Previous studies have shown that being bilingual may delay dementia, but for the first time, a Canadian study has used brain scans to offer additional proof of bilingualism’s protective effects on the brain.

Research conducted up to this point has compared older people that speak either one or two languages to gauge the age at which Alzheimer’s symptoms begin to show. Based on this kind of research, there is solid evidence that bilingual people have a later onset age for cognitive decline. The new study, published in the journal Cortex, added results from CT scans of the brains to further bolster this kind of finding.

The researchers scanned the brains of bilingual and monolingual people who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and who had comparable cognitive skills and education levels. What they found was that bilingual people with twice as much Alzheimer’s-related brain damage were cognitively at the same level as monolinguals with much less brain damage. They concluded that despite the physical brain being destroyed by Alzheimer’s, the cognitive function of the bilingual people was significantly better preserved than that of the monolinguals.

Continue reading "Brain Scans Show that Being Bilingual Can Ward Off Alzheimer’s Effects" »

I’ve recently noticed several studies related the effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution on brain function and longevity. The research shows that air pollution may harm the brain and affect cognitive processes negatively.

One study looked at people over the age of 51 and found that those who lived in areas with a lot of air pollution had lower cognitive scores than people who had lived in unpolluted areas. The results were normed to take social status and education level into account. According to Melinda Power, one of the researchers involved in the study, “Traffic-related air pollution appears to cause inflammation and oxidative stress in the brain.” You can listen to Melinda Power speak more about the research on air pollution and cognition in this podcast.

In a second study, conducted at Ohio State University, the research team looked at the effect of pollution particulates in the brain of mice. They found that exposure to pollutants affected the hippocampus- the brain area responsible for learning and memory formation. The exposed mice’s hippocampi had less neuronal growth than those who were not exposed.

Continue reading "Air Pollution May Harm the Brain" »

In the past week, you may have seen a few news headlines that talked about the idea that Alzheimer’s disease may be contagious. I’ve seen headlines like  ”Alzheimer’s Disease Contagious Like Mad Cow,” “Some Cases of Alzheimer’s May Be Transmitted,” and “Can You ‘Catch’ Alzheimer’s Disease?” Those all sound pretty scary, like something out of a sci-fi movie about a looming global Alzheimer’s pandemic. But when you look at the finding that spawned these sensational headlines, you may be comforted to know that the research does not show anything quite so dire.

The study involved injecting human brain tissue into mice, a condition which researchers admitted was highly artificial. The summary version of the study is that researchers took proteins from the brain of humans with Alzheimer’s and put them into the brains of healthy mice. The mice then developed Alzheimer’s. The conclusion, that injecting diseased brain tissue into a healthy brain causes disease, led to this notion that the mice “caught” the disease from the human tissue. But how often do you inject tissue from one brain into another, outside of an experiment? And do I need to point out that this was a case of inter-species brain tissue injection, an even more unlikely scenario? If you decode what the paper actually reports, it’s even less scary. The paper, entitled De novo induction of amyloid-ß deposition in vivo,  looks at just one associated (not causal) factor of AD, which is amyloid-β proteins.

Continue reading "Headlines Tout “Contagious Alzheimer’s” Finding – But What’s the Real Story? " »

In the excellent blog The Frontal Cortex, Jonah Lehrer offers his take on a couple of recent studies about how a person’s reaction to mistakes, and subsequent feedback about the mistakes, affect the learning process. The findings might interest you, especially if you are a parent with school-aged children.

One recent study focused on why some people are good at learning from their mistakes while others are not. The researchers found that the reaction to the mistakes is what makes the difference. Using EEG technology to measure brain waves, they identified two opposing reactions to mistakes. They noted that people who showed brain activity that meant they were paying attention to the mistake were more likely to learn from it and correct it in the future, whereas those who ignored the mistake and moved on were more likely to continue making mistakes.

Next, the researchers looked at how a person’s beliefs about learning contributed to these differing reactions to mistakes. They incorporated the seminal mindset research of Carol Dweck, which divides people into two groups: those who believe your intelligence level is innate and can’t be greatly changed (“fixed mindset”), and those who believe that with time and energy, people can get better at almost anything (“growth mindset”). As you might expect, people with a fixed mindset were less likely to learn from mistakes (since they viewed them as failure), while people with a growth mindset viewed mistakes as part of the learning process.

Continue reading "Learning From Your Mistakes Means You Learn More, Faster" »

A new study published in Neurology has found that a deficiency in Vitamin B12 is associated with brain atrophy and increased cognitive decline. The study, which examined 121 patients age 65 and over throughout a 5 year period, measured serum markers of vitamin B12, neuropsychological test results, and MRI scans to draw conclusions about B12 and the brain. After adjusting for age, sex, education, race, and other factors, the researchers found that the level of vitamin B12 markers was correlated with global cognitive scores and rate of brain shrinkage.

In light of these findings, you might be asking: “How can I ensure I’m getting enough B12 in  my diet?” The first thing to do is to understand which foods are good sources of vitamin B12. The best source is calf’s liver–just 1 ounce provides nearly 200% of the RDA for B12. Snapper, sardines, venison, and salmon are also excellent sources. Beef, lamb, scallops, and shrimp have a slightly lower concentration of B12 but remain good dietary sources. Of course, sardines and salmon are also great dietary sources of Omega-3 fatty acids while being very low in mercury, so they are a top choice for overall brain health. Because of its niacin content, lamb is also a relatively brain healthy food–niacin has also been shown to have protective effects on the brain.

Continue reading "Vitamin B12 Deficiency Linked to Cognitive Impairment – So How Can You Get More B12 in Your Diet?" »

A new study from Harvard that looked at nearly 14,000 women over time revealed that those who had a small drink each day aged better than heavy drinkers and non-drinkers. The researchers noted that those women who drank between 1/2 ounce and 1 ounce of alcohol per day were 28% more likely to “achieve successful aging”–described as living to be at least 70 years of age while remaining “free of 11 major chronic diseases and having no major cognitive impairment, physical impairment, or mental health limitations.”

Of course, as in all of these alcohol-might-be-good-for-you studies, the researchers stressed that non-drinkers shouldn’t necessarily start drinking, but those who do drink alcohol may wish to consider this finding to maintain current habits or cut down to the optimal amount. Unlike previous studies which have linked resveratrol in red wine to healthy aging, the Harvard study looked only at alcohol consumption, not the type of alcoholic beverages that were imbibed. For reference, a standard drink that contains about 0.6 oz of alcohol is roughly found in one 12 oz beer, one 5 oz glass of wine, or one 1.5 oz shot of alcoholic spirits.

Ed. note: Today we are pleased to present a guest post from Natalie Hunter of Online Schools. Click on her name above for a full biography.

For many people, the boon of the information age means we have an unprecedented amount of knowledge at the click of a mouse, and can access news, facts, and trivia from across the globe in a matter of moments. However, this wealth of information comes at a price: recent studies on the subject indicate that the proliferation of Internet use has changed how we use our minds, and specifically our memory.

Research indicates that brain function or our capacity to recall is not at issue, but rather how we use our memory. A recent article in the New York Times cites a pivotal study on how we remember information and access it. Led by Dr. Betsy Sparrow from Columbia University, along with colleagues from Harvard and the University of Wisconsin, the study used four different memory experiments to test participants’ cognitive skills. Half of the group believed that the information they entered was stored in the computer for later use, while the other half believed the information was erased after entry. The study found that the participants retained much more information when they believed it was unavailable later, versus when the information was “available” on the computer. The part of our memory (known as transactive memory) accesses the part of the brain that tells us where to find the information, instead of holding onto the actual data. In generations past, that meant of relying on a friend, coworker, or reference material for the information we needed, but today the Internet serves as one of our main tools to access transactive memory. The abundance of a readily available trove of knowledge only serves to decrease our ability to memorize and retain information.

Continue reading "The Effect of the Internet on Our Memory" »

I recently read an article in the New York Times that made me think about some issues around how medical testing works. The article talked about a randomized, controlled study that aimed to prevent strokes by implanting a stent into the brain. One group received the stent surgery, while the control group received no surgical intervention but was told to minimize risk factors in their lives. Tragically, the stent seemed to increase the chances of stroke and death in the patients who received them, while the risk factor group was relatively unscathed. The researchers involved were unhappy with the outcome, but noted that this is why research occurs- so you can test things out on a small number of willing participants to discover benefits and consequences before releasing them to a larger population.

At Posit Science, scientists from universities around the U.S. and the world conduct research using our brain training programs, which is how we know they work. When you’re dealing with a software-based training program instead of a pill or a surgical device, you really cut down on the risk of negative side effects, which makes the research a lot less complicated. Reading about the tragic outcome of this stent study made me feel thankful that our products can provide a non-invasive way for people to improve brain health, without risk of serious side effects.

Continue reading "Cancelled Stent Study for Strokes Reveals Implications for Evidence-Based Medicine and Surgical Interventions" »

In a groundbreaking new study, a team of (very serious) academics have determined that a total of 704 head injuries occur in the 34 Asterix and Obelix comic books.

That’s almost 21 per book!

The researchers ranked the severity of the injuries on the standard Glasgow coma scale, and found that a shocking 390 of them fit the criteria for “severe.” Fortunately, however, long-term deficits rarely resulted. “In general, all symptoms of traumatic brain injury usually improved within a few minutes or hours,” the researchers noted—with one notable exception in the case of an injury incurred by the druid Getafix.

The Gauls gave better than they got, experiencing just 120 brain injuries (17%) themselves, but causing 613 (87.1%) of all injuries—mostly to Roman soldiers.

Continue reading "Asterix and Obelix: Brain Trauma Buffs" »

An Australian study recently released a shocking finding: every hour of television a person watches shortens their life by an average of 22 minutes. Looking at the behavior of 11,000 participants, the Queensland scientists found that people who watched around 6 hours of TV each day lived an average of almost 5 years less than people who never watched TV. This research corroborates another recent study from Harvard. The Harvard team found that TV watchers are at a significantly greater risk for type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and early death than people who don’t watch TV.

Perhaps the most sobering statistic cited by the Australian team: if TV didn’t exist, the average life expectancy for women would be 1.5 years longer for women and 1.8 years longer for men.

Before you throw your TV out, consider this aspect of the finding: it’s probably not the TV itself that’s causing the problem- it’s the fact that because you’re watching TV, you’re not doing other, more active things. The researchers in both studies agree that watching a lot of TV is strongly correlated with reduced physical activity and poor eating habits. So if the only TV you watch is at the gym while you’re on a treadmill, this finding may not apply to you.

Not sure what to do now that your TV is off? Visit our Brain Fitness page to learn quick brain fitness tips and to learn more about how to choose daily activities that boost your brain instead of draining it.