Historically, science operated under the notion of a “normal brain,” one that fits standard societal expectations. Those who diverge from this model have often been labeled with a disorder or mental health condition, treated as if they were somehow flawed. For years, researchers have refined the notion that neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and movement disorders, should be recognized as distinctive variations representing different neurocognitive frameworks.
In the late 1990s, a paradigm shift occurred. What if these “disorders” were simply natural variations in brain wiring? What if human traits existed on a spectrum rather than a stark boundary between normal and abnormal? Those at either end of the spectrum may face challenges, yet their exceptional brains also offer valuable strengths. Viewed through this lens, diverse brains represent assets, contributing positively to society when properly supported.
The concept of neurodiversity gained momentum, sparking lively debates in online autism advocacy groups. By 2013, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders recognized autism as a spectrum condition, abolishing the Asperger’s syndrome diagnosis and classifying it on a scale from Level 1 to Level 3 based on support needs. This shift solidified the understanding of neurodivergent states within medical literature.
Since the early 2000s, research has shown that individuals with autism often excel in mathematical reasoning and attention to detail. Those with ADHD frequently outperform others in creativity, while individuals with dyslexia are adept at pattern recognition and big-picture thinking. Even those with movement disorders have been noted to develop innovative coping strategies.
These discoveries have led many scientists to argue that neurodivergent states are not mere evolutionary happenstance. Instead, our ancestors likely thrived thanks to pioneers, creative thinkers, and detail-oriented individuals in their midst. A group possessing diverse cognitive strengths could more effectively explore, adapt, and survive. Some researchers now propose that the autism spectrum comprises distinct subtypes with varying clusters of abilities and challenges.
While many researchers advocate for framing neurodivergent characteristics as “superpowers,” some caution against overly positive portrayals. “Excessive optimism, especially without supporting evidence, can undermine the seriousness of these conditions,” says Dr. Jessica Eccles, a psychiatrist and neurodiversity researcher at Brighton and Sussex Medical School. Nevertheless, she emphasizes that “with this vocabulary, we can better understand both the strengths and challenges of neurodiversity, enabling individuals to navigate the world more effectively.”
You’ve likely encountered the parable of the blind men and the elephant, where each individual’s perspective is limited to one part, leading to a distorted understanding of the whole. This concept resonates deeply in neuroscience, which has historically treated the brain as a collection of specialized regions, each fulfilling unique functions.
For decades, our insights into brain functionality arose from serendipitous events, such as the case of Phineas Gage, a 19th-century railroad worker who dramatically altered personality following a severe brain injury. More recent studies employing brain stimulation have linked the amygdala with emotion and the occipital lobe with visual processing, yet this provides only a fragmented understanding.
Brain regions demonstrate specialization, but this does not encapsulate the entire picture. The advent of imaging technologies, particularly functional MRI and PET scans in the late 1990s and early 2000s, revolutionized our comprehension of the brain’s interconnectedness. Researchers discovered that complex behaviors stem from synchronized activity across overlapping neural networks.
“Mapping brain networks is playing a crucial role in transforming our understanding in neuroscience,” states Luis Pessoa from the University of Maryland.
This transformative journey commenced in 2001 when Marcus Raichle, now at Washington University in St. Louis, characterized the Default Mode Network (DMN). This interconnected network activates during moments of rest, reflecting intrinsic cognitive processes.
In 2003, Kristen McKiernan, then at the Medical College of Wisconsin, and her team identified that the DMN experiences heightened activity during familiar tasks, such as daydreaming and introspection, providing a “resting state” benchmark for evaluating overall brain activity. They began to correlate DMN activity with advanced behaviors, including emotional intelligence and theory of mind.
As discoveries proliferated across other networks—pertaining to attention, language, emotion, memory, and planning—our understanding of mental health and neurodiversity evolved. These neural differences are now thought to be linked with various neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, PTSD, depression, anxiety, and ADHD.
Network science has emerged as a pivotal field, enhancing our comprehension of disorders from autism, characterized by atypical social salience networks—those that detect and prioritize salient social cues—to Alzheimer’s disease, where novel research indicates abnormal protein spread via network pathways. We also acknowledge the inspiration it provides for developing artificial neural networks in AI systems like ChatGPT.
Neural networks have not only reshaped our understanding of brain functionalities but also the methodologies for diagnosing and treating neurological disorders. While we might not yet perceive the entirety of the elephant, our view is undeniably clarifying as science progresses.
Octopuses in shallow waters, such as the common octopus, typically possess larger brains.
Image Credit: Shutterstock
Research suggests that the large brains of octopuses are influenced more by environmental conditions than by social interactions.
It is widely accepted that larger mammalian brains correlate with social behavior, a theory known as the social brain hypothesis. The premise is that the more social connections a species has, the larger their brains must be to handle those interactions. This trend is evident among primates, dolphins, and camelids.
In contrast, cephalopods—like octopuses, cuttlefish, and nautiluses—exhibit significant intelligence despite mostly living solitary lives, with limited parental care and minimal social learning.
To delve deeper into the reasons behind the substantial brain size of these creatures, Michael Muthukrishna and researchers from the London School of Economics analyzed data from 79 cephalopod species with available brain information. They quantified brain size based on the total volume of an animal’s central nervous system, considering that octopuses actually possess nine brains: one central brain and semi-independent brains in each of their eight arms.
“This species is a stark contrast to humans, showcasing unique appendages and behaviors,” Muthukrishna notes.
The findings revealed no direct correlation between brain size and sociability. However, they did uncover that cephalopods generally have larger brains when inhabiting shallow waters, where they encounter a wide array of objects to manipulate and use as tools, along with rich calorie availability. Conversely, species dwelling in featureless deep-sea environments tend to have smaller brains.
“The correlation is quite strong,” Muthukrishna states, “but it’s imperative to approach these findings cautiously,” as only about 10 percent of the existing 800 cephalopod species have brain data accessible.
“The absence of a social brain effect in octopuses is intriguing yet expected,” explains Robin Dunbar from Oxford University, who proposed the social brain hypothesis around three decades ago. He argues that because octopuses do not inhabit cohesive social groups, their brains lack the necessity to manage complex social dynamics.
Professor Paul Katz from the University of Massachusetts articulates the possibility that evolution may have led to smaller brain sizes each time cephalopods adapted to deep-sea environments. “It’s reminiscent of species dimensions reducing on isolated islands; the same could apply to species in the deep ocean,” he mentions.
Muthukrishna’s previous research proposed that brain size not only predicts the extent of social and cultural behaviors but also reflects ecological factors such as prey diversity. Thus, the parallel patterns between cephalopods, having diverged from vertebrates over 500 million years ago, and humans bolster the cultural brain hypothesis. According to Muthukrishna and colleagues, this hypothesis illustrates how ecological pressures and information acquisition lead to the development of larger, more complex brains.
“It’s not solely about social instincts when it comes to large brains,” Muthukrishna asserts.
“I wholeheartedly agree that exploring why humans possess large brains must be informed by our understanding of current species. However, unraveling the evolutionary history of large brains, particularly with cephalopods, is challenging, especially given the radically different predator-prey dynamics when their brains began evolving,” Katz explains.
Dunbar emphasizes that octopuses may require substantial brainpower for their independent-use of eight arms. “Understanding an octopus’s brain is complex due to its unique structure, but a significant part of its brain’s function is to manage its intricate body mechanics necessary for survival,” he states.
Furthermore, Dunbar notes that it is logical for larger brains to evolve in environments abundant in calories. “You can’t increase brain size without addressing energy consumption. Once you have a more substantial brain, its applications become vast, which is why humans can engage in writing, reading, and complex mathematics—skills not inherently present within our evolutionary contexts.”
An international team of researchers has conducted a groundbreaking study utilizing high-resolution 3D imaging techniques, including micro-CT scans, to reconstruct the brain shapes of over 30 species. These species range from pterosaurs and their relatives to early dinosaurs and bird precursors, modern crocodiles, and various Triassic archosaurs.
Reconstruction of the landscape from the late Triassic period, approximately 215 million years ago. A Lagelpetidae, a relative of pterosaurs, perches on a rock and observes a pterosaur flying overhead. Image credit: Mateus Fernández.
The earliest known pterosaurs, dating back approximately 220 million years, were already adept at powered flight. This ability subsequently evolved independently in paraavian dinosaurs, a group that encompasses modern birds and their non-avian relatives.
Flight is a complex locomotion type that necessitates physiological adaptations and significant changes in body structure, including alterations in body proportions, specialized coverings, and the enhancement of neurosensory capabilities.
While birds and pterosaurs exhibit distinct skeletal and covering adaptations for flying, it is suggested that they may share neuroanatomical features linked to aerial movement.
“Our findings bolster the evidence that the enlarged brain observed in modern birds, and possibly their ancient ancestors, didn’t drive the flight abilities of pterosaurs,” stated Dr. Matteo Fabbri from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
“Our research indicates that pterosaurs achieved flight early in their evolution and did so with relatively small brains, akin to flightless dinosaurs.”
To explore whether pterosaurs gained flight differently than birds and bats, researchers examined the evolutionary tree of reptiles to understand the evolution of pterosaur brain shape and size, seeking clues that may have led to the emergence of flight.
They particularly emphasized the optic lobe, an area crucial for vision, whose growth is believed to correlate with flying ability.
The team focused on pterosaurs’ closest relatives through CT scans and imaging software capable of retrieving information about the nervous systems of fossils, specifically examining Ixarelpeton, a flightless arboreal species from the lagerpetide family that existed in Brazil around 233 million years ago.
Dr. Mario Bronzati from the University of Tübingen noted: “The brains of Lagerpetidae exhibited features linked to enhanced vision, like enlarged optic lobes, which might have equipped pterosaur relatives for flight.”
“Pterosaurs had larger optic lobes as well,” Fabbri added.
However, aside from the optic lobes, there were minimal similarities in brain shape and size when comparing pterosaurs to their closest flying reptile relatives, the Lagerpetidae.
“Some similarities suggest that the flying pterosaurs, which arose shortly after Lagerpetidae, may have acquired flight capabilities swiftly during their origin,” Fabbri explained.
“In essence, the pterosaur brain underwent rapid changes from the start, acquiring all necessary adaptations for flight.”
“Conversely, modern birds are believed to have inherited specific traits from their prehistoric predecessors, such as an expanded cerebrum, cerebellum, and optic lobes, gradually adapting them for flight over time.”
This theory is reinforced by a 2024 study highlighting the brain’s cerebellum expansion as a pivotal factor for bird flight.
The cerebellum, located at the brain’s rear, regulates and coordinates muscle movements, among various functions.
In further research, the scientists examined the brain cavities of fossil crocodilians and early extinct birds, comparing them to those of pterosaurs.
They discovered that pterosaur brains had moderately enlarged hemispheres that resembled those of other dinosaurs, contrasting with modern birds’ brain cavities.
“Discoveries in southern Brazil provide remarkable new insights into the origins of major animal groups such as dinosaurs and pterosaurs,” remarked paleontologist Dr. Rodrigo Temp Muller from the Federal University of Santa Maria.
“With every new fossil and study released, our understanding of what the early relatives of these groups looked like becomes increasingly clear—something we couldn’t have imagined just a few years ago.”
“In future studies, gaining a deeper understanding of how pterosaur brain structure, along with its size and shape, facilitated flight will be crucial for unveiling the fundamental biological principles of flight,” Fabbri stated.
The results were published in the journal Current Biology.
_____
Mario Bronzati et al. Neuroanatomical convergence between pterosaurs and nonavian parabirds in the evolution of flight. Current Biology published online on November 26, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2025.10.086
The New Scientist Book Club took a departure from science fiction in October, focusing instead on the winners of the Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize. This timely announcement aligned perfectly with our next literary venture.
Among the award nominees were six works by Daniel Levitin, including music as medicine and Vanished: The History of Unnatural Extinction. The jury ultimately selected Masud Hussain’s Our Brains, Ourselves: What a Neurologist’s Patients Tell Us About the Brain. They praised the book as a “poetic exploration of how neurological conditions affect one’s identity,” noting that Hussain cleverly weaves his immigrant experience in 1960s Britain into his medical narratives.
It’s worth mentioning that our book club members tend to be more critical than the Royal Society judges. While there was enthusiasm for exploring non-fiction, several issues emerged throughout our discussions.
Starting with the positives, many of us found the later chapters, where Hussain contemplates the concept of self, particularly thought-provoking regarding the historical evolution of identity and how various brain conditions influence a patient’s self-perception.
Katherine Sarah echoed this sentiment, remarking, “This offers an engaging insight into brain function and the essence of ‘self,’ along with the crucial social skills that enable our integration into society.” Her perspective resonates with those in our Facebook group. As someone who relocated to a new country without knowing the local language, she felt particularly connected to the text.
She reflected, “It struck me how language is integral to our identity, and the challenges of expressing ourselves without it can be profound,” noting parallels to a patient in the book with suppressed motivation due to language barriers. “I, too, felt shy and hesitant when I couldn’t communicate effectively.” She found it fascinating to read about patients with selective cognitive impairments, emphasizing how interconnected our mental faculties truly are.
Gosia Furmanik also appreciated this exploration of identity and migration. “Overall, I enjoyed the book’s engaging style and insightful examples. The reflections on identity toward the end really resonated with me, especially as someone who has migrated multiple times,” she noted.
Judith Lazell enjoyed the humor and readability of the text, calling it a “fantastic choice.” Jennifer Marano valued the chapter about Wahid, a bus driver with Lewy body dementia who begins experiencing hallucinations. “This shifted my understanding of perception and hallucinations,” she remarked. “The world feels solid, but it’s amazing to think that our brains construct the visual stimuli we perceive. I wonder what others might be experiencing.”
When I spoke with Hussain, I was curious about his narrative approach, especially moments that felt a bit contrived. For instance, when he notices a monument to Samuel Johnson while thinking about a patient: “That irony made me smile,” he said, as he connects the great lexicographer with a patient struggling with word recall, diving into a lengthy discussion about lexicography.
Hussain explained he felt it necessary to fictionalize some scenarios to protect patient identities, a technique that makes narrative sense. However, I found some instances a bit forced.
Niall Leighton shared similar criticisms, focusing on the perceived stiffness in Hussain’s patient interactions. “I couldn’t help but think these encounters seemed overly scripted, which became increasingly frustrating,” he noted.
Gosia expressed relief that she wasn’t alone in feeling these aspects detracted from the narrative. She pointed out that Hussain’s admission in interviews about substantial fictionalization might explain some discrepancies. “Perhaps a significant amount was imagined,” she suggested.
Some members expressed irritation with Hussain’s ornate language at times. Jennifer commented, “It felt as if he was attempting to craft a ‘great British novel’ with descriptions ill-fitting for a science book.”
Judith and Niall found Hussain’s habit of defining terms like “vertebrate (animal with a backbone)” redundant. “Everyone reading this book likely understands these concepts,” Judith remarked.
Niall added, “It feels patronizing to repeatedly define terms like ‘atrophy’ and ‘neuron.’ It made me question who the author perceived his audience to be.”
This raises a valid dilemma. While our book club consists of well-informed readers, balancing helpfulness with potential condescension is a challenging line to navigate.
A significant concern for some members was Hussain’s use of the term “normal” in relation to brain function. For instance, he mentioned a patient’s behavior, stating, “Like any normal person, he began to take risks.”
Gosia expressed frustration with phrases labeling healthy individuals as “normal,” questioning, “Who determines what ‘normal’ is? It’s crucial to recognize that illness is also a standard part of our human experience. For a book steeped in philosophy, this viewpoint seemed surprisingly simplistic.”
Niall voiced similar sentiments, stating, “As a neurodivergent individual, the label ‘normal’ irks me. The ambiguity surrounding it is quite bothersome,” he said.
Jennifer, despite her critical views on Our Brains, Ourselves, mentioned she felt more understanding after watching an interview with Hussain in New Scientist magazine. “While some aspects were challenging, I have to commend him for his dedication to his work and the effort it took to bring this book to fruition,” she reflected. “I can appreciate that passion, given I’ve never written nor published a book myself.”
Never say never, Jennifer! Perhaps one day, we’ll see your book featured in the New Scientist Book Club! For now, I’m excited to dive into another read in November that examines the intricacies of the brain through the lens of science fiction. Join us for Grace Chan’s Every Version of You, set in a ravaged world where humanity has migrated to a digital utopia in search of solace from a dying Earth. How do these virtual minds contrast with what remains of our physical selves?
Is your concentration wavering? Perhaps your brain needs a rinse!
Jenny Evans/Getty Images
It’s well-known that our focus diminishes when we’re short on sleep. But what causes this? It may stem from your brain momentarily losing attention as it attempts to rejuvenate itself.
While we sleep, our brain undergoes a cleansing process where cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is cycled in and out of the brain, flushing out daily accumulated metabolic waste. If this does not occur, it could potentially harm brain cells.
Laura Lewis and her team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology hypothesized that the drop in alertness following sleep deprivation could be the brain’s way of trying to recover while awake.
To test this theory, researchers asked 26 participants aged 19 to 40 to sleep adequately to feel refreshed, and two weeks later, they kept the same group awake all night in the lab.
In both circumstances, the team used MRI scans to record the brain activity of participants the following morning as they performed two tasks. These tasks required them to press a button whenever they heard a specific sound or noticed a cross on the screen transforming into a square, which occurred numerous times over 12 minutes.
As predicted, participants struggled to press the button more frequently when they were sleep-deprived compared to when they were well-rested. This indicates that insufficient sleep hampers concentration.
Crucially, analysis of the brain scans revealed that participants lost focus about two seconds prior to the CSF being expelled from the base of the brain, with CSF being reabsorbed roughly one second after attentiveness returned.
“If you envision the brain-cleansing process as akin to a washing machine, you fill it with water, run it around, and then you need to drain it. The lack of focus represents the ‘swishing’ stage during this cleaning process,” explains Lewis.
The findings imply that if the brain cannot cleanse itself during sleep, it resorts to doing so while awake, which compromises concentration, according to Lewis. “If this wave of fluid doesn’t materialize because you’ve been awake all night, your brain begins to sneak it in during the daytime, at the expense of your focus.”
While the exact cause of how this cleaning process leads to diminished attention remains unknown, pinpointing the brain circuits involved could illuminate ways to mitigate the cognitive repercussions of sleep deprivation, Lewis suggests.
This research indicates that approximately two-thirds of daily actions occur automatically, triggered by familiar surroundings, timing, or established routines. Essentially, much of our lives are lived on autopilot.
According to Professor Benjamin Gardner, one of the study’s co-authors, “Psychologists describe habits as associations of Cu and Bijavia.” As he noted in BBC Science Focus, “For instance, when I start a task, it automatically prompts me to make tea… Without these habits, we’d be overwhelmed by the need to think through every action we take.”
The research team monitored 105 individuals in the UK and Australia, sending them notifications six times a week to inquire about their activities and whether those actions were intentional or habitual.
Upon analyzing the data, they found that 65% of the actions were habit-driven, 88% were at least partially performed on autopilot, and 76% aligned with the individuals’ conscious goals.
This last statistic is crucial. Rather than diminishing our intentions, many habits actually support their achievement.
Gardner stated, “There’s nothing intrinsically good or bad about a habit itself. If it aids in achieving your goals, it’s a positive habit. If it hinders them, it’s a negative habit.”
The most frequently reported activities included work, educational or volunteer efforts, national or parenting responsibilities, and screen time. Interestingly, exercise was notable as an exception; while many initiated it automatically, conscious effort was still necessary.
Exercise often begins as a habit but is one of the few activities that requires conscious effort to complete – Credit: Getty
The findings point to the potential for using habits to enhance public health and individual well-being. For instance, pairing a new movement with a dependable cue—like exercising after work—can help establish that routine. Breaking old habits, such as substituting chewing gum after meals for smoking, may prove more effective than relying solely on willpower.
When attempting to change a habit, Gardner suggests keeping a record over several days of where you are, the time, and the environment when the habit starts. “Tracking this for a week should help reveal what triggers the habit.”
Ultimately, habits shouldn’t be seen as adversaries to free will. “Habits are incredibly beneficial; they conserve mental energy for other tasks,” Gardner explained. “Despite their negative image, it’s essential to realize that automating many of your desired actions is advantageous.”
Professor Grace Vincent, a sleep scientist at the University of Central Queensland and co-author of the study, agrees: “When you work on cultivating positive habits—whether it’s for sleep hygiene, nutrition, or general health improvement—you can depend on your internal ‘autopilot’ to help establish and maintain these habits.”
While we can’t physically pivot our ears towards sounds, our brains excel at honing in on them
Experienced Skins/Getty Images
Many mammals, such as dogs, cats, and deer, possess the ability to direct their hearing. Humans lost this capability around 25 million years ago. Nonetheless, new findings suggest that although we lack these physical ear adjustments, our brains have developed compensatory skills to discern the most intense sounds in particular directions.
This study utilized mobile EEG to observe brain electrical activity as participants moved. Previously, EEG techniques involved participants sitting still with electrodes attached to their scalps. However, advancements in lighter, wireless EEG technology now enable measurements of brain activity during movement, creating links between behavior and brain function.
Research indicates that movement significantly influences brain function. “Active exploration enhances perception, fosters spatial mapping, and integrates multisensory information into a cohesive spatial awareness,” says Maren Schmidt Kassow from Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, who was not part of this study. “Cognition is fundamentally tied to behavior.”
Studies from Barbara Handel at the University of Würzburg, Germany, demonstrate that walking improves visual information processing, increasing the likelihood of noticing nearby objects. This enhancement typically diminishes when one is stationary. Her team has found that a similar principle applies to auditory perception; the brain continuously adjusts its focus to prioritize the most salient sounds.
During the experiment, 35 participants were outfitted with mobile EEG and motion sensors and instructed to navigate a figure-eight path while listening to a continuous audio stream through in-ear headphones.
The EEG data revealed significant boosts in auditory processing when participants moved compared to when they were standing still. As they turned, their brains further adapted, prioritizing sounds from the direction they were facing. Continuously along the path, the brain’s focus shifted from side to side as they turned, either panning from one speaker to another or physically orienting towards the sound source.
Team member Liyu Cao from Jiang Province, Hangzhou, China, speculates that this internal ear mobility may be an evolutionary adaptation for enhanced safety. “This could facilitate quicker reaction times and safer navigation in changing environments,” he states.
The findings could lead to advancements in filtering background noise based on a person’s walking direction, thereby improving navigational aids for visually impaired individuals and enhancing hearing aid functionality, according to Haendel.
Moreover, this research could shed light on why exercising outdoors seems to confer greater benefits for brain health and cognitive function compared to activities performed on treadmills or stationary bikes. “Movement dynamics extend beyond just muscle activity,” Handel remarks. “Your brain adapts not only how you move but also how it functions. It’s about harnessing that interaction for optimal performance.”
The bed nuclei of the stria terminalis comprise a larger, banded structure in the brain known as the stria terminalis.
My Box/Alamy
Brain regions that influence food intake may eventually be targeted to enhance weight loss or therapeutic interventions.
Studies indicate that activating neurons in this specific brain region leads to increased food intake in mice, particularly when consuming sunflower seed-sized food items. However, the impact of taste on neuronal activity remained ambiguous.
For deeper insights, refer to Charles Zuker from Columbia University, who, along with his team, conducted brain imaging on mice. Earlier research linked sweet taste neuron activity in the amygdala with the enjoyment of sweet substances.
These neurons stimulate other neurons in the BNST, sometimes referred to as the “expanded amygdala.” This marks the first evidence of taste signal reception by this brain structure, according to Haijiang Cai from the University of Arizona, who was not part of the study.
The researchers aimed to determine whether these activated BNST neurons influence dietary choices, so they genetically modified cells to prevent activation when mice tasted sweet substances. Over a 10-minute period, these modified mice exhibited significantly reduced consumption compared to their normal counterparts, indicating that BNST neuron activation encourages sweet taste consumption.
Interestingly, the researchers also discovered that this artificial activation led mice to consume more water and even seek out salty or bitter substances, which they typically avoid.
Further experiments indicated that more BNST neurons were activated by sweet and salty tastes in hungry or salt-depleted mice, suggesting that the BNST integrates taste signals along with nutrient deficiency cues to regulate food intake, according to Cai.
Given the similarities between human and mouse BNST, these findings are relevant for humans, says Cai. They suggest that developing drugs to activate BNST neurons could aid individuals experiencing severe appetite loss, like those undergoing cancer treatment.
Cai mentioned that numerous brain pathways regulate food intake, and some may compensate for long-term changes in BNST activity induced by drugs. Therefore, targeting multiple feeding circuits would likely be necessary.
This research also has implications for improving results from weight loss treatments, including the GLP-1 drug semaglutide. This drug binds to neurons in the BNST, and a clearer understanding of its effects on food consumption could enhance the effectiveness of such medications, according to Sarah Stern from the Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience.
Before entering the MRI scanner, Emily Weldon practiced moving a lost finger from her amputated arm, accompanied by a researcher.
Tamar Makin/Hunter Schone
Research suggests our brains may not reconfigure as much as previously believed following an amputation.
The somatosensory cortex, which processes sensory data like touch and temperature from the entire body, has been shown in various studies to have distinct regions mapped to different body parts. For instance, the sensation of burning your hands might activate regions corresponding to your toes.
There is evidence indicating that when a nerve is severed, the somatosensory cortex may reorganize. A study observing macaques with severed arm nerves revealed that neurons typically responding to hand stimuli were instead active when the face was touched. The researchers inferred that some cortical areas initially linked to the hands were repurposed to respond to facial sensations.
However, a team led by Tamar Makin from Cambridge University conducted a groundbreaking comparison of brain activity in individuals before and after amputation, revealing minimal changes.
Using MRI, researchers scanned the brains of three participants prior to their medically necessary arm amputations. During the scans, they were instructed to pucker their lips and attempt to move their fingers.
Interestingly, even after numerous attempts to willfully move fingers they no longer possessed, the brain signals remained unchanged. “To the best of our measurement, they remain the same,” Makin noted.
Long-term follow-ups on two participants, 18 months and 5 years post-surgery, indicated no significant alterations in brain signals since the initial scans.
The researchers utilized an AI model that was trained to correlate brain activity with specific finger movements. When participants imagined moving their fingers in a random sequence, the model accurately identified which finger they were trying to move, demonstrating consistent neural activity.
In another experiment segment, somatosensory cortical activity was assessed in 26 individuals, average 23 years post-amputation, during attempts to move their lips and fingers. The findings showed comparable activity levels.
“This study decisively challenges the notion that the brain can easily remap, rewire, or reorganize as initially thought,” remarked John Krakauer from Johns Hopkins University in Maryland.
The implications of these findings could significantly affect treatments for phantom limb pain, a common condition where amputees experience discomfort in limbs that are no longer present.
Some therapeutic approaches utilize virtual reality and visual stimuli to prompt brain reorganization, yet results have varied, sometimes influenced by placebo effects, according to Makin.
Researchers suggest that innovative methods, such as implanting nerves into new tissues during amputation, might help mitigate this condition. If remaining nerves are left unconnected, they can thicken, potentially contributing to phantom limb pain.
“The previous maladaptive plasticity theory regarding phantom pain relied on the belief that reorganization was possible, which now seems incorrect,” stated Krakauer. “This fundamentally alters our approach to treating phantom limb pain since its underlying theory has been disproven.”
Mark Berman (Vermillion, UK; S&S/Simon Element, USA)
Mark Berman is on the verge of initiating a transformation, and I consider myself already aligned with his vision. You might have encountered his insights in New Scientist regarding the remarkable advantages of nature walks, the therapeutic impact of plants, and the enchantment of urban greenery.
If this sounds familiar, you may presume that Berman’s Research couldn’t offer anything new. However, you would be mistaken. Nature and the Heart caters to everyone, regardless of prior knowledge. It’s designed not only to inform and entertain but also to motivate action.
This narrative outlines how a once troubled boy forged a groundbreaking field in environmental neuroscience by transitioning from law studies pursued under his mother’s nursing influence and his father’s legal career to engineering as an undergraduate student.
Central to this is a fortuitous encounter between psychologists Steve and Rachel Kaplan from the University of Michigan, who introduced attentional restoration theory (ART). This concept posits that engaging with nature can help regain our focus, and by the time Berman met them as a graduate student, Kaplan had already amassed substantial evidence to support this theory.
Berman’s audacious plan involved quantifying these effects by analyzing people, their environments, and their interactions through methods including brain imaging, behavioral testing, computational neuroscience, and statistical analyses.
In his book, Berman reflects on his initial experimental proposal, met with skepticism from John Jonides, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Michigan, who said, “It’s crazy. It won’t work.”
The author champions a revolution to ‘naturize’ our homes, schools, offices, and cities.
Yet, Berman persevered, uncovering astonishing findings. A mere 50-minute walk in a park significantly improved individuals’ working memory and attention by 20%, irrespective of their enjoyment of the experience or the weather conditions. Remarkably, it was unnecessary for them to actually walk.
This improvement is notable, but why is attention restoration necessary? As Berman highlights, attention is a crucial resource for many cognitive and emotional functions, and our attention is often drained by an overstimulating environment. By restoring this resource, nature acts as a superpower, enhancing intelligence, happiness, reducing stress, increasing productivity, and fostering compassion.
Some of Berman’s discoveries are breathtaking. For instance, individuals suffering from clinical depression gained fivefold benefits from a walk in the park compared to participants in the original study. Moreover, having ten additional trees on a block in Toronto increased residents’ perception of well-being by 1%.
His research also leads to delightful and innovative findings. In one study, his team employed the JPEG standard in digital image compression to analyze how the human brain processes information regarding natural landscapes versus urban settings. This research demonstrated that urban and natural images with similar complexity levels taxed the brain differently, with nature being less taxing. They even created an app to provide “repair scores” for nearby walking routes.
Berman’s research addresses significant inquiries. How does nature capture attention? What scene elements encourage recovery? How can architecture leverage these effects? It also tackles intriguing questions, such as the allure of galley-style fonts (inspired by the curves of serif typefaces) and the appeal of Jackson Pollock’s abstract paintings (which reflect fractals).
Above all, he is driven by a desire to effect positive change. His work serves as a call to action, urging the implementation of a “natural revolution.” “We should fundamentally reevaluate the design of all constructed spaces,” he advocates. “The natural revolution necessitates a serious commitment from people on a grand scale.”
Pandemic. Conflict. Market crash. Government upheaval. A quick look at recent headlines conveys a sense of instability in the world. However, “volatility” isn’t just a concern for hedge fund managers; it holds crucial significance for our brains as well.
In my new book, The Trick of the Heart, the latest science suggests that the brain operates like a scientist. It constructs hypotheses and frameworks to understand the world, others, and even itself. However, if your brain is busy crafting a framework, it must also recognize when it’s time to adapt. This process involves a network of frontal and subcortical brain regions, with noradrenaline playing a vital role in monitoring how unstable our environment is.
This “volatility tracking” mechanism allows our brains to detect tipping points in the external world and adjust our expectations and hypotheses accordingly. This adaptability becomes crucial when our daily realities shift; as a result, our mental frameworks can become more flexible. This process is entirely adaptive and logical. After all, when circumstances are in flux, we want our minds to adjust as well.
Yet, in a transformative environment, having an open mind can present dangers. For instance, research conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic indicated that unexpected viruses and unprecedented lockdowns led some people to question what constitutes a normal mindset. A study in the US found that as lockdowns intensified across states, unstable thinking surged. Those who began perceiving their surroundings as insecure were more likely to endorse bizarre conspiracies related to the pandemic, such as the belief that vaccines contain mind-controlling microchips or support for political conspiracies like QAnon.
While these ideas may appear ludicrous, this behavior can be understood through the lens of brain function. Our minds need to remain malleable and resilient, adapting their paradigms based on a rapidly changing world. We must be willing to consider perspectives we’ve never previously entertained.
I actually believe that navigating uncertain times isn’t inherently detrimental for us or our brains. After all, unpredictability does not equate to inevitable doom; it simply means we can’t foresee what lies ahead. Historically, many periods of significant progress have emerged during times of upheaval when our familiar realities were disrupted. In the UK, support for women’s suffrage gained momentum after World War I, which also paved the way for a transformative welfare state and the establishment of a second National Health Service.
While I can’t travel back in time to observe the brains of those historical figures, I can imagine those moments of new opportunities functioning just like our minds do today. When our surrounding touchpoints appear unstable, old concepts can be discarded and new ones adopted.
Uncertainty and volatility are distinctly perceived based on how the brain operates. While volatility can induce anxiety, living amidst constant change opens our minds to new possibilities. We must remain alert to those who might exploit our adaptable minds towards extreme or conspiratorial concepts, but we can also embrace a brighter, more optimistic future by steering our cognitive processes toward pivotal changes.
Daniel Yong is the director and author of the Uncertainty Lab at Birkbeck, University of London. His book, The Trick of the Heart, delves into these themes.
Morrison, a marine creature from the Cambrian period, could represent an early arachnid
Junnn11 @ni075 CC BY-SA 4.0
Research indicates that the brains of ancient sea creatures, dating back over 500 million years, were structured similarly to those of spiders. This challenges past theories that arachnids originated on land.
Morrison reflects a time of significant biological diversity increase, known as the Cambrian Explosion, when various animal groups began appearing in fossil records. These creatures possessed chelicerae, pincer-like mouthparts likely used for tearing into small prey.
Previous beliefs suggested that modern relatives of Morrison, which include horseshoe crabs, were connected to spiders. However, Nicholas Strausfeld and his team at the University of Arizona propose otherwise.
The researchers reexamined specimens of Mollisonia symmetrica, collected in 1925 from British Columbia, Canada, and now housed at Harvard University’s Comparative Zoology Museum. Strausfeld and his colleagues identified a brain structure that had previously been overlooked.
In horseshoe crabs, the chelicerae exhibit a neural connection at the back of the brain; however, in Morrison, this structure was inverted, with chelicerae linked to two neural regions that offered a perspective on the forefront of the nervous system.
Strausfeld notes that this orientation is “characteristic of arachnid brains.” Unlike the brains of crustaceans and insects, which are folded inward, arachnids have crucial areas for planning agile movements situated at the back. This architecture likely contributes to the remarkable agility and speed seen in spiders.
While it was previously thought that arachnids evolved on land, the earliest existing land fossils of obvious arachnids will not appear for millions of years later, according to Strausfeld. “Perhaps the first arachnids inhabited tidal environments, like Morrison, in search of prey,” he mentions.
Mike Lee, a researcher at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, who was not involved in the study, suggests that Morrison may now be viewed as a primitive arachnid. “We now recognize it possessed a brain akin to that of a spider, indicating it was an aquatic relative of the early spiders and scorpions,” Lee states.
Nonetheless, he cautions that while researchers strive to extract as much insight as possible from a single fossil, there remains a degree of ambiguity in interpretation. “It’s akin to attempting to piece together a unique Pavlova after it has been dropped,” he explains.
Researchers have devised a technique to assess the biological age of the brain, revealing it to be a key indicator of future health and longevity.
A recent study involved an analysis of blood samples from 45,000 adults, with protein levels measured in over 3,000 individuals. Many of these proteins correlate with particular organs, including the brain, enabling the estimation of each organ system’s “biological age.”
If an organ’s protein profile significantly deviated from its expected age (based on birthday count), it was categorized as either “very matured” or “very youthful.”
Among the various organs assessed, the brain emerged as the most significant predictor of health outcomes, according to the research.
“The brain is the gatekeeper of longevity,” stated Professor Tony Wyss-Coray, a senior author of the newly published research in Natural Medicine. “An older brain correlates with a higher mortality rate, while a younger brain suggests a longer life expectancy.”
Participants exhibiting a biologically aged brain were found to be 12 times more likely to receive an Alzheimer’s diagnosis within a decade compared to peers with biologically youthful brains.
Additionally, older brains increased the risk of death from any cause by 182% over a 15-year span, whereas youthful brains were linked to a 40% decrease in mortality.
Wyss-Coray emphasized that evaluating the brain and other organs through the lens of biological age marks the dawn of a new preventive medicine era.
“This represents the future of medicine,” he remarked. “Currently, patients visit doctors only when they experience pain, where doctors address what’s malfunctioning. We are transitioning from illness care to wellness care, aiming to intervene before organ-specific diseases arise.”
The team is in the process of commercializing this test, which is anticipated to be available within the next 2-3 years, starting with major organs like the brain, heart, and immune system.
Influence of Uterine Hormones on Human Brain Development
Peter Dazeley/Getty Images
The human brain stands as one of the universe’s most intricate structures, potentially shaped by the surge of hormones released by the placenta during pregnancy.
Numerous theories have emerged regarding the evolution of the human brain, yet it remains one of science’s greatest enigmas. The social brain hypothesis posits that our expansive brains evolved to navigate complicated social interactions. This suggests that managing dynamics in larger groups necessitates enhanced cognitive abilities, and that species with strong social inclinations require increased brain development. Comparable highly social animals, like dolphins and elephants, possess significant brain sizes too; however, the biological mechanisms linking these features are still unclear.
Recently, Alex Tsompanidis from Cambridge University and his team propose that a placental sex hormone might be the key. The placenta, a temporary organ bridging the fetus and the mother, releases hormones crucial for fetal development, including sex hormones like estrogens and androgens.
“It may sound like a stretch, linking human evolution to the placenta,” notes Tsompanidis. “However, we’ve observed fluctuations in these hormone levels in utero and predicted outcomes regarding language and social development, among other areas.”
Recent studies indicate these hormones significantly impact brain development. For instance, a 2022 study revealed that administering androgens like testosterone to brain organoids—a simplified brain model derived from human stem cells—during crucial developmental stages led to an increased number of cortical cells and expansion in regions vital for memory and cognition. Other investigations involving brain organoids have highlighted the importance of estrogens in forming and solidifying neural connections.
Limited evidence suggests that humans experience greater exposure to these hormones during pregnancy compared to non-human primates. A 1983 study indicated that gorillas and chimpanzees excrete 4-5 times less estrogen than pregnant humans. Additionally, human placentas exhibit greater gene activity associated with aromatase—an enzyme converting androgens to estrogens—compared to macaques.
“These hormones appear crucial for brain development. Evidence indicates significantly elevated levels in humans, especially during pregnancy,” asserts Tsompanidis.
This influx of hormones may also clarify why humans form larger social networks. Some evolutionary biologists theorize that differences between sexes are subtler in humans than in other primates, fostering broader social connections. For instance, men and women exhibit greater size similarity in comparison to male and female Neanderthals, suggests Tsompanidis, likely a result of elevated estrogen levels in utero.
“High estrogen levels not only reduce masculinization but may also foster a more interconnected brain,” Tsompanidis explains. “Thus, the drive to elevate estrogen levels promotes social cohesion and interconnectedness, integral to human brain development.”
David Geary from the University of Missouri agrees that placental genes influence human brain development and its evolutionary path. However, he believes the significance of male-male competition in brain and cognitive evolution is often underestimated.
He notes that human males within the same groups tend to exhibit more coordination and less aggression compared to other primates—a trait that may have evolved due to intergroup conflicts. Enhanced teamwork and coordination could significantly benefit survival during life-threatening confrontations.
Our understanding of placental differences among primates remains limited. Many non-human primates, such as chimpanzees, consume their placenta post-birth, complicating research efforts, as Tsompanidis highlights.
Unraveling the factors that influenced human brain evolution is not merely an academic endeavor; it also brings insights into human nature.
“Not every human possesses extensive social or linguistic skills, and that’s perfectly acceptable—these traits don’t define humanity,” Tsompanidis remarks. Understanding the brain’s evolutionary journey can illuminate whether certain cognitive attributes come with trade-offs.
Overlap of Brain Regions in Imagination and Reality Perception
Naeblys/Alamy
How can we differentiate between what we perceive as real and what we imagine? Recent findings have uncovered brain pathways that may assist in this distinction, potentially enhancing treatments for hallucinations associated with conditions like Parkinson’s disease.
It’s already established that the brain regions activated during imagination closely resemble those engaged when perceiving real visual stimuli; however, the mechanism distinguishing them remains elusive. “What allows our brains to discern between these signals of imagination and reality?” asks Nadine Dijkstra from University College London.
To explore this, Dijkstra and her team observed 26 participants engaged in visual tasks while their brain activity was monitored via MRI scans. The tasks included displaying static grey blocks on the screen for 2 seconds, repeated over 100 times. Participants were prompted to imagine diagonal lines within each block, with half of the blocks containing actual diagonal lines.
Subsequently, participants rated the vividness of the lines they perceived on a scale of 1-4 and indicated whether the lines were real or imagined.
Through the analysis of brain activity, researchers found that when participants viewed the lines more vividly, the fusiform gyrus, a specific brain area, was more active, irrespective of the line’s actual presence.
“Prior research indicated that this area is engaged in both perception and imagination, but this study reveals its role in tracking the vividness of visual experiences,” notes Dijkstra.
Crucially, a spike in activity in the fusiform gyrus above a certain threshold led to increased activity in an associated area known as the previous island, causing participants to perceive the lines as real. “This additional area connects to the spindle-like moment, possibly aiding decision-making by processing and re-evaluating signals,” she adds.
While it’s likely that these brain regions are not the sole players in discerning reality from imagination, further investigation into these pathways could refine our understanding of treating visual hallucinations linked to disorders such as schizophrenia and Parkinson’s disease.
“Individuals experiencing visual hallucinations might exhibit heightened activity when visualizing their imagined scenarios, or the monitoring of their signals could be inadequate,” Dijkstra suggests.
“I believe this research could be pivotal for clinical cases,” says Adam Zeman, from the University of Exeter, UK. “However, distinguishing whether minor shifts in sensory experiences are driven by real-world events, discerning fully formed hallucinations, and determining the duration of beliefs remains a significant challenge,” he explains.
To address this knowledge gap, Dijkstra’s team is currently studying the brain pathways of individuals with Parkinson’s disease.
Elephants are fascinating creatures. Despite their allure, our understanding of the elephant brain remains limited, and there are notable neuroanatomical differences between the Asian (Elephas Maximus) and African elephants (Loxodonta africana), which have largely gone unexplored. In a recent study, researchers from Humboldt Universität in Berlin and the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research collected numerous elephant brains to investigate the macroanatomical features that differentiate the species. Surprisingly, they found that Asian elephants possess a larger brain and greater grey matter volume than African elephants, an intriguing contrast given the smaller body size of Asian elephants.
Asian elephant in Myanmar. Image credit: John Jackson.
“The morphological distinctions among elephant species are well-documented,” stated Dr. Marav Schah from Humboldt Universität Berlin and his colleagues.
“For instance, African savanna elephants are larger and have bigger ears than their Asian counterparts.”
“It is also noted that only female African elephants grow larger tusks compared to the minimal tusks found in Asian females.”
“These disparities indicate significant genetic divergence between savanna elephants in Asia and Africa, believed to have arisen 50,000 to 8 million years ago.”
In this research, the team examined the brain weights and structures of both Asian and African elephants via dissections, existing literature, and MRI scans from wildlife and zoo animals.
The findings revealed that adult Asian elephants are significantly heavier than their African counterparts, whose brains average just over 4,400 grams.
This specific finding could not be definitively validated for male elephants, as data for the brain weights in Asian males is limited.
However, the cerebellum appears proportionately heavier in African elephants (22% of total brain body weight) compared to Asian elephants (19%).
Researchers also demonstrated that elephants undergo extensive postnatal brain growth.
By adulthood, an elephant’s brain is roughly three times heavier than at birth.
This indicates that elephants experience notably more brain growth than all primates; except for humans, where the brain weighs only about one-fifth of its final weight at birth.
A boy African elephant in Kenya. Image credit: George Wittemyer.
“The variance in brain weight is likely the most significant difference among these two elephant species,” Dr. Shah noted.
“This accounts for the behavioral variations observed between elephants in Asia and Africa.”
“For instance, the two species display markedly different interactions with humans.”
“Asian elephants have been partially domesticated for millennia and serve as working animals across various cultures and regions.”
“Conversely, only a handful of cases of partial domestication have been somewhat successful with African elephants.”
“It is considerably harder to integrate an African elephant into human society compared to an Asian elephant.”
The study was published today in the journal pnas nexus.
____
Marav Shah et al. 2025. The larger and relatively small cerebellum of Asian elephants compared to the African savanna elephants. pnas nexus 4(5): PGAF141; doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf141
During sleep, your brain eliminates toxins that have accumulated throughout the day.
Robert Reeder/Getty Images
Sleeping pills may help you doze off, but the sleep you get may not be as restorative. When mice were given zolpidem, which is commonly found in sleeping pills such as Ambien, their brains were unable to effectively remove waste products during sleep.
Sleep is important for removing waste from the brain. At night, a clear fluid called cerebrospinal fluid circulates around brain tissue and flushes out toxins through a series of thin tubes known as the glymphatic system. Think of it like a dishwasher, which turns on your brain while you sleep, says Miken Nedergaard at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York. However, the mechanisms that push fluid through this network have not been well understood.
Nedergaard and his colleagues implanted optical fibers into the brains of seven mice. By irradiating chemicals in the brain, the fibers can track the flow of blood and cerebrospinal fluid during sleep.
They found that elevated levels of a molecule called norepinephrine cause blood vessels in the brain to constrict, reducing blood volume and allowing cerebrospinal fluid to flow into the brain. As norepinephrine levels decrease, blood vessels dilate and cerebrospinal fluid is pushed back. Thus, fluctuations in norepinephrine during non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep stimulate blood vessels to act like pumps in the glymphatic system, Nedergaard said.
This discovery reveals that norepinephrine plays an important role in clearing waste from the brain. Previous research has shown that when we sleep, the brain releases norepinephrine in a slow, oscillating pattern. These norepinephrine waves occur during NREM, a sleep stage important for memory, learning, and other cognitive functions.
Next, the researchers treated six mice with zolpidem, a sleeping pill commonly sold under the brand names Ambien and Zolpimist. The mice fell asleep faster than those treated with a placebo, but the flow of cerebrospinal fluid in the brain was reduced by about 30 percent on average. In other words, “their brains aren't being cleaned very well,” Nedergaard said.
Although zolpidem was tested in this experiment, almost all sleeping pills inhibit the production of norepinephrine. This suggests that they may interfere with the brain's ability to eliminate toxins.
It is too early to tell whether these results apply to humans. “Human sleep architecture is still quite different from mice, but they have the same brain circuits studied here,” he says. laura lewis at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Some of these basic mechanisms may apply to us as well.”
If sleeping pills interfere with the brain's ability to eliminate toxins during sleep, Nedergaard says, that means new sleeping pills must be developed. Otherwise, your sleep problems may worsen and your brain health may deteriorate in the process.
Recent research has uncovered the reason behind the evolution of our brains, pointing to the influence of gut microbes. Specifically, the study suggests that the intestines may have played a key role in boosting energy production over time, leading to the growth of crucial organs.
The study reveals that organisms with larger brains relative to body size, like humans and squirrel monkeys, have higher energy levels compared to those with smaller brains, thanks to their digestive microbes. These microbes help in breaking down food and producing energy efficiently.
This groundbreaking research is the first to demonstrate how the gut microbiome can drive biological differences between animal species.
“The connection between the gut and brain has always been acknowledged on some level. We often refer to ‘gut feelings,’ and it’s known that stress and anxiety can manifest as gut symptoms,” said lead author of the study, Katherine Amato, Associate Professor at Northwestern University, in an interview with BBC Science Focus.
Amato further elaborated, stating, “This study goes beyond that and proposes that the activities in the gut may have laid the groundwork for the evolution of our brains.”
The intestines harbor over 100 trillion microorganisms, a count that surpasses the number of cells in the body. These intestinal microbes collectively weigh around 2 kg (4.4 pounds) – equivalent to the weight of a large pineapple.
Researchers were particularly intrigued by how these tiny gut microbes influence brain size in relation to body size. While humans may not have the largest brains in the animal kingdom, they have a significantly higher brain-to-body ratio compared to other species.
The experiment, detailed in the journal microbial genomics, involved transferring gut microbes from three primate species to mice – two with large brains (humans and squirrel monkeys) and one with a small brain (macaque). The results showed that mice receiving gut bacteria from larger-brained species produced more energy to support brain function, while those with gut flora from smaller-brained primates stored more energy as fat.
Amato explained, “Our findings suggest that as humans and squirrel monkeys independently evolved larger brains, their microbial communities also adapted in similar ways to meet the energy demands.” The study also found that the outcomes of feeding human microbes to mice were more akin to other large-brained species than previously thought.
Researchers are now extending their studies to other primate species to further explore the impact of gut microbes on brain evolution.
About our experts:
Dr. Katherine Amato is an Associate Professor of Biological Anthropology at Northwestern University in Illinois, USA. Her research interests include the gut microbiome, human evolution, and primate ecology.
There is a lot of talk about the word “habit.” Your doctor may advise you to develop the “good habit” of eating five servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Your friend may be concerned about his “bad habit” of checking Twitter before bed. Perhaps you had a music teacher who made you practice scales until it became a habit.
Or maybe you are telling yourself that you want to get into the habit of going to the gym twice a week.
While these situations may make sense colloquially, psychologists are more specific about what constitutes a habit. Not everything you do regularly or desire to do becomes a habit.
Some of the scenarios mentioned are related to goals, intentions, and skills rather than the habit itself.
Routines like going to the gym regularly can become habits, but it is not guaranteed. So, what exactly is a habit? And what does it take to create a “good” habit or break a “bad” one?
What defines a habit?
In psychology, a behavior becoming a habit means that the action, or a series of related actions, is automatically triggered by certain cues in the environment.
Psychologists suggest that a habit is formed when an action, which may have started intentionally, becomes automatic over time. This is seen in behaviors done without conscious thought or will, even if the behavior is no longer pleasurable or desirable.
For instance, reaching for cigarettes after taking a sip of alcohol, even if you want to quit smoking, illustrates the automatic nature of habits.
As a behavior becomes deeply ingrained as a habit, it is controlled by brain networks associated with involuntary behavior, rather than conscious decision-making. This efficient process saves energy and space in the brain.
Researchers have shown that a specific part of the brain, the infralimbic cortex, appears to control habits and can be “switched off” to disrupt habitual behaviors.
Credit: Kyle Smart
Understanding how habits are formed and controlled sheds light on their impact on behavior, both positively and negatively. Healthy or unhealthy habits can significantly influence your lifestyle and long-term goals.
Therefore, learning to break bad habits and establish healthy ones is crucial for personal development.
How to break bad habits
Understanding the psychology behind habit formation can help you break bad habits and cultivate good ones. Start by identifying the triggers that prompt your unwanted behavior and find ways to avoid or minimize them.
For example, if you want to stop checking social media before bed, remove the trigger by keeping your phone away from the bedroom.
Changing routines and contexts associated with bad habits can also aid in breaking them.
Consider the original purpose or reward of the habit you wish to break, and find alternative ways to fulfill that need or desire.
Replace the unwanted behavior with a more desirable one to make breaking the habit easier.
How to develop new healthy habits
To establish new habits, repeat desired actions in response to specific triggers consistently over time. This pairing process creates automatic behavior.
Make the desired behavior as easy as possible to perform by reducing friction between the trigger and the action.
Reward yourself for engaging in the behavior you want to become a habit to strengthen it during the initial stages.
Consistency, dedication, and commitment are essential for forming new habits and making them automatic.
Skeleton of Nabaornis Hestia, an 80-million-year-old bird fossil
S. Abramowitz/Dinosaur Institute/Los Angeles County Natural History Museum
An 80-million-year-old fossil bird skull is so well preserved that scientists were able to study the detailed structure of its brain.
In both age and evolutionary development, new species Nabaornis Hestiae, It falls about halfway between the earliest known bird-like dinosaurs. ArcheopteryxBirds that lived 150 million years ago and modern birds. They lived along with dinosaurs during the Cretaceous period. tyrannosaurus and triceratops.
The fossil, which superficially resembles a pigeon, was discovered in 2016 near Presidente Prudente, Brazil, and quickly became important because of the rarity of complete bird skeletons, especially those from the same period. recognized as something.
but daniel field It wasn't until 2022 that Cambridge University professors realized that the skull was so intact that it could be scanned to create a 3D model of the brain.
High-resolution CT scans allow paleontologists to see inside fossils. “This involves careful 'digital dissection' – separating the individual components of the skull and reassembling them to create a complete, undistorted three-dimensional reconstruction,” Field said. says Mr.
“This new fossil provides unprecedented insight into the patterns and timing of the evolution of specialized brain functions in living birds.”
Professor Field said that based on the brains his team reconstructed, human cognitive and flight abilities: nabaornis It was probably inferior to most living birds.
Artist's impression of Nabaornis Hestia
J. D'Oliveira
The parts of the brain responsible for complex cognition and spatial awareness are not as enlarged as they are in modern birds, he says.
“It’s cerebral, but nabaornis greatly expanded compared to more archaic bird conditions such as . Archeopteryx, It is not as expanded as we see in living birds. ”
Professor Field said the enlarged brains of modern birds support a wide range of complex behaviors, but there is a lack of sufficiently complete and well-preserved fossil bird skulls from early bird relatives. This makes it difficult to understand how their brains evolved.
“nabaornis This fills an approximately 70 million-year gap in our understanding of how the distinctive brains of modern birds evolved. ”
There is a common belief that animals can smell fear, but can humans do the same? Can you detect someone’s fear just by their scent or musk?
The straightforward answer is “no, you can’t.” While other species, particularly those heavily reliant on their sense of smell, can do so, humans have seemed to lose this ability over time.
The brain area responsible for detecting pheromones, chemical messengers that convey mood information to others, does not seem to work the same way in humans. This function is akin to an appendix of the nervous system.
However, this does not mean that humans are entirely incapable of sensing fear. Research has shown that when women inhale the sweat of men experiencing fear, they become more sensitive to fear as well.
It is important to note that women appear to be more attuned to emotional scents emitted by men. Additionally, the fear response triggered by smelling fear is more subconscious rather than an immediate conscious recognition of fear.
In essence, humans can smell fear to a limited extent in specific situations. The response is either unnoticed due to subconscious processing or perceived as the scent of sweat.
This article answers the question posed by Edward Cox of Edinburgh: “Can you smell fear?”
Place your fingers on the back of your skull, approximately at the same height as the top of your ear. Here, deep in your hair, skin, and bones, near a fluid-filled cavity at the base of your brain, you’ll find tiny bundles of pigment cells the color of lapis lazuli. this is, coeruleus – Latin for “blue dot”. Although it is only a few millimeters in size, it has the power to control people’s thoughts in a way that is hard to imagine considering its small size.
Research has revealed that this structure helps regulate our mental processing. It’s sometimes called the brain’s “master switch,” but it’s better to think of it as a gearbox. ‘You can set the pace of your brain to match the specific mental task you’re doing,’ says turned neuroscience researcher Writer Miss Stroney. When we’re in the right gear, we feel like we’re enjoying the task at hand. But more often than not, we get stuck in the wrong direction, which can lead to dreamy procrastination and intense frustration.
Until recently, we knew little about how to control these transitions, but that is changing. It turns out that the little blue dots in your brain may be trainable and have an immediate impact on your cognition and mental health. This means that with the right techniques, you can shift gears that affect your mental state, from your ability to concentrate and the level of stress you feel, to your ability to take creative leaps and think on your feet.
It took almost two and a half centuries for the locus coeruleus to receive due recognition. The structure is…
No one doubts that Albert Einstein had a brilliant mind, but the Nobel Prize winner famous for his theories of special and general relativity wasn’t blessed with a big brain. “Jeremy DeSilva at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.”
This seems surprising. Big brains are a defining feature of human anatomy, something we are proud of. Other species may be faster or stronger, but we thrive using the ingenuity that comes from our big brains. At least, that’s what we tell ourselves. Einstein’s brain suggests that the story is not so simple. And recent fossil discoveries bear this out. In the past two decades, we’ve learned that small-brained hominin species persisted on Earth long after species with larger brains emerged. Moreover, there is growing evidence that they were behaviorally sophisticated. For example, some of them made complex stone tools that could only have been made by humans with language.
These findings turn questions about the evolution of the human brain upside down: “Why would large brains be selected for when humans with small brains can survive in nature?” says DeSilva. Nervous tissue consumes a lot of energy, so large brains must have undoubtedly provided an advantage to the few species that evolved them. But what was the benefit?
The answer to this mystery is beginning to emerge. It appears that brain expansion began as an evolutionary accident that then led to changes that accelerated brain growth. Amazingly, the changes that drove this expansion also explain the recent 10 percent shrinkage of the human brain. What’s more, this suggests that our brains could shrink even further, potentially causing our demise.
Favoritism stems from our individual preferences for colors, tastes, faces, places, and more, which are influenced by our evolutionary history. For instance, we tend to prefer lighter shades associated with positive things like the sky, while disliking darker shades associated with negativity.
Our preferences are also shaped by environmental factors, such as geographic environments that offer a balanced mix of habitat, resources, and views that promote survival. Additionally, we find symmetrical faces more attractive, possibly due to the genetic indicator of health they represent.
Cultural influences and personal experiences further mold our preferences. From childhood, we are asked to name our favorite things, combining inherent evolutionary preferences with sentimental attachments to shape our choices.
Our brains use these favorites as shortcuts to navigate the overwhelming number of choices in the world, making decisions easier for things like dinner reservations, vacations, or entertainment options. While convenient, relying on favorites can limit openness and spontaneity.
In relationships, favoritism can lead to inequality and division, as seen with parents favoring certain children or bosses showing preference to specific employees.
This article addresses the question of why we choose favorites, originally posed by Heath Bowen via email.
If you have any questions, please contact us via email. For more information:Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.
Ultimate Fun Facts: For more intriguing science content, visit this page.
Since the beginning of time, men and women have tended to have different social roles, interests, and occupations. It is natural to think that perhaps these stem from innate differences in their brains and more obvious differences in their bodies. This idea has long been controversial, but now that ideas about gender are changing more rapidly than ever, the question of whether male and female brains are different has become more acute. There is. This remains a controversial issue even among neuroscientists. Nevertheless, they are finally cutting into historical discrimination and gender politics and trying to get to the truth.
Early measurements of skull volume showed that, on average, male brains are slightly larger and heavier than female brains. Some commentators argued that this “five ounce deficit” was the key to the man's superior abilities. In fact, the simple explanation is that the larger the body, the more brain tissue it requires to move it. This is a relationship found across animal species.
The situation became even more complicated in the 1990s with the advent of brain scanning technology, which suggested sex differences in the size of certain brain regions and structures. These findings often turned into compelling stories about, for example, why women are more empathetic on average or why men are more likely to become engineers. But studies from the early decades of brain scanning research should be taken with a pinch of salt, he says. leeds elliott at Rosalind Franklin University in Illinois. “When we control for brain size, all claims about volumetric differences in individual structures disappear…
Elon Musk’s announcement on Monday caught the attention of a small community of scientists who work with the body’s nervous system to treat disorders and conditions.
Robert Gaunt, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, said, “Inserting a device into a human body is not an easy task. But without neuroscience research and decades of demonstrated capabilities, I don’t think even Elon Musk would have taken on a project like this.”
Musk tweeted, “The first humans @Neuralink I was recovering well yesterday. Initial results show promising neuronal spike detection.” However, many scientists are cautious about the company’s clinical trials and note that not much information has been made public.
Neuralink won FDA approval to conduct its first human clinical study last year, and the company is developing brain implants that allow people, including severely paralyzed patients, to control computers with their thoughts.
Although it’s too early to know if Neuralink’s implants will work in humans, Gaunt said the company’s announcement is an “exciting development.” His own research focuses on restoring motor control and function using brain-computer interfaces.
“In 2004, a small device known as the Utah array was implanted in a human for the first time, allowing a paralyzed man to control a computer cursor with nerve impulses,” according to a report from University of Utah. Scientists have demonstrated how brain-computer interfaces can help people control robots, stimulate muscles, decode handwriting, speech, and more.
Musk said the clinical trials will aim to treat people with paralysis and paraplegia. However, many scientists believe enhancing human performance through brain-controlled devices is far in the future and not very realistic.
Still, Neuralink’s clinical trials represent a major advance for the fields of neuroscience and bioengineering. Funding basic science research is key to private companies advancing commercially viable products, says Gaunt.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
