A lot of interesting brain news today. Today's London Times contains a fun report of a recent study in Pediatrics that concluded that, "The brain volume a child achieves by the age of 1 year helps determine later intelligence. Growth in brain volume after infancy may not compensate for poorer earlier growth." According to the Times:
British scientists have just confirmed a link between head size and intelligence. Their findings reverse decades of fierce scientific arguments. And, what's more, it has provoked me to set forward a new theory in which natural selection is superseded by man -- more specifically by the modern Caesarean section -- to create an unprecedented breed of big-headed humans. Listen pinheads, I know this is hard for you, but stay with me. Back to the burdens of bigheads. I am not just talking about my own similarity to the browbeaten Charlie Brown, although a hairdresser did once advise me in all kindness to grow a fringe to cover my domed forehead, saying: "If I could grow my hair long enough to cover my big bottom, I would." Until recently the fashionable scientific thinking is that we are numbskulls, that all the extra we carry up top is just excess baggage. This was as a result of the failure to prove a link between quantity and quality of mind. The Victorian fad for phrenology and their more distasteful obsession with calibrating criminal or racial traits through head measurements came to nothing. Jonathan Swift had one of the biggest brains ever measured, while Anatole France, the 19th-century French author, had one of the tiniest brains on record, half the size of Swift's. Einstein had a small brain. All three were brilliant, only Swift had trouble buying hats. . . . Controversy over the link between head size and IQ raged over the 20th century but was, for the most part, dismissed as simplistic as a child's drawing. Until now . . .
Today's L.A. Times has a nice article on phantom limb pain. After summarizing the phenomenon's treatment history, the article (accessible with free registration) concludes:
Doctors have been testing an arsenal of treatments for phantom limb pain since Mitchell's day, including surgery, painkillers, and electrically stimulating the brain -- all of which can offer temporary relief, at best. Part of the problem is that competing theories abound as to the causes. Researchers have implicated abnormal nerve growth; nodules forming at the end of severed nerves; the brain's confusion over the loss of sensory information it once received; and the faulty rewiring of nerves sending signals from the lost limb. But most researchers now agree that the sensations have physical origins, not psychological ones. Yet many patients are told today what they would have been told in Pare's time -- that the feeling is all in their heads.
Today's Guardian contains an interesting discussion of Louann Brizendine's The Female Brain (Morgan Road Books, 2006):
In her book, Brizendine claims that men and women are different because their brains function differently, and one of the most interesting examples she comes up with is that women talk more -- 20,000 words a day compared with 7,000 for the average man -- and they talk twice as fast. . . . Brizendine's thesis is attractive. It fits in with our perception that women are more emotionally literate than men and happier to talk about their feelings; that men are more bottled up emotionally. We know it to be true. Brizendine has done us a service by explaining the neuroscience that underpins all this. Or has she? . . .
In a study published in Nature on November 23 ("Synaesthesia: The Taste of Words on the Tip of the Tongue," available to subscribers here), a group of British scientists summarize how they designed a study to test the series of neural events that take place when a person tastes words. According to today's Newsday (accessible with free registration):
Julia Simner of the University of Edinburgh and Jamie Ward of University College London identified 10 people who can taste words -- a sensory experience that is as real to that person as Bolognese sauce over spaghetti sprinkled with hot pepper. Only there is no food. And the word has nothing whatsoever to do with Italy. Researchers had to travel 9,000 miles around the world to find 10 people who have the rare neurologic anomaly that causes it. However rare, unraveling the mystery could yield some very important clues about how the brain regulates sensory information, Simner said. In a study published in the journal Nature last week, the researchers recount how they designed a study to test the series of neural events that take place when a person with this syndrome, called synesthesia, see a word. To accomplish this, they found unusual objects that people would immediately know but not so easily identify -- a platypus, for instance, or castanets. They wanted to elicit a tip-of-the-tongue response so they could figure out whether the tastes are triggered by the sound of the word or its meaning. Almost 100 unusual words were presented to the subjects, who were then asked about the "taste" that was evoked by the word. They discovered that tastes are linked to the part of the brain that stores the meaning of the word -- and not the sound itself. The taste actually came to the person before the sound, during the search for the word. Words can taste like Caesar salad with too much garlic or hot chocolate. Simner said that all of the people had specific tastes for specific words -- and they didn't change over time. (They were re-tested a year later.) What's happening is that the sensory cross talk -- the misfiring of information from one brain region to the next -- is leaving the person with the experience of tasting a certain food when he or she hears the word. "It's like an open connection," said Simner, who admitted that it is very frustrating to study synesthesia without being able to experience it herself . . . .
Finally, today's L.A. Times has another nice article on neurofeedback, in which patients use a computer to view and modify the activity in their minds:
In neurofeedback, people with mental or psychological conditions learn to regulate and reduce their symptoms . . . by monitoring their brain waives on a computer. The treatment is an increasingly popular cousin to biofeedback, in which people control physical stress by monitoring their heart rate or muscle tension. . . . Neurofeedback has been used for decades in private clinics, but few well-controlled research studies have been done -- giving it an unscientific reputation. That's beginning to change. Researchers are now studying and refining the therapy -- with promising results. Neurofeedback is being used to treat a growing number of conditions, including chronic pain, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, migraines, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, autism, and a variant of autism called Asperger's syndrome. "We've done some definitive studies finally that show it works in important ways," says Eran Zaidel, a professor of behavioral neuroscience and cognition at UCLA's Brain Research Institute . . .