Showing posts with label neuroplasticity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neuroplasticity. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize, part II

This was the piece I submitted for the Wellcome Trust/Guardian Science Writing Prize. It didn't win, but it did make the shortlist of 15 out of over 800 entries. Not bad for a classicist cum curator...

--------

If you want to experience the power of neuroplastic change, I suggest you develop a porn habit.

Though still a relatively new theory on the neurocience block, neuroplasticity – the notion that our adult brains can be cortically rewired through experience and environment – has been gaining publicity over the last ten years thanks to people like psychiatrist Norman Doidge and neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran.

Perhaps surprisingly, pornography provides a useful demonstration of the principles of neuroplasticity in practice. Pornography appears, at first glance, to be a purely instinctual matter. Not so, suggests Doidge in The Brain That Changes Itself, for if the buxom babes and well-endowed studs triggered responses that were supposedly the product of millions of years of evolution, we might assume that pornography would have remained unchanged over the years. As Doidge puts it, “we might expect the same triggers, body parts and proportions that appealed to the first consumers of porn would still excite us today.”

Anyone with an internet connection can see that this simply isn’t true. Pornography is a dynamic phenomenon that perfectly illustrates the progress of acquired tastes. Forty years ago “hardcore” porn typically meant the explicit depiction of sex between two or more partners, while “softcore” porn tended to depict topless or nude women. Now, hardcore has evolved and its subsections have increased tenfold: BDSM, orgies, violence and humiliation, anal sex; you name it, pretty much anything goes. Softcore porn now resembles the hardcore images of from only a few decades ago, and half-naked images of women are unassailably commonplace, bombarding us from every mainstream media outlet.

This wider cultural trend hints at the more particular effects on the brain maps of individual consumers. As with other facets of human sexuality and romance, the key issue is tolerance. On the cultural and individual level we’re like drug addicts who can no longer get high on the images that once turned us on. And, as Marina Robinson observes in “The Great Porn Experiment”, the risk is that this tolerance can and will carry over into relationships leading to potency problems and new, at times unwelcome, tastes.

Pornography is more exciting than satisfying because we have two separate pleasure systems in our brains: one that excites pleasure and one that satisfies pleasure. The exciting system relates to the appetitive pleasure that we get imagining the things we desire - sex or good food - and this chemistry is largely dopamine-related and raises our tension level. The second pleasure system has to do with satisfying the appetitive pleasure - when you actually get the sex or the food. Its neurochemistry is based on the release of endorphins, which relax you and lead to that calming, fulfilling sense of pleasure.

It’s worth mentioning briefly that porn works not because the images excite us and cause us to think about sex, but because the images arouse us and cause our brains to think we’re actually having sex. By offering your brain an endless stream of sexual objects for excitement, porn hyperactivates the appetitive system. Regular viewers develop new brain maps based on the photos they see and the videos they watch. And because we have a “use it or lose it” brain, when we develop a new map area, we long to keep it activated. Just as our muscles become impatient for exercise if we've been sitting all day, so too do our senses hunger to be stimulated.

Activation of these brain reward systems is a normal, healthy component of human behaviour - they direct us toward the things that keep us alive and promote our survival (food and water) or the survival of the species (sex). But as Robinson points out the brains of porn users are “tricked into thinking that the consumption of so much porn is really valuable because it’s causing a mammoth release of exciting neurochemicals.” The brain has been rewired – however temporarily – to neglect formerly potent rewards (delicious food or sex) in favour of something else, in this case, porn.

But here’s the interesting twist. As an addictive substance, porn hijacks our dopamine system and gives us pleasure without our having to work for it. Some might not say that’s such a bad thing. But because porn meets all the conditions for neuroplastic change – repeated use, requires intense concentration and triggers a reward system – regular users build up a tolerance, a tolerance which translates into changes in the brain.

Yet, unbelievably, we take the effects of this repetition for granted. Our activities significantly alter our brains and thus our brains have the ability to significantly alter our actions. We are creatures who absorb the environment around us, who suck up stimuli like Brawny paper towels.

In a society that constantly likes to remind itself of its sexual liberation, where orgasms and masturbation are considered as important to physical health as exercise and eating well, porn is tolerated as an aide-de-amour-propre. The results of the great porn experiment remain to be seen of course, but the shift in acquired sexual tastes at the cultural level, as indicated by porn consumption, is a fascinating indicator of individual plastic change in brains ever on the hunt for a new dopamine hit.

Tuesday, 16 August 2011

Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize

Way back in May I entered The Wellcome Trust’s Science Writing Prize and then mostly forgot about it.

Turns out they liked my piece – a re-researched/rehashed/rewritten version of this blog post on neuroplasticity and pornography I wrote back in April 2009 – and, along with fourteen other lost souls, I’ve been shortlisted for the grand old prize to be announced on 12 October. Needless to say, I'm absolutely delighted.

I write a lot about science on my blog (e.g. on memory and mentors, on perception and the illusion of control, ramblings on neuroplasticity) and apart from endless years of chemistry in high school, followed by a couple of years of organic and biochemistry at university, I haven't a lick of professional science experience - just a deep-seated love for labware and particle physics (mostly thanks to some damn fine science teachers when I was at school. Hear, hear for great teachers!).

I'm an old fashioned humanist, the kind that thinks that Latin is as important as chemistry and philosophy. Being shortlisted for a science writing prize is incredibly gratifying to me because it isn't the field in which I tend to operate professionally. Entering the prize wasn't about taking steps in a "new direction" or "trying my hand" at something different (as so often seems to be the label snidely ascribed to such endeavours when they appear to deviate from a straightforward career path), but a totally natural (to me, at least) expression of one of my many interests. I'm often asked how, if at all, these interests fit together, but I don't see them as a number of diverging subjects, but as complementary topics that feed off each other and allow new ways of thinking to emerge - it's all so much more exciting when one is able to make links across a wide variety of subjects instead of being trapped by knowledge - however vast - of only one subject.

It doesn't really seem kosher to post my entry here until the winner has been announced, but never fear, I'll be sure to whack it up as soon as the hangover has cleared from the awards festivities.

Wednesday, 18 March 2009

the brain that changes itself


I got into an argument with The Boy a few days ago about 'super-stringy' calf fibres (his terminology, not mine - I think they're actually called fast or slow twitch fibre compositions). While I'm all for interdisciplinarity, my entire academic career testifies to this claim, attempting to overlay anthropological theories onto neuroscience just doesn't work for me. Basically he was trying to argue that nature presided regally over nurture.

Being, as I am, mildly obsessed with neuroscience (I'm already planning a career change at 37) I know that most neuroscientists, but especially those with a particular interest in neuroplasticity would say that the nature/nurture debate is largely irrelevant as the two are completely inter-related.

Not only with sports, but with your ability to play a musical instrument, or to paint or compute complex mathematical equations - natural talent or genetics can only take a person so far. So yes, perhaps Michael Phelps is 'built' with the 'perfect' frame for swimming (whatever that means), but if he was more motivated to study theoretical physics and became one of our greatest physicists, no one would say 'he was built' for theoretical physics. Likewise, while proponents of the nature theory might argue that Lance Armstrong is a great cyclist because he has one of the greatest V02 max readings ever seen (an individual's maximal rate of oxygen consumption), the same genes that are so often attributed for his success also contributed to the development of his nonseminomatous testicular cancer.


I'm coming at the elite athletics side of this from a strictly laymen position, but after a little bit of reading, I found something interesting about the natural gap between V02 max readings between men and women. Sports physiologists supposedly claim that genetics play a major role in a person's VO2 max and that heredity can account for up to 25-50% of the variance seen between individuals, thus leading us to believe that nature triumphs over nurture and that plastic change is impossible. Where this becomes interesting is in a comparison between untrained girls and women, who typically have a maximal oxygen uptake 20-25% lower than untrained men. However, when comparing elite athletes, the gap tends to close to about 10% and if V02 max is adjusted to account for fat free mass in elite male and female athletes, in some studies the differences disappear.
So something else is going on here besides just genetics. Training, nutrition, psychology, etc., must account for the ability for our bodies (and brains) to major changes.

It's always in running - especially sprinting - where people tend to say that speed is without doubt the result of genetically determined factors meeting training effects. Common belief is that if you took a random sample of children from West Africa and another from a western European country, on average, the West Africans will be faster in a sprint race. Explanations for this can not be precise, but tend to centre around natural ability and physiological determination.

Now to get to the whole point of this post. I recently purchased a very interesting book by psychoanalyst Norman Doidge called
The Brain That Changes Itself. By some brilliant coincidence The Philosopher discovered that Dr. Doidge was giving a talk at LSE last night. We went, we listened, we were entertained. It was interesting - he wasn't as lucid in person as in his book (which I thoroughly recommend if you have any interest how your brain is profoundly affected by your everyday environment - you'll never look at porn websites again!), but still it was good fun.

The point about running and the difference between Africans and Europeans reminds me of a great anecdote in Doidge's book. In 2003, researchers from Sweden's Lund University did some research with the Moken sea gypsies who live in the archipelago of Burma and along the West Cost of Thailand. When you dive underwater and open your eyes, everything appears slightly blurry. Focusing depends on the curvature of the lens and the difference between the index of refection of the eye and the surrounding medium. Air has an index of refraction of 1, the cornea 1.376 and the aqueous humor 1.336. The index of refraction of water is about 1.33. Because of the small difference in the index of refraction of water and the eye, the lens must become very curved to focus light on the retina. Living on land, there was no evolutionary need for the lens to become this curved, so objects are out of focus when we open our eyes under water.

Unlike most of the rest of us, t
he sea gypsies maximally constrict the pupil to see accurately underwater - this is not a genetic attribute - rather it has developed over time through repeated exercise and use. Moreover, there are studies which have demonstrated that European children can learn to demonstrate this same pupil constriction with practice. This is a great and easy to understand example of plasticity and the 'use it or lose it' theory of the brain: we're talking about use-dependent cortical reorganisation here. This isn't saying that if you believe in something enough you can do it or master it, but that if you create an environment where you are constantly having to exercise a particular function in order to improve, then surprising things are achievable.


If I can be asked, I'll write up a part two sometime soonish. There are some very interesting connections between behaviour and environment (remember the porn?) that will seriously get you thinking about the habits which form your day to day existence. We may not have the inclination to be world-class athletes, but surely we'd all like to be a little bit better at something.

Like Doidge says, use your brain or lose it. And with new(ish and admittedly slightly hysterical) studies showing that age-related cognitive decline beings as early as 27, I'm pretty sure that means all of us could stand to do a bit of brain spring cleaning...

PS If you are really a glutton for punishment and want to know more - V.S. Ramachandran, a brilliant neuroscientist, gave the BBC Reith Lectures in 2003 which are very stimulating yet quite approachable.

Tuesday, 17 March 2009

I love Paris

This is a lazy photo post of this weekend's Paris and Versailles trip. Will write something altogether more thoughtful tomorrow after tonight's Norman Doidge (he's a psychiatrist who writes on neuroplasticity and I'm a big fan) lecture at LSE.