Why smokers blunt their caffeine hit

Image by Flickr user sheeshoo. Click for sourceI was just reading an interesting paper on the interaction between antipsychotic drugs, caffeine and smoking and I found this interesting snippet on how smokers need to take in three to four times more caffeine than non-smokers to get the same effect, owing to the fact that by products of increases enzymes in the liver which break-down caffeine.

Byproducts of tobacco smoking, particularly the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, are metabolic inducers. These byproducts are inducers of the [liver enzyme] cytochrome P450 isoenzyme 1A2 (CYP1A2) and of the less understood UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs).The metabolic inductive effects are not specific to tobacco smoking; they can also be expected from marijuana smoking.

Because inducers require the synthesis of new enzymes, several weeks are usually needed before the maximum effects of inducers are seen. Inducers’ effects may take a few weeks to disappear as well….

Additional pharmacologic support of the relevance of smoking’s inductive effects comes from caffeine intake studies. Caffeine, a drug that is more than 90 percent dependent on CYP1A2 for its metabolism and that is widely used in the United States, can exemplify smoking’s effects on drug metabolism.

The C/D [concentration-dose ratio] of caffeine appears to be threefold to fourfold as high among nonsmokers compared with smokers. This higher ratio means that smokers need three to four times the caffeine “dosage” as nonsmokers on average to get the same plasma caffeine levels.

It turns out that two antipsychotic drugs, olanzapine and clozapine, are also broken down by the same enzyme, so smoking will reduce the effect of these drugs.

Hence smokers need larger doses to have the same effect, and patients on these drugs who give up smoking might find a sudden increase in side effects if the dose isn’t dropped.

We tend to think of the effect of psychotropic drugs as happening in the brain but drug metabolism happens all over the body with the liver and kidneys being particularly important and having a profound impact on the effect of the compound.

Link to ‘Atypical Antipsychotic Dosing: The Effect of Smoking and Caffeine’.

It was planted on me

I have discovered that there is small but budding group of cognitive scientists who study the psychological impact of indoor plants.

For example, here is a study on the effects of an indoor plant on creativity and mood from the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.

Effects of an indoor plant on creative task performance and mood.

Shibata S, Suzuki N.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2004 Nov;45(5):373-81.

In this study, we investigated the effect of an indoor plant on task performance and on mood. Three room arrangements were used as independent variables: a room with (1) a plant, or (2) a magazine rack with magazines placed in front of the participants, or (3) a room with neither of these objects.

Undergraduate students (M= 35, F= 55) performed a task of associating up to 30 words with each of 20 specified words in a room with one of the three room arrangements. Task performance scores showed that female participants performed better in view of the plant in comparison to the magazine rack (p < 0.05).

Moreover, mood was better with the plant or the magazine rack in the room compared to the no object condition (p < 0.05). However, the difference in task performance was highly influenced by the evaluation about the plant or the magazine rack. It is suggested that the compatibility between task demand and the environment is an important factor in facilitating task performances.

Somehow, I feel my world view has not actually changed after reading that study.

But wait, there are also published research studies on:

Effects of the foliage plant on task performance and mood.

Effects of indoor plants on task performance and mood: a comparison between natural and imitated plants.

Influence of limitedly visible leafy indoor plants on the psychology, behavior, and health of students at a junior high school in Taiwan.

The association between indoor plants, stress, productivity and sick leave in office workers.

And someone even did their PhD on “Randomized clinical trials evaluating therapeutic influences of ornamental indoor plants in hospital rooms on health outcomes of patients recovering from surgery”.

Link to PubMed entry for Scandinavian Journal of Psychology study.

A cognitive science of spiritual healing?

Time magazine has an interesting article on the neuroscience of spiritual experience and why religious belief has been linked to better health.

It’s not the most gripping article in the world and starts with some annoying experience = brain area phrenology but it does gives a good overview of some of the main research areas.

Probably the most interesting aspect is where it tackles the link between religious belief and health in light of other belief based health benefits such as the placebo effect or beliefs about illness itself.

The section on the effects of prayer also has this fascinating snippet about early experimental psychologist Francis Galton:

As long ago as 1872, Francis Galton, the man behind eugenics and fingerprinting, reckoned that monarchs should live longer than the rest of us, since millions of people pray for the health of their King or Queen every day. His research showed just the opposite — no surprise, perhaps, given the rich diet and extensive leisure that royal families enjoy.

Studies on the curative properties of prayer have a long and interesting history, with one of the most striking moments also linked to a psychologist and an (in)famous study – discussed in a 2002 Wired article.

Link to Time article ‘The Biology of Belief’.

The scientific legacy of HM’s missing memories

The latest edition of Neuron has a fantastic tribute to the recently departed amnesic Patient HM, “probably the best known single patient in the history of neuroscience”, covering the scientific work he participated in and what it has told us about the structure of memory.

The piece is by respected memory researcher Larry Squire and he tackles HM’s personal history while also reviewing his contributions to science through numerous landmark studies.

It can be said that the early descriptions of H.M. inaugurated the modern era of memory research. Before H.M., due particularly to the influence of Karl Lashley, memory functions were thought to be widely distributed in the cortex and to be integrated with intellectual and perceptual functions.

The findings from H.M. established the fundamental principle that memory is a distinct cerebral function, separable from other perceptual and cognitive abilities, and identified the medial aspect of the temporal lobe as important for memory.

The implication was that the brain has to some extent separated its perceptual and intellectual functions from its capacity to lay down in memory the records that ordinarily result from engaging in perceptual and intellectual work.

The article is fascinating not least because it dispels a few common myths about HM – such as the original study showed the hippocampus was necessary for memory when HM also had the amygdala and parahippocampal gyrus removed and so it wasn’t possible to say which were most important.

It also notes that the original studies over-stated how much brain was removed owing to the basic knowledge of neuroanatomy that existed at the time.

Link to ‘The Legacy of Patient H.M. for Neuroscience’.
Link to PubMed entry for same.

You change your diagnosis like a girl changes clothes

A recently published study in the Journal of Affective Disorders found that clinicians are less likely to suggest a diagnosis of bipolar disorder if the patient is described as having recently fallen in love, even if they are reported to have all the necessary symptoms.

I notice that Katy Perry addressed exactly this issue in her global pop hit Hot N’ Cold.

You’re hot then you’re cold
You’re yes then you’re no
You’re in and you’re out
You’re up and you’re down

Someone call the doctor
Got a case of a love bipolar

Perry clearly demonstrates that she’s not subject to this particular diagnostic bias as she is able to recognise that the patient has fallen in love, but also qualifies for a diagnosis of bipolar based solely on presenting features.

Link to PubMed entry for study.
Link to video of Katy Perry’s Hot N’ Cold.

Killing the veneration of unbending concentration

A few days ago I wrote a piece criticising the arguments of author Maggie Jackson on the effects of digital technology and concentration. The piece garnered some fantastic reader comments, including a thoughtful response from Jackson herself, which I’ve reproduced below:

In my interview with Wired and my book Distracted, I don’t argue that we need to venerate unbending concentration and single-tasking. In fact, that’s a monochromatic Industrial Age vision of attention that I reject! In cultures where work and productivity are now information-based, we do need to hone skills related to multitasking and split-focus, skimming and non-linear reasoning.

But in the US and other tech-centric societies today, we’ve become so reliant on this narrow band of skills that we’ve begun to undermine our ability to go deeply in thought and relations. We’re fragmenting and diffusing our multifaceted attentional abilities – and this is not by any means “progress.”

As for cooking and babies, I’d agree that at any time in history, the environment makes demands on our attention. Attention is in essence how we interact with our environment! But attention is also central to the pursuit of goals, to planning, judgment, vision. The point is, are we using our powers of attention well by cultivating environments of interruption, fragmentation,and skimming, and by losing time/space for reflection, disciplined problem-solving, deep reading?

In short, the “concentration oasis” is a myth I don’t subscribe to. And yet it’s truly short-sighted to fail to consider the costs of cultivating a culture of distraction and inattention.

Link to the original post and comments.

A pharmacopeia of t-shirts

T-shirts with molecules on the front are now available from a multitude of online shops, but I’ve just found one internet t-shirt shop which has over 40 drug molecules you can choose from – from LSD to Prozac.

As well as the usual suspects from the street drug molecules, Molecule Wear also has a surprisingly large number of other psychoactive drugs and compounds including antidepressants, painkillers, neurotransmitters and a couple of curve balls (e.g. MSG!).

Pictured is the Ritalin t-shirt, although my favourite is probably the ether shirt which could also pass as an ASCII art seagull.

Link to Molecule Wear.

Love and immortality

Image by Flickr user egroj. Click for sourceWe have a burning instinct for life and yet we know, ultimately, that we will die. We fear the one thing we cannot escape.

The question ‘why live?’ has preoccupied thinkers from the alpha to the omega of human history, but only relatively recently have we considered the question of ‘how’ – how do we live with this fear, this knowledge of our own demise?

We recognise love as our companion and protector and we now think that it may even shield us from death itself, at least while we’re alive.

‘Terror management theory’ sounds oddly militaristic to the modern ear, but it was never intended to makes us think of politics. It was developed by psychologist Sheldon Solomon and his colleagues to help explain how we live with existential angst.

The theory suggests we have various ways of keeping the fear of death out of our conscious mind, and of understanding what makes our life meaningful.

Traditionally, researchers have focused on the effect of a social element – how we feel we fit in to our culture’s ideas about what makes a meaningful life, and a personal element – how we feel about ourselves, but more recently psychologists have been focusing on love as one of the most important ways of managing our existential fears.

Love beyond life is a constant poetic theme, and yet these are not simply poetic theories, they have been drawn from empirical research.

Never afraid to strip the poetry from the profound, cognitive scientists have labelled their most important existential paradigm ‘mortality salience’.

It involves reminding people of death – an experimental memento mori – and numerous studies have found that simply focusing people on their time-limited lives changes how they think and behave.

One of the most reliable effects, is that being reminded of death makes us more socially minded – more likely to want to be physically close to others, more likely to want to have children, but also more likely to support the norms and stereotypes of your own social group.

A group of Israeli psychologists were inspired to wonder whether love might protect us against our fear of death, and whether our anxieties motivate us to seek out love.

In an ingenious 2002 study, they found that reminding people of their demise increased their self-professed romantic commitment, that thinking about a committed relationship reduced the effects of morality salience on harsh social judgements, and that thinking about the end of a relationship increased thoughts of death.

A year later, they reviewed research on love and death and came to the conclusion that close relationships help us manage the anxiety of mortality, partly through the strength of the bond, but partly through the fact that romantic partnerships give us a symbolic way of transcending death – as families provide a way for our contribution to ‘live on’ after the final curtain.

These studies are some of the first on what has been called ‘experimental existential psychology’ that seek to understand how we manage our lives in the face of the unknown.

But the fact remains that we will die, and hopefully, we will love. Perhaps we have no profounder response.

Link to ‘The existential function of close relationships: introducing death into the science of love’.
Link to PubMed entry for same.

Christina the Astonishing and the saints of epilepsy

I’ve just read a fascinating article on the wonderfully named Christina the Astonishing, a 12th century saint who died during an epileptic seizure, rose from the ‘dead’, and according to some accounts, levitated to the roof of the church.

The paper, published in the medical journal Neurology, discusses her case because while various people have suggested that the supernatural experiences of the saints can be nowadays explained as epilepsy, Christina was thought to both be holy and have epilepsy by her contemporaries.

However, the paper begins with this fascinating bit about the history of the relationship between saints and the long mythologised condition:

In 1930, Kanner catalogued no less than 37 saints associated with “the falling sickness” and the eventful lives of many of these are illuminated in Murphy’s excellent paper “The saints of epilepsy.” While many made their name casting out demons and curing epilepsy, Pope Benedict XIV tightened up the rules relating to miraculous cures of seizures in 1743, particularly in relation to a relapse of the condition. No one has been canonized on the basis of a miraculous cure of epilepsy since.

Other saints have a more oblique connection to the condition. For example, St. Albanaus of Mainz (400 AD) was decapitated and the subsequent writhing of his headless body apparently resembled a convulsion, hence his connection. St. Sebastian, who survived being shot by arrows only to be later clubbed to death, is invoked as his initial recovery from near death represents the recovery from a seizure, which at first may seem fatal.

The three wise men of nativity fame, who bestowed gifts on the infant Christ, are also sometimes invoked against epilepsy as they “fell down” before the infant when they found him. In the 14th century, it was thought to be beneficial to whisper the names of these saintly wise men into the ears of people as they convulsed to stop the seizure.

A number of the saints of epilepsy are thought to have suffered seizures themselves, including those from the very highest echelons — see St. Paul. While these diagnoses remain speculative and can often only be inferred from minimal fragments of information, some have gone to considerable lengths to examine their hypotheses, including the investigation of the original court manuscripts in the case of St. Joan of Arc and the examination of a 600-year-old skull in the case of St. Birgitta.

Christina’s case is fascinating in itself and the article is well worth a read.

Link to article.
Link to PubMed entry for same.

2009-02-13 Spike activity

Quick links from the past week in mind and brain news:

An interview with a psychologist Meg Barker, who studies polyamorous relationships, is published by Dr Petra.

Neurophilosophy has an excellent piece on the neuroscience of dinosaurs!

What Makes You Uniquely ‘You’? Discover magazine discusses the self and consciousness with Nobel prize-winning biologist Gerald Edelman.

The Colbert Report has a funny interview with Jonah Lehrer discussing his new book on the psychology of decision-making.

Shanghai surprise. The Guardian has an excellent personal account of an English teacher’s experience of psychosis in China.

Science News covers an interesting study on what people believe about dreams – suggesting that most people think they have symbolic meaning about their life, but mostly when they already agree with what they think.

Another trip on the same old merry go round. BBC News reports UK government’s drugs advisory panel recommends legal reclassification of ecstasy based on its relatively low health risk, government ignores them.

New Scientist looks at research on the <a href="Ecstasy's legacy: So far, so good
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126954.500-ecstasys-legacy-so-far-so-good.html”>long-term effects of ecstasy and finds a small but reliable impact on mood and cognition. Shh, don’t tell the government.

A very funny satirical news report from The Onion on Despondex, a new pharmaceutical drug for the overly chirpy.

Wired has an interview with Oliver Sacks on the unusual hallucinations of Charles Bonnet syndrome.

Ex-Labour spin doctor, now current Labour spin doctor, meanwhile psychotherapist, Derek Draper threatens legal action over people who question his psychotherapy qualifications. Gimpy has the low down. If they’re that obvious, why do you need legal action?

New York’s excellent BrainWave festival is back with a host of neuroscience talks and events.

PsyBlog has an excellent piece on how the tip-of-the-tongue effect also affects deaf sign-language users.

Horizon the BBC’s science documentary series recently broadcast an interesting but not perfect documentary on cannabis. The <a href="
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4701726/BBC_-_Horizon_-_Cannabis__The_Evil_Weed_”>torrent for the programme is online.

People in love who think about their objet d’amour are less focused on attractive faces of other people, reports Scientific America.

Science News reports that post-partum (after childbirth) psychosis is most likely in the month directly after giving birth.

Wealthy people use less welcoming and more impolite body language than poorer people, reports Scientific American

Slate has an article discussing the psychology of race and conspicuous consumption.

Research on whether personality and facial structure are linked is discussed by New Scientist.

Science News reports on a recent finding that parenting shapes genetic risk for <a href="http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40392/title/Parenting_shapes_genetic_risk_for_drug_use
“>drug use.

Research on whether the attentional blink effect can be used to test sex offenders is covered by Cognitive Daily.

The whole story of Ben Goldacre being threatened by legal action over his challenging of MMR nonsense is on Bad Science.

Distress targeted Twitter spam

An interesting if dubious Twitter phenomenon: a $200 an hour online therapist website is spamming people who express distress in their twitter bulletins with a reply advertising their service.

The service is called AskAnAlly and the Twitter spam has really pissed a number people off.

Like many of the other people, I can’t help reading the name as AskAnally, which I shall be charitable and assume is a reference to Freudian psychotherapy.

It seems life imitates Web Therapy.

Thanks for Mind Hacks reader Rachel for letting me know.

Leadership can be based on quantity not quality

Photo by Flickr user llawliet. Click for sourceTime magazine reports on an intriguing new study finding that groups select natural leaders on the basis of how much each person contributes to group discussions, even when their contributions have no relation to their actual competence.

Psychologists Cameron Anderson and Gavin Kilduff, asked several groups to complete tasks for a $400 dollar prize.

They found that those who spoke more were rated as more competent and influential. Wondering whether this genuinely reflected their actual competence, they decided to test this out with a similar task where the group had to solve math problems.

But this time, they had the participants’ mathematics exam results and could see exactly how many problems each person had solved.

When the work was finished, the people who spoke up more were again likelier to be described by peers as leaders and likelier to be rated as math whizzes. What’s more, any speaking up at all seemed to do. Participants earned recognition for being the first to call out an answer, but also for being the second or third ‚Äî even if all they did was agree with what someone else had said. Merely providing some scrap of information relevant to solving the problem counted too, as long as they did so often enough and confidently enough.

When Anderson and Kilduff checked the participants’ work, however, a lot of pretenders were exposed. Repeatedly, the ones who emerged as leaders and were rated the highest in competence were not the ones who offered the greatest number of correct answers. Nor were they the ones whose SAT scores suggested they’d even be able to. What they did do was offer the most answers ‚Äî period.

The researchers conclude that one way dominant people attain influence is simple through acting in ways that make them appear competent, even when this isn’t the case.

Link to Time article ‘Competence: Is Your Boss Faking It?’.
Link to PubMed entry for study.

Happy birthday Charles Dickens

Today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and Nature has a podcast celebrating his work including some of his research on psychological development and emotion.

For those of you not familiar with Darwin’s work, he’s most famous for his theory of revolutions that he discovered when he went on a voyage with his beagle. The theory of revolutions states that we tend to keep things we inherit if they make us sexier, even though the person who acquired it may have done so in a game of chance.

Darwin is only really discussed by creationists these days, but he’s not completely irrelevant – the Darwin podcast notes that he was also one of the originators of developmental psychology.

In his 1877 paper A Biographical Sketch of an Infant, Darwin completed one of the first comprehensive studies of the psychological development of a child – his own in fact – which was cited as an influence by many later child psychologists.

Link to Nature podcast.
Link to A Biographical Sketch of an Infant.

The myth of the concentration oasis

Wired has an interview with author Maggie Jackson who’s recently written a book called ‘Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age’ in which she argues modern life and digital technology constantly demand our attention and are consequently damaging our ability to concentrate and be creative. The trouble is, I just don’t buy it and it’s easy to see why.

The ‘modern technology is hurting our brain’ argument is widespread but it seems so short-sighted. It’s based on the idea that before digital communication technology came along, people spent their time focusing on single tasks for hours on end and were rarely distracted.

The trouble is, it’s plainly rubbish, and you just have to spend time with some low tech communities to see this is the case.

In some of the poorer neighbourhoods Medell√≠n, my current city of residence, there is no electricity. In these barrios, computers, the internet, and even washing machines and telephones don’t exist in the average home.

Pretty much everything is done manually. By the lights of the ‘driven to digital distraction’ argument, the residents should be able to live blissfully focused distraction-free lives, but they don’t.

If you think twitter is an attention magnet, try living with an infant. Kids are the most distracting thing there is and when you have three of even four in the house it is both impossible to focus on one thing, and stressful, because the consequences of not keeping an eye on your kids can be frightening even to think about.

The manual nature of all the tasks means you have to watch everything. There is no timer on the cooker, so you need to watch the food. The washing has to be done, by hand, while keeping an eye on everything else.

People call all the time, because, well, there is no other way of communication. Street vendors pass by the house and shout what they’re selling. If you miss out on something, it might mean your days food planning has gone down the drain.

On top of this, people may be working to make a living in the same building. Running a shop, mending stuff, selling food, or whatever their business might be.

The difference between this, and the “oh isn’t email stressful” situation, is that you can take a break from email and phone calls. You can switch everything off for an hour so you can concentrate. You can tell people you won’t be available.

For people trying to work and run a family at the same time, not only are the consequences of missing something more important and potentially more dangerous, but it’s impossible to take a break. A break means your kids are in danger, your family doesn’t get fed and you’re losing money that buys the food.

Now, think about the fact that the majority of the world live just like this, and not in not in the world of email, tweets and instant messaging. Until about 100 years ago everyone lived like this.

In other words, the ability to focus on a single task, relatively uninterrupted, is the strange anomaly in the history of our psychological development.

New technology has not created some sort of unnatural cyber-world, but is just moving us away from a relatively short blip of focus that pervaded parts of the Western world for probably about 50 years at most.

And when we compare the level of stress and distraction it causes in comparison to the life of the average low-tech family, it’s nothing. It actually allows us to focus, because it makes things less urgent, it controls the consequences and allows us to suffer no more than social indignation if we don’t respond immediately.

The past, and for most people on the planet, the present, have never been an oasis of mental calm and creativity. And anyone who thinks they have it hard because people keep emailing them should trying bringing up a room of kids with nothing but two pairs of hands and a cooking pot.

Link to Wired interview with short-sighted digital doomsayer.

Bionic arm technology reroutes nervous system

Damn this is cool. The New York Times has an article on an innovative technology that allows people to naturally use mechanical prosthetic arms.

While most of the media attention has been focused on implanting electrodes directly into the brain as a form of ‘neuroprosthetics’, this technology takes a novel and remarkably ingenious approach with impressive results.

The technique, called targeted muscle reinnervation, involves taking the nerves that remain after an arm is amputated and connecting them to another muscle in the body, often in the chest. Electrodes are placed over the chest muscles, acting as antennae. When the person wants to move the arm, the brain sends signals that first contract the chest muscles, which send an electrical signal to the prosthetic arm, instructing it to move. The process requires no more conscious effort than it would for a person who has a natural arm.

Researchers reported Tuesday in the online edition of The Journal of the American Medical Association that they had taken the technique further, making it possible to perform 10 hand, wrist and elbow movements, a big improvement over the typical prosthetic repertoire of bending the elbow, turning the wrist, and opening and closing the hand.

It’s an inventive technique because it takes a whole chunk of the hard work away from the technology.

With neural implants, the major obstacle is developing the technology to reduce the noisy neural information into simpler signal channels. The patient then needs to be trained to generate the right brain activity to funnel the activity into the broad channels of the digital signal processor.

This technology takes advantage of existing healthy nerves but just reassigns them to other muscles and the activity in these is just converted into mechanical actions.

Of course, it isn’t useful for people who are completely paralysed, but the results are quite spectacular.

The article has an embedded video which illustrates the remarkable dexterity that the woman with the prosthetic arm is able to achieve.

The scientific article describing the technology has just been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and describes five prosthetic limb patients who were asked to complete a number of manual dexterity tests.

The study found that they completed tasks only marginally less well than comparison participants who had no damage and were using their original arms.

UPDATE: Mo has reminded me that Neurophilosophy covered an single case of the same procedure earlier in its development cycle. Mo also notes that the technology has the potential to feed-back touch information to the phantom limb!

Link to NYT article ‘In New Procedure, Artificial Arm Listens to Brain’.
Link to scientific article.
Link to JAMA entry for same.