Good cop, bad cop helpful for children's emotional development

Well, sorta.

From Science Daily:

A new University of Illinois study in the September/October issue of Child Development suggests that young children benefit when mothers and fathers differ in their reactions to their child's negative emotions.
The researchers found that when one parent provided little support in response to a child's feelings of anger or anxiety and the other parent provided a lot of support, the child had less conflict with friends and a better understanding of emotions.

It's important for parents to be supportive, but having one parent offer support and problem solving, while the other parent let the child sit with their feelings to learn to process them, seemed to let kids both build their own emotion modulation skills and maintain healthy egos.

When that happens, the child is more likely to gain experience in understanding and controlling his emotions. He may also benefit from seeing different types of reactions, realize that there are different ways of looking at things, and thus develop more complex thinking about and understanding of emotions, she said.
"We're hypothesizing that if both parents rush in to help the child, the child doesn't have a chance to experience negative feelings and learn how to manage them," she said.
The researcher emphasized that "hanging back" isn't the same as punishing a child for being upset or minimizing those feelings. The second parent should also be supportive, but quietly so, she said.

The article also talks about differences between boys and girls, and also smaller differences around whether the mother or the father plays the less supportive role.
Some of their closing conclusions:

Of the study's findings, McElwain said, "They're somewhat counterintuitive. You'd think the more support a child receives when she's upset, the better off she'd be. But the study shows that sometimes less is more."
She encourages couples to think about how they respond to a young child's anger, anxiety, or frustration as a parental unit, not as individuals. That's particularly important if a child has many negative episodes, she said.
"When you react to a negative emotion, I'd suggest that one parent step back a bit and let the other parent handle it," she said.

Makes sense to me.

Talking about it really does help us to feel better

From ScienceDaily:

"When you put feelings into words, you're activating this prefrontal region and seeing a reduced response in the amygdala," he said. "In the same way you hit the brake when you're driving when you see a yellow light, when you put feelings into words, you seem to be hitting the brakes on your emotional responses."
As a result, an individual may feel less angry or less sad.

This is ancient wisdom," Lieberman said. "Putting our feelings into words helps us heal better. If a friend is sad and we can get them to talk about it, that probably will make them feel better."

It's so nice to see science that supports what we already intuitively know. This particular one gives me hope that I really AM helping people in my job, even when I'm not giving them pills.

AR Facade: an interactive drama game?

Steven Dow, a Georgia Tech Ph.D. candidate, demonstrates the AR Facade. The game puts you in the middle of an uncomfortable argument using augmented reality technology.

Brought to you by Virginia Tech, this game uses a head mounted display, and a laptop worn on a backpack.

From deseretnews:

...it puts you in the middle of an excruciatingly uncomfortable argument between Trip and Grace, a bickering thirty-something married couple.

Do you play moderator and decide to help broker a truce? Do you instigate them by complimenting Grace on her decorating style or pretending to be impressed with your pal Trip's place?

Or do you act as if everything's peachy while their arguing heats up? Whatever path is taken, this participatory soap opera at a Georgia Tech research lab is at times funny, awkward and intriguing. And it's always intense and emotionally draining.

Here's the youtube demo.

Computer simulations for crowd behaviors

"Science Daily — Patterns of human behavior and movement in crowded cities -- the tipping point at which agitated crowds become anti-social mobs, the configuration of civic areas as defensible spaces that also promote free speech, the design of retail space that fosters active walking -- are at the core of an immersive 3-D computational model under development by an Arizona State University geographer."

Wouldn't it be nice if someday, developers were required to submit crowd behavior reports along with their EIRs?

I wonder how effective this would be in predicting flash crowds?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070521094519.htm

A shirt that tells if you are bipolar or schizophrenic?

As odd as this sounds, there is a team of psychiatric researchers at the University of San Diego that have created a vest to do this.

"“LifeShirt” – a computerized vest that continuously monitors the patient’s movements – shows that patterns of movements differ between patients with the two disorders. The device, manufactured by VivoMetrics©, monitors hyperactive and repetitive movements, and collects data on respiration, heart rate and other physiological measures. "

For testing purposes, they also had a camera in the ceiling that recorded movements of people wearing the shirt.

"Patients with bipolar disease exhibited hyperactivity and a wide range of exploration when in a novel environment, according to the researchers. Schizophrenic patients, on the other hand, exhibited much more restricted movements."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070518160743.htm

People with high testosterone find reward in other's anger?

The study actually sounds very well thought out, and creatively designed.

"It's kind of striking that an angry facial expression is consciously valued as a very negative signal by almost everyone, yet at a non-conscious level can be like a tasty morsel that some people will vigorously work for," said Oliver Schultheiss, co-author of the study and a U-M associate professor of psychology.

The study took saliva samples from participants to measure testosterone.
Then, they gave them a test. Here's the details:

Participants then worked on a "learning task" in which one complex sequence of keypresses was followed by an angry face on the screen, another sequence was followed by a neutral face, and a third sequence was followed by no face.

Participants who were high in testosterone relative to other members of their sex learned the sequence that was followed by an angry face better than the other sequences, while participants low in testosterone did not show this learning advantage for sequences that were reinforced by an angry face.

Notably, this effect emerged more strongly in response to faces that were presented subliminally, that is, too fast to allow conscious identification. Perhaps just as noteworthy, participants were not aware of the patterns in the sequences of keypresses as they learned them.

While high-testosterone participants showed better learning in response to anger faces, they were unaware of the fact that they learned anything in the first place and unaware of what kind of faces had reinforced their learning.

They also hypothesize that this may explain why some people enjoy teasing others so much.

"Perhaps teasers are reinforced by that fleeting 'annoyed look' on someone else's face and therefore will continue to heckle that person to get that look again and again," he said. "As long as it does not stay there for long, it's not perceived as a threat, but as a reward."

Fascinating stuff, but I wonder about the evolutionary advantage of this?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070511095337.htm

Psychiatric nurses react differently to attacks on staff vs patients on inpatient units

"Psychiatric nurses have a one in ten chance of being physically injured by an aggressive patient over the course of a year and many more suffer emotional distress because of the verbal abuse they receive while working in these difficult and challenging environments."

Didn't realize my odds were that bad. When I was working in the psychiatric emergency room, we would regularly have people who came in totally out of control. However, part of the job is always being on your toes, and having security guards around to help out when we needed the extra muscle really helped too. The verbal abuse was totally unavoidable, and I just chalked that up to a job hazard. Luckily, in the 3 years that I worked there, I don't recall any physical injuries from attacks on my unit, though we definitely had patient assaults and crazy incidences in that time.

Sometimes I think that my risk is actually higher these days, since I'm in an outpatient clinic where security and other staff are not as readily available, and I'm behind a closed door alone with patients all day long. It's easier to get lulled into a sense of security when you don't have the constant adrenalin of emergencies wandering thru the door all the time. I have a panic button, but that's just not the same as having someone within line of sight. At least we still have annual safety trainings, and we get a couple days where we practice verbal de-escalation, and practice at physically getting out of holds and chokes.

More data from the study:

"Researchers from The City University, London, recorded 254 aggressive incidents on five acute inpatient psychiatric wards over a ten-month period. " "57 per cent of the aggressive incidents that took place at the inner city hospital were aimed at staff, 19 per cent involved other patients and 12 per cent resulted in self harm. Seclusion was used to resolve more than a quarter of all incidents, with a further 23 per cent resulting in the patient being held by force."

All this means is that nurses put patients in full seclusion and restratint more often when another staff member was attacked than when another patient was attacked. I guess this makes since, since

I guess this makes sense. People have a tendency to retaliate more when they perceive they are personally at risk.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412093752.htm

Want to eat less? Don't bus your table

"Science Daily — People watching the Super Bowl who saw how much they had already eaten -- in this case, leftover chicken-wing bones -- ate 27 percent less than people who had no such environmental cues, finds a new Cornell study."

Just think of all the money buffets would save if they bussed their tables more slowly. It also makes a very simple diet aid. Unfortunately, it was more effective for men than women.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070409181631.htm

Happy digital faces are more successful sales droids

An odd study, but definitely makes sense in this world of increasing internet commerce, and ubiquity of worlds such as Second Life or World of Warcraft. On Virtual Magic Kingdom (VMK), everything is so happy already, I wonder if that helps it along at all (Disneyland's world, designed for kids, with lots of weird restictions and banned words. I'm rarely on, but if you see Kallisto, say hi to me.).

"The study, appearing in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
found that digital characters might be better merchants if they act consistently
happy, even if the products they're selling—such as novels—are heart-wrenchingly
sad."

In the study, "Baldi" (face in the picture on the right; mouseover for credits), read happy and sad book reviews. Regardless of whether the book was happy or sad in content, the happy faced Baldi sold more books, and left an overall more positive impression.

"But the reactions of putting on a happy face didn't end there. “Participants
said they were more likely to read a book presented by the happy face
compared to the sad one,” Gong said. The participants liked a happy Baldi
more, felt it was more competent, and trusted it more than they did a sad
version."

Still pondering what this says about human nature, as well as how this will impact our future avatar designs. I really can't imagine a happy, smiling Goth website. :-)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070319174625.htm

Celexa vs. Lexapro in treating compulsive shoppers

First off, let me try to explain the difference between celexa (citalopram), and lexapro (escitalopram), since they are very similar.

Note: celexa is on the left, and lexapro is on the right.

Celexa is the older drug that has lost its patent in the last few years. Lexapro, is the 'new and improved' version of celexa, which consists of only the S (left) isomer escitalopram, whereas celexa is a 'dirtier' drug, consisting of both the S (left) and R (right) isomers. Celexa eventually gets converted into lexapro in the body.

Or, if you prefer, wikipedia's technical explanation: "Citalopram is sold as a racemic mixture, consisting of 50% R-(−)-citalopram and 50% S-(+)-citalopram. Only the S-(+) enantiomer has the desired antidepressant effect. Lundbeck now markets the S-(+) enantiomer, the generic name of which is escitalopram. Whereas citalopram is supplied as the hydrobromide, escitalopram is sold as the oxalate salt.^[10] The salt form makes these otherwise lipophilic compounds watersoluble."

What's puzzling to the researchers about this study is that while celexa was shown to be helpful in treating compulsive shopping, lexapro was not.

I'd like to leave it at that, and say that celexa and lexapro really are different, as many of us have observed in patients who have been on both. People often do like one better than the other (totally depends on the individual).

Thankfully, the article below does actually analzye both studies, and it appears that both studies have design flaws, most glaringly of which is their small sample sizes (24 pts in the celexa study in 2003, 17 lexapro and 9 controls in the newer study).

Too bad...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070313114157.htm

Duh! Nicotine is addictive, even for squirrel monkeys

In the name of science, they are getting squirrel monkeys addicted to nicotine too.

"This study is the first of its kind to evaluate the motivational value of nicotine in experimentally naive monkeys. "

They found: "These results demonstrate that nicotine plays a critical role in maintaining smoking behaviour," said lead researcher Dr. Le Foll. "

Yes, the nicotine itself is what addicts people. Sure, there is the ritual involved with smoke breaks, such as oral gratification and chat breaks through the day, but for these monkeys, it's all about the nicotine.

"In these tests, the animals could voluntarily self-administer nicotine by pressing on a lever. Receiving nicotine was associated with distinctive environmental cues, to mimic the situation associated with tobacco smoke in humans. Whereas animals initially showed no preference for the active lever, over time a strong preference for the lever delivering nicotine developed. Animal subjects were motivated to press a lever up to 600 times to get a single injection of nicotine.
"This clearly demonstrates a high motivation to get nicotine that develops over time", said Dr. Le Foll. "

They say their goal is to find better drugs to treat tobacco dependence. So much for not getting exposed in the first place.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070227105219.htm

Antidepressants Help Men, But Not Women, Decrease Alcohol Consumption

I don't know how much antidepressants 'help' per say, but there is definitely a correlation.

Study background: "14,063 Canadian residents aged 18-76 years were surveyed. The survey included measures of quantity, frequency of drinking, depression and antidepressants use, over the period of a year.
The researchers used data from the GENACIS Canada survey, part of an international collaboration to investigate the influence of cultural variation on gender differences in alcohol use and related problems."

Findings: " Non-depressed men consumed 436 drinks per year, compared to 579 drinks for depressed men not using antidepressants, and 414 drinks for depressed men who used antidepressants.
Unfortunately for women, the alcohol use remained higher whether those experiencing depression took antidepressants or not. The numbers are telling: 179 drinks per year for non-depressed women, 235 drinks for depressed women not using antidepressants, and 264 drinks for depressed women who used antidepressants."

Conclusions: "While men suffering from depression generally consume more alcohol than non-depressed men, those who use antidepressants consume alcohol at about the same level as non-depressed men."

There are still many possible explanations for this that have nothing to do with the actual effects of the antidepressants themselves. Hopefully their next study can try to tease those out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070227105517.htm

The 'Essence' of security blankets

A study in England looks at 3-6 year old children's attachments to their cherished items.

"Children were introduced to a scientific looking machine that could copy any object but was in fact a conjurer’s cabinet where an accomplice inserted replica items from behind a screen.
Professor Hood said: “When offered the choice of originals and copies, children showed no preference for duplicates of their toys unless the object to be copied was the special one that they took to bed every night. A quarter of children refused to have their favourite object copied at all, and most of those who were persuaded to put their toy in the copying machine wanted the original back.”"

To explain this, the researchers have this hypothesis: "Hood and Bloom liken this early reasoning to adult notions of ‘essences’ where we think invisible properties inhabit objects that make them unique as if these properties were physically real. This may explain why some adults think that authentic works of art and memorabilia contain some of the essence of the original creator or owner. Likewise, it also partly explains our reluctance to touch or wear items previously owned by murderers."

Makes me wonder about the evolutionary benefits of this, much like the hypothesis that humans are hardwired to believe in God.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070307161756.htm

Genes, stressed out parents, and shy kids?

Seems like a strange connection, but "New research from the Child Development Laboratory at the University of Maryland shows that shyness in kids could relate to the manner in which a stress-related gene in children interacts with being raised by stressed-out parents."

"Like all genes, the particular serotonin-related gene examined in this study has 2 alleles, which can be long or short. The protein produced by the short form of the gene is known to predispose towards some forms of stress sensitivity.
Fox's research found that among children exposed to a mother's stress, it was only those who also inherited the short forms of the gene who showed consistently shy behavior.
"If you have two short alleles of this serotonin gene, but your mom is not stressed, you will be no more shy than your peers as a school age child," says Fox. "But we found that when stress enters the picture, the gene starts to show a strong relationship to the child's behavior," says Fox. "If you are raised in a stressful environment, and you inherit the short form of the gene, there is a higher likelihood that you will be fearful, anxious or depressed.""

This is a nice description of the interplay between genetics and environment. Both parts need to be present for a particular effect to manifest.

Clinical implications: Yet another argument for medicating psychiatric illnesses when people are undecided. This is especially true for post partum depression, when new moms have an episode of major depression shortly after childbrith (within the first month). Some worry about medicating women who are breastfeeding because of risks of antidepressant exposure via breastmilk to the infants, but research (including this study) supports that babies do better psychologically and developmentally when moms are not depressed, and are better able to bond, and attend to their infants.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070302111100.htm

Predisposition to Addiction Found in Cocaine Study

The neurotransmitter in question is dopamine.

The receptor deficiency is D2 (one of the types of dopamine receptor) .

The specific brain area is the ventral (front) area of the striatum, the nucleus accumbens.

Details of the study: "Researchers at the University of Cambridge in England report in this week's Science that a lower number of specific types of receptors that bind the neurotransmitter dopamine—a chemical central to the brain's reward system—in the front (or ventral) section of the striatum (a midbrain region implicated in planning and movement as well as executive function) correlates to increased impulsive behavior in rats. In addition, they found that the more impulsive animals, when given the option, consumed more cocaine than the calmer rats did. "
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=102E18AA-E7F2-99DF-31F85020F2B25647&ref=rss

This just means that some brains are more susceptible to drug addiction, and they hypothesize that deficiencies in the D2 receptor in the nucleus accumbens of the brain may explain why.

Clinical Implications (aka how I'll use it with my patients):
Many chemically dependent patients have a lot of guilt and poor self esteem around their drug abuse. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but when they start expanding this into judgements about their moral character, and being a 'bad' person, it can get in the way of treatment. By explaining to them that their addictive nature may be at least partially due to brain chemistry, it often helps them to separate out addiction from morality. I don't mean to imply that someone is not responsible for their actions. Rather, it's that if someone knows their brain has a vulnerability (ie. addiction), then they need to change their environment and/or behavior(s) if they want to stay out of trouble.
A less charged example: if you are diabetic, your body just can't process carbohydrates and sugars as well as the average person. It doesn't make you a bad person because your body is different. However, if you don't make accommodations (ie. change your diet, take medications or insulin, make efforts to keep you blood glucose in balance), you will get sick, your organs will fail, and it will likely kill you.

Basically, this supports the disease model for addiction and mental illness, rather than a character judgement about the 'weakness' of an individual. Doesn't mean they can use this as an excuse to abuse drugs either, unless they want to give up on the idea of free will.

Happy Friday everyone!

D'oh! Genetic studies of mice are forgetting impact of environmental variables

Pretty ironic to have to remind scientists to take environmental factors into account when studying genetic components of various disorders.

"...a team of scientists at the University of Arizona says the genetic research community must control for the environment when conducting experiments, because it may well affect the results."

Scientists housed pairs of mice in a range of environments: "In some cases, they placed groups of four in small cages containing only bedding; in other cases, they put pairs in sprawling cages that were twice as large and furnished with an exercise wheel, a ladder and a plastic tube that the mice could crawl through. "

"Scientists found that the mice in the luxury accommodations spent an average of 40 percent of their time on their in-home exercise wheel and had significantly less fat tissue around their aortas and weighed up to 40 percent less than their compeers from the cramped quarters. When researchers viewed their aortas under microscopes, they found that they had nearly 80 percent fewer gaps than their packed-in pals. "

Bottom line: they suggest that future studies talk more about the housing conditions of their mice. As for the rest of us, it does make me wonder about the effects of population density, or just the condition/clutter level of one's abode.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=EA9DA3DC-E7F2-99DF-3FFF90CAF72CF307&ref=rss

Preemptive hugging in monkeys to avoid fights?

Sounds wacky, but:
"...spider monkeys in Mexico have been observed embracing to avoid gang violence. Hugging diffuses the tension when two bands of monkeys meet, say the British researchers who made the discovery. Without these calming embraces, the situation can escalate into aggression and even physical attacks, they report."

They sound very social: ""It's like the monkeys live in a small village where everyone knows each other," says Filippo Aureli of Liverpool John Moores University. "You wake up and eat breakfast with one group, such as a family, then move into different subgroups such as work, or school, and go to lunch with another group.""

The researchers' hypothesis: "The embrace could be a way of testing the bond between monkeys, as it exposes vulnerable parts of the body to attack," suggests Aureli. Monkeys do not hug members of their own groups, suggesting that embraces do not just reflect general levels of affection."

Regardless, the monkey pic is adorable, and I'm always happy to find more data supporting the positive effects of physical contact with other beings.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/070219-3.html