Anterior cingulate cortex

Does vasopressin increase mutually beneficial cooperation?

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Beliefs, Brain hemispheres, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Oxytocin, Vasopressin

This 2016 German human study found:

“Intranasal administration of arginine vasopressin (AVP), a hormone that regulates mammalian social behaviors such as monogamy and aggression, increases humans’ tendency to engage in mutually beneficial cooperation.

AVP increases humans’ willingness to cooperate. That increase is not due to an increase in the general willingness to bear risks or to altruistically help others.”

One limitation of the study was that the subjects were all males, ages 19-32. The study’s title was “human risky cooperative behavior” while omitting subjects representing the majority of humanity.

Although the researchers claimed brain effects from vasopressin administration, they didn’t provide direct evidence for the internasally administered vasopressin in the subjects’ brains. A similar point was made about studies of vasopressin’s companion neuropeptide, oxytocin, in Testing the null hypothesis of oxytocin’s effects in humans.

A third limitation was that although the researchers correlated brain activity with social behaviors, they didn’t carry out all of the tests necessary to demonstrate the claimed “novel causal evidence for a biological factor underlying cooperation.” Per Confusion may be misinterpreted as altruism and prosocial behavior, the researchers additionally needed to:

“When attempting to measure social behaviors, it is not sufficient to merely record decisions with behavioral consequences and then infer social preferences. One also needs to manipulate these consequences to test whether this affects the behavior.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/8/2051.full “Vasopressin increases human risky cooperative behavior”

Advance science by including emotion in research

gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Beliefs, Brain hemispheres, Brainstem, Cerebellum, Cerebrum, Dopamine, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Lower brain, Memory, Neurochemicals, Thalamus , ,

This 2015 analysis of emotion studies found:

“Emotion categories [fear, anger, disgust, sadness, and happiness] are not contained within any one region or system, but are represented as configurations across multiple brain networks.

For example, among other systems, information diagnostic of emotion category was found in both large, multi-functional cortical networks and in the thalamus, a small region composed of functionally dedicated sub-nuclei.

The dataset consists of activation foci from 397 fMRI and PET [positron emission tomography] studies of emotion published between 1990 and 2011.”

From the fascinating Limitations section:

“Our analyses reflect the composition of the studies available in the literature, and are subject to testing and reporting biases on the part of authors. This is particularly true for the amygdala (e.g., the activation intensity for negative emotions may be over-represented in the amygdala given the theoretical focus on fear and related negative states). Other interesting distinctions were encoded in the thalamus and cerebellum, which have not received the theoretical attention that the amygdala has and are likely to be bias-free.

Some regions—particularly the brainstem—are likely to be much more important for understanding and diagnosing emotion than is apparent in our findings, because neuroimaging methods are only now beginning to focus on the brainstem with sufficient spatial resolution and artifact-suppression techniques.

We should not be too quick to dismiss findings in ‘sensory processing’ areas, etc., as methodological artifacts. Emotional responses may be inherently linked to changes in sensory and motor cortical processes that contribute to the emotional response.

The results we present here provide a co-activation based view of emotion representation. Much of the information processing in the brain that creates co-activation may not relate to direct neural connectivity at all, but rather to diffuse modulatory actions (e.g., dopamine and neuropeptide release, much of which is extrasynaptic and results in volume transmission). Thus, the present results do not imply direct neural connectivity, and may be related to diffuse neuromodulatory actions as well as direct neural communication.”

Why did the researchers use only 397 fMRI and PET studies? Why weren’t there tens or hundreds of times more candidate studies from which to select?

The relative paucity of candidate emotion studies demonstrated the prevalence of other researchers’ biases for cortical brain areas. The lead researcher of the current study was a coauthor of the 2016 Empathy, value, pain, control: Psychological functions of the human striatum, whose researchers mentioned that even their analyses of 5,809 human imaging studies was hampered by other imaging-studies researchers’ cortical biases.

Functional MRI signals depend on the changes in blood flow that follow changes in brain activity. Study designers intentionally limit their findings when they scan brain areas and circuits that are possibly activated by human emotions, yet exclude emotional content that may activate these areas and circuits.

Here are a few examples of limited designs that led to limited findings when there was the potential for so much more:

It’s well past time to change these practices now in the current year.

This study provided many methodological tests that should be helpful for research that includes emotion. It showed that there aren’t impenetrable barriers – other than popular memes, beliefs, and ingrained dogmas – to including emotional content in studies.

Including emotional content may often be appropriate and informative, with the resultant findings advancing science. Here are a few recent studies that did so:

http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1004066 “A Bayesian Model of Category-Specific Emotional Brain Responses”

The cerebellum’s role in human behavior and emotions

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Cerebellum, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Lower brain

This 2016 Italian human review considered the lower brain’s contributions to an individual’s behavior and temperament:

“In evidencing associations between personality factors and neurobiological measures, it seems evident that the cerebellum has not been up to now thought as having a key role in personality.

Cerebellar volumes correlate positively with novelty seeking scores and negatively with harm avoidance scores. Subjects who search for new situations as a novelty seeker does (and a harm avoiding does not do) show a different engagement of their cerebellar circuitries in order to rapidly adapt to changing environments.

Cerebellar abilities in planning, controlling, and putting into action the behavior are associated to normal or abnormal personality constructs. In this framework, it is worth reporting that increased cerebellar volumes are even associated with high scores in alexithymia, construct of personality characterized by impairment in cognitive, emotional, and affective processing.”

The full paper wasn’t freely available, but a list of the 173 references was. 17 references were of alexithymia, also mentioned in the title.

One freely available reference was The embodied emotion in cerebellum: a neuroimaging study of alexithymia, a 2014 study performed by these same authors, which found:

“Alexithymia scores were linked directly with cerebellar areas and inversely with limbic and para-limbic system, proposing a possible functional modality for the cerebellar involvement in emotional processing.

The increased volumes in Crus 1 of subjects with high alexithymic traits may be related to an altered embodiment process leading to not-cognitively interpreted emotions.”

“Alexithymia scores” referred to one of the methods used to characterize alexithymia symptoms, self-reported answers to questionnaires such as this one. Sample questions from the questionnaire used by the referenced study are:

  • “I am often confused about what emotion I am feeling
  • It is difficult for me to reveal my innermost feelings, even to close friends”

The questionnaire mainly engages a person’s cerebrum. The person may recall emotions, and form ideas as framed by each question. Then they’ll describe these ideas in terms of a scaled answer.

Cerebral answers may provide historical contexts for feelings. However, the person’s cerebellum and other brain areas aren’t necessarily engaged by the diagnostic questionnaire.

Without this engagement, the person may not experience feelings when providing answers about feelings. The answers may be more along the lines of “This is what I think I should be feeling” or “This is what I think I should tell the researchers about what I think I should feel.”

  • Can a questionnaire accurately determine associations among engaged and unengaged brain areas?
  • What can be done regarding “impairment in cognitive, emotional, and affective processing?”
  • What’s the lower brain’s “involvement in emotional processing?”
  • How does the lower brain shape a person’s behavior and traits?
  • When and where in an individual’s lifespan does their cerebellum develop?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12311-015-0754-9 “Viewing the Personality Traits Through a Cerebellar Lens: a Focus on the Constructs of Novelty Seeking, Harm Avoidance, and Alexithymia”

Fat made rats fat with dysfunctional brains

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Anterior cingulate cortex, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Stress, Testosterone , , ,

This 2015 New York rodent study found:

“Early stage [diet-induced] obesity, before the onset of diabetes or metabolic syndrome, produced deficits on cognitive tasks that require the prefrontal cortex.

These results strongly suggest that obesity must be considered as a contributing factor to brain dysfunction.”

The difference in the diets of the adult male subjects was that the control group ate 10% fat (20% protein, 70% carbohydrates) whereas the obese group ate 45% fat (20% protein, 35% carbohydrates). Significant changes in body weight were present after the first two weeks on the diets, but testing didn’t begin until after eight weeks.

I thought the study design prematurely terminated the experiments. The study didn’t justify the ultimate purpose of conducting rodent experiments, which is to find possible human applicability.

One study design possibility would have been to continue through old age to find how the conditions progressed. Another possibility would have been to reverse the high-fat diet to find whether the conditions reversed.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/51/15731.full “Obesity diminishes synaptic markers, alters microglial morphology, and impairs cognitive function”

It is known: Are a study’s agendas more important than its evidence?

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Brain hemispheres, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Stress , , , , ,

This 2015 Swiss human study’s Abstract began:

“It is known that increased circulating glucocorticoids in the wake of excessive, chronic, repetitive stress increases anxiety and impairs Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) signaling.”

The study had several statements that were unconvincingly supported by the study’s findings. One such statement in the Conclusions section was:

“This study supports the view that early-life adversity may induce long-lasting epigenetic changes in stress-related genes, thus offering clues as to how intergenerational transmission of anxiety and trauma could occur.”

However, the study’s evidence for “intergenerational transmission of anxiety and trauma” as summarized in the Limitations section was:

“This study did not directly associate child behavior or biology to maternal behavior and biology.”

In another example, the Discussion section began with:

“The severity of maternal anxiety was significantly correlated with mean overall methylation of 4 CpG sites located in exon IV of the BDNF promoter region as measured from DNA extracted from mothers’ saliva.

In addition, methylation at CpG3 was also significantly associated with maternal exposure to domestic violence during childhood, suggesting that BDNF gene methylation levels are modulated by early adverse experiences.”

The researchers assessed five DNA methylation values (four individual sites and the overall average). The CpG3 site was “significantly associated with maternal exposure to domestic violence during childhood” and the three other CpG sites’ methylation values were not.

IAW, the researchers found only one of four sites’ methylation values significantly associated to only one of many studied early adverse experiences. This finding didn’t provide sufficient evidence to support the overarching statement:

“BDNF gene methylation levels are modulated by early adverse experiences.”

To make such a generally applicable statement – more than one BDNF gene’s methylation levels could be directly altered by more than one early adverse experience – the researchers would, AT A MINIMUM, need to provide evidence that:

  1. The one category of significantly associated early adverse experience directly altered the one significantly associated CpG site’s DNA methylation level
  2. Other categories of early adverse experiences were fairly represented by the one significantly associated experience category
  3. Other categories of early adverse experiences could directly alter other BDNF genes’ DNA methylation levels
  4. The significantly associated DNA methylation level of only one out of four CpG sites was fairly represented by the overall average of the four sites
  5. Other BDNF gene’s methylation levels were fairly represented by the overall average of the four sites

If researchers and sponsors must have agendas, a worthwhile, evidence-supported one would be to investigate prenatal and perinatal epigenetic causes for later-life adverse effects.

As Grokking an Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) score pointed out, environmental factors that disrupt neurodevelopment may be the largest originators of epigenetic changes that are sustained throughout an individual’s entire lifespan.

What’s the downside of conducting studies that may “directly associate child behavior or biology to maternal behavior and biology” during time periods when a child’s environment has the greatest impact on their development?

When prenatal and perinatal periods aren’t addressed, researchers and sponsors neglect the times during which many harmful epigenetic consequences may be prevented. It is known.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143427 “BDNF Methylation and Maternal Brain Activity in a Violence-Related Sample”

Emotional memories create long-term epigenetic changes

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Anterior cingulate cortex, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory, Stress , , , , , ,

This 2015 German rodent study found:

“Histone modifications predominantly changed during memory acquisition and correlated surprisingly little with changes in gene expression.

Although long-lasting changes were almost exclusive to neurons, learning-related histone modification and DNA methylation changes also occurred in non-neuronal cell types, suggesting a functional role for non-neuronal cells in epigenetic learning.”

Chromatin modifications in two limbic system brain areas were studied – the hippocampus (CA1 region) for short-term memories and the anterior cingulate cortex for short-and long-term memory formation and maintenance. The memories were induced by context (C) and context shock (CS) exposure:

“Overall, the data provides very strong and robust evidence for the establishment of long-term memory upon CS exposure, whereas C exposure alone did not induce the formation of long-term memory.”

So, without long-term shock/emotional memories, there would be no positive long-term findings for the researchers to report. There would be no lasting:

  • “Histone modifications
  • DNA methylation changes
  • Changes in gene expression”

The subjects were young adults at age 3 months. The CA1 and ACC studied brain areas are fully developed before this age.

It seemed feasible that if the study were performed with younger subjects, the results may have been different. For example:

“Context exposure alone did not induce the formation of long-term memory”

may not have been the finding for early learning situations.

The researchers qualified their results several times with the phrase “changes are limited to actively expressed genes.” A similar qualifier in A study of DNA methylation and age was a reminder that unexpressed genes may have also been important:

“The textbook case of DNA methylation regulating gene expression (the methylation of a promoter and silencing of a gene) remains undetected in many cases because in an array analysis, an unexpressed gene shows no signal that can be distinguished from background and is therefore typically omitted from the analysis.”

This general qualifier may not have necessarily applied to the current study, though, because the study’s design included an unexposed control group.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.4194.html “DNA methylation changes in plasticity genes accompany the formation and maintenance of memory”

The function of the dorsal ACC is to monitor pain in survival contexts

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Brain hemispheres, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Thalamus

This 2015 California human study was of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC):

“No neural region has been associated with more conflicting accounts of its function than the dACC.

The best psychological description of dACC function was related to pain processing—not executive, conflict, or salience processing.

We conclude by considering that physical pain may be an instance of a broader class of survival-relevant goals monitored by the dACC, in contrast to more arbitrary temporary goals, which may be monitored by the supplementary motor area.”

A related brain area – the paracingulate sulcus (PCS) – and its impact on the study’s findings was discussed in the supplementary material:

“The PCS is present in a subset of the population and thus extends the dACC further in the dorsal direction. This possible additional sulcus is relevant because, for some individuals, the ventral portion of the SMA [supplementary motor area]/pre-SMA may actually be the PCS.

The vast majority of fMRI studies overlook most individual differences in neuroanatomy and depend on the probabilistic neuroanatomy averaged across a group of participants and then on standard atlases that typically don’t take these individual differences into account.

There are two structural forms of PCS. The “prominent” form extends through the entire dACC region; however the “present” form begins in the rostral ACC and ends near the anterior border of the dACC.

Men are significantly more likely than women to have unilateral or bilateral PCS.

Additionally, six morphology studies have indicated the existence of a PCS that is left-lateralized.”

How about that? A brain area that:

  • Assists in monitoring pain in the contexts of survival goals;
  • Size, form, and placement varies widely among individuals;
  • Is missing in some people!

Here’s a long critique of the study that included dialog with the authors:

http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2015/12/14/still-not-selective-comment-on-comment-on-comment-on-lieberman-eisenberger-2015/

“If you observe activation in dACC..your single best guess as to what process might be involved..should be ‘motor’ by a landslide. You could also guess ‘reward’ or ‘working memory’ with about the same probability as ‘pain.’

Of course, the more general message you should take away from this is that it’s probably a bad idea to infer any particular process on the basis of observed activity.”

And the authors’ “last comment”:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201601/more-evidence-pain-related-description-dacc

“Based on Neurosynth evidence, is more of the dACC selective for pain than for attention, autonomic, avoidance, conflict, emotion, error, executive, fear, negative affect, response inhibition, response selection, reward, and salience? Absolutely.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15250.full “The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is selective for pain: Results from large-scale reverse inference”

The roles of DNA methylation and demethylation in forming memories

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Anterior cingulate cortex, Brain development, Cerebrum, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals , , , ,

This 2015 Alabama combined animal and human review noted:

“Memories can last a lifetime, yet the proteins that enable synaptic plasticity, allowing for the establishment and maintenance of the memory trace, are subject to perpetual turnover.

DNA methylation may likely serve as the principle cellular information storage device capable of stably and perpetually regulating cellular phenotype.”

The authors developed a framework for understanding disparate findings of DNA methylation and demethylation concerning memory.

The dependencies expressed in the framework among the numerous factors – with their relative strengths, timings, and durations – reminded me of this video:

1) If such an error-prone framework accurately reflected the evolved architecture of our memory, we wouldn’t have the variety and number and intensity of memories that we have.

2) The framework neither accounted for prenatal memory processes nor differentiated emotional memories, although some of the referenced studies’ findings were applicable.

3) DNA methylation and demethylation aren’t the entirety of memory formation explanations. For example, they don’t explain state-dependent memories that can be instantiated, reactivated, and amnesia induced without involving “the proteins that enable synaptic plasticity” described in the authors’ framework. For completeness, the authors could have assessed the relative contributions of other memory processes, or at least enumerated them.

4) DNA methylation and demethylation explanations don’t cover all epigenetic biochemical processes. There are also placental interactions, histone/protein interactions, microRNA interactions, etc. For completeness, the authors could have placed the review’s topic within appropriate contexts of other epigenetic processes that influence memory.

This review of DNA methylation and demethylation roles in memory formation opened up a few slats in the blind covering one window. There’s more to be done to fully open that blind, and more window blinds to be opened before the workings of our memory are illuminated.

http://nro.sagepub.com/content/21/5/475.full “DNA Methylation in Memory Formation: Emerging Insights”

Emotionless brain research that didn’t deal with human reality

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Brainstem, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Lower brain, Thalamus

Are tasks you do at work and home never influenced by emotional content or contexts?

Does your ability to focus on a task always have nothing to do with your emotional state?

The researchers who designed this 2015 Boston human study acted as if both of your answers to these questions were “Yes” by stripping out any emotional content from their experiments. As a result, this study which purported to:

“Have the potential to provide additional insights into how inhibitory control may break down in a wide variety of individuals with neurological or psychiatric difficulties”

couldn’t achieve anything near its goal.

This study included fMRI scans of subjects’ entire brains. Limbic system areas were in 3 of the 5 modules, and lower brain areas were in one.

Functional MRI signals depend on changes in blood flow that follow changes in brain activity. Given this study’s goal, did it make sense for researchers to design experiments that didn’t actively engage scanned areas of subjects’ brains?

It wasn’t all that difficult to include emotional content that could potentially contribute to the purported goal. This 1996 review described studies that developed varieties of emotional content with the same test type (Stroop) used. Presumably these approaches had made progress since 1996 incorporating emotional content in Stroop tests given to normal people, who were subjects in this study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/32/10020.full “Flexible brain network reconfiguration supporting inhibitory control”

Interruptions to the circadian cycle negatively affect memory consolidation

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Anterior cingulate cortex, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory, Stress

This 2015 German rodent study found:

“The control of sleep and memory consolidation may share common molecular mechanisms.”

Somewhat counter to the “Enhanced memory consolidation” in the study’s title, the researchers also found:

“Elevated IGF2 [insulin-related growth factor 2] signaling in the long term, however, has a negative impact on cognitive processing.”

The IGF2 finding was in genetically altered mice that had their circadian rhythm permanently disturbed, however. The study didn’t clearly determine the contribution of other factors that could have contributed to the cognitive decline.

The study traced fear memories induced by stress through the cerebrum to the anterior cingulate cortex and hippocampus parts of the limbic system.

Researchers have no problems studying emotional memories in these brain areas with rodents. In human memory experiments, however, emotional content is consistently excluded, as if none of our memories had anything to do with our feelings.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/27/E3582.full “Enhanced memory consolidation in mice lacking the circadian modulators Sharp1 and -2 caused by elevated Igf2 signaling in the cortex”

Do scientists have to perpetuate memes in order to keep their jobs?

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Beliefs, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Thalamus , , ,

I was disgusted by this 2015 Korean human study.

Is the current state of science such that researchers won’t be funded unless there’s an implicit guarantee that their studies will produce politically correct findings? It seemed that the primary reason for the study’s main finding of:

“Neural markers reflecting individual differences in human prosociality”

was to perpetuate that non-causal, non-explanatory meme.

Per If research treats “Preexisting individual differences” as a black box, how can it find causes for stress and depression? it wasn’t sufficient in 2015 to pretend that there are no early-life causes for the observed behavior and fMRI scan results of the subjects. Such a pretense leads to the follow-on pretense that later-life consequences are not effects, but are instead, a “mystery” due to “individual differences.”

The researchers asserted:

“Our present findings shed some light on the mystery of human altruism.”

Weren’t the findings of the People who donated a kidney to a stranger have a larger amygdala 2014 study of extraordinary altruists big enough clues for these researchers to feature the amygdala in the fMRI scans?

The main experiment had the female, college student, right-handed subjects try to “reduce the duration of exposure to stressful noise.” Why weren’t brain areas that are especially susceptible to stress like the hippocampus featured in the fMRI scans?

The secondary reason for the study seemed to be to perpetuate the harmful “self-sacrifice = good, individuality = bad” meme.

The main reason this meme is harmful is that it condones a subset of people’s unconscious act outs. People are encouraged to avoid conscious awareness both of who they really are and of what drives their feelings, thoughts, and actions.

Despite not asking the subjects directly about either their motivations or their histories, these researchers asserted that the study demonstrated:

“The automatic and intuitive nature of prosocial motivation.”

What was largely observed were the subjects’ unconscious act outs, not some higher-order functions as the researchers mischaracterized them.

Similar to Who benefits when research promotes a meme of self-sacrifice? I suspect that a major motivation behind scientific justification for memes like the self-sacrifice promoted by this study is to rush people past what really happened in their lives.

I wonder what value we would place on the “social norms internalized within an individual” if we felt and honestly understood our real history.

This study and the Do you know a stranger’s emotional motivations for smiling? study had the same reviewer, and shared several of the burden-of-proof problems. Both studies demonstrated a lack of researcher interest in finding causes for the observed effects.

What was the agenda with these researchers and the reviewer? Why would the researchers glorify factors that cause difficulties when one tries to live a life of one’s own choosing?

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/25/7851.full “Spatial gradient in value representation along the medial prefrontal cortex reflects individual differences in prosociality”

Dopamine may account for differences in cognitive performance

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Anterior cingulate cortex, Cerebrum, Dopamine, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Thalamus ,

This 2015 German human study found:

“Dopamine may account for adult age differences in brain signal variability.”

The researchers administered amphetamine to the subjects to boost their dopamine levels, and measured their cognitive performance on several working memory tests under fMRI:

“Older adults expressed lower brain signal variability at placebo, but met or exceeded young adult..”

brain signal variability levels when on speed.

The order of the tests also influenced the results. Older adults who received amphetamine during the initial series of tests performed better on placebo during the second series of tests.

As is often done, the researchers focused on effects and not causes. I didn’t see questionnaires or investigation into possible historical or biological factors for reduced dopamine levels, leaving the researchers with age as the only correlated-but-not-causative explanation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7593.full “Amphetamine modulates brain signal variability and working memory in younger and older adults”

The thalamus part of the limbic system has a critical period for connections

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Anterior cingulate cortex, Brain development, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Lower brain, Primal Therapy, Thalamus , , ,

This highly-jargoned 2015 UK study found that connections made by the thalamus of the developing human fetus had a critical period of the last trimester of womb-life. Babies born before the 33rd week of gestation experienced thalamic disconnections compared with normal-term babies and adults. The disconnections increased with a shorter womb-life.

The thalamus of premature babies also developed stronger connections with areas of the face, lips, tongue, jaw, and throat. They presumably needed these connections for survival actions such as breathing and feeding that aren’t a part of the last trimester of womb-life.

The study confirmed that the structures of thalamic connections of normal-term babies were very similar to those of adults. The study added to the research that shows that human limbic systems and lower brains closely approximate their lifelong functionalities at the normal time of birth.

It was difficult to measure the thalamus at this stage of life with current technology, and the researchers had to discard over two-thirds of their results. The researchers recommended monitoring these premature babies for difficulties in later childhood that may be caused by their early-life experiences.

Why would this monitoring recommendation apply to just the study’s subjects? We know from other studies that a main purpose of thalamic connections is to actively control and gate information to and from the cerebrum.

Would it make sense for a medical professional to disregard any patient’s birth history if they had problems in their brain’s gating functions or connectivity?

One researcher said:

“The ability of modern science to image the connections in the brain would have been inconceivable just a few years ago, but we are now able to observe brain development in babies as they grow, and this is likely to produce remarkable benefits for medicine.”

This study’s results provided evidence for a principle of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy: the bases for disconnection from aspects of oneself are often set down during gestation. The “remarkable benefits for medicine” are more likely to be along the lines of what I describe in my Scientific evidence page.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6485.full “Specialization and integration of functional thalamocortical connectivity in the human infant”

Do popular science memes justify researchers’ cruelties to monkeys?

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Anterior cingulate cortex, Cerebrum, Limbic system

This 2015 Oxford study of 38 humans and 25 macaques drew correlations of brain activities between the two species. The study title included buzzwords such as “reward” and “decision making” and the study focused on the ever-popular “frontal cortex.”

Humans and macaques are separated by 25 million years of evolutionary adaptations and developments. Studies done with macaque subjects don’t automatically have human applicability.

Was a major reason for the study’s comparisons to provide justifications for keeping macaques as study subjects? Accepting these justifications and going along with the popular memes would ease the way for whatever cruelties researchers want to inflict on our primate relatives.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/E2695.full “Connectivity reveals relationship of brain areas for reward-guided learning and decision making in human and monkey frontal cortex”

A missed opportunity to study odor-evoked emotional memories

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Anterior cingulate cortex, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory

The researchers of Can a study exclude the limbic system and adequately find how we process value? published another study. In this 2015 human study, subjects were monitored with fMRI scans while making choices on the identity and pleasantness of rewarding food odors.

I feel that the researchers missed quite a few good opportunities to advance science. Instead of making peripheral assessments of limbic system areas and citing numerous other studies, they could have included emotional content in their study and drawn their own conclusions.

Consider these opportunities:

  • Wouldn’t the odors used in the study such as chocolate cake and pizza and strawberry and potato chips – and other “comfort” foods – potentially be associated with emotional responses?
  • Don’t most humans have memories that include pleasant food odors?
  • Wouldn’t it have been informative to ask the subjects during fMRI scans to identify what emotions were evoked by the pleasant food odors?
  • Wouldn’t these resultant fMRI scans be expected to potentially show more strongly activated limbic system areas, given the hippocampus’ position as the seat of emotional memories?
  • Wouldn’t the additional emotional responses and memories and subsequent limbic system area activations potentially influence the subjects’ value judgments?

Instead, the researchers peripherally included limbic system areas in the study. The supplementary material included passages such as:

“Identity-specific value signals were found in not only the OFC, [orbitofrontal cortex] but also the ACC [anterior cingulate cortex] and hippocampus.”

Like the previous study, the current study’s focus was to provide evidence that areas of the cerebrum were in control when people made value judgments. The term “value” in the current study meant:

“the pleasantness of the odor.”

Like the previous study, areas of the limbic system weren’t addressed until the tail end of the supplementary material. The researchers cited other studies in an attempt to dismiss the role of the ACC in making value judgments, then said:

“Although we are unable to distinguish between these alternative explanations, our findings suggest that value-related signals in ACC—whether signed or unsigned—are specific to the identity of the expected outcome.”

Since the current study found that “identity” was encoded by cerebral areas, the above sentence was written to nudge the reader into inferring that the cerebrum dominated value judgments of “the pleasantness of the odor.”

The researchers similarly cited other studies in the last paragraph instead of specifically discussing how they studied the participation of the hippocampus part of the limbic system. They then speculated that the hippocampus’ contributions to value judgments in the current study were explained by the referenced studies:

“We speculate that the hippocampus is involved in retaining sensory-based information about specific rewards, which may be linked to value-based representations in OFC for later consolidation.”

Like the previous study, the researchers were begrudgingly diverted away from their focus on cerebral areas when they were forced to acknowledge the limbic system’s contributions to value judgments of “the pleasantness of the odor.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/16/5195.full “Identity-specific coding of future rewards in the human orbitofrontal cortex”