire “items that cannot satisfy the underlying need” should include studying where to start the timelines for the impacts of hunger. The impacts would potentially go back at least to infancy when we were completely dependent on our caregivers.

Infants can’t get up to go to the refrigerator to satisfy their hunger. All a hungry infant can do is call attention to their need, and feel pain from the deprivation of their need.

Is infancy far back enough, though, to understand the beginnings of potential impacts of hunger? The Non-PC alert: Treating the mother’s obesity symptoms positively affects the post-surgery offspring study referenced an older study of how the hunger of mothers-to-be had lifelong ill effects for the fetuses they carried during the Dutch hunger winter of 1944. The exposed children had epigenetic DNA changes from their mothers’ starvation, which resulted in relative obesity compared with their unexposed siblings.