Can the Damaged Brain Repair Itself?

--Original published at Site Title

I chose to watch the TED talk about the brain’s ability to repair itself. The speaker was Siddharthan Chandran, a neurologist. I was drawn to watch this speech because of the reputation brain damage has. It seems like a diagnosis of a disease like Alzheimer’s is basically a sentence to a slow, painful death with no way of curing it. The title of the talk seemed to suggest that there could be a cure so I wanted to watch it and see what the speaker had to say.

Dr. Chandran started off by briefly describing how brain cells work and what can happen if they are damaged. He then showed them examples of damage through brain scans and and interview with a man named John who had Motor Neuron Disease. After apologizing for the doom and gloom he got to the hopeful part of his speech. Dr. Chandran told the audience, “The brain is able to repair itself, it just doesn’t do it well enough”. He showed the audience a brain scan that exemplified what he was talking about and then explained how the brain could be provoked to repair faster with the use of stem cells. That claim was backed up with by a study Dr. Chandran did along with a few other neurologists where stem cells were taken from bone marrow of Multiple Sclerosis patients, grown and place back in the vein. They then measured the optic nerve and saw that the stem cells were protecting the nerve. He finished off with another interview with John.

I found the clinical trial Dr. Chandran did with his colleagues to be the most interesting part of the talk. Even though it was on a small scale, it was good to see that what he was claiming was actually possible. Obviously there is still a long way to go but that is definitely a good place to start.

Dr. Chandran is a trustworthy source. He’s a neurologist so he has been through medical school and studies the brain for a living. Clearly that gives him the background to make the claims he is making. On top of having the right background, he even has a study to back it up. He didn’t just come with some theory that has yet to be tested; there is hard evidence that this could work. Because of that, I don’t have any doubt in Dr. Chandran.

The talk inspired a research idea of my own. It would most likely have to take place further down the road, once more studies are done on the ability of stem cells to repair brain damage. Once neurologists are at a point where they believe they could safely and effectively use stem cells to repair brain damage, they could give patients the option of receiving experimental treatment to cure brain diseases like multiple sclerosis. They could track the damage to a patient’s brain over a certain period of time, say a year, give them the “cure” and track what it does. This can be done by brain scans just like the ones Dr. Chandran used. If the damage is being repaired, then the cure is working. There isn’t much bias in this experiment. I would believe that most brains would react the same way to the stem cells being introduced. On top of that, the experiment is ethical. You can give the patient the option to try the treatment or not.

Neuroscience: Exploring the Mind of a Killer

--Original published at Site Title

I have recently been binge watching the Netflix television show, “How to Get Away with Murder,” and a lot of cases on the show deal with killers. So, when this option presented itself as a choice for one of the TED talks, I was immediately drawn too it. It interests me to get into the mind of a killer and to see what causes them to take certain actions.

The talk dove in with Jim Fallon discussing that recently he had been asked to analyze the brains of psychopathic killers. It had been a blind experiment, meaning he did not know exactly whos brains he was going into or examining. He discovered multiple factors led to what made up a killer’s brain: the individuals genes, biological-epigenetic brain damage, and the environment. The timing these three things came together was very critical. Each brain examined had multiple damage but one thing common in all was orbital cortex and frontal lobe damage. A specific gene referred to as MAOA was also present in the brains of killers but is also existent in the brains of us who aren’t killers. However, it only becomes triggered or activated if one is involved in or sees violence before puberty. The gene is sex-linked which may help further explain why more men are killers because you can only get it from your mother. The gene produces too much serotonin which, because babies become used to it at birth, enables the chemical nerve cell to calm a person or regulate anxiety.

Although I have always know that every killer had some kind brain or mental process problem, I did not know exactly what connected one to another. The most interesting thing I discovered from this talk was that all killers had a consistent same orbital cortex damage and all contained the same triggered MAOA gene.

Jim Fallon established himself well in the beginning of the talk. Providing the audience with the information of where he taught, the University of California, which I think many consider a very respected institute. He is a neuroscientist professor there who expressed his past research in the opening of his talk as well. For most of his life he had been studying genes and neurotransmitters which he also stated at the start of his speech. I think this was smart of him to establish his authority and why he should be considered by those listening as a reliable source. He provided pictures and detailed descriptions of the research he had done as well. I think someone who has been researching and creating known and validated discoveries in a particular topic over a period of time we can consider an expert.

I would want to discover if there is a way to deactivate the MAOA gene in a killer. Maybe there is another gene that can manipulate or mask the expression/ function of the gene so it can’t be triggered. Inserting this gene and recoding and analyzing data. Also, to examine brains of those with the MAOA gene and of those without it who have had a traumatic experience in childhood could be interesting. This could be a longitudinal research to view brain development and damage of the individuals over multiple time points.

Minds of Killers

--Original published at MentzersBlog

I watched the Ted Talk “Exploring the Mind of a Killer” because it seemed intresting. Jim Fallon, the speaker first gets the brains of these killers and examines them. Jim realizes that all the murderers have something in common. The killers have damage on the orbital vortex, which is above the eye sockets and had damage to the Anterior Temporal cortex. A X chromosome also contributes to why they are murderers. The mother can carry a gene called MAOA. This explains why males are more likely to be murders, because males are XY and get one X from their mothers who carry it and not one X from dad and one from mother to balance MAOA gene out. Experiencing that gene and violence going up will contribute to being a killer/murderer. If I was conducting a research study I would observe abused kids and keep track of them and get scans of their brains every year and see the end result. Yes, this will take many years, but I feel it will have a nice end result. Overall, Jim Fallon’s discovering’s seem to connect and think there should be more research conducted.

First Impression Post-Week 4

--Original published at Lynsey Wissler's Blog

Lynsey Wissler

TED Talk- Exploring the Mind of a Killer

What drew you to choose the talk you did?
- I personally chose this talk because I find the whole concept of how someone could kill another person unbelievable. I think it is interesting and wanted to see how the mind of a killer works to make that “okay” for them to kill someone. I also am interested in how the idea to kill someone comes about because people are not born killers.
Briefly, summarize the talk.
- The talk begins with describing how a normal brain is structured and how a killers brain is structured. It then goes on to explain how a killer brain is damaged and how the timing of the damage can affect the killer. However, every killer, despite their age had damage to their orbital cortex. The talk also describes that killer have a high-risk gene. The gene is also a common gene found on the x chromosome of normal people as well, resulting from too much serotonin. However, In order to express the gene in your personality, you have to be involved in a traumatic event. The presenter then goes on to say that serial killers are his ancestors and he makes a joke about how you never know who a killer will be.
What did you find most interesting about the talk?
- I found most interesting how severe violence is what triggers the killing in the murderers. I personally never really thought about the “why would they chose this life” which this video made me do. This video also opened my perspective of the fact that it also might not always be a choice, genetics or situational experiences may have caused their brain to react.
How trustworthy did you find the presenter and the information she or he presented? Explain why. (Note: you must go beyond talking about the reputation of TED talks in general)
- I personally think that this presenter was trustworthy. He stated that he studies neuroscience and professor at the University of California. However, I did feel as though he only presented a little bit of information on a very broad topic.
Come up with a research idea of your own based on the information presented in the talk and briefly outline how you would conduct it.
- My research idea would be, is there a way to predict when people will be killers, based on family history and traumatic experiences. I would conduct this study by looking at killers families and studying their experiences and how they compare with the killers. I would also measure the serotonin levels in their brain along with the orbital cortex to see if they are similar to that of their killer ancestors.

First Impression Post 2

--Original published at Caitlin's corner

For this post I decided to watch the TED talk labeled, How We Read Each Other’s Minds. It was given by Rebecca Saxe, a cognitive neuroscientist. What drew me to this TED Talk was the name of it. When my best friend and I hang out, it’s very common for me to make a statement or suggest something, and she’ll exclaim, “I just thought that!” It happens more than sometimes we think it should and over really random things too. We try to find a reason for us both thinking that, but sometimes, it’s just really freaky. I relate to empaths a lot, so sometimes it is like I can read a mind, and that’s what I thought this might be about, but alas, it was not.

This TED Talk was about how humans can perceive and think about other’s thoughts and feelings and how we can potentially change them with magnetic impulses . The presenter showed data which proves as we age, our brains further development in a special region called, the Right Temporo-Parietal Junction. As a child, one cannot think accurately or rationally about other’s thoughts, as this region isn’t done developing until the early teens. The RTPJ’s specialized job is to perceive other’s thoughts, emotions, and feelings. Rebecca Saxe, the presenter, was a very reliable source of information, she showed vidoes of her studies and experiments in action along with the data she collected. Day to day, Rebecca Saxe studies how we think about other people’s thoughts. At the Saxelab at MIT, she uses fMRI to identify what happens in our brains when we consider the motives, passions, and beliefs of others.

I found the data Mrs. Saxe collected about before and after the magnetic stimulations fascinating. She explained a made-up scenario in which one person asked another to put sugar in her coffee for her. In scenario one, the sugar is labeled poison but is really sugar and she willingly puts it in the coffee, no one dies. Scenario two is where the sugar says sugar and is sugar and she’s fine. The third scenario is when the sugar is labeled sugar but is really poison, and she dies. Then people were asked to gauge how morally permissible the act is and how much the woman who put the ‘sugar’ in the coffee should be blamed. When asked without the magnetic stimulation, most people said it was not morally permissible in the first scenario and deserves more blame. The second scenario is morally permissible and deserves no blame. In the third scenario, they think it was morally permissible but she deserves some blame. However, when the magnetic wave was applied, it is reversed. She deserves more blame when she didn’t know it was poison but gave it anyways and less blame when she knew it was poison. This shows that when the RTPJ is not completely formed or functioning, it can cloud our thoughts on other’s thoughts and feelings.

I would want to know how this portion of the brain might deteriorate over time and if that might lend a hand to older generations not being able to perceive younger generations as well and potentially lead to intolerance or misunderstandings. I would just include older people in the study and make it a longitudinal study, so I could go back to the same people over-time and see how it changes. I would also ask them questions with varying difficulty.

Week 4 First Impression Prompts – Neuroscience

Hand writing on a notebook

Regardless of which prompt you choose, please use the Tag “Neuroscience” on your post.

For your blog prompt this week, you are to choose one of the following TED talks:

Each talk focuses on a different aspect of the brain. In your response, address the following issues:

What drew you to choose the talk you did?
Briefly summarize the talk.
What did you find most interesting about the talk?
How trustworthy did you find the presenter and the information she or he presented? Explain why. (Note: you must go beyond talking about the reputation of TED talks in general)
Come up with a research idea of your own based on the information presented in the talk and briefly outline how you would conduct it.

Because of the exam this week, the first impression post will be due by the beginning of class on Friday, 9/22. The refinement posts for this topic will be due at noon on Tuesday, 9/26. For refinement posts, I want you to focus on critiquing the assessment of why the presenter was or was not trustworthy and the research design for the proposed study your classmate creates.

I look forward to seeing what you write!

Header image: CC by Flickr user Caitlinator

“I Wish My Parents Were Like That!”

--Original published at Ashley's Psyche

The statement “I wish my parents were like that!” seems to be a familiar statement to most generations of children. Every child wishes that they could have a cool parent who lets them stay up late at night and eat sugary snacks whenever they want, but is that really the best way to raise a happy and healthy child?

In my eyes, I believe that the “best” way to parent a child is to maintain a supportive balance of being strict, but also lenient. Growing up with fairly strict parents, especially my father who was not raised in America, I did sometimes wish that my parents would let me do more things on my own or spend more time with my friends; however I still realize the importance of the strict treatment I received.

Due to the fact that my parents were strict, I developed a heavy sense of responsibility very early on in life. I knew the expectations that my parents held and pushed myself to meet them by making sure that I did my chores when asked, completed the schoolwork that I was supposed to, and did not do anything that would likely get me in trouble. I believe that in this sense, being strict with a child would allow them to develop this same sense of responsibility and gain the knowledge that in the “real world,” you cannot just do whatever you want whenever you want.

Nevertheless, I believe that it is also important to balance strict parenting with a sense of leniency. I commonly feel that I am not as independent as I could have been due to my constant need of permission from my parents that I had as a child. Independence plays an important role in decision making and problem solving, causing it to be a crucial trait for children to have. In order to instill this sense of independence in children, I believe that parents should still have rules set for their children, but allow them to make some decisions on their own, whether they are right or wrong.

But overall, whether a parent is strict, lenient, or balances both of these traits, it is most important that a parent is supportive of his or her child during growth. Showing your child any type of support during their early years will help them establish a healthy form of self-confidence that will benefit them later in life. For example, this type of support can be shown by using encouraging words with a child if he or she wants to give up on a task, or by praising a child for completing a task that he or she may have had difficulty completing. No matter what form the support may come in, I believe that it will ensure that the child will grow up to be happy, healthy, and a productive member of society.

Coke vs. Pepsi Taste Test Experiment

--Original published at Ashley's Psyche

What were the strengths of the research design?

One of the strongest parts of the research design for the Coke vs. Pepsi experiment was the random assignment of the independent variable. The independent variable in this case was if the taste tester received Coke or Pepsi in each of their five cups, as this was able to be manipulated by the Fluid Dispensing Engineer. The random assignment of Coke or Pepsi in each of the cups was done by flipping coin and pouring the corresponding drink for when it was heads or tails. Due to this process, whether Coke or Pepsi was in each of the cups can also be referred to as a true independent variable, due to its ability to be randomly assigned, which lessens the chance of a confounding variable being present.

Another strength of the research design was the prevention of bias as a confounding factor by keeping the Fluid Dispensing and Randomization Team separate from the Data, Logistics, and Analyst Team. The separation of these two groups was crucial as it prevented the Fluid Dispensing and Randomization Team from making any faces or saying any comments that would influence the Executive Soda Analyst while he or she tasted each drink, which would result in a confounding variable.

What were the limitations of the research design?

Two of the limitations that stood out in the research design were that there was neither a random sampling, nor a random assignment in regards to the person who held the position of Executive Soda Analyst.

There was a lack of random sampling in regards to the Coke vs. Pepsi research design as people who drank the drinks were only chosen from Dr. MacFarlane’s General Psychology class that occurs at 2 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Due to this fact, the results of the experiment cannot be generalized to the entire population of soda drinkers, as one class cannot be representative of the “people” addressed in the research question.

As well, there was a lack of random assignment in regards to the Coke vs. Pepsi research design as the Executive Soda Analysts were chosen by volunteer. Dr. MacFarlane asked those who believed very strongly that they could tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi to raise their hands, and proceeded to pick those people to be the taste testers. These was not an effective way to assign students to that role as confounding variables could then influence the experiment and provide invalid results. The question for the experiment was “can people tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi,” not “can people who think they can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi actually tell?”

What potential confounding variables were present in the study?

Potential confounding variables in the study could have been the amount of time it had been since the Executive Soda Analyst drank a Coke or Pepsi, the temperature of the soda, and the confidence level of the Executive Soda Analyst.

The amount of time it had been since the Executive Soda Analyst drank a Coke or a Pepsi can be considered a confounding variable as the taste tester who has not had Coke or Pepsi over a long period of time would struggle much more between the choose of both soda than a person who drink Coke, Pepsi, or both often.

The temperature of the soda can be considered a confounding variable as most people do not drink soda warm. The taste testers may know the taste of cold Coke or Pepsi better, and could therefore identify each drink easier than they did when it was warm, as it may have tasted different.

Lastly, the confidence level of the Soda Analyst can be seen as a confounding variable. Dr. MacFarlane chose only those that felt he most confident in their abilities to tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, meaning that each of the tester may have made snap judgement due to their over confidence.

Was the conclusion we drew valid? Why or why not?

The conclusion we drew was not valid due to the limitations and confounding variables of the research design. Due to the lack of random sampling, none of this information can be generalized to a bigger population. As well, due to the presence of so many confounding variables, there would not be a high level of confidence in the results of the experiment.

What are 5 specific changes you would make to the research design to improve the study?

Refrigerate each of the sodas so that they are cold for when the taste testers are drinking them.
Take a random sample from the entire campus population and not just one psychology class.
Randomly assign who will be a taste tester using a random number generator.
Give the taste tester a palate cleanser after each drink.
Have more than five trials.

Introduction!

--Original published at Alexis' Blog

Hi everyone!

My name is Alexis Trionfo and I’m going to be the TA for your class this year! I am a sophomore psychology major and I’m really excited to be working alongside you guys through blogs this year. I took general psychology my junior year of high school and during my first year at Etown I took neuroscience and abnormal psychology. I’m currently taking psychological statistics and social psychology. I really look forward to becoming a counselor of some kind outside of schooling. Other information about me is that I am working towards an art minor and a data analytics minor. I’m also an RA in Royer (1st floor) this year!

I’m looking to set up some office hours outside of the class to help you guys out and answer any questions you may have! I’ll post those once I can set a concrete time frame. Feel free to say hi to me if you see me around or ask me any questions; I’m the one with the pink hair and big glasses.

-Alexis

Impression Post week 3

--Original published at Site Title

There are many different ways that parents can raise their children. Some parent’s believe in a very disciplined home, while other families let their kids do as they please and allow them to have more free time. I think the past reflects on how hard the parents are on their children. If the parents grew up in a home where their parents were tough and hard on them, their likely to do the same to their kids. In addition, many families have different religions and that has a very big deal with what the children in the family are allowed to do and not allowed to do. In my opinion I think that the worst form of parenting is helicopter parenting. I think that if you pay too much attention to what their doing and are always up in their business, it causes stress to them and it makes them fell uncomfortable and constantly worried. My friend Andrew’s parents are like this, and I almost feel bad for him because he’s always on edge and can never feel at peace. For example, if we ever go out he’s constantly looking at his phone to check the time and not living in the moment. If I were a parent I would let my kid have free time and space but I would correct him if he ever did anything wrong. I would be hard on him but also let him know that I still love him no matter what. Sometimes parents are so hard on their kids, the kids them self start to question if their parents even like them. And that’s when the kids or teenagers make bad decisions and want to rebel. However this is just my own opinion on parenting.