A recent UT Southwestern Medical Center study found that estrogen regulates energy expenditure, appetite and body weight, while insufficient estrogen receptors in specific parts of the brain may lead to obesity.
"Estrogen has a profound effect on metabolism," said Dr. Deborah Clegg, associate professor of internal medicine and senior author of the study published Oct. 5 in Cell Metabolism. "We hadn't previously thought of sex hormones as being critical regulators of food intake and body weight."
The mouse study is the first to show that estrogen, acting through two hypothalamic neural centers in the brain, keeps female body weight in check by regulating hunger and energy expenditure. Female mice lacking estrogen receptor alpha -- a molecule that sends estrogen signals to neurons -- in those parts of the brain became obese and developed related diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease.
Similar results were not seen in male mice, although researchers suspect other unknown estrogen receptor sites in the brain play a similar role in regulating metabolism for males as well.
Estrogen receptors are located throughout the body, but researchers found two specific populations of estrogen receptors that appear to regulate energy balance for female mice.
The findings are potentially important for millions of postmenopausal women, many of whom have decided against hormonal replacement therapy. The study could lead to new hormonal replacement therapies in which estrogen is delivered to specific parts of the brain that regulate body weight, thereby avoiding the risks associated with full-body estrogen delivery, such as breast cancer and stroke.
Doctors stopped routinely recommending long-term estrogen therapy for menopausal women in 2002 when a Women's Health Initiative study showed the hormone also led to increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
"The role of estrogen in postmenopausal women continues to remain uncertain," Dr. Clegg said. "Current research is focused on the timing and the type of estrogen supplementation that would be most beneficial to women. Our findings further support a role for estrogens in regulating body weight and energy expenditure, suggesting a benefit of estrogen supplementation in postmenopausal women."
Other UT Southwestern researchers involved in the study included lead author Dr. Yong Xu, a former postdoctoral researcher in Dr. Clegg's lab; Dr. Carol Elias, assistant professor of internal medicine; and Dr. Joel Elmquist, professor of internal medicine.
The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association.
Via: Sciencedaily
Empresas, Colegios, Psicoterapia, Programas de Reducción de Estrés
jueves, 20 de octubre de 2011
lunes, 17 de octubre de 2011
Pushing the Limits of Performance
Deceiving the brain can lead to an improvement of up to five per cent in sporting performance, according to research from Northumbria University -- news which could have a significant impact on athletes' chances in the 2012 Olympics.
In a research project, trained cyclists were asked to race against an avatar on a computer screen which they believed was moving at the rate of the cyclist's personal best.
However, the avatar was actually going at a speed one per cent faster than the cyclist's fastest time. Despite this, the cyclists, who could also see themselves as an avatar cycling the virtual course, were able to match their opponent, going faster than they ever had before.
Researchers believe this is because there is a reserve of energy production that can be tapped into, even in well-trained athletes.
In training, the mind anticipates the end of a bout of exercise in order to set an initial pace. Sensory receptors, which monitor the body's responses, feed this information back to the brain, allowing it to control the body's resources to last until the end of the exercise to avoid damage.
Professor Kevin Thompson, Head of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Northumbria University, who carried out the research along with PhD student Mark Stone, said: "We feel that this system is conservative and even in well-trained individuals, who have a well developed pacing template, there is a reserve of energy production which can be utilised to further enhance performance."
He added: "These findings demonstrate a metabolic reserve exists which, if it can be accessed, can release a performance improvement of between two and five per cent in terms of their average power output.
"At elite level sport, even an increase of one per cent in average speed can make the difference between somebody being placed in a race or not.''
The study found that adding a competitive opponent to motivate participants to access this reserve was not effective when the participant was aware that their opponent was exercising at a power output 2% or 5% greater, but was effective when participants did not know.
Prof Thompson added: "We believe a small deception of the brain can enhance performance. Despite the internal feedback to the brain being heightened by the extra power output being produced, the participants still believed it was possible to beat their opponent."
Vía: ScienceDaily
lunes, 10 de octubre de 2011
Brain imaging reveals why we remain optimistic in the face of reality
For some people, the glass is always half full. Even when a football fan's team has lost ten matches in a row, he might still be convinced his team can reverse its run of bad luck. So why, in the face of clear evidence to suggest to the contrary, do some people remain so optimistic about the future?
In a study published today in Nature Neuroscience, researchers at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London) show that people who are very optimistic about the outcome of events tend to learn only from information that reinforces their rose-tinted view of the world. This is related to 'faulty' function of their frontal lobes.
People's predictions of the future are often unrealistically optimistic. A problem that has puzzled scientists for decades is why human optimism is so pervasive, when reality continuously confronts us with information that challenges these biased beliefs.
"Seeing the glass as half full rather than half empty can be a positive thing – it can lower stress and anxiety and be good for our health and well-being," explains Dr Tali Sharot. "But it can also mean that we are less likely to take precautionary action, such as practising safe sex or saving for retirement. So why don't we learn from cautionary information?"
In this new study, Dr Sharot and Professor Ray Dolan from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, together with Christoph Korn from the Berlin School of Mind and Brain have shown that our failure to alter optimistic predictions when presented with conflicting information is due to errors in how we process the information in our brains.
Nineteen volunteers were presented with a series of negative life events, such as car theft or Parkinson's disease, whilst lying in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner, which measures activity in the brain. They were asked to estimate the probability that this event would happen to them in the future. After a short pause, the volunteers were told the average probability of this event to occur. In total, the participants saw eighty such events.
After the scanning sessions, the participants were asked once again to estimate the probability of each event occurring to them. They were also asked to fill in a questionnaire measuring their level of optimism.
The researchers found that people did, in fact, update their estimates based on the information given, but only if the information was better than expected. For example if they had predicted that their likelihood of suffering from cancer was 40%, but the average likelihood was 30%, they might adjust their estimate to 32%. If the information was worse than expected – for example, if they had estimated 10% – then they tended to adjust their estimate much less, as if ignoring the data.
The results of the brain scans suggested why this might be the case. All participants showed increased activity in the frontal lobes of the brain when the information given was better than expected, this activity actively processed the information to recalculate an estimate. However, when the information was worse than estimated, the more optimistic a participant was (according to the personality questionnaire), the less efficiently activity in these frontal regions coded for it, suggesting they were disregarding the evidence presented to them.
Dr Sharot adds: "Our study suggests that we pick and choose the information that we listen to. The more optimistic we are, the less likely we are to be influenced by negative information about the future. This can have benefits for our mental health, but there are obvious downsides. Many experts believe the financial crisis in 2008 was precipitated by analysts overestimating the performance of their assets even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary."
'Understanding the brain' is one of the Wellcome Trust's key strategic challenges. At the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, clinicians and scientists study higher cognitive function to understand how thought and perception arise from brain activity, and how such processes break down in neurological and psychiatric disease.
Commenting on the study, Dr John Williams, Head of Neuroscience and Mental Health at the Wellcome Trust, said: "Being optimistic must clearly have some benefits, but is it always helpful and why do some people have a less rosy outlook on life? Understanding how some people always manage to remain optimistic could provide useful insights into happens when our brains do not function properly."
Via:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/wt-bir100611.php
In a study published today in Nature Neuroscience, researchers at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London) show that people who are very optimistic about the outcome of events tend to learn only from information that reinforces their rose-tinted view of the world. This is related to 'faulty' function of their frontal lobes.
People's predictions of the future are often unrealistically optimistic. A problem that has puzzled scientists for decades is why human optimism is so pervasive, when reality continuously confronts us with information that challenges these biased beliefs.
"Seeing the glass as half full rather than half empty can be a positive thing – it can lower stress and anxiety and be good for our health and well-being," explains Dr Tali Sharot. "But it can also mean that we are less likely to take precautionary action, such as practising safe sex or saving for retirement. So why don't we learn from cautionary information?"
In this new study, Dr Sharot and Professor Ray Dolan from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, together with Christoph Korn from the Berlin School of Mind and Brain have shown that our failure to alter optimistic predictions when presented with conflicting information is due to errors in how we process the information in our brains.
Nineteen volunteers were presented with a series of negative life events, such as car theft or Parkinson's disease, whilst lying in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner, which measures activity in the brain. They were asked to estimate the probability that this event would happen to them in the future. After a short pause, the volunteers were told the average probability of this event to occur. In total, the participants saw eighty such events.After the scanning sessions, the participants were asked once again to estimate the probability of each event occurring to them. They were also asked to fill in a questionnaire measuring their level of optimism.
The researchers found that people did, in fact, update their estimates based on the information given, but only if the information was better than expected. For example if they had predicted that their likelihood of suffering from cancer was 40%, but the average likelihood was 30%, they might adjust their estimate to 32%. If the information was worse than expected – for example, if they had estimated 10% – then they tended to adjust their estimate much less, as if ignoring the data.
The results of the brain scans suggested why this might be the case. All participants showed increased activity in the frontal lobes of the brain when the information given was better than expected, this activity actively processed the information to recalculate an estimate. However, when the information was worse than estimated, the more optimistic a participant was (according to the personality questionnaire), the less efficiently activity in these frontal regions coded for it, suggesting they were disregarding the evidence presented to them.
Dr Sharot adds: "Our study suggests that we pick and choose the information that we listen to. The more optimistic we are, the less likely we are to be influenced by negative information about the future. This can have benefits for our mental health, but there are obvious downsides. Many experts believe the financial crisis in 2008 was precipitated by analysts overestimating the performance of their assets even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary."'Understanding the brain' is one of the Wellcome Trust's key strategic challenges. At the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, clinicians and scientists study higher cognitive function to understand how thought and perception arise from brain activity, and how such processes break down in neurological and psychiatric disease.
Commenting on the study, Dr John Williams, Head of Neuroscience and Mental Health at the Wellcome Trust, said: "Being optimistic must clearly have some benefits, but is it always helpful and why do some people have a less rosy outlook on life? Understanding how some people always manage to remain optimistic could provide useful insights into happens when our brains do not function properly."
###
The research was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the British Academy and the German Academic Exchange Service. Via:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/wt-bir100611.php
miércoles, 5 de octubre de 2011
How Your Brain Reacts To Mistakes Depends On Your Mindset
“Whether you think you can or think you can’t—you’re right,” said Henry Ford. A new study, to be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, finds that people who think they can learn from their mistakes have a different brain reaction to mistakes than people who think intelligence is fixed.
“One big difference between people who think intelligence is malleable and those who think intelligence is fixed is how they respond to mistakes,” says Jason S. Moser, of Michigan State University, who collaborated on the new study with Hans S. Schroder, Carrie Heeter, Tim P. Moran, and Yu-Hao Lee. Studies have found that people who think intelligence is malleable say things like, “When the going gets tough, I put in more effort” or “If I make a mistake, I try to learn and figure it out.” On the other hand, people who think that they can’t get smarter will not take opportunities to learn from their mistakes. This can be a problem in school, for example; a student who thinks her intelligence is fixed will think it’s not worth bothering to try harder after she fails a test.
For this study, Moser and his colleagues gave participants a task that is easy to make a mistake on. They were supposed to identify the middle letter of a five-letter series like “MMMMM” or “NNMNN.” Sometimes the middle letter was the same as the other four, and sometimes it was different. “It’s pretty simple, doing the same thing over and over, but the mind can’t help it; it just kind of zones out from time to time,” Moser says. That’s when people make mistakes—and they notice it immediately, and feel stupid.
While doing the task, the participant wore a cap on his or her head that records electrical activity in the brain. When someone makes a mistake, their brain makes two quick signals: an initial response that indicates something has gone awry—Moser calls it the “’oh crap’ response”—and a second that indicates the person is consciously aware of the mistake and is trying to right the wrong. Both signals occur within a quarter of a second of the mistake. After the experiment, the researchers found out whether people believed they could learn from their mistakes or not.
People who think they can learn from their mistakes did better after making a mistake – in other words, they successfully bounced back after an error. Their brains also reacted differently, producing a bigger second signal, the one that says “I see that I’ve made a mistake, so I should pay more attention” Moser says.
The research shows that these people are different on a fundamental level, Moser says. “This might help us understand why exactly the two types of individuals show different behaviors after mistakes.” People who think they can learn from their mistakes have brains that are tuned to pay more attention to mistakes, he says. This research could help in training people to believe that they can work harder and learn more, by showing how their brain is reacting to mistakes.
via: http://www.psychologicalscience.org
“One big difference between people who think intelligence is malleable and those who think intelligence is fixed is how they respond to mistakes,” says Jason S. Moser, of Michigan State University, who collaborated on the new study with Hans S. Schroder, Carrie Heeter, Tim P. Moran, and Yu-Hao Lee. Studies have found that people who think intelligence is malleable say things like, “When the going gets tough, I put in more effort” or “If I make a mistake, I try to learn and figure it out.” On the other hand, people who think that they can’t get smarter will not take opportunities to learn from their mistakes. This can be a problem in school, for example; a student who thinks her intelligence is fixed will think it’s not worth bothering to try harder after she fails a test.For this study, Moser and his colleagues gave participants a task that is easy to make a mistake on. They were supposed to identify the middle letter of a five-letter series like “MMMMM” or “NNMNN.” Sometimes the middle letter was the same as the other four, and sometimes it was different. “It’s pretty simple, doing the same thing over and over, but the mind can’t help it; it just kind of zones out from time to time,” Moser says. That’s when people make mistakes—and they notice it immediately, and feel stupid.
While doing the task, the participant wore a cap on his or her head that records electrical activity in the brain. When someone makes a mistake, their brain makes two quick signals: an initial response that indicates something has gone awry—Moser calls it the “’oh crap’ response”—and a second that indicates the person is consciously aware of the mistake and is trying to right the wrong. Both signals occur within a quarter of a second of the mistake. After the experiment, the researchers found out whether people believed they could learn from their mistakes or not.
People who think they can learn from their mistakes did better after making a mistake – in other words, they successfully bounced back after an error. Their brains also reacted differently, producing a bigger second signal, the one that says “I see that I’ve made a mistake, so I should pay more attention” Moser says.
The research shows that these people are different on a fundamental level, Moser says. “This might help us understand why exactly the two types of individuals show different behaviors after mistakes.” People who think they can learn from their mistakes have brains that are tuned to pay more attention to mistakes, he says. This research could help in training people to believe that they can work harder and learn more, by showing how their brain is reacting to mistakes.
###
For more information about this study, please contact: Jason S. Moser at jmoser@msu.edu. via: http://www.psychologicalscience.org
martes, 4 de octubre de 2011
National Geographic: Teenage Brains
Moody. Impulsive. Maddening. Why do teenagers act the way they do? Viewed through the eyes of evolution, their most exasperating traits may be the key to success as adults.
See the rest of the note by clicking the link below:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text/1
viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2011
Científicos sustituyen con éxito el cerebelo de una rata por un chip
Un equipo de investigadores de la Universidad de Tel Aviv, en Israel, ha logrado restaurar en una rata una función cerebral previamente inhabilitada, mediante el implante de un cerebelo artificial. Este avance abre una nueva vía a la posibilidad de desarrollar implantes cerebrales que sustituyan áreas del cerebro humano dañadas por infartos cerebrales u otras condiciones. Estos implantes podrían ayudar incluso a recuperar procesos de aprendizaje perdidos por efecto del envejecimiento.
Un equipo de investigadores de la Universidad de Tel Aviv (TAU), en Israel, ha logrado restaurar en una rata una función cerebral previamente inhabilitada, mediante el implante de un cerebelo artificial.
Este avance abre una nueva vía a la posibilidad de desarrollar implantes cerebrales que sustituyan áreas del cerebro humano dañadas por infartos cerebrales u otras condiciones. Estos implantes podrían ayudar incluso a recuperar procesos de aprendizaje perdidos por efecto del envejecimiento.
Comunicación en dos direcciones
Según publica la revista Newscientist, los implantes de cóclea o las extremidades artificiales han probado ya que es posible conectar dispositivos electrónicos al cerebro. Sin embargo, hasta ahora, estos dispositivos han permitido sólo la comunicación en una dirección, desde el dispositivo hasta el cerebro o viceversa.
Lo que han conseguido el investigador de la Universidad de Tel Aviv, Matti Mintz, y sus colaboradores ha sido crear un cerebelo sintético que puede recibir señales sensoriales del tronco cerebral, una región que actúa como medio de transmisión de la información neurológica procedente del resto del cuerpo.
Pero no sólo eso: este cerebelo artificial es capaz de interpretar dichas señales y, después, enviar una señal a otra región diferente del mismo tronco cerebral, que a su vez impulsa a las neuronas motoras para que se ejecute un movimiento.
Según explicó Mintz en el último encuentro Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, organizado por la Sens Foundation de California y celebrado en Cambridge, este logro probaría que se puede “registrar información procedente del cerebro, analizarla de manera similar a como lo hace la red biológica, y devolverla al cerebro de nuevo”.
Desarrollo del experimento
Una de las funciones del cerebelo natural es ayudar a coordinar y a cronometrar los movimientos. Esto, junto al hecho de que el cerebelo tiene una arquitectura neuronal sencilla, lo convierte en una región del cerebro óptima para su reproducción sintética. Mintz afirma que “conocemos la anatomía del cerebelo y algunos de sus comportamientos casi perfectamente”.
Los científicos analizaron las señales enviadas a un cerebelo real y las señales que éste generaba como respuesta. Después, usaron esta información para crear una versión artificial del cerebelo en un chip, que fue situado en el exterior del cráneo de la rata y conectado al cerebro de ésta a través de electrodos.
Este avance abre una nueva vía a la posibilidad de desarrollar implantes cerebrales que sustituyan áreas del cerebro humano dañadas por infartos cerebrales u otras condiciones. Estos implantes podrían ayudar incluso a recuperar procesos de aprendizaje perdidos por efecto del envejecimiento.
Comunicación en dos direcciones
Según publica la revista Newscientist, los implantes de cóclea o las extremidades artificiales han probado ya que es posible conectar dispositivos electrónicos al cerebro. Sin embargo, hasta ahora, estos dispositivos han permitido sólo la comunicación en una dirección, desde el dispositivo hasta el cerebro o viceversa.
Lo que han conseguido el investigador de la Universidad de Tel Aviv, Matti Mintz, y sus colaboradores ha sido crear un cerebelo sintético que puede recibir señales sensoriales del tronco cerebral, una región que actúa como medio de transmisión de la información neurológica procedente del resto del cuerpo.
Pero no sólo eso: este cerebelo artificial es capaz de interpretar dichas señales y, después, enviar una señal a otra región diferente del mismo tronco cerebral, que a su vez impulsa a las neuronas motoras para que se ejecute un movimiento.
Según explicó Mintz en el último encuentro Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, organizado por la Sens Foundation de California y celebrado en Cambridge, este logro probaría que se puede “registrar información procedente del cerebro, analizarla de manera similar a como lo hace la red biológica, y devolverla al cerebro de nuevo”.
Desarrollo del experimento
Una de las funciones del cerebelo natural es ayudar a coordinar y a cronometrar los movimientos. Esto, junto al hecho de que el cerebelo tiene una arquitectura neuronal sencilla, lo convierte en una región del cerebro óptima para su reproducción sintética. Mintz afirma que “conocemos la anatomía del cerebelo y algunos de sus comportamientos casi perfectamente”.
Los científicos analizaron las señales enviadas a un cerebelo real y las señales que éste generaba como respuesta. Después, usaron esta información para crear una versión artificial del cerebelo en un chip, que fue situado en el exterior del cráneo de la rata y conectado al cerebro de ésta a través de electrodos.
Para probar el chip, en primer lugar se anestesió a la rata y se le incapacitó su cerebelo real. Después, se intentó enseñar al animal un reflejo motor condicionado, un parpadeo, mediante la combinación de un tono auditivo y una ráfaga de aire vertida sobre sus ojos.
El animal fue incapaz de aprender este reflejo antes de que le fuera incorporado el chip. Sin embargo, una vez que le fue conectado el cerebelo sintético, se comportó como un animal corriente, y aprendió a relacionar el sonido con la necesidad de parpadear. Por tanto, el circuito artificial funcionó como un circuito neurológico natural.
El siguiente paso que pretenden dar los investigadores es modelar áreas más extensas del cerebelo, que permitan aprender secuencias de movimientos, y probar un nuevo chip con estas características en otro animal consciente.
Según uno de los colaboradores de Mintz, el investigador Robert Prueckl, de Guger Technologies en Graz, Austria, nuevos avances podrían producirse con el desarrollo de softwares mejorados y mejores técnicas de implantación de electrodos. El objetivo último será fabricar chips que mimeticen áreas complejas del cerebro.
Contexto de la investigación
En su presentación en el encuentro de la Sens Foundation, Mintz explicó que la calidad y la esperanza de vida humanas se ven condicionadas por numerosas enfermedades cerebrales. En la actualidad, la recuperación de estos problemas está basada en intervenciones dirigidas a la activación de procesos de auto-reparación cerebral.
Se espera que futuros avances en intervenciones biológicas, como las intervenciones genéticas o las terapias con células madre puedan promover la recuperación neuronal. Pero otra estrategia factible sería la de sustituir microcircuitos neuronales naturales por sus análogos sintéticos.
Décadas de interacción entre las investigaciones científicas, los desarrollos tecnológicos y la demanda clínica creciente han dado lugar a nuevas técnicas de registro y estimulación de diversas áreas del cerebro.
Hasta la fecha, la estimulación del cerebro ha conseguido paliar una gama de síntomas del Parkinson o del Trastorno obsesivo-compulsivo (TOC), y los análisis en regiones cerebrales profundas han permitido detectar el origen neuronal de los ataques epilépticos. La esperanza es que estas dos técnicas puedan ser interconectadas por un procesador a tiempo real, y utilizadas en sincronía con el cerebro.
“Nuestro objetivo”, escribe Mintz, “era probar la factibilidad de una metodología híbrida de circuito cerrado para la rehabilitación de funciones cerebrales, mediante la sustitución de un microcircuito cerebral dañado”. Los resultados obtenidos han demostrado que esta metodología funciona.
Avance previo
En junio de 2010, Mintz y sus colaboradores anunciaron la creación de otro chip, el Rehabilitation Nano Chip o ReNaChip, capaz de proporcionar una estimulación precisa a regiones profundas del cerebro, lo que permitiría aliviar los efectos de trastornos como la depresión o el Parkinson. Estos trastornos requieren de una estimulación neuronal de gran precisión.
Pero, además, según publicó la Universidad de Tel Aviv en un comunicado, el ReNaChip podría usarse en un futuro para restaurar funciones cerebrales perdidas después de un traumatismo producido por un accidente de tráfico o un infarto cerebral.
La metodología utilizada por los investigadores en este caso consistió en registrar actividad neuronal a través de electrodos implantados en áreas dañadas del cerebro. A partir del análisis de esta actividad, se desarrollaron algoritmos para la estimulación de la actividad neuronal corriente, que fueron programados dentro del microchip para su posterior implantación en el cerebro.
Fuente: Tendencias21.net
El animal fue incapaz de aprender este reflejo antes de que le fuera incorporado el chip. Sin embargo, una vez que le fue conectado el cerebelo sintético, se comportó como un animal corriente, y aprendió a relacionar el sonido con la necesidad de parpadear. Por tanto, el circuito artificial funcionó como un circuito neurológico natural.
El siguiente paso que pretenden dar los investigadores es modelar áreas más extensas del cerebelo, que permitan aprender secuencias de movimientos, y probar un nuevo chip con estas características en otro animal consciente.
Según uno de los colaboradores de Mintz, el investigador Robert Prueckl, de Guger Technologies en Graz, Austria, nuevos avances podrían producirse con el desarrollo de softwares mejorados y mejores técnicas de implantación de electrodos. El objetivo último será fabricar chips que mimeticen áreas complejas del cerebro.
Contexto de la investigación
En su presentación en el encuentro de la Sens Foundation, Mintz explicó que la calidad y la esperanza de vida humanas se ven condicionadas por numerosas enfermedades cerebrales. En la actualidad, la recuperación de estos problemas está basada en intervenciones dirigidas a la activación de procesos de auto-reparación cerebral.
Se espera que futuros avances en intervenciones biológicas, como las intervenciones genéticas o las terapias con células madre puedan promover la recuperación neuronal. Pero otra estrategia factible sería la de sustituir microcircuitos neuronales naturales por sus análogos sintéticos.
Décadas de interacción entre las investigaciones científicas, los desarrollos tecnológicos y la demanda clínica creciente han dado lugar a nuevas técnicas de registro y estimulación de diversas áreas del cerebro.
Hasta la fecha, la estimulación del cerebro ha conseguido paliar una gama de síntomas del Parkinson o del Trastorno obsesivo-compulsivo (TOC), y los análisis en regiones cerebrales profundas han permitido detectar el origen neuronal de los ataques epilépticos. La esperanza es que estas dos técnicas puedan ser interconectadas por un procesador a tiempo real, y utilizadas en sincronía con el cerebro.
“Nuestro objetivo”, escribe Mintz, “era probar la factibilidad de una metodología híbrida de circuito cerrado para la rehabilitación de funciones cerebrales, mediante la sustitución de un microcircuito cerebral dañado”. Los resultados obtenidos han demostrado que esta metodología funciona.
Avance previo
En junio de 2010, Mintz y sus colaboradores anunciaron la creación de otro chip, el Rehabilitation Nano Chip o ReNaChip, capaz de proporcionar una estimulación precisa a regiones profundas del cerebro, lo que permitiría aliviar los efectos de trastornos como la depresión o el Parkinson. Estos trastornos requieren de una estimulación neuronal de gran precisión.
Pero, además, según publicó la Universidad de Tel Aviv en un comunicado, el ReNaChip podría usarse en un futuro para restaurar funciones cerebrales perdidas después de un traumatismo producido por un accidente de tráfico o un infarto cerebral.
La metodología utilizada por los investigadores en este caso consistió en registrar actividad neuronal a través de electrodos implantados en áreas dañadas del cerebro. A partir del análisis de esta actividad, se desarrollaron algoritmos para la estimulación de la actividad neuronal corriente, que fueron programados dentro del microchip para su posterior implantación en el cerebro.
Fuente: Tendencias21.net
martes, 27 de septiembre de 2011
Brain rhythms are key to learning
New study from MIT neuroscientists finds that brain waves shift frequency as a new task becomes routine.
Neuroscientists have long known of the existence of brain waves — rhythmic fluctuations of electrical activity believed to reflect the brain’s state. For example, during rest, brain activity slows down to an alpha rhythm of about eight to 10 hertz, or cycles per second.
It has been unclear what role, if any, these waves play in cognitive functions such as learning and memory. But now, a study from MIT neuroscientists shows that a switch between two of these rhythms is critical for learning habitual behavior.
In a paper appearing this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the researchers report that as rats learn to run a maze, activity in a brain region that controls habit formation shifts from a fast, chaotic rhythm to a slower, more synchronized pace. That switch, which occurs just as the rats start to master the maze, likely signals that a habit has been formed, says MIT Institute Professor Ann Graybiel, senior author of the PNAS paper.
This is a major clue to how the brain reorganizes itself during learning, says Graybiel, who is also a principal investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT.
Rhythms in the brain
Several brain waves of different frequencies have been observed in humans and other animals. This paper focused on beta waves, which range from 15 to 28 hertz, and high gamma waves, which range from 70 to 90 hertz. The beta band is associated with a lack of movement, and gamma with highly attentive states.
Graybiel and graduate student Mark Howe, lead author of the paper, set out to see if they could link these rhythms with the changes in brain state that accompany learning.
Graybiel’s lab has previously shown that patterns of electrical activity in a part of the brain known as the basal ganglia are critical for habit formation. Habits begin when you gain some benefit for taking a particular action, but eventually the behavior becomes ingrained and you do it even when you no longer get the reward. In extreme cases, this could mean continuing to scratch part of the body even after it stops itching, for example.
In this study, Howe looked at brain rhythms in a region at the very bottom of the basal ganglia, known as the ventral striatum. This area is necessary for responding to pain or pleasure, and is also highly involved in addiction.
Brain activity was measured as rats ran along a T-shaped maze, in which they had to learn to turn left or right in response to a sound. If they made the correct turn and reached the end of the maze, they received a reward: chocolate milk.
In the first few runs, while the rats were still learning the maze, the researchers saw bursts of ventral striatum activity in the gamma frequency range shortly before the rats finished the maze. This activity was dispersed throughout the ventral striatum: Cells synchronized with the rhythm at different times, in a fairly uncoordinated fashion.
When the rats began to catch on to how to earn the reward, the gamma activity faded away and was replaced with short bursts of activity in the beta band, a lower frequency, just after they finished the maze. The activity also became much more coordinated throughout the entire ventral striatum.
“Although there has been a lot of work on studying brain oscillations, there’s really no work looking at how oscillations in different frequency bands impact different parts of the learning process, and that’s what this paper does,” says Michael Frank, an associate professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences at Brown University who was not involved with the work.
Reinforcing habits
To get a deeper view of what was happening during this frequency shift, the researchers also measured activity from single neurons in the ventral striatum, and found that activity in two groups of neurons coordinated with the oscillations. Output neurons, which control the ventral striatum’s communication with the rest of the brain, spiked during the peaks of both gamma and beta oscillations. Another type, which inhibits the output neurons, spiked at the troughs of the oscillations.
“Whenever you have a strong rhythm, these two populations of neurons oscillate in opposite directions,” Howe says.
This finding suggests that while the rats are learning a new behavior, the high-frequency activity in the output neurons of the ventral striatum sends messages to the rest of the brain directing it to learn a new behavior, reinforced by the chocolate reward. Then, once the behavior is learned and a habit is formed, those messages are no longer needed, and are shut off by inhibitory neurons during the beta oscillations.
“As the rats were learning, that reinforcement signal goes away, because you really don’t need it,” Graybiel says. This is beneficial to the brain because once that habit is formed, “what you want to do is free up that bit of brain so you can do something else — form a new habit or think a great thought,” she says.
The researchers, including Howe, Graybiel, and other lab members Hisham Attalah, Dan Gibson and Andrew McCool, are now planning to investigate whether habit formation is interrupted if they alter the brain rhythms in the ventral striatum. They also want to identify more specifically the neurons that are involved. Identifying and controlling such neurons might offer a new way to help combat addiction — an extreme form of habitual behavior.
To see the original articule, please click the link below:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/habit-formation-0927.html
Neuroscientists have long known of the existence of brain waves — rhythmic fluctuations of electrical activity believed to reflect the brain’s state. For example, during rest, brain activity slows down to an alpha rhythm of about eight to 10 hertz, or cycles per second.
It has been unclear what role, if any, these waves play in cognitive functions such as learning and memory. But now, a study from MIT neuroscientists shows that a switch between two of these rhythms is critical for learning habitual behavior.
In a paper appearing this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the researchers report that as rats learn to run a maze, activity in a brain region that controls habit formation shifts from a fast, chaotic rhythm to a slower, more synchronized pace. That switch, which occurs just as the rats start to master the maze, likely signals that a habit has been formed, says MIT Institute Professor Ann Graybiel, senior author of the PNAS paper.
This is a major clue to how the brain reorganizes itself during learning, says Graybiel, who is also a principal investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT.
Rhythms in the brain
Several brain waves of different frequencies have been observed in humans and other animals. This paper focused on beta waves, which range from 15 to 28 hertz, and high gamma waves, which range from 70 to 90 hertz. The beta band is associated with a lack of movement, and gamma with highly attentive states.
Graybiel and graduate student Mark Howe, lead author of the paper, set out to see if they could link these rhythms with the changes in brain state that accompany learning.
Graybiel’s lab has previously shown that patterns of electrical activity in a part of the brain known as the basal ganglia are critical for habit formation. Habits begin when you gain some benefit for taking a particular action, but eventually the behavior becomes ingrained and you do it even when you no longer get the reward. In extreme cases, this could mean continuing to scratch part of the body even after it stops itching, for example.
In this study, Howe looked at brain rhythms in a region at the very bottom of the basal ganglia, known as the ventral striatum. This area is necessary for responding to pain or pleasure, and is also highly involved in addiction.
Brain activity was measured as rats ran along a T-shaped maze, in which they had to learn to turn left or right in response to a sound. If they made the correct turn and reached the end of the maze, they received a reward: chocolate milk.
In the first few runs, while the rats were still learning the maze, the researchers saw bursts of ventral striatum activity in the gamma frequency range shortly before the rats finished the maze. This activity was dispersed throughout the ventral striatum: Cells synchronized with the rhythm at different times, in a fairly uncoordinated fashion.
When the rats began to catch on to how to earn the reward, the gamma activity faded away and was replaced with short bursts of activity in the beta band, a lower frequency, just after they finished the maze. The activity also became much more coordinated throughout the entire ventral striatum.
“Although there has been a lot of work on studying brain oscillations, there’s really no work looking at how oscillations in different frequency bands impact different parts of the learning process, and that’s what this paper does,” says Michael Frank, an associate professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences at Brown University who was not involved with the work.
Reinforcing habits
To get a deeper view of what was happening during this frequency shift, the researchers also measured activity from single neurons in the ventral striatum, and found that activity in two groups of neurons coordinated with the oscillations. Output neurons, which control the ventral striatum’s communication with the rest of the brain, spiked during the peaks of both gamma and beta oscillations. Another type, which inhibits the output neurons, spiked at the troughs of the oscillations.
“Whenever you have a strong rhythm, these two populations of neurons oscillate in opposite directions,” Howe says.
This finding suggests that while the rats are learning a new behavior, the high-frequency activity in the output neurons of the ventral striatum sends messages to the rest of the brain directing it to learn a new behavior, reinforced by the chocolate reward. Then, once the behavior is learned and a habit is formed, those messages are no longer needed, and are shut off by inhibitory neurons during the beta oscillations.
“As the rats were learning, that reinforcement signal goes away, because you really don’t need it,” Graybiel says. This is beneficial to the brain because once that habit is formed, “what you want to do is free up that bit of brain so you can do something else — form a new habit or think a great thought,” she says.
The researchers, including Howe, Graybiel, and other lab members Hisham Attalah, Dan Gibson and Andrew McCool, are now planning to investigate whether habit formation is interrupted if they alter the brain rhythms in the ventral striatum. They also want to identify more specifically the neurons that are involved. Identifying and controlling such neurons might offer a new way to help combat addiction — an extreme form of habitual behavior.
To see the original articule, please click the link below:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/habit-formation-0927.html
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)










