Do people become more selfless as they age?

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell Tech and Cornell's Ithaca campus have demonstrated the use of AI-selected natural images and AI-generated synthetic images as neuroscientific tools for probing the visual processing areas of the brain. The goal is to apply a data-driven approach to understand how vision is organized while potentially removing biases that may arise when looking at responses to a more limited set of researcher-selected images.

In the study, published in Communications Biology, the researchers had volunteers look at images that had been selected or generated based on an AI model of the human visual system. The images were predicted to maximally activate several visual processing areas. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to record the brain activity of the volunteers, the researchers found that the images did activate the target areas significantly better than control images.

The researchers also showed that they could use this image-response data to tune their vision model for individual volunteers, so that images generated to be maximally activating for a particular individual worked better than images generated based on a general model.

“We think this is a promising new approach to study the neuroscience of vision,” said study senior author Dr. Amy Kuceyeski, a professor of mathematics in radiology and of mathematics in neuroscience in the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine.

The study was a collaboration with the laboratory of Dr. Mert Sabuncu, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Cornell Engineering and Cornell Tech, and of electrical engineering in radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine. The study’s first author was Dr. Zijin Gu, a who was a doctoral student co-mentored by Dr. Sabuncu and Dr. Kuceyeski at the time of the study.

Making an accurate model of the human visual system, in part by mapping brain responses to specific images, is one of the more ambitious goals of modern neuroscience. Researchers have found for example, that one visual processing region may activate strongly in response to an image of a face whereas another may respond to a landscape. Scientists must rely mainly on non-invasive methods in pursuit of this goal, given the risk and difficulty of recording brain activity directly with implanted electrodes. The preferred non-invasive method is fMRI, which essentially records changes in blood flow in small vessels of the brain—an indirect measure of brain activity—as subjects are exposed to sensory stimuli or otherwise perform cognitive or physical tasks. An fMRI machine can read out these tiny changes in three dimensions across the brain, at a resolution on the order of cubic millimeters.

For their own studies, Dr. Kuceyeski and Dr. Sabuncu and their teams used an existing dataset comprising tens of thousands of natural images, with corresponding fMRI responses from human subjects, to train an AI-type system called an artificial neural network (ANN) to model the human brain’s visual processing system. They then used this model to predict which images, across the dataset, should maximally activate several targeted vision areas of the brain. They also coupled the model with an AI-based image generator to generate synthetic images to accomplish the same task.

“Our general idea here has been to map and model the visual system in a systematic, unbiased way, in principle even using images that a person normally wouldn’t encounter,” Dr. Kuceyeski said.

The researchers enrolled six volunteers and recorded their fMRI responses to these images, focusing on the responses in several visual processing areas. The results showed that, for both the natural images and the synthetic images, the predicted maximal activator images, on average across the subjects, did activate the targeted brain regions significantly more than a set of images that were selected or generated to be only average activators. This supports the general validity of the team’s ANN-based model and suggests that even synthetic images may be useful as probes for testing and improving such models.

In a follow-on experiment, the team used the image and fMRI-response data from the first session to create separate ANN-based visual system models for each of the six subjects. They then used these individualized models to select or generate predicted maximal-activator images for each subject. The fMRI responses to these images showed that, at least for the synthetic images, there was greater activation of the targeted visual region, a face-processing region called FFA1, compared to the responses to images based on the group model. This result suggests that AI and fMRI can be useful for individualized visual-system modeling, for example to study differences in visual system organization across populations.

The researchers are now running similar experiments using a more advanced version of the image generator, called Stable Diffusion.

The same general approach could be useful in studying other senses such as hearing, they noted.

Dr. Kuceyeski also hopes ultimately to study the therapeutic potential of this approach.

So, what does demonism consist of? Not reconciling with divine law. To sneer in paradise, to be cast out, to dislike good, to desire evil, more evil — paradise. Then, not reconciling with human law. That is, contempt for everything human, hatred for the small, big, human joys and sorrows. To love. Here is the dialectical contradiction, the germ of self–destruction, like in an atomic bomb, the core. […] We can say that, unlike demons, cherubim do not love. Their love for humans is somehow taken for granted, they do not feel it on their skin. That's why they are so faded, without personality, and the souls entrusted to them disappear at the first opportunity.

To be made of contrasts: you want, you don't want, you love and hate at the same time, you give life and kill. A mosaic of feelings, thoughts, desires. Let's imagine some windmills beaten from all directions at the same time. They don't spin. That's how demons are — paradoxically — incapable of action.

To be supernatural — superhuman — a tremendous force boils within you and you can't spend it because you have no ideals. Finally, to get bored.

[…] To all this, we must add, of course, exaggerated individualism. The demon says: 'It's mine!' The cherub could say: 'It's ours.' This is what categorically sets them apart, exaggerated individualism and exaggerated collectivism."

Magic Mushrooms for Depression: Brain Scans Show What’s Happening

A new study has shed light on what’s going on in the brain as psilocybin treats depression

Imagine a house share of several people. The house, technically, functions fine. One housemate sorts out the food. One earns the money. One cleans. One does laundry. Except they don’t help each other, don’t collaborate, and don’t listen to each other. They don’t even talk to each other.

Sounds pretty miserable in there, right? In a very simplified way, that’s what a new study has found is going on in the mind of depressed people, with different parts of the mind working isolated from the others.

Psilocybin, the substance responsible for the magic in magic mushrooms, has been under study for some time now and showing very promising results to help with depression. But on a physical level, no one, until now, knew why. Now, scientists have had a glimpse with the help of brain scan machines.

Let’s go back to that miserable house share. Now, the housemate in charge of the food has prepared a new soup for the housemates, and it contains magic mushrooms. What happens next? They all start talking to each other. And suddenly, overnight, the place gets happier. The even better news is that the next day, after the mushrooms have worn off, the walls have stopped moving and the pattern on the sofa has stopped being so incredibly funny, the housemates are still talking to each other. The living experience in the house has been transformed. It’s no longer a miserable place to be. No longer so… depressing.

So it is, according to the new brain scan study, with psilocybin and the depressed brain. Parts of the brain that struggled to interact and remained entrenched in their neural patterns became more fluid and communicated more with other parts of the brain.

One important element of these findings is they show how psilocybin works differently to antidepressants. As study author David Nutt says;

“These findings are important because for the first time we find that psilocybin works differently from conventional antidepressants — making the brain more flexible and fluid, and less entrenched in the negative thinking patterns associated with depression. This confirms psilocybin could be a real alternative approach to depression treatments.” — Nutt

For sufferers of depression who haven’t been responsive to antidepressants, this is very promising indeed. Especially when compared with a traditional antidepressant, psilocybin appears to work faster and with longer-lasting effects.

How effective was the psilocybin in this study?

Participants in the study had taken psilocybin twice over three weeks, as part of previous studies on psilocybin therapy. The results can be compared to people who take an antidepressant pill daily:

Psilocybin: After three weeks and two psilocybin experiences, participants averaged a drop in depression scores of 64%. Low depression scores were maintained for at least six months.

Antidepressant pills (Lexapro): After six weeks of daily pills, the depression score dropped by 37%, with the improvements not expected to continue after stopping the course.

So, on paper, that’s a win for the mushrooms.

While the pills target serotonin levels to help with the feelings of depression, the psilocybin gets parts of the brain talking, so the negative feelings are less entrenched. The brain can find new ways of doing things by talking to itself in a way a depressed brain can’t.

So, magic mushrooms are better than antidepressants then?

That’s not necessarily the case, though it’s easy and tempting to jump to that conclusion. It’s complicated and what works for one won’t work for another.

There’s a very common fallacy that you can spot in the thoughts of the psychedelic community, especially in users of mushrooms and Ayahuasca. That common thought is this: ‘Of course mushrooms are better than antidepressants… pills are synthetic chemicals, mushrooms are natural.’

This is called the appeal to nature fallacy, where our minds like to simplify things to nature is good, unnatural is bad. This is not good thinking. If you pick the wrong mushroom, you will die horribly, however natural it was. Deadly nightshade berries are called that for a reason. We can’t let our brains fall for the ‘nature is better’ trick.

This is why we rely on science. If we’re making personal decisions on how to treat ourselves, even if self-medicating, we need to be able to think clearly to make our decisions and not fall for common thinking errors.

Internal communication for mental health has a precedent

There’s a fascinating branch of therapy called Internal Family Systems (IFS), where the idea is to get parts of the mind to talk to each other and come to agreements and work together. The system uses talk and imagination.

In early research, the method has been showing positive results for treating depression, even in cases where medication and the more common cognitive behavioural therapy haven’t helped.

In the houseshare analogy, IFS would be like having a therapist show up, sit the housemates down, and get them talking and coming to agreements.

The two methods of creating in-brain communication both seem to be very effective. But we can’t assume they’re doing the same thing.

Psilocybin is shown through scans to improve communication in different parts of the brain. IFS encourages communication in different parts of the mind. These parts of the mind don’t necessarily live in different parts of the physical brain.

The two methods support each other in certain important aspects though: depression can be helped by getting whatever is in our heads to communicate better with itself. They do that in using very different ways.

In a nutshell, the study says psilocybin may work like this;

“…psilocybin’s antidepressant action may depend on a global increase in brain network integration.” — study authors

Internal Family Systems, like this;

“Just as our bodies are made of many parts that form a dynamic, interwoven system that works together, so it is with our psyches.” — Ralph de la Rosa

There’s one more little bit of psychology that we can possibly infer that our wellbeing is related to internal communication of different parts, be that of the mind or the brain: how we refer to ourselves in our inner voice affects our wellbeing.

People who talk to themselves as “You” generally have better wellbeing than those using “I”. There’s no inter-mind communication using I. The part of us that I refers to is itself. When you comes into it, that’s a part of us separate from the bit that uses I. People who use “We” also tend to feel better than those who use I. This again could be related to in-mind communication. This is all inferred and would need proper study.

But what if this inter-mind/brain communication could be done with extra love and compassion for the parts that communicate? Could that help?

Enter MDMA.

MDMA therapy and in-brain communication

MDMA, also under much study to help with various psychological disorders, works, in a super-simplified explanation, by adding compassion to proceedings. In the case of PTSD, for example, it’s by adding compassion to the memories that underly the trauma.

So would adding MDMA to IFS therapy add compassion to how we view and communicate with ourselves, and aid our mental health? The link is in early stages, but it seems so. That’s like entering our miserable houseshare and passing around ecstasy pills — and getting the housemates to talk to and feel very fond of each other in a way the compassion will last even after the drug has worn off. That’s a healthy state for a brain to live in.

Back to the psilocybin study, and brain communication. Would adding MDMA to mushrooms be useful in the same way? Possibly. Research into such an idea has begun, though first with LSD rather than psilocybin. Underground, adding MDMA to mushroom therapy has been used to aid the experience, and to take the edge off a bad psychedelic experience. If inter-brain communication really is the key to aiding depression with psychedelics, adding some extra compassion to the mix may be an effective idea.

Talk to yourself

It seems that one possibility is that helping depression may come down to good, old-fashioned communication. It may just mean doing it on the level of neural pathways with the assistance of psychedelics such as psilocybin.

Don’t rush out and buy or pick yourself a bag of mushrooms though. The study authors stress not to self-medicate based on these results, and psychedelics can have dangers for some people. Taking psychedelics for any reason is a big decision and should be considered thoroughly, with risks in mind as well as benefits.

The new study is another in the growing list in support of using psychedelics to help with mental health, and one of the first to give a clue of how they work physically in our brains. Plenty more research is to come.

Remember more by taking breaks

We remember things longer if we take breaks during learning, referred to as the spacing effect. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology gained deeper insight into the neuronal basis for this phenomenon in mice. With longer intervals between learning repetitions, mice reuse more of the same neurons as before – instead of activating different ones. Possibly, this allows the neuronal connections to strengthen with each learning event, such that knowledge is stored for a longer time.

Many of us have experienced the following: the day before an exam, we try to cram a huge amount of information into our brain. But just as quickly as we acquired it, the knowledge we have painstakingly gained is gone again. The good news is that we can counteract this forgetting. With expanded time intervals between individual learning events, we retain the knowledge for a longer time.

But what happens in the brain during the spacing effect, and why is taking breaks so beneficial for our memory? It is generally thought that during learning, neurons are activated and form new connections. In this way, the learned knowledge is stored and can be retrieved by reactivating the same set of neurons. However, we still know very little about how pauses positively influence this process – even though the spacing effect was described more than a century ago and occurs in almost all animals.

Learning in a maze

Annet Glas and Pieter Goltstein, neurobiologists in the team of Mark Hübener and Tobias Bonhoeffer, investigated this phenomenon in mice. To do this, the animals had to remember the position of a hidden chocolate piece in a maze. On three consecutive opportunities, they were allowed to explore the maze and find their reward – including pauses of varying lengths. "Mice that were trained with the longer intervals between learning phases were not able to remember the position of the chocolate as quickly," explains Annet Glas. "But on the next day, the longer the pauses, the better was the mice's memory."

During the maze test, the researchers additionally measured the activity of neurons in the prefrontal cortex. This brain region is of particular interest for learning processes, as it is known for its role in complex thinking tasks. Accordingly, the scientists showed that inactivation of the prefrontal cortex impaired the mice's performance in the maze.

"If three learning phases follow each other very quickly, we intuitively expected the same neurons to be activated," Pieter Goltstein says. "After all, it is the same experiment with the same information. However, after a long break, it would be conceivable that the brain interprets the following learning phase as a new event and processes it with different neurons." However, the researchers found exactly the opposite when they compared the neuronal activity during different learning phases. After short pauses, the activation pattern in the brain fluctuated more than compared to long pauses: In fast successive learning phases, the mice activated mostly different neurons. When taking longer breaks, the same neurons active during the first learning phase were used again later.

Memory benefits from longer breaks

Reactivating the same neurons could allow the brain to strengthen the connections between these cells in each learning phase – there is no need to start from scratch and establish the contacts first. "That's why we believe that memory benefits from longer breaks," says Pieter Goltstein.