Can you upload a human mind into a computer? A neuroscientist ponders what’s possible

The human brain has 86 billion neurons that make trillions of connections. Grafissimo/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images


Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com.

Is it possible to upload the consciousness of your mind into a computer? – Amreen, age 15, New Delhi, India

The concept, cool yet maybe a little creepy, is known as mind uploading. Think of it as a way to create a copy of your brain, a transmission of your mind and consciousness into a computer. There you would live digitally, perhaps forever. You’d have an awareness of yourself, you’d retain your memories and still feel like you. But you wouldn’t have a body.

Within that simulated environment, you could do anything you do in real life – eating, driving a car, playing sports. You could also do things impossible in the real world, like walking through walls, flying like a bird or traveling to other planets. The only limit is what science can realistically simulate.

Doable? Theoretically, mind uploading should be possible. Still, you may wonder how it could happen. After all, researchers have barely begun to understand the brain.

Yet science has a track record of turning theoretical possibilities into reality. Just because a concept seems terribly, unimaginably difficult doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Consider that science took humankind to the Moon, sequenced the human genome and eradicated smallpox. Those things too were once considered unlikely.

As a brain scientist who studies perception, I fully expect mind uploading to one day be a reality. But as of today, we’re nowhere close.
Living in a laptop

The brain is often regarded as the most complex object in the known universe. Replicating all that complexity will be extraordinarily difficult.

One requirement: The uploaded brain needs the same inputs it always had. In other words, the external world must be available to it. Even cloistered inside a computer, you would still need a simulation of your senses, a reproduction of the ability to see, hear, smell, touch, feel – as well as move, blink, detect your heart rate, set your circadian rhythm and do thousands of other things.

But why is that? Couldn’t you just exist in a pure mental bubble, inside the computer without sensory input?

Depriving people of their senses, like putting them in total darkness, or in a room without sound, is known as sensory deprivation, and it’s regarded as a form of torture. People who have trouble sensing their bodily signals – thirst, hunger, pain, an itch – often have mental health challenges.

That’s why for mind uploading to work, the simulation of your senses and the digital environment you’re in must be exceptionally accurate. Even minor distortions could have serious mental consequences.

For now, researchers don’t have the computing power, much less the scientific knowledge, to perform such simulations.

New and updated scanning technology is a necessity.
Scanning billions of pinheads

The first task for a successful mind upload: Scanning, then mapping the complete 3D structure of the human brain. This requires the equivalent of an extraordinarily sophisticated MRI machine that could detail the brain in an advanced way. At the moment, scientists are only at the very early stages of brain mapping – which includes the entire brain of a fly and tiny portions of a mouse brain.

In a few decades, a complete map of the human brain may be possible. Yet even capturing the identities of all 86 billion neurons, all smaller than a pinhead, plus their trillions of connections, still isn’t enough. Uploading this information by itself into a computer won’t accomplish much. That’s because each neuron constantly adjusts its functioning, and that has to be modeled, too.

It’s hard to know how many levels down researchers must go to make the simulated brain work. Is it enough to stop at the molecular level? Right now, no one knows.

Technological immortality comes with significant ethical concerns.
2045? 2145? Or later?

Knowing how the brain computes things might provide a shortcut. That would let researchers simulate only the essential parts of the brain, and not all biological idiosyncrasies. It’s easier to manufacture a new car knowing how a car works, compared to attempting to scan and replicate an existing car without any knowledge of its inner workings.

However, this approach requires that scientists figure out how the brain creates thoughts – how collections of thousands to millions of neurons come together to perform the computations that make the human mind come alive. It’s hard to express how very far we are from this.

Here’s another way: Replace the 86 billion real neurons with artificial ones, one at a time. That approach would make mind uploading much easier. Right now, though, scientists can’t replace even a single real neuron with an artificial one.

But keep in mind the pace of technology is accelerating exponentially. It’s reasonable to expect spectacular improvements in computing power and artificial intelligence in the coming decades.

One other thing is certain: Mind uploading will certainly have no problem finding funding. Many billionaires appear glad to part with lots of their money for a shot at living forever.

Although the challenges are enormous and the path forward uncertain, I believe that one day, mind uploading will be a reality. The most optimistic forecasts pinpoint the year 2045, only 20 years from now. Others say the end of this century.

But in my mind, both of these predictions are probably too optimistic. I would be shocked if mind uploading works in the next 100 years. But it might happen in 200 – which means the first person to live forever could be born in your lifetime.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Read More........→ Categories: ,,,
→

Fruit and honey fuelled the early evolution of the human brain

Jennie Brand-Miller, University of Sydney; David Raubenheimer, University of Sydney, and Les Copeland, University of Sydney

Intelligence is an energetically expensive luxury – as the rise of artificial intelligence has reminded us. The human brain is no exception.

Comprising roughly 2% of the body weight, it uses one fifth the body’s energy in the resting state – compared with less than half of this in non-human primates. A five-year-old child devotes 66% of the energy they need to stay alive to their brain.

How did our ancestors foot the energy bill to run their uniquely large brains? Eating more meat is often considered to be the answer. But there’s a catch. The brain relies on a form of fuel that is not present in meat: glucose.

Our new study, published today in Science, shows that carbohydrates contributed more than half our total energy requirements over four million years of evolution. It holds important clues for why we crave sweet foods today – and how we can eat more healthily.

The matter of meat

Many anthropologists have credited meat eating as the stimulus to produce a large brain. After all, it required tools to butcher the carcass and access the fat-rich marrow inside bones.

Protein and fat in fruit and leaves are dilute, requiring hours of chewing, while animal foods are dense sources that can be devoured quickly. Bone marrow is a rich source of essential fats.

In truth, humans do not require more protein as a proportion of energy than other primates.

Our increasingly large brains and high reproductive rate demanded carbohydrate calories (found in plants but not meat), while our taller and heavier bodies needed fat calories to move those big muscles.

Although the body can synthesise glucose from precursors such as amino acids, the process is finite and energetically inefficient. Furthermore, there are limits on using just protein as fuel. For example, it can lead to a type of poisoning known as “rabbit starvation”.

A minimum amount of dietary carbohydrate was necessary. Our new study shows that, for much of evolution, the sugars in fruit and honey were the source.

Modelling ancient diets

We modelled the diets of hominins – the group consisting of humans and our immediate ancestors – over four million years of evolution.

First, we calculated overall demand for glucose by the organs and tissues which use it as their primary source of energy. Apart from the brain, red blood cells and the kidneys require glucose.

We then accounted for reproductive needs. The fetus and placenta use glucose not just as an energy source but as a structural component of growing tissues. Synthesis of DNA, RNA and nerve cell membranes requires glucose. During lactation, women use about 80g of glucose each day to produce the sugars in human milk.

Then we modelled the availability of macronutrients – carbohydrates, fats and proteins – from foods, starting with the diminutive ancient ape known as Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis).

This early ancestor of ours walked on two legs, and was likely to be a ripe fruit specialist like chimpanzees today. Over two thirds of her energy came from naturally-occurring sugars.

Indeed, some scientists think frugivory – a feeding strategy primarily characterised by eating fruit – kick-started the evolution of large brains because, living in tropical forests, our ancestors required good cognition to remember when and where the best fruits were ripening. They needed strategic thinking to beat the birds and other competitors.

We finished up with the known diet composition of contemporary human foragers in warm climates. In six incremental steps, we incorporated increasing proportions of animal-based food, starting with 5% of calories and finishing with 35–50%.

Around one million years ago, mastery of fire allowed cooked starch, which unlike raw starch can be easily digested to provide glucose, to replace some of the sugars. Relatively recently, about 100,000 years ago, grinding stones and hearths indicate that the starch inside cereal grains became more accessible.

Lessons for modern diets

Did early hominins consume sufficient carbohydrate to cover the obligatory demands of the brain and other tissues? Yes, if you were a male, but only just if you were a pregnant female.

As we ventured out of tropical environments into cold and arid territory, the intake of carbohydrates would have become limiting. Plants would be plentiful, along with protein and marrow fat, but fruit and honey would be seasonal.

We speculate that limited amounts of dietary carbohydrate selected for genes that result in higher blood glucose levels. This would improve the growth and future survival of the fetus.

Today, the same genes likely predispose us to type two diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Low carbohydrate diets may therefore be helpful in specific clinical contexts.

But our findings provide an evolutionary explanation why healthy humans require about half their energy as carbohydrates. They also give us insight into why humans crave sweetness – a pleasurable signal on the tongue that encouraged foods that fuelled the mind and body millions of years ago.

Intrinsically, sugars are highly reactive molecules that are bundled in nature with antioxidants and other natural compounds that reduce harm within the cell.

Ideally, we consume them in that form – as fruit – rather than refined sugars.The Conversation

Jennie Brand-Miller, Emeritus Professor of Human Nutrition, University of Sydney; David Raubenheimer, Leonard P. Ullman Chair in Nutritional Ecology, Nutrition Theme Leader Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, and Les Copeland, Professor of Agriculture, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→ Categories: ,
→

Brain scans provide world‑first evidence dogs can distinguish between human fear and sadness

Mia Cobb, The University of Melbourne

What causes a dog to slink away from a cranky person, when they will quietly approach and lean against someone who is weeping? We’ve all seen it – they can respond to our feelings. And science agrees dogs have emotions too.

These social skills could underpin dogs’ success in living with us. But do you think your dog could tell an angry person’s face from a sad or fearful one?

New research published in the journal iScience explored that question, and revealed interesting findings from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of dogs’ brains.

Scanning dogs’ brains

Dogs are sensitive to human faces. They look longer in response to our emotional expressions and sounds compared with neutral ones.

Scientists weren’t sure whether dogs were just differentiating “good mood” (happy) from “bad mood” (angry, fearful or sad), or treating these expressions as genuine indicators of different emotions.

The new study, by Raúl Hernández-Pérez, a neuroscientist at the University of Vienna, and colleagues, explored this gap using MRI to scan pet dogs’ brains while they were viewing photos of human faces.

Building on their earlier work, the researchers found evidence that dogs do process images of our distinct emotional expressions differently.

The researchers used machine learning and showed that when looking at a dog’s whole brain, a different brain region was activated to distinguish between fear and sadness (the right rostral suprasylvian gyrus, to be precise), than between fear and anger (this was in the right mid ectosylvian gyrus and left splenial gyrus).

The analysis didn’t detect a difference in the brain areas activated when dogs were shown images of human anger and sadness. Fear stood out from the other negative emotions.

This raises the question: why?

It might be that fear and anger are simply more attention-grabbing than sadness.

Other research has found dogs react to fear and anger faster, and with a bigger physical response, such as a raised heart rate. This is likely because they’re the expressions most likely to call for a quick response from dogs to stay safe.

Sadness is less likely to pose a direct threat to dogs living with people, so they experience less urgency to respond to it. We know some dogs don’t respond with the heroic Lassie behaviour we might like when we are in distress.

Although the numbers in this new research were small (eight and twelve dogs across the two parts of the study), this is the first MRI-based proof-of-concept evidence that dog brains can distinguish between two human facial expressions of distinct negative emotions. It indicates dogs’ neural representation of our emotion goes beyond a simple valence (good/bad) split.

This shows us that perceiving emotion in others (even across species) isn’t handled by one single “emotion centre” in the brain – in dogs, in humans, or in other animal species. It’s spread across a network of regions working together as part of living socially.

A sense-ational result

The authors of this study point out that using still images of humans is a very people-centred way to explore how dogs interpret our emotional states.

We know dogs live in rich sensory worlds where the scent and sound of our speech also convey emotions, shaping how dogs respond to us.

In fact, even wolves who have grown up around people show the same kind of response to the odour of human fear as dogs. This highlights the important role of learning, as distinct from evolutionary differences in canid bodies or how they respond to people. Dogs (and wolves) are learning about us in every interaction we have with them.

Dogs are adept at watching, smelling, and listening to our emotions, learning how these signals predict our behaviours toward them, and using this information to live with people harmoniously.

Returning the favour, learning more about how dogs express their emotions seems like the least we can do.The Conversation

Mia Cobb, Research Fellow, Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→ Categories: ,,,,
→

What happens inside a tennis player’s brain as they try to return a 148mph serve?


Michelle Spear, University of Bristol

The fastest serve so far at this year’s Wimbledon tennis championships was struck by the Argentinian Thiago Agustín Tirante on the opening day.

His serve of almost 148mph (238km/h) was still some way under the Wimbledon record of 153mph, set by Frenchman Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard in 2025. And despite Tirante giving his opponent less than a fifth of a second to play each serve, he lost the match in straight sets.

Which means his rocket serves were successfully returned on lots of points. Our emerging understanding of how the human brain works can help explain how this feat is achieved.

Whether you’re a player or a spectator, the ability to see a tennis ball travelling that quickly across the court is a marvel of human physiology. At nearly 150mph, the ball is travelling faster than anyone can watch it move.

By the time your brain has processed the sight of the ball leaving the racket, it is already well on its way to the other end of the court. Yet professional tennis players return these high-powered serves with astonishing accuracy.

The reason is that they do not rely on reaction alone. Returning a tennis serve depends on one of the brain’s most remarkable abilities: predicting the future.

Predicting the future

Tennis players – and spectators – face the same basic problem: the visual information arrives in their brain slightly late.

Before a player becomes aware of a tennis ball hurtling across the court, light reflected from its surface has to be detected by their eyes’ retinas, converted into electrical signals, then transmitted along the optic nerves to the brain. There, the visual cortex begins analysing its colour, shape, speed and direction.

Even under ideal conditions, this takes around a tenth of a second. During that time, a ball travelling at nearly 148mph will have covered several metres.

For a spectator, this delay is rarely noticeable. The brain’s predictions are so accurate that the ball appears to move smoothly across the court, despite what you are seeing being a fraction of a second out of date.

But the player standing at the other end of the court needs to do a lot more than just watch the ball. They must move their body to that specific point on the court, position their racket and time their swing with great precision if they want to be in with a chance of winning the point.

In fact, much of this process begins before the ball has even left the opponent’s racket. It is an extraordinarily complex system.

How the brain works it all out

As the server prepares to strike the tennis ball, the receiver is already gathering information. The height and position of the ball toss, the rotation of the server’s trunk, the movement of their shoulder and forearm, the angle of the racket face and the speed of the swing all provide clues about what is about to happen.

Elite players have, of course, spent many thousands of hours learning to recognise these subtle biomechanical cues. Their brains combine the latest cues with all that previous experience to estimate the likely speed, direction and spin of the serve – before the ball has even crossed the net.

Central to this is the cerebellum, a densely folded structure tucked beneath the back of the brain. Although best known for coordinating movement and balance, advances in brain imaging and computational neuroscience have revealed it is also one of the brain’s great prediction engines.

Rather than simply responding to sensory information as it arrives, the cerebellum continuously generates internal models of how the body and external world behave. As fresh visual information reaches the brain, these models are updated almost instantaneously, allowing movements to be adjusted before conscious awareness has caught up.

But the cerebellum does not work alone. A specialised region of the visual cortex, known as area MT or V5, is exquisitely sensitive to movement, and calculates the speed and direction of the ball as it crosses the player’s visual field.

This information travels along the dorsal visual stream – often called the brain’s “where pathway” – to the posterior parietal cortex, where the ball’s position is integrated with information about the player’s own body.

The brain’s two visual streams

From there, premotor regions begin preparing possible movements. The supplementary motor area helps organise their sequence, and the primary motor cortex sends commands to the muscles of the trunk, shoulder, arm and wrist.

At the same time, the frontal eye fields and the superior colliculus (a small structure in the midbrain that rapidly redirects the eyes towards objects of interest) generate rapid eye movements towards where the ball is expected to be next – rather than where it was a fraction of a second ago.

This is why the fastest returns in tennis are not simply feats of lightning-fast reflexes. They are the product of a brain that is constantly making, testing and refining predictions. The players who appear to have more time have become exceptionally good at anticipating what will happen next.

Tennis and beyond

Neuroscientists are still trying to understand why some tennis players acquire these remarkable predictive skills faster than others. Is it simply a matter of hours spent on court, or are some brains naturally better equipped to build the internal models that underpin elite performance?

For now, the answer appears to be a combination of both.

Understanding how the brain predicts movement has implications far beyond tennis. Similar neural mechanisms help us catch a falling glass before it hits the floor, judge when it is safe to cross a busy road, or drive through traffic.

These predictive systems are becoming an important focus of neuroscience research. Insights into how the cerebellum and wider motor networks anticipate movement are helping researchers improve rehabilitation after neurological injury, understand disorders of movement and coordination, and design robots capable of interacting more naturally with an unpredictable world.

Meanwhile, insights from neuroscience might also help hone a future Wimbledon tennis champion.The Conversation

Michelle Spear, Professor of Anatomy, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→ Categories: ,
→

The brain rewires itself for motherhood. We now know more about how

Rosie Brown, University of Otago; Jenny Clarkson, University of Otago, and Michael Perkinson, University of Otago

Some of the strongest parental instincts happen without conscious thought. The urge to check on a sleeping baby. To stay close. To pick them up when they cry.

Becoming a mother also brings about an extraordinary shift in priorities. As the late British psychotherapist and author Naomi Stadlen wrote, “motherhood can be relentless. The dependency, the need, the constant pull of being someone’s entire world…”

For all mammals, raising young demands enormous time, energy and resources, requiring mothers to place their offspring’s needs ahead of almost everything else.

So just how precisely does the brain make that shift? Our newly published research sought to answer that question.

Using studies in mice, we identified part of the brain circuitry that drives a mother’s urge to interact with her newborn. We found an essential pathway linking a hormone-sensing region of the brain to its reward network.

Activated by the pregnancy hormone placental lactogen and the milk-production hormone prolactin, this pathway helps make caring for a newborn rewarding rather than simply necessary. Remarkably, we were even able to switch that drive on and off experimentally.

Observing a mother’s brain

We focused on a brain region called the medial preoptic area, known for decades to be a key controller of parenting behaviours. Many of its neurons carry receptors for placental lactogen and prolactin.

In earlier studies, we showed that mice without these receptors in this region were unable to care for their offspring after birth. What remained unclear was exactly how these neurons helped drive parenting behaviour.

Using specialised neuroscience techniques to observe these neurons in living mice, we found they became highly active when females came into close contact with pups. The response was much stronger in mothers than in females that had never given birth, with the biggest surge occurring at the very first meeting.

We then traced where these neurons send their signals. A subset of these neurons connect directly to the brain’s reward system, triggering the release of dopamine – the neurochemical that helps make experiences feel rewarding. Recent advances in neuroscience allowed us to watch dopamine being released in real time as mice interacted with their pups.

When we artificially activated this pathway, female mice that had never given birth behaved much more like new mothers. Faced with a barrier separating them from newborn pups, they climbed over it more quickly and repeatedly returned to the pups.

Interestingly, when we blocked the pathway, the opposite happened. Mice no longer showed the normal dopamine surge when meeting the pups and were slower to engage with them. Removing prolactin receptors from the pathway also reduced mother–pup interactions, while leaving other aspects of maternal care largely unchanged.

These new insights help explain why caring for a newborn becomes such a powerful priority after birth. Prolactin acts through this pathway to tune the brain’s reward system, making time with offspring rewarding rather than simply another task.

A peripartum puzzle

Although our work was conducted in mice, the same reward pathways are found in human mothers, with prolactin serving as the key milk-production hormone in all mammals.

The human brain undergoes huge and long-lasting changes during pregnancy, yet very little neuroscience research has focused on females – and even less has looked at how pregnancy causes changes in the brain.

The Ministry of Health estimates that 12–18% of New Zealand women experience depression, anxiety or other mental health conditions during pregnancy or after birth.

The World Health Organisation reports that globally, about 10% of pregnant women and 13% of women who have just given birth experience a mental disorder, primarily depression. In developing countries, this rate is even higher.

Yet there are few treatments that target the biological changes driving these disorders.

Our research aims to understand how the brain adapts during pregnancy and early motherhood to support healthy mood, with the goal of developing better ways to prevent and treat poor peripartum mental health.

We also hope this work will help reduce the stigma faced by parents who struggle to bond with their baby. Rather than personal failing, difficulties with bonding may reflect brain pathways that have not adapted as expected.

Given the profound changes the brain undergoes during pregnancy, it is perhaps unsurprising that this process does not always unfold smoothly. Parents and families deserve better understanding, support and treatment during this critical period.The Conversation

Rosie Brown, Associate Professor in Physiology, University of Otago; Jenny Clarkson, Research Fellow and Lecturer, Department of Physiology, University of Otago, and Michael Perkinson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Physiology, University of Otago

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→ Categories: ,,,
→

Study Finds Many Older Adults Will Improve Over Time–Depending on Their Mindset

Getty Images for Unsplash +

A new study by scientists at Yale University suggests that older individuals can and do ‘improve,’ in all the senses of that word, over time.

Analyzing the results of a large study of older Americans that ran for a decade, a key data point was that the individual’s mindset toward aging plays a major part in their success.

If they believed aging was a process of decline, they declined. If they believed aging was a process of refinement, they improved.


Lead author Dr. Becca R. Levy, PhD, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Yale School of Public Health (YSPH) found that nearly half of adults aged 65 and older showed measurable improvement in cognitive function, physical function, or both, over time.

The improvements were not limited to a small group of exceptional individuals and, notably, were linked to a powerful but often overlooked factor: how people think about aging itself.


“Many people equate aging with an inevitable and continuous loss of physical and cognitive abilities,” said Dr. Levy, an international expert on psychosocial determinants of aging health. “What we found is that improvement in later life is not rare, it’s common, and it should be included in our understanding of the aging process.”

The findings are published in the journal Geriatrics.

For the study, the researchers followed more than 11,000 participants in the Health and Retirement Study, a federally supported longitudinal survey of older Americans. The research team tracked changes in cognition using a global performance assessment, and physical function using walking speed—often described by geriatricians as a “vital sign” because of its strong links to disability, hospitalization, and mortality.

Over a follow-up period of up to 12 years, 45% of participants improved in at least one of the two domains, according to the study. About 32% improved cognitively, 28% improved physically, and many experienced gains that exceeded thresholds considered clinically meaningful.

When participants whose cognitive scores remained stable over that period (rather than declining) were included, more than half defied the stereotype of inevitable deterioration in cognition.

“What’s striking is that these gains disappear when you only look at averages,” said Dr. Levy, author of the book 

“If you average everyone together, you see decline,” Dr. Levy continued. “But when you look at individual trajectories, you uncover a very different story. A meaningful percentage of the older participants that we studied got better.”

As for why, Levy and her co-authors hypothesized that an important factor could be participants had assimilated more positive or more negative views about aging by the start of the study. In support of this hypothesis, they found that those with more positive age beliefs were significantly more likely to show improvements in both cognition and walking speed, even after accounting for factors such as age, sex, education, chronic disease, depression, and length of follow-up.

The findings build on Dr. Levy’s stereotype embodiment theory, which posits that age stereotypes absorbed through a range of domains including social media and advertisements eventually become self-relevant and biologically consequential.

Credit: Getty Images for Unsplash+

Dr. Levy’s prior studies have found negative age beliefs predict poorer memory, slower walking speed, higher cardiovascular risk, and biomarkers associated with Alzheimer’s disease. The current study shows that those who have assimilated more positive age beliefs often show improvement, Dr. Levy said.

“Our findings suggest there is often a reserve capacity for improvement in later life,” she said. “And because age beliefs are modifiable, this opens the door to interventions at both the individual and societal level.”

The improvements were not limited to people who started out with impairments. Even among participants who had normal cognitive or physical function at baseline, a substantial proportion improved over time. That challenges the assumption that later-life gains reflect only people getting better after being sick or rebounding from earlier setbacks, the authors said.

The authors hope their findings will reverse the popular perception that continuous decline is inevitable and encourage policy makers to increase their support for preventive care, rehabilitation, and other health-promoting programs for older persons that draw on their potential resilience. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/new-study-finds-many-older-adults-can-and-do-improve-over-time-depending-on-their-mindset/
Read More........→ Categories: ,,
→

Curious Kids: if our eyes see upside down, how does the brain flip the picture?

Daniel Joyce, University of Southern Queensland

I heard that we see upside down, but our brain flips the image. How does it do that?

–Jasmine, Mount Evelyn, Victoria

Our eyes work thanks to light. Objects we can see are either sources of light themselves – like a candle or a phone screen – or light bounces off them and makes its way to our eyes.

First, light passes through the optical components of the eyes such as the cornea, pupil and lens.

Together, they help focus the light onto the retina that senses light, while also controlling the intensity of light to help us see well while avoiding damage to the eye.

The function of the lens is to correctly focus light that comes from objects at different distances. This process is known as accommodation.

While performing this important task, light passing through the lens becomes inverted. This means that light from the top of the object falls lower on the retina than light from the bottom, which falls higher on the retina.

So, light exiting the lens to land on the retina is indeed flipped upside down. But that doesn’t mean the brain is actually flipping the picture “back”. Here’s why.

The orientation doesn’t actually matter

While the light being interpreted by the brain is “upside down” compared to the real world, the question is: is that actually a problem for us?

From your own experience you can tell the answer is probably no. We seem to navigate and interact with the world just fine.

So, where in the brain is the image flipped or rotated 180 degrees to be the “right way up” again?

You may be surprised to learn that vision scientists reject the idea a flipping or rotation needs to happen at all. This is because of how our brains process visual information.

The object you perceive is “encoded” by the firing of various neurons – brain cells that process information – in various locations in the brain. This pattern of firing is what encodes the information about the object you’re focusing on. That info takes into account the object’s relation to everything else in the scene, your body in the world, and your movements.

As long as the relative encodings of these are all consistent with one another, as well as stable, there’s no need for a flip to happen at all.

We can function with ‘upside down’ goggles!

Several studies have looked at how we adapt to large changes in visual input by asking people to wear goggles that flip the image coming in.

This means the image lands on the retina the “right way up”, so to speak, but upside down from what the brain has learned it should be.

In the 1930s, two scientists in Austria performed the Innsbruck Goggle Experiments. For weeks or even months at a time, participants in these studies wore goggles that altered the way the world around them looked. This included goggles that turn the incoming image upside down.

 
A person blinks while wearing an ‘invertoscope’ – goggles that turn the incoming image upside down. Dmitry Hoh/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

As you can imagine, people wearing these goggles at first found it really difficult to get by in their day-to-day activities. They would stumble and bump into things.

But this was temporary.

Participants reported seeing the world upside-down for the first few days, with difficulties navigating the environment, including trying to step over ceiling lights that appeared to them as on the floor.

Around the fifth day, however, performance seemed to improve. Things that were at first seen upside down now appeared the right way up, and this tended to improve with more time.

In other words, with continued exposure to the upside-down world, the brain adapted to the changed input.

More recent studies are beginning to identify which areas of the brain are involved in being able to adapt to changes in visual input, and what the limits of our ability to adapt might be.

Adaptation may even allow “colour blind” people to see colour better than is predicted from their condition.The Conversation

Daniel Joyce, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Southern Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→ Categories: ,,,
→

Why your brain has to work harder in an open-plan office than private offices: study

Since the pandemic, offices around the world have quietly shrunk. Many organisations don’t need as much floor space or as many desks, given many staff now do a mix of hybrid work from home and the office.

But on days when more staff are required to be in, office spaces can feel noticeably busier and noisier. Despite so much focus on getting workers back into offices, there has been far less focus on the impacts of returning to open-plan workspaces.

Now, more research confirms what many suspected: our brains have to work harder in open-plan spaces than in private offices.

What the latest study tested

In a recently published study, researchers at a Spanish university fitted 26 people, aged in their mid-20s to mid-60s, with wireless electroencephalogram (EEG) headsets. EEG testing can measure how hard the brain is working by tracking electrical activity through sensors on the scalp.

Participants completed simulated office tasks, such as monitoring notifications, reading and responding to emails, and memorising and recalling lists of words.

Each participant was monitored while completing the tasks in two different settings: an open-plan workspace with colleagues nearby, and a small enclosed work “pod” with clear glazed panels on one side.

The researchers focused on the frontal regions of the brain, responsible for attention, concentration, and filtering out distractions. They measured different types of brain waves.

As neuroscientist Susan Hillier explains in more detail, different brain waves reveal distinct mental states:

  • “gamma” is linked with states or tasks that require more focused concentration
  • “beta” is linked with higher anxiety and more active states, with attention often directed externally
  • “alpha” is linked with being very relaxed, and passive attention (such as listening quietly but not engaging)
  • “theta” is linked with deep relaxation and inward focus
  • and “delta” is linked with deep sleep.

The Spanish study found that the same tasks done inside the enclosed pod vs the open-plan workspace produced completely opposite patterns.

It takes effort to filter out distractions

In the work pod, the study found beta waves – associated with active mental processing – dropped significantly over the experiment, as did alpha waves linked to passive attention and overall activity in the frontal brain regions.

This meant people’s brains needed progressively less effort to sustain the same work.

The open-plan office testing showed the reverse.

Gamma waves, linked to complex mental processing, climbed steadily. Theta waves, which track both working memory and mental fatigue, increased. Two key measures also rose significantly: arousal (how alert and activated the brain is) and engagement (how much mental effort is being applied).

In other words, in the open-plan office participants’ brains had to work harder to maintain performance.

Even when we try to ignore distractions, our brain has to expend mental effort to filter them out.

In contrast, the pod eliminated most background noise and visual disruptions, allowing participant’s brains to work more efficiently.

Researchers also found much wider variability in the open office. Some people’s brain activity increased dramatically, while others showed modest changes. This suggests individual differences in how distracting we find open-plan spaces.

With only 26 participants, this was a relatively small study. But its findings echo a significant body of research from the past decade.

What past research has shown

In our 2021 study, my colleagues and I found a significant causal relationship between open-plan office noise and physiological stress. Studying 43 participants in controlled conditions – using heart rate, skin conductivity and AI facial emotion recognition – we found negative mood in open plan offices increased by 25% and physiological stress by 34%.

Another study showed background conversations and noisy environments can degrade cognitive task performance and increase distraction for workers.

And a 2013 analysis of more than 42,000 office workers in the United States, Finland, Canada and Australia found those in open-plan offices were less satisfied with their work environment than those in private offices. This was largely due to increased, uncontrollable noise and lack of privacy.

Just as we now recognise poorly designed chairs cause physical strain, years of research has shown how workspace design can result in cognitive strain.

What to do about it

The ability to focus and concentrate without interruption and distraction is a fundamental requirement for modern knowledge work.

Yet the value of uninterrupted work continues to be undervalued in workplace design.

Creating zones where workers can match their workplace environment to the task is essential.

Responding to having more staff doing hybrid work post-pandemic, LinkedIn redesigned its flagship San Francisco office. LinkedIn halved the number of workstations in open plan areas, instead experimenting with 75 types of work settings, including work areas for quiet focus.

For organisations looking to look after their workers’ brains, there are practical measures to consider. These include setting up different work zones, acoustic treatments and sound-masking technologies, and thoughtfully placed partitions to reduce visual and auditory distractions.

While adding those extra features in may cost more upfront than an open plan office, they can be worth it. Research has shown the significant hidden toll of poor office design on productivity, health and employee retention.

Providing workers with more choice in how much they’re exposed to noise and other interruptions is not a luxury. To get more done, with less strain on our brains, better design at work should be seen as a necessity.The Conversation

Libby (Elizabeth) Sander, MBA Director & Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bond Business School, Bond University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→ Categories: ,,,,
→

IIT Bombay’s new smart platform to help researchers decode brain diseases


(Photo: IIT Bombay) IANS

New Delhi, (IANS) A team of bioengineers at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay has developed new smart platforms --BrainProt and DrugProtAI -- that unify data on scattered brain diseases to help researchers find markers, explore treatments, and pinpoint druggable targets.

BrainProt v3.0 is a database that combines various types of biological data -- from genes to proteins -- into a single platform to enable systematic insights into human brain function in both healthy and diseased states.

It is the first system to integrate multi-disease data from genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and biomarker research and multi-database information into one portal.

“BrainProt also includes resources to identify and understand protein expression differences between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain across 20 neuroanatomical regions. This is the first resource of its kind,” said Prof. Sanjeeva Srivastava from the Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, IIT Bombay.

BrainProt includes data on 56 human brain diseases and 52 multi-omics datasets derived from more than 1,800 patient samples. These datasets include transcriptomic data for 11 diseases and proteomic data for six diseases.

For each disease, users can examine genes and proteins frequently associated with the disease, assess how strongly these genes and proteins are already supported by existing medical and scientific databases, and how their activity levels change in patient samples.

DrugProtAI was developed to understand whether a protein can be druggable (has the biological and physical characteristics needed to be a useful drug target) before doing costly experiments.

This is crucial because only about 10 per cent of human proteins currently have an FDA-approved drug, with another 3-4 per cent under investigation.

“Before investing years of work in a protein target, DrugProtAI predicts whether the protein is druggable by looking beyond the protein’s sequence, such as cellular location, structural attributes, and other unique characteristics it has,” said Dr. Ankit Halder, co-author of the study.

The tool generates a “druggability index” -- a probability score indicating how likely a protein is to be druggable. A higher score suggests that the protein shares many properties with proteins that already have approved drugs, while a lower score indicates that drug development would be more challenging.“By integrating DrugProtAI directly into BrainProt, we created a pipeline where researchers can move from identifying a disease marker to examining its expression patterns to evaluating its druggability and exploring existing compounds or clinical trials, all within an hour,” Halder said. IIT Bombay’s new smart platform to help researchers decode brain diseases | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com
Read More........→ Categories: ,,,
→

The science of weight loss – and why your brain is wired to keep you fat

When you lose weight, your body reacts as if it were a threat to survival. pexels/pavel danilyuk, CC BY
Valdemar Brimnes Ingemann Johansen, University of Copenhagen and Christoffer Clemmensen, University of Copenhagen

For decades, we’ve been told that weight loss is a matter of willpower: eat less, move more. But modern science has proven this isn’t actually the case.

More on that in a moment. But first, let’s go back a few hundred thousand years to examine our early human ancestors. Because we can blame a lot of the difficulty we have with weight loss today on our predecessors of the past – maybe the ultimate case of blame the parents.

For our early ancestors, body fat was a lifeline: too little could mean starvation, too much could slow you down. Over time, the human body became remarkably good at guarding its energy reserves through complex biological defences wired into the brain. But in a world where food is everywhere and movement is optional, those same systems that once helped us survive uncertainty now make it difficult to lose weight.

When someone loses weight, the body reacts as if it were a threat to survival. Hunger hormones surge, food cravings intensify and energy expenditure drops. These adaptations evolved to optimise energy storage and usage in environments with fluctuating food availability. But today, with our easy access to cheap, calorie-dense junk food and sedentary routines, those same adaptations that once helped us to survive can cause us a few issues.

As we found in our recent research, our brains also have powerful mechanisms for defending body weight – and can sort of “remember” what that weight used to be. For our ancient ancestors, this meant that if weight was lost in hard times, their bodies would be able to “get back” to their usual weight during better times.

But for us modern humans, it means that our brains and bodies remember any excess weight gain as though our survival and lives depend upon it. So in effect, once the body has been heavier, the brain comes to treat that higher weight as the new normal – a level it feels compelled to defend.

The fact that our bodies have this capacity to “remember” our previous heavier weight helps to explain why so many people regain weight after dieting. But as the science shows, this weight regain is not due to a lack of discipline; rather, our biology is doing exactly what it evolved to do: defend against weight loss.

Hacking biology

This is where weight-loss medications such as Wegovy and Mounjaro have offered fresh hope. They work by mimicking gut hormones that tell the brain to curb appetite.

But not everyone responds well to such drugs. For some, the side effects can make them difficult to stick with, and for others, the drugs don’t seem to lead to weight loss at all. It’s also often the case that once treatment stops, biology reasserts itself – and the lost weight returns.

Advances in obesity and metabolism research may mean that it’s possible for future therapies to be able to turn down these signals that drive the body back to its original weight, even beyond the treatment period.

Research is also showing that good health isn’t the same thing as “a good weight”. As in, exercise, good sleep, balanced nutrition, and mental wellbeing can all improve heart and metabolic health, even if the number on the scales barely moves.

A whole society approach

Of course, obesity isn’t just an individual problem – it takes a society-wide approach to truly tackle the root causes. And research suggests that a number of preventative measures might make a difference – things such as investing in healthier school meals, reducing the marketing of junk food to children, designing neighbourhoods where walking and cycling are prioritised over cars, and restaurants having standardised food portions.

Scientists are also paying close attention to key early-life stages – from pregnancy to around the age of seven – when a child’s weight regulation system is particularly malleable.

Indeed, research has found that things like what parents eat, how infants are fed, and early lifestyle habits can all shape how the brain controls appetite and fat storage for years to come.

If you’re looking to lose weight, there are still things you can do – mainly by focusing less on crash diets and more on sustainable habits that support overall wellbeing. Prioritising sleep helps regulate appetite, for example, while regular activity – even walking – can improve your blood sugar levels and heart health.

The bottom line though is that obesity is not a personal failure, but rather a biological condition shaped by our brains, our genes, and the environments we live in. The good news is that advances in neuroscience and pharmacology are offering new opportunities in terms of treatments, while prevention strategies can shift the landscape for future generations.

So if you’ve struggled to lose weight and keep it off, know that you’re not alone, and it’s not your fault. The brain is a formidable opponent. But with science, medicine and smarter policies, we’re beginning to change the rules of the game.

This article was commissioned as part of a partnership collaboration between Videnskab.dk and The Conversation. You can read the Danish version of this article, here.The Conversation

Valdemar Brimnes Ingemann Johansen, PhD Fellow in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen and Christoffer Clemmensen, Associate Professor and Group Leader, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, University of Copenhagen

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→ Categories: ,,,,
→

Rapid BP fluctuations may signal risk of brain degeneration in elderly

(Photo: AI generated image/IANS)

New Delhi, (IANS) Older adults whose blood pressure fluctuates widely may indicate a greater risk of brain shrinkage and nerve cell injury, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, reveals that short-term “dynamic instability” in blood pressure -- moment-to-moment changes measured over just minutes -- is linked to loss of brain tissue in regions critical for memory and cognition, as well as to blood biomarkers of nerve cell damage.

“Our findings show that even when average blood pressure is normal, instability from one heartbeat to the next may place stress on the brain,” said Daniel Nation, from the University of Southern California’s Leonard Davis School of Gerontology.

“These moment-to-moment swings appear to be associated with the same kinds of brain changes we see in early neurodegeneration,” added the Professor of Gerontology and Medicine.

While high average blood pressure has long been known to increase the risk of dementia, this study focuses on blood pressure variability, or how much blood pressure rises and falls over short time periods.

Recent evidence suggests that such fluctuations can strain small blood vessels in the brain and reduce their ability to deliver steady blood flow.

In this study, the researchers combined two complementary measures: Average Real Variability (ARV) and Arterial Stiffness Index (ASI).

ARV captures how much systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) changes between each heartbeat, while ASI reflects how flexible or stiff the arteries are as they respond to those changes in pressure.

Together, these measures indicate how much blood flow changes over a short period of time, or what the researchers call “blood pressure dynamic instability.”

"This study suggests that excessive fluctuations could be a sign of vascular ageing that contributes to brain injury,” Nation explained.

The team conducted MRI scans of 105 community-dwelling older adults between the ages of 55 and 89 who were generally healthy and had no major neurological disease.

Participants with both high ARV and high ASI were found to have smaller hippocampal and entorhinal cortex volumes -- brain regions vital for learning and memory, also the first affected by Alzheimer’s disease.

Blood samples showed that the same individuals also had higher levels of neurofilament light (NfL), a blood-based marker that rises when nerve cells are damaged.The findings open a new window into how cardiovascular changes contribute to cognitive decline and may offer novel prevention strategies. Rapid BP fluctuations may signal risk of brain degeneration in elderly | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com
Read More........→ Categories: ,,,
→

Poor sleep may make your brain age faster – new study

Abigail Dove, Karolinska Institutet

We spend nearly a third of our lives asleep, yet sleep is anything but wasted time. Far from being passive downtime, it is an active and essential process that helps restore the body and protect the brain. When sleep is disrupted, the brain feels the consequences – sometimes in subtle ways that accumulate over years.

In a new study, my colleagues and I examined sleep behaviour and detailed brain MRI scan data in more than 27,000 UK adults between the ages of 40 and 70. We found that people with poor sleep had brains that appeared significantly older than expected based on their actual age.

What does it mean for the brain to “look older”? While we all grow chronologically older at the same pace, some people’s biological clocks can tick faster or slower than others. New advances in brain imaging and artificial intelligence allow researchers to estimate a person’s brain age based on patterns in brain MRI scans, such as loss of brain tissue, thinning of the cortex and damage to blood vessels.

In our study, brain age was estimated using over 1,000 different imaging markers from MRI scans. We first trained a machine learning model on the scans of the healthiest participants – people with no major diseases, whose brains should closely match their chronological age. Once the model “learned” what normal ageing looks like, we applied it to the full study population.

Having a brain age higher than your actual age can be a signal of departure from healthy ageing. Previous research has linked an older-appearing brain to faster cognitive decline, greater dementia risk and even higher risk of early death.

Sleep is complex, and no single measure can tell the whole story of a person’s sleep health. Our study, therefore, focused on five aspects of sleep self-reported by the study participants: their chronotype (“morning” or “evening” person), how many hours they typically sleep (seven to eight hours is considered optimal), whether they experience insomnia, whether they snore and whether they feel excessively sleepy during the day.

These characteristics can interact in synergistic ways. For example, someone with frequent insomnia may also feel more daytime sleepiness, and having a late chronotype may lead to shorter sleep duration. By integrating all five characteristics into a “healthy sleep score”, we captured a fuller picture of overall sleep health.

People with four or five healthy traits had a “healthy” sleep profile, while those with two to three had an “intermediate” profile, and those with zero or one had a “poor” profile.

When we compared brain age across different sleep profiles, the differences were clear. The gap between brain age and chronological age widened by about six months for every one point decrease in healthy sleep score. On average, people with a poor sleep profile had brains that appeared nearly one year older than expected based on their chronological age, while those with a healthy sleep profile showed no such gap.

We also considered the five sleep characteristics individually: late chronotype and abnormal sleep duration stood out as the biggest contributors to faster brain ageing.

A year may not sound like much, but in terms of brain health, it matters. Even small accelerations in brain ageing can compound over time, potentially increasing the risk of cognitive impairment, dementia and other neurological conditions.

The good news is that sleep habits are modifiable. While not all sleep problems are easily fixed, simple strategies: keeping a regular sleep schedule; limiting caffeine, alcohol and screen use before bedtime; and creating a dark and quiet sleep environment can improve sleep health and may protect brain health.

How exactly does the quality of a person’s sleep affect their brain health?

One explanation may be inflammation. Increasing evidence suggests that sleep disturbances raise the level of inflammation in the body. In turn, inflammation can harm the brain in several ways: damaging blood vessels, triggering the buildup of toxic proteins and speeding up brain cell death.

We were able to investigate the role of inflammation thanks to blood samples collected from participants at the beginning of the study. These samples contain a wealth of information about different inflammatory biomarkers circulating in the body. When we factored this into our analysis, we found that inflammation levels accounted for about 10% of the connection between sleep and brain ageing.

Other processes may also play a role

Another explanation centres on the glymphatic system – the brain’s built-in waste clearance network, which is mainly active during sleep. When sleep is disrupted or insufficient, this system may not function properly, allowing harmful substances to build up in the brain.

Yet another possibility is that poor sleep increases the risk of other health conditions that are themselves damaging for brain health, including type 2 diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease.

Our study is one of the largest and most comprehensive of its kind, benefiting from a very large study population, a multidimensional measure of sleep health, and a detailed estimation of brain age through thousands of brain MRI features. Though previous research connected poor sleep to cognitive decline and dementia, our study further demonstrated that poor sleep is tied to a measurably older-looking brain, and inflammation might explain this link.

Brain ageing cannot be avoided, but our behaviour and lifestyle choices can shape how it unfolds. The implications of our research are clear: to keep the brain healthier for longer, it is important to make sleep a priority.The Conversation

Abigail Dove, Postdoctoral Researcher, Neuroepidemiology, Karolinska Institutet

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→ Categories: ,,,
→

Egyptians Performed Brain Surgery 4,000 years ago: A Discovery Called a ​​‘Milestone in the History of Medicine’

Evidence of the man’s malignant tumor – supplied by Tondini, Isidro, Camarós

As with many things, a discovery from ancient Egypt has put a time stamp on the development of something: cancerous tumor removal from the brain.

A man living sometime between 2,686 BCE and 2,345 BCE was nearing 40 when he developed malignant brain tumors, scarring on his cranial walls revealed.

But scientists studying the skull with micro-computed tomography (CT) scans found evidence of tiny cut markets from sharp implements, meaning that ancient Egyptian physicians were either attempting to remove the malignancies or were performing an autopsy to study them.

Either way, scientists at the Duckworth Laboratory at Cambridge in the UK say it’s a first in medical history.

“It was the very first time that humanity was dealing surgically with what we nowadays call cancer,” senior study author Dr. Edgard Camarós, a professor at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Coruña told CNN.

“If those cut marks were done with that person alive, we’re talking about some kind of treatment directly related to the cancer,” or “it means that this is a medical autopsy exploration in relation to that cancer.”

Evidence of cranial surgery from the Neolithic period has been found, but this is the first case of it involving cancer.

The medical knowledge of Egyptian physicians is known to be sophisticated, as several treatises and medical dictionaries have come down to us on papyrus. They detail lists of ailments and treatments, including one in which a woman is marked as having breast cancer tumors. Interestingly, one such text, called the Edwin Smith papyrus, notes there’s no cure or treatment for breast cancer.

It’s a fascinating indication that cancer was for these ancient physicians a kind of frontier science, and the tumors removed from the man’s skull would have been critical to expanding the scope of their understanding.Skull E270 – supplied by Tondini, Isidro, Camarós

Another skull from the Duckworth collection labeled E270, dating about 2,000 years later, also showed evidence that malignant tumors had damaged the bone. While the tumors were not removed, this woman’s skull had signs of a prior medical intervention for a fracture which she carried for years before her death.

In perhaps both cases, treatment to the skull would have been incredibly painful, and couldn’t not be accomplished neatly without some kind of anesthesia. The Egyptians must therefore have had ways to create powerful painkillers beyond the application of simple analgesic plants.

The Duckworth skulls provide an incredible snapshot of the capabilities of ancient surgeons, as well as demonstrate that cancer isn’t just limited to humans who enjoy the longer lifespans of today, but has instead played a role in human mortality even in the distant past.SHARE Thi Egyptians Performed Brain Surgery 4,000 years ago: A Discovery Called a ​​‘Milestone in the History of Medicine’
Read More........→ Categories: ,,
→
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)