For More Posts Like These, Go To @mypsychology​

I am creating a poetry book based on my follower’s usernames. If you’d like to be in the book, please comment anything below and reblog this so I can find more usernames too :) 

March for Science, California State University, Chico

Discovery challenges belief about brain’s cellular makeup

A discovery made by Junhwan Kim, PhD, assistant professor at The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, is challenging science’s longstanding beliefs regarding the cellular makeup of the brain. This breakthrough was outlined in a study published in the journal Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry. Having a full understanding of the brain can help identify new therapies as well as develop guidelines to maintain brain health.

It has long been a belief in the scientific field that the building blocks of brain cells, phospholipids, are enriched by polyunsaturated fatty acids. When trying to prove that the brain, like other major organs, are made of polyunsaturated fatty acids, Dr. Kim and his team were surprised by the results.

“We found the opposite of what science has widely believed – phospholipids containing polyunsaturated fatty acids in the brain are lower than other major organs,” said Dr. Kim. “Knowing that there are lower amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids in the brain, we may need to rethink how this acid impacts brain health and conditions like oxygen deprivation.”

Dr. Kim and his team analyzed brain, heart, liver and kidney tissue from animals and found that only 60 percent of the brain’s phospholipids were made up of polyunsaturated fatty acids. That’s compared to other organs, where the polyunsaturated fatty acid content is about 90 percent. It has also been previously presumed that high polyunsaturated fatty acids levels in the brain were what made it susceptible to oxygen deprivation or brain injury. Further research is required to find out the reasoning for the difference in acid levels, but it could also challenge beliefs about polyunsaturated fatty acids’ impact on these conditions.

“Dr. Kim’s findings challenge basic assumptions about the brain,” said Kevin J. Tracey, MD, president and CEO of the Feinstein Institute. “This paper is an important step to defining a new research path.”

WHAT IS YOUR SOUL ELEMENT?

What is your soul element? Are you the master of fire, the controller of water, the bender of air, or the assembler of earth? 

Take this test to know 

For more posts like these, go to @mypsychology​

✨   Follow @psych2go for more! ✨

✧ Check out our website here ✧

This blog is Dedicated to anyone suffering from Anxiety! Please Follow Us if You Can Relate: ANXIETYPROBLEMS

Why You Think You Are Not Good Enough AND How to Fix it

“If I asked you to name all the things you love, how long would it take to name yourself.” – Anon

There is no shortage of reasons why we sometimes feel like we flat out aren’t good enough. Maybe it’s low grades in school, or we think we are too thin, or too fat, or too young. Maybe our partner makes us feel inadequate, or our parents seem to believe we can’t do anything right.

Sometimes we do it to ourselves. We compare our home, or clothes, or cars to where someone else lives, or to what they wear, or to what they drive. If we believe their things are better than ours, then we tell ourselves we are less of a person.

Society doesn’t help us believe that we are unique, or that being unique is seriously “good enough.” There is constant pressure to be the best team, the best student, the best assistant, the best employee. We compare ourselves to models in magazines and hold ourselves to a certain standard of perfection that is as unrealistic as it is attainable.

It isn’t a Feeling. It’s a Thought.

When you don’t feel “good enough” it’s often because you are telling yourself you’re stupid, or ugly, or incapable. The thoughts you use to describe yourself make you unhappy. These thoughts make you feel depressed and worthless. According to Ali Miller, MFT, this is an important distinction. She believes that…

CONTINUE READING HERE

Split brain does not lead to split consciousness

A new research study contradicts the established view that so-called split-brain patients have a split consciousness. Instead, the researchers behind the study, led by UvA psychologist Yair Pinto, have found strong evidence showing that despite being characterised by little to no communication between the right and left brain hemispheres, split brain does not cause two independent conscious perceivers in one brain. Their results are published in the latest edition of the journal Brain. 

Split brain is a lay term to describe the result of a corpus callosotomy, a surgical procedure first performed in the 1940s to alleviate severe epilepsy among patients. During this procedure, the corpus callosum, a bundle of neural fibres connecting the left and right cerebral hemispheres, is severed to prevent the spread of epileptic activity between the two brain halves. While mostly successful in relieving epilepsy, the procedure also virtually eliminates all communication between the cerebral hemispheres, thereby resulting in a ‘split brain’.

This condition was made famous by the work of Nobel laureate Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga. In their canonical work, Sperry and Gazzaniga discovered that split-brain patients can only respond to stimuli in the right visual field with their right hand and vice versa. This was taken as evidence that severing the corpus callosum causes each hemisphere to gain its own consciousness.

Divided perception

For their study, Pinto and his fellow researchers conducted a series of tests on two patients who had undergone a full callosotomy. In one of the tests, the patients were placed in front of a screen and shown various objects displayed in several locations. The patients were then asked to confirm whether an object appeared and to indicate its location. In another test, they had to correctly name the object they had seen, a notorious difficulty among spit-brain patients. ‘Our main aim was to determine whether the patients performed better when responding to the left visual field with their left hand instead of their right hand and vice versa’, says Pinto, assistant professor of Cognitive Psychology. ‘This question was based on the textbook notion of two independent conscious agents: one experiencing the left visual field and controlling the left hand, and one experiencing the right visual field and controlling the right hand.’

To the researchers’ surprise, the patients were able to respond to stimuli throughout the entire visual field with all the response types: left hand, right hand and verbally. Pinto: ‘The patients could accurately indicate whether an object was present in the left visual field and pinpoint its location, even when they responded with the right hand or verbally. This despite the fact that their cerebral hemispheres can hardly communicate with each other and do so at perhaps 1 bit per second, which is less than a normal conversation. I was so surprised that I decide repeat the experiments several more times with all types of control.’

(Image caption: A depiction of the traditional view of the split brain syndrome (top) versus what the researchers actually found in two split-brain patients across a wide variety of tasks (bottom). Credit: Yair Pinto)

Undivided consciousness

According to Pinto, the results present clear evidence for unity of consciousness in split-brain patients. ‘The established view of split-brain patients implies that physical connections transmitting massive amounts of information are indispensable for unified consciousness, i.e. one conscious agent in one brain. Our findings, however, reveal that although the two hemispheres are completely insulated from each other, the brain as a whole is still able to produce only one conscious agent. This directly contradicts current orthodoxy and highlights the complexity of unified consciousness.’

In the coming period, Pinto plans to conduct research on more split-brain patients to see whether his findings can be replicated. ‘These patients, who are rapidly decreasing in numbers, are our only way to find out what happens when large subsystems in the brain no longer communicate with each other. This phenomenon raises important questions that cannot be investigated in healthy adults because we have no technique to isolate large subsystems in healthy brains.’

Don’t forget to order you Psychology Department Sweatshirt!! Now accepting VENMO!!! https://www.instagram.com/p/Bq0lFpdFdth/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=qzde5ezgl6e1