People as old as 79 may still generate new brain cells like youngsters: Study


Tampa (USA): People as old as 79 may still generate new brain cells, US researchers said Thursday, stoking fresh debate among scientists over whether or when our mental capacity ever stops growing.

The report by scientists at Columbia University in New York, published in the journal Cell Stem Cell, runs directly counter to a different study published in Nature last month which found no evidence of new neurons are being created past the age of 13.

While neither study is seen as providing the definitive last word, the research is being closely watched as the world’s population ages and scientists seek to better understand how the brain ages for clues to ward off dementia.

The focal point of the research is the hippocampus, the brain’s center for learning and memory.

Specifically, researchers are looking for the foundations of new brain cells, including progenitor cells, or stem cells that would eventually become neurons. Using autopsied brain samples from 28 people who died suddenly between the ages of 14-79, researchers looked at “newly formed neurons and the state of blood vessels within the entire human hippocampus soon after death,” said the Cell Stem Cell study.

“We found that older people have similar ability to make thousands of hippocampal new neurons from progenitor cells as younger people do,” said lead author Maura Boldrini, associate professor of neurobiology at Columbia University. “We also found equivalent volumes of the hippocampus across ages.”

The findings suggest that many seniors may retain more of their cognitive and emotional abilities longer than previously believed. However, Boldrini cautioned that these new neurons might be less adept at making new connections in older people, due to aging blood vessels. Animals like mice and monkeys tend to lose the ability to generate new brain cells in the hippocampus with age.

Just how the human brain reacts to aging has been controversial, though the widely held view is that the human brain does indeed continue to generate neurons into adulthood, and that this “neurogenesis” could one day help scientists tackle age-related brain degeneration.

A study last month led by Arturo Alvarez-Buylla of the University of California in San Francisco found the opposite, however. Looking at brain samples from 59 adults and children, “we found no evidence of young neurons or the dividing progenitors of new neurons” in the hippocampi of people older than 18, he told AFP when the study was published. They did find some in children between birth and one year, “and a few at seven and 13 years of age,” he said.

That study was described by experts as “sobering,” because it indicated the human hippocampus is largely generated during fetal brain development. Alvarez-Buylla’s lab responded to the latest research in a statement, saying that they were unconvinced Columbia University had found conclusive evidence of adult neurogenesis.

“Based on the representative images they present, the cells they call new neurons in the adult hippocampus are very different in shape and appearance from what would be considered a young neuron in other species,” their response, published by the Los Angeles Times, said.

Boldrini, for her part, said her team used flash-frozen brain samples, while the California researchers used samples that were chemically preserved in a process that may have obscured the detection of new neurons. Source: ummid.com
Read More........

Our Brains Power Our Lives, Nourish It Daily


By Paul Ebeling: Our brain powers our lives. So, it is Key that we treat the brain as we care for our heart, or any other part of our body and it is critical that we begin focusing on brain health as early in our lives as possible.

Without course correction, cognitive functions actually start diminishing while we are in our 30’s. In fact, cognitive decline can begin 20 years before any symptoms start to appear.

But, loss of brain function as we age is not inevitable, and we can take measures early to protect the integrity of our brain function.

Maintaining brain health results from subscribing to a more active and healthy lifestyle as we grow older. Exercise, proper nutrition, healthful sleep and rest, stress management are among the lifestyle goals that must be addressed in order to maintain the health of our brain long term.

In contrast to what you may have heard, our genes do not fully determine our fate.

What we do on a daily basis to promote health and wellness, including our brain health can help prepare us to thrive as we age. As we continue to live longer than ever before, it is essential that we begin nourishing and supporting our brains early and correctly.

Keith Black, MD, is the Founder/Chairman and Professor, Department of Neurosurgery at Cedar Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles.

He has discovered 5 Key ingredients shown in clinical research to yield significant brain health benefits.

Together, Dr. Black and his Team worked to identify and thoroughly test ingredients, specifically designed for supporting the brain, Each ingredient has a special role and function to play within the brain.

The Key ingredients are, as follows:
  • DHA (Omega-3), an essential Omega-3 fatty acid, DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) that serves as a major structural component of the brain promoting optimal neuronal function and supports synaptic membrane structure and function, healthy neurotransmitter function, and support of the stability and fluidity of cellular membranes
  • EPA (Omega-3), another important Omega-3 fatty acid, EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) supports cognitive function for maximum brain health.
  • Fisetin, an important flavonoid (plant phytochemical) found in certain fruits and vegetables shown in animal studies to support memory and mental function. Fisetin’s antioxidant properties are believed to promote memory storage by forming strong connections between neurons in the brain, and provide support against free radicals
  • Decaffeinated Green Tea Extract, a naturally occurring polyphenols (compounds in plants that have antioxidant properties) that can help reduce the formation of free radicals in the body and have neurosupportive effects.
  • Vitamin D, which supports overall brain structure and function by working with Omega-3 fatty acids to support cognitive function and contains powerful immune support, essential for brain health.
Choosing to be proactive and help mitigate cognitive decline means that several actions are required for maximum effectiveness on brain function over time, including maintaining optimal BMI, refraining from smoking and minimizing alcohol consumption, engaging in regular physical activity and committing to well-balanced diet that is rich in Organic fruits and vegetables.


Switching to Real Food diets that are low in saturated fats, processed flour and sugar can stem irreversible progressive brain disorder.

Studies show that people who consume a lot of junk food and processed foods and do not get proper nutrition may end up having less brain cognition over time as they age.

Investing in your brain health now can change the path to cognitive decline.Our Brains Power Our Lives, Nourish It Daily - Live Trading News
Read More........

‘Mind-reading’ software could record your dreams

By Celeste Biever: Pictures you are observing can now be recreated with software that uses nothing but scans of your brain. It is the first “mind reading” technology to create such images from scratch, rather than picking them out from a pool of possible images.

Earlier this year Jack Gallant and colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, showed that they could tell which of a set of images someone was looking at from a brain scan.

To do this, they created software that compared the subject’s brain activity while looking at an image with that captured while they were looking at “training” photographs. The program then picked the most likely match from a set of previously unseen pictures.

Now Yukiyasu Kamitani at ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan has gone a step further: his team has used an image of brain activity taken in a functional MRI scanner to recreate a black-and-white image from scratch.

“By analysing the brain signals when someone is seeing an image, we can reconstruct that image,” says Kamitani.

This means that the mind reading isn’t limited to a selection of existing images, but could potentially be used to “read off” anything that someone was thinking of, without prior knowledge of what that might be.

“It’s absolutely amazing, it really is a very significant step forward,” says John-Dylan Haynes of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany.
Dream catcher

Kamitani starts by getting someone to look at a selection of images made up of black and white squares on a 10 by 10 square grid, while having their brain scanned. Software then finds patterns in brain activity that correspond to certain pixels being blacked out. It uses this to record a signature pattern of brain activity for each pixel.

The person then sits in the scanner and is shown fresh patterns. Another piece of software then matches these against the list to reconstruct the pixels on a 10 by 10 grid.

The quality of images that were recreated is quite crude. However, the word “neuron” and several numbers and shapes that people were indeed being shown (see image, top right) could be observed in the reconstructed images. It is an important proof of principle, says Haynes.

As fMRI technology improves, Kamitani adds that an image could potentially be split into many more pixels, producing much higher quality images, and even colour images.

The next step is to find out if it is possible to image things that people are thinking of – as well as what they are looking at – Haynes says it may be possible to “make a videotape of a dream”.
Ethical concerns

Haynes also raises the prospect of “neural marketing”, where advertisers might one day be able to read the thoughts of passers by and use the results to target adverts. “This [new research] specifically doesn’t lead to this – but the whole spirit in which this is done is in line with brain reading and the applications that come with that,” he says.

“If you have a technique that allows you to read out what people are thinking we need clearer ethical guidelines about when and how you are able to do this,” he says. “A lot of people want their minds to be read – take for example a paralysed person. They want us to read their thoughts,” he says. “But it shouldn’t be possible to do this for commercial purposes.”

Kamitani is well aware of the negative potential of the technology. “If the image quality improves, it could have a very serious impact on our privacy and other issues. We will have to discuss with many people – not just scientists – how to apply this technology,” he says.

Journal reference: Neuron (DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.004)' Source:https://www.newscientist.com/
Read More........

The neuroweapons threat

JAMES GIORDANO: James Giordano is a professor of neurology, chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program, and co-director of the O’Neill-Pellegrino Program in Brain Science and Global Health Law and Policy at...More

Nearly two years ago, Juliano Pinto, a 29-year-old paraplegic man, kicked off the World Cup in Brazil with the help of a brain-interface machine that allowed his thoughts to control a robotic exoskeleton. Audiences watching Pinto make his gentle kick, aided as he was by helpers and an elaborate rig, could be forgiven for not seeing much danger in the thrilling achievement. Yet like most powerful scientific breakthroughs, neurotechnologies that allow brains to control machines—or machines to read or control brains—inevitably bring with them the threat of weaponization and misuse, a threat that existing UN conventions designed to limit biological and chemical weapons do not yet cover and which ethical discussions of these new technologies tend to give short shrift. (It may seem like science fiction, but according to a September 2015 article in Foreign Policy, “The same brain-scanning machines meant to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease or autism could potentially read someone’s private thoughts. Computer systems attached to brain tissue that allow paralyzed patients to control robotic appendages with thought alone could also be used by a state to direct bionic soldiers or pilot aircraft. And devices designed to aid a deteriorating mind could alternatively be used to implant new memories, or to extinguish existing ones, in allies and enemies alike.”)

Despite the daunting complexity of the task, it’s time for the nations of the world to start closing these legal and ethical gaps—and taking other security precautions—if they hope to control the neuroweapons threat.

The technology on display in São Paulo, pioneered by Miguel Nicolelis of Duke University, exhibited the growing capability of neurorobotics—the study of artificial neural systems. The medical benefits for amputees and other patients are obvious, yet the power to read or manipulate human brains carries with it more nefarious possibilities as well, foreshadowing a bold new chapter in the long history of psychological warfare and opening another front in the difficult struggle against the proliferation of exceptionally dangerous weapons.

The full range of potential neuroweapons covers everything from stimulation devices to artificial drugs to natural toxins, some of which have been studied and used for decades, including by militaries. Existing conventions on biological and chemical weapons have limited research on, and stockpiling of, certain toxins and “neuro-microbiologicals” (such as ricin and anthrax, respectively), while other powerful substances and technologies—some developed for medical purposes and readily available on the commercial market—remain ungoverned by existing international rules. Some experts also worry about an ethics lag among scientists and researchers; as the September 2015 Foreign Policy article pointed out, a 200-page report put out last spring on the ethics of the Obama administration’s BRAIN Initiative didn’t once mention “dual use” or “weaponization.” In America, federally funded medical research with potential military applications can be regulated by Dual-Use Research of Concern policies at the National Institutes of Health, which reflect the general tenor of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Yet these policies do not account for research in other countries, or research undertaken (or underwritten) by non-state actors, and might actually create security concerns for the United States should they cause American efforts to lag behind those of other states hiding behind the excuse of health research or routine experimentation, or commercial entities sheltered by industry norms protecting proprietary interests and intellectual property.

In addition to a more robust effort on the part of scientists to better understand and define the ethics of neuroscience in this new era, one obvious solution to the neuroweapons threat would be progress on the bioweapons convention itself. In preparation for the biological weapons convention’s Eighth Review Conference at the end of this year, member states should establish a clearer view of today’s neuroscience and neurotechnology, a better understanding of present and future capabilities, and a realistic picture of emerging threats. They should also revise the current definitions of what constitutes a bioweapon, and what is weaponizable, and set up criteria to more accurately assess and analyze neuroscience research and development going forward.

I would also argue that the United States and its allies should take the proper security precautions in the form of increased surveillance of neuroscience R&D around the world. As a preliminary measure, government monitors can develop a better understanding of the field by paying attention to “tacit knowledge”—the unofficial know-how that accumulates among individuals in labs and other venues where a particular science is practiced or studied. (For more on tacit knowledge and arms control, see Sonia Ben Ouagrham-Gormley’s recent Bulletin article about its crucial importance for the bioweapons convention.) In a similar vein, authorities should also follow the neuroscience literature in an effort to assess trends, gauge progress, and profile emerging tools and techniques that could be enlisted for weaponization.

Of course these are only preliminary measures, easily stymied by proprietary restrictions in the case of commercial research and state-secret classifications in the case of government work. Thus deeper surveillance will require a wider effort to collect intelligence from a variety of sources and indicators, including university and industrial programs and projects that have direct dual-use applications; governmental and private investment in, and support of, neuroscience and neurotech R&D; researchers and scholars with specific types of knowledge and skills; product and device commercialization; and current and near-term military postures regarding neurotechnology. This type of surveillance, while requiring more nuanced and more extensive investigations, could produce highly valuable empirical models to plot realistic possibilities for the near future of neuroscience and neurotechnology. These could then be used to better anticipate threats and create contingency plans.

It’s important to note the danger of this type of surveillance as well. As a 2008 reportby the National Academies in Washington warned, increased surveillance could lead to a kind of arms race, as nations react to new developments by creating countering agents or improving upon one another’s discoveries. This could be the case not only for incapacitating agents and devices but also for performance-enhancing technologies. As a 2014 report by the National Academies readily acknowledged, this type of escalation is a realistic possibility with the potential to affect international security.

The United States and its allies should therefore be cautious if they deem it necessary to establish this kind of deep surveillance. And on the international front, they should simultaneously support efforts to improve the Biological Weapons Convention to account for neuroweapons threats in the offing.

Finally, they should keep in mind just how hard it is to regulate neuroscience and neurotechnology during this time of great discovery and expansion. Ethical ideals can be developed to shape guidelines and policies that are sensitive to real-world scenarios, but the flexibility of these approaches also means that they are not conclusive. Those charged with monitoring potential threats must be constantly vigilant in the face of changing technologies and fuzzy distinctions between medical and military uses, all while navigating the complexities of the health-care industry, political and military ethics, and international law. In light of the work ahead, it remains to be seen just how well the nations of the world will rally to face the neuroweapons threat.

Author’s note: The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of DARPA, the Joint Staff, or the United States Department of Defense. Source: https://thebulletin.org
Read More........

Why Men Find Switching Tasks More Difficult Than Do Women

It has long been known to science that women find it easier than men to multitask and switch between tasks. But identifying exactly which areas of male and female brains respond differently and why has so far been unclear. According to researchers from the HSE Neurolinguistics Laboratory, men need to mobilise additional areas of their brain and use more energy than women when multitasking.

Why Men Find Switching Tasks More Difficult

Needing to switch attention between tasks causes stronger activation in certain brain regions in men compared to women.

Although women find it easier than men to switch between tasks; how exactly their brains function differently in such situations has so far been unknown. Recent research reveals that male brains appear to consume more energy when they need to shift attention. In addition to this, in men there is greater activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal areas of the brain compared to women, as well as activation in some other areas which is not usually observed in women.

Such differences are typical of younger men and women aged 20 to 45, according to findings from experiments conducted by researchers Svetlana Kuptsova and Maria Ivanova of the HSE Neurolinguistic Laboratory, radiologists Alexey Petrushevsky and Oksana Fedina of the Centre for Speech Pathology and Neurorehabilitation, and Ludmila Zhavoronkova, Doctor of Biology and Senior Research Fellow of the RAS Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology. The study's findings have been published in Human Physiology, an international peer-reviewed journal.

Higher Activity, Slower Speed

Regardless of gender and age, task switching always involves activation in certain areas of the brain, more specifically, bilateral activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal areas, inferior parietal lobes and inferior occipital gyrus.

However, experiments conducted by Kuptsova et al. demonstrate that in women, task switching appears to require less brain power compared to men, who showed greater activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal areas as well as the involvement of supplementary motor areas and insula, which was not observed in women.

"We know that stronger activation and involvement of supplementary areas of the brain are normally observed in subjects faced with complex tasks. Our findings suggest that women might find it easier than men to switch attention and their brains do not need to mobilise extra resources in doing so, as opposed to male brains," explained Kuptsova.

The experiments involved 140 healthy volunteers, including 69 men and 71 women aged between 20 and 65. The subjects were asked to perform a variety of tasks. In one of the experiments using functional MRI, they were asked to perform a test that required switching attention between sorting objects according to shape (round or square) and number (one or two), in a pseudo-random order. In addition to this, neuropsychological tests were conducted, including the D-KEFS Trail Making Test to measure the subjects' ability to switch attention and the Wechsler Memory Scale test to measure their audial and visual memory.

The use of functional MRI allowed the researchers not only to observe the subjects' behaviour, but also to see what was going on in the brain as subjects switched between tasks and detect differences in brain activation between men and women.

Age versus Gender

The researchers found that the gender differences in the extent of brain activation when switching between tasks only occurred in subjects younger that 45-50, while those aged 50 and older showed no gender differences either in brain activation or speed of task switching.

According to the researchers, older men and women - starting at the age of 45 in women and 55 in men - experienced both increased activation of key areas involved and mobilisation of additional brain resources.

Brain Mystery

The study has once again confirmed that young women tend to cope with attention switching better than young men. While the reaction time is demonstrably different, according to Kuptsova, it is barely noticeable in everyday life, except perhaps that, "it might make a difference in really stressful circumstances or in critical situations which require frequent switching of attention."

However, science cannot currently explain the exact reasons for this difference. Any assumptions as to why nature might need it are nothing but speculation, Kuptsova argues.

For example, there is a popular hypothesis by American psychologist Jerre Levy as to why men tend to have better spatial skills while women are often better at more verbal tasks. According to Levy, these differences are caused by both evolutionary and social factors. In ancient times, men spent their time hunting, which required good spatial abilities, while women were caring for children and thus needed good communication skills. In the course of evolution, these survival skills have been passed down to future generations.

"We could continue with the same logic and assume that homemaking and caring for children historically required women to be good at multitasking, but there is no hard evidence to support this theory," Kuptsova concludes.

The study was hosted by the Centre for Speech Pathology and Neurorehabilitation.

Contacts and sources:
National Research University - Higher School of Economics (HSE)

Citation: Sex- and age-related characteristics of brain functioning during task switching (fMRI study) Authors Authors and affiliations S. V. KuptsovaEmail authorM. V. Ivanova, A. G. Petrushevskiy, O. N. FedinaL. A. Zhavoronkova. Human Physiology July 2016, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 361–370 2016 DOI: 10.1134/S0362119716040101 Source: http://www.ineffableisland.com/
Read More........