Autism’s Representation in the Media

In 2014, the estimated number of American children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was 1 in 68. Since there were around 73 million children under 18 in the same year, more than a million children were diagnosed with ASD. In response to autism’s increasing relevancy within American households, more attention has been given to the disorder and the information surrounding it. The media has recently been working to appeal to this large demographic of America which is in some way affected by ASD. The popular children’s tv show “Sesame Street” in 2015 added a new character to the mix; Julia, a girl with ASD. Julia was introduced along with the program “Sesame Street and Autism: See All in Amazing Children,” an initiative meant to generate public awareness about autism and educate people about our friends like Julia. 

(http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Julia)

This is a particularly good initiative, because many past portrayals in movies and tv are not entirely accurate to reality. Criticism has always surrounded the movie Rain Main, specifically that its representation of autism is misleading. The other limited portrayals of individuals with ASD are frequently critiqued for similar reasons. Often, characters are not officially diagnosed with the disorder, but show several symptoms which could also be interpreted as character choices by the actor and writers. This ambiguity around ASD diagnosis is especially not helpful to understanding the disorder. 

Many questions have been raised as to the origin of the recent rapid increase in ASD diagnoses in America. Some researchers believe that the increase is due to increased awareness and understanding of ASD. With more information discovered and made available about the disorder, medical professionals and the public are more apt to recognize, diagnose, and treat it. Another interpretation under consideration is that the diagnostic procedure for ASD is not yet precise enough to be very accurate in diagnoses, leading to a substantial amount of children misdiagnosed with ASD. 

This concern is prompting studies concerning more refined techniques to diagnose ASD, such as the study “Neural correlates of face-processing in etiologically-distinct 12-month-old infants at high risk of autism spectrum disorder” led by Maggie W. Guy. Guy’s research concerned possible early signs of developing ASD, which in time could be part of a sophisticated diagnostic technique used. Guy and her team studied the varying neural specialization in children of high or low risk of developing ASD. The study concluded in finding brain activity patterns that could differentiate between infants of different risk levels. 

This study doesn't promise an immediate solution to the problem of misunderstanding ASD, nor does it propose a more accurate technique for early diagnosis of the disorder. However, it has an important role in determining the pathway of future work surrounding ASD. Studies like this one create a hopeful vision for the future with a more comprehensive understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of ASD and the individuals affected by the disorder, either directly or indirectly. 

Works Cited

Falco, Miriam. “Autism rates now 1 in 68 U.S. children: CDC.” CNN, Cable News Network, 28 Mar. 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/03/27/health/cdc-autism/.

“Number of Children.” Child Trends, Dec. 2015, www.childtrends.org/indicators/number-of-children/.

Smith, Melodi, and Kerry Chan Laddaran. “Julia, who has austim, joins the 'Sesame Street' gang.” CNN, Cable News Network, 21 Oct. 2015, www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/entertainment/sesame-street-julia-autism/.

Felperin, Leslie. “Autism on film: can cinema get it right?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 Apr. 2011, www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2011/apr/04/autism-best-film-portraits.

Christensen, Jen. “Autism: Is over-Diagnosis to blame for high rate?” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 Oct. 2015, www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/health/autism-misdiagnosis-rate/index.html.

Guy, M.W., et al., Neural correlates of face processing in etiologically-distinct 12-month-old infants at high-risk of autism spectrum disorder. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.03.002

Using Optogenetics to Save the Future

Using Optogenetics to Save the Future

Reward and addiction is a deeply and profoundly studied area in neuroscience. Its subtopics range from gambling addiction to bad habits to drug abuse; a common experiment that arises from this study concern potent drugs such as the opiates and amphetamines. Specifically, in what ways and in what locations do these highly addictive substances target? How does one recover, if possible, from such a life-changing and neurochemical disorganization? Another area of concern is the neurochemistry of mental illnesses or neural diseases such as Parkinson's Disease. The brain imbalances of these can be studied in a similar way to that of the human brain's reward system: through the use of optogenetics.

Doctor Stephan Steidl, assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago, specializes in the dopamine reward system, which is the brain’s main target location for drugs. In his research article titled, “Operant Responding for Optogenetic Excitation of Ldtg Inputs to the VTA Requires D1 and D2 Dopamine Receptor Activation in the Nacc”, he studies the part of the brain that contributes to the reward pathway in response to optogenetics. Optogenetics is a common neuroscientific method that monitors brain activity with the use of light-sensitive proteins against genes. In his study, he instigates the reward center by having a mouse lever press by switching a light on and off. This has shown to excite the LTDg and the VTA areas of the brain. The stimulated neurons then caused the mice to repetitively press the lever in a rather short amount of time, and this pattern of neuronal activity illustrates the general basis of reward and addiction.

 

An article from the website The Scientific American, reinforces the idea that optogenetics is a reliable and effective method of recording and researching neuronal activity. Doctor Nayef Al-Rodhan’s article “Optogenetics Lights Up Therapeutic Neuroscience” explains the reward pathway in a similar way, while also suggesting further uses for optogenetics, such as treatment for Parkinson’s Disease or depression. Although this article is not about a specific finding, both Steidl and Al-Rodhan stress that this new genetic engineering has worked significantly better than older methods like electrodes. Genetic engineering that can trace reward systems offers more accuracy in laboratories. He states that optogenetics “is a crucial advance because in living brains, timing is everything” (Al-Rodhan 1). The precisely controlled signals used in the method could make or break a life. 

In research trying to prevent or further investigate substances of abuse, for example, optogenetics may be able to physically help a user who cannot mentally quit using. Optogenetics could find the answers to “ending chronic pain, providing a welcome alternative to opoids” (Al-Rodhan 1). Obviously, many ethical and financial measures would need to be considered for this to happen in the future. However, the current research that is going into curing diseases or learning more about harmful addictive behaviors is crucial to carry on, as Steidl and Al-Rodhan demonstrate.

Works Cited

Al-Rodhan, Dr Nayef. “Optogenetics Lights Up Therapeutic Neuroscience.” Scientific

American, A Division of Nature America, Inc., 23 June 2016, www.scientificamerican.com/article/optogenetics-lights-up-therapeutic-neuroscience/.

Steidl, Stephan, et al. "Operant Responding for Optogenetic Excitation of Ldtg Inputs to the VTA Requires D1 and D2 Dopamine Receptor Activation in the Nacc."

Behavioural Brain Research, vol. 333, 30 Aug. 2017, pp. 161-170. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2017.06.045.

Postdictive Illusions of Decision Making/Choices

Josephine Owusu
NEUR 300
Dr. Robert Morrison

           Postdictive Illusions of Decision Making/Choices 

 Everyone has a monotonous daily routine that starts off similar to this: we press the snooze button several times on our clock, pick an outfit from our wardrobe, and grab some breakfast. In each instance, we perceive ourselves as free agents, consciously directing our bodies in meaningful ways. We are convinced that we make conscious choices in our lives. However, recent literature proposed the idea that it may be that the brain simply convinces itself that it made a free choice after the decision is made. This idea was experimented by tricking participants into thinking that they had made a choice before the results of that choice could actually be seen.

Adam Bear and Paul Bloom, psychology investigators from Yale University, explore the inner workings of our mind in order to understand which choices we consciously make, and which choices we are tricked into. Their findings surprisingly reveal that our free will may actually be an illusion. In order to fully understand how we experience choices, Bear and Bloom performed an experiment in which they separated what we consider conscious efforts from how our mind’s influence daily decisions. The participants of the study consisted of 25 college students and residents from New Haven area of Connecticut. The participants were informed that five white circles that would randomly appear on a black background positioned in a 300- x 300- square window centered in the middle of the computer monitor. They were then asked to quickly chose one of those circles in their head and remember that circle. In rapid fire-sequence, after the five circles display on the monitor, one of the circles will turn red. The participants were then given a fraction of a second to look and make a mental note of the circle they predicted to turn red. Participants then recorded by keystroke whether they had chosen correctly by pressing Y on the keyboard. If it was not the circle they remembered choosing, they would press N, indicating no.

Taking the data from the experiment, Bear and Bloom analyzed how likely the participants were to report a correct prediction among these instances in which they thought that they had enough time to make a choice. Unbeknownst to the participant, the circle that turned red was always randomly selected; so statistically, participants should predict the correct circle about 20% of the time (one out of every five times). However, when they only had a fraction of a second to make a prediction, the results showed that participants were more than likely to report that they made the correct prediction of the circle that changed color more than 20% of the time, even exceeding 30% when a circle turned red in the fraction of a second. If participants’ choices were biased, this bias to select the red circle should have been greater for the shortest delays and decline as this delay extended.
 
According to the investigators, the pattern of responding indicates that the participants were not lying about their predictions in order to impress them, rather, they were being fooled by their own minds. The participants subconsciously perceived the color red before they predicted where it would appear; in actuality, they consciously experienced these two events in opposite sequence. The participants were switching around the sequence of events, creating this illusion that they had chosen the right circle, even if they hadn't truly had time to do so. Although the participants thought they made that decision, their brain may have been guiding them without their conscious effort. In other words, the conscious experience of choice may be organized after we perform some action despite the fact that our choices seem like the primary cause of our behavior.

 This paper examines the concept of decision making, or independent action, in light of recent research in neuroscience that was recently presented by Joe Vukov. Joe Vukov, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, presented his research at a neuroscience seminar held at Loyola University Chicago. In his presentation, Vukov discusses the relationship between free will, unconscious actions and behavior. He provided logical and perceptive reasons to support the argument that free will does not exist. These reasons include: unclear and several definitions of free will, faults with empirical data, the complexity of free actions, and the fact that free actions do not require conscious. In addition, he referenced a study by Soon et Al. (2008), Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. This study showed that when participant’s decision entered awareness it had been influenced by unconscious brain activity (prefrontal and parietal cortex) for several seconds - 10 secs (Soon et Al., 2008). Vukov’s presentation, along with Bear and Bloom’s study only further emphasizes the concept that even our most definite beliefs concerning our own decisions, actions, and conscious experience can be absolutely incorrect.

 References 

Soon, C. S., M. Brass, H.-J. Heinze, and J.-D. Haynes. 2008. Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 11:543-545.

 Bear A. & Bloom P. (2016) A Simple Task Uncovers a Postdictive Illusion of Choice Psychological Science 27/6 914-922.

High on Life - How exposure to nature boosts your mental state

Optogenetics is an experimental technique which genetically modifies neurons and/or cells in animals to be sensitive to light and observes the resulting behaviors.  Dr. Steidl spoke to Loyola’s neuroscience seminar about his work with genetic modification of light-sensitive opsin channels in the eyes of mice, called rhodopsin.1  Dr. Steidl aimed to study the relationship between inputs in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and motivated behavior in mice, and he found that dopamine (a reward chemical in the brain) neurons are activated by environmental cues, like light, and this reward process leads to classical conditioning.1  In his study, he observed that mice had a preference for the lit areas of the experimental cage over areas without a light source.1 In fact, the mice had such a strong preference for the lit area that when the mice were placed in the same cage but were not provided any light source, the mice still preferred the area they had experienced light in previously.1

This behavior begs the question, why do animals have such a strong preference for light?  Well, in my experience, when scientific results seem odd, the answer is usually found in genetics.  

We are a result of the incredibly long process of evolution, and until the industrial revolution, humans were always surrounded by the natural world from which we evolved.  Now, with the rise of urbanization, more people live in cities than not2, and this is taking a toll on our mental health.3  Time spent in cities increases stress, anxiety, rumination, and negative mood.3  A few decades ago, people in Japan took notice of this and founded the practice called “Shinrin Yoku”, which roughly translates to “Forest Bathing”.  This activity does not require a swim suit, or even hiking shoes.  It’s as simple as a leisurely stroll through the park, or, for busy college students, even a dormitory view of nature has been found to improve performance on concentration-heavy tasks compared to an urban view.3  The focus of Shinrin Yoku is to completely immerse your senses in nature, and clear your mind of the pressures of city life so you can feel connected with nature the way our ancestors used to live every day.  It’s not about getting outside so you can be active, it’s about directing your attention externally rather than internally, and researchers are hypothesizing that this replenishes directed attention in your brain - something that is depleted by the demands of city life.3  This is called the Attention Restoration Theory3 and in their experiment, Bratman et al. (2015) found that a 50-minute walk in the woods rather than in a city increased participants’ verbal working memory significantly (I know, I didn’t want Rousseau to be right either).3  They also found that, compared to urban walks, nature walks helped decrease anxiety, rumination, and negative affect, and maintained positive affect.3  This study was a guided replication of numerous experiments aimed to measure the benefits of Forest Bathing since it’s founding, and it will not be the last.  City planners have been looking to this field of research to guide their work towards the best urban environments possible, because even a house plant has been found to benefit mental health.3

The exact source of this improved mental health through nature is unknown.  Is it the natural sunlight?  Or the fresh, less-polluted air? Or maybe the organic particles from trees and dirt that fill the air and our lungs?  Sadly, neither Rousseau nor genetics have the answer, but the development of technology will soon allow for field tests of the Shinrin Yoku experience.  I’m willing to bet optogenetics will play a role in this - because, when feeling down, who doesn’t dream of relaxing outside on a warm, sunny day?

1. Dr. Stephen Steidl, Neuro 300 seminar presentation, 5th of September 2017
2. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson-Plans/HumanPopulation/Urbanization.aspx
3. “The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition” Gregory N. Bratman et al. 2015

The Decisions We Make

Decision making is something that we do every second of every waking moment. You made a decision to click on the link that led to this post, I decided to write my post on the vast amount of choice that we’re faced with today, and you are currently deciding whether you are going to continue to read this post or click over to Netflix - another place that will require even more decision making.

David Brooks writes about the explosion in the number of choices that has occurred in the last 3 decades. This is not necessarily a bad thing, the reason we have so many choices is because our freedom of expression has increased, consumer goods have evolved, and our culture has shifted to allow us to live our lives in a way that is dictated by us.

When you really boil it down, choices are the things that we base our lives around. Our education, the people we surround ourselves with, and the vocation we dedicate our lives to are all examples of choices that we seem to make, but is the role that we take in this decision making process as large as we are led to believe? Clearly our conscious plays a large part in decision making, all you have to do is think about an ultimatum and then choose an option in order to show that you can make a decision. However, this decision making process can be altered by external influences that then affect the course of our lives. We, as humans, tend to comply and internalize other peoples' opinions ultimately having an extensive impact on our own decisions.

The agency over the myriad of choices that we have makes decision making exceptionally complex. A simple meal with friends can turn into a 45 minute discussion on whether to have pineapple on the pizza, let alone life-changing choices such as career and education. It must be noted however, that our agency only seems to stretch so far. Our surroundings impact our decisions and cause our lives to be led down different paths. The decision of where to go to college for someone on the east coast and someone on the west coast is influenced by their location, an external factor that could lead their lives on completely different paths from one another.

To give a more extreme example, perhaps the decision of the east coast student somehow led them to be stranded on a desert island, whereas the west coast student’s decision has led to them sitting on their couch - their decisions for what to have for dinner are going to be completely different and influenced by entirely divergent factors.

This previous example shows that something external can influence our decision making but, to speak candidly, the chances that we - or anyone we know- are ever in that situation are very slim. Despite this, there are a great deal of more external factors that can affect people. In today’s society, the ability to make decisions as you wish has become a commodity, and the distribution of this commodity often comes down to your socioeconomic status.

Brooks writes of a meeting with a principle of a school in a poverty stricken section of Pittsburgh. The principle spoke of the way that concentrated poverty can limit perceived options, which I thought was a particularly salient example. Someone who lives without the knowledge of where their next pay check is coming from doesn’t have the same agency in decision making that a comfortable middle class bachelor does.

Perhaps our perception of free will is clouded by our desire to have agency over our own lives, yet we must recognize and take into account the external factors that influence and, in extreme cases, control our decision making.

Brooks, David. “The Choice Explosion.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/opinion/the-choice-explosion.html.

(Image). https://www.theworkathomewoman.com/wp-content/uploads/Brain-2.2.13.jpg

Cure for Hearing Loss

Hearing loss is more prominent now more than ever. It is well known that mild to moderate hearing loss can have effects on the auditory cortex that may last a lifetime. At University of Pennsylvania, a group of researchers examined the impact of sounds on various aspects of the human body, including hearing loss and cardiovascular disease, to investigate the effects of noise; they stated that different impacts of noise might affect other aspects in one’s daily life, including community annoyance, sleep, etc. The authors also claim that more people need to learn and understand how exposure to sounds affects their hearing and overall health.

Noise-induced hearing loss is the most common occupational disease in the United States (3). This type of hearing loss first begins when the pathway to the cochlea is disrupted. This disruption can occur due to many causes, as there are thousands of genes in the cochlea that can induce deafness in humans; however, some of these specific genes are still in the process of being found and explored.

Dr. Wei-Ming Yu in his paper, “A Gata3-Mafb transcriptional network directs post-synaptic differentiation in synapses specialized for hearing” examined the knockout of the Mafb gene in adult mice. Mafb is a transcription factor that stimulates the formation of the ribbon synapse in the cochlea. The ribbon synapse transmits sound from the inner hair cells to the spiral ganglion neurons in the cochlea. This disruption of the formation of the synapse results in hearing loss in adult mice. Dr. Yu proved that due to this knockout, these mice were not able to distinguish between high and low pitches of sound. Dr. Yu’s knockout experiment determined that Mafb not only plays a crucial role in the formation of the ribbon synapse, but also the hearing process in the auditory system.

Similarly, in the summer of 2015, scientists at Boston Children’s Hospital conducted an experiment to restore the genes involved in hearing in deaf mice. In the study, three Harvard Medical School senior investigators, Dr. Jeffrey R. Holt, Dr. Konstantina Stankovic, and Dr. Luk H. Vandenberghe, examined the effects of a new synthetic vector, Anc80. When introduced into the cochlea, Anc80 transported genes into the outer hair cells. The new vector proved to be a success as it targeted cells of interest in the inner ear and did indeed assist in restoring the lost genes. This demonstrates that presenting the vector to the cochlea would improve hearing loss.

A second study at the Boston Children’s Hospital, administered by Dr. Gwenaëlle Géléoc, examined mice with mutations in the Ush1c gene, which presents the same as Usher type 1c mutations in humans.  This mutation disrupts sound signals received by the brain, which then results in hearing loss. In the image, A is a normal group of hair cells, which move properly when exposed to a sound; however, when the cells are damaged (B), the inner hair cells do not move properly, instead requiring more sound and energy to move. In the study, newborn mice that were given the new Ush1c gene were able to hear soon after being treated. When the corrected Ush1c gene was admitted into the mice’s hair cells, they began to form normal bundles and responded to sound waves and signaling. The researchers hope to use these genetic bases in mice in order to help children who have trouble with hearing.

Dr Wei-Ming Yu and the scientists at Boston Children’s Hospital examined genes that play a role in the auditory processes in mice. These genes are located in the cochlea and the knockout of specific genes can severely affect the mice’s hearing. Both studies hope to find a genetic conclusion that can one day benefit humans. Studies like these are necessary for medical advances in our society.

Sources:

     1. .Gwenaëlle S Géléoc et al. Gene therapy restores auditory and vestibular function in a mouse model of Usher syndrome type 1c. Nature Biotechnology, February 2017 DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3801

     2. “Hearing Loss.” Michels Hearing Aid Centers, 25 Jan. 2017, michelshearing.com/hearing-loss/. (Image)

     3.  University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. "Negative consequences of noise on overall health." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 October 2013. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131029220800.htm>.

     4. Yu, Wei-Ming, et al. “A Gata3âMafb Transcriptional Network Directs Post-Synaptic Differentiation in Synapses Specialized for Hearing.” ELife, vol. 2, Oct. 2013, doi:10.7554/elife.01341.