Posts tagged working memory
Articles and news from the latest research reports.
Foraging for thought – new insights into our working memory
We take it for granted that our thoughts are in constant turnover. Metaphors like “stream of consciousness” and “train of thought” imply steady, continuous motion. But is there a mechanism inside our heads that drives this? Is there something compelling our attention to move on to new ideas instead of dwelling in the same spot forever?
A research team led by Dr Matthew Johnson in the School of Psychology at The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus (UNMC) may have discovered part of the answer. They have pinpointed an effect that makes people turn their attention to something new rather than dwelling on their most recent thoughts. The research, which has been published in the academic journal Psychological Science, could have implications for studying disorders like autism and ADHD.
Dr Johnson said: “We have discovered a very promising paradigm. The effect is strong and replicates easily – you could demonstrate it in any psychology lab in the world. The work is still in its early stages but I think this could turn out to be a very important part of our understanding of how and why our thoughts work the way they do.
The paper “Foraging for Thought: An Inhibition-of-Return-Like Effect Resulting From Directing Attention Within Working Memory” sheds new light on what makes us turn our attention to things we haven’t recently thought rather than ones we have. It was carried out in collaboration with Yale University, Princeton University, The Ohio State University, and Manhattanville College.
The “inhibition of return” effect is well-established in visual attention. At certain time scales, people are slower to turn their thoughts back to a location they have just paid attention to. They are much quicker to focus on a new location. Some have interpreted this effect as a “foraging facilitator,” a process that encourages organisms to visit new locations over previously visited ones when exploring a new environment or performing a visual search.
However, in this new study, the researchers weren’t focusing on visual search, but on the process of thought itself. Participants were shown either two words or two pictures, and when the items disappeared, they were instructed to turn their attention briefly to one of the items they were just shown and ignore the other. Immediately afterwards they were asked to identify either the item they had just thought about, or the one they had ignored. For both pictures and words the participants were quicker to react to the item they had ignored.
Dr Johnson said: “The effect was shocking. When we began we expected to find the exact opposite – that thinking about something will make it easier to identify. We were initially disappointed – but when the effect was replicated over multiple experiments we realised we were onto something new and exciting.”
Critically, the effect is temporary; on a later memory test participants remembered attended items better than ignored ones.
Dr Johnson said: “That’s important. If thinking about things made us worse at remembering them long-term, it would make no sense for real-world survival. That’s why we think we’ve tapped into something fundamental about how we think in the moment – a possible mechanism keeping our thoughts moving onto new things, and not getting stuck.”
The researchers have more experiments planned to explore this effect. They say the new task could have implications for studying disorders like autism and ADHD, where attention may persist too long or move on too easily, as well as conditions with more general cognitive impairments, such as schizophrenia and ageing-related dementia.
Future studies planned also include applying cognitive neuroscience techniques to determine the effect’s underlying neural foundations.
(Source: nottingham.ac.uk)
A look inside children’s minds
University of Iowa study shows how 3- and 4-year-olds retain what they see around them
When young children gaze intently at something or furrow their brows in concentration, you know their minds are busily at work. But you’re never entirely sure what they’re thinking.
Now you can get an inside look. Psychologists led by the University of Iowa for the first time have peered inside the brain with optical neuroimaging to quantify how much 3- and 4-year-old children are grasping when they survey what’s around them and to learn what areas of the brain are in play. The study looks at “visual working memory,” a core cognitive function in which we stitch together what we see at any given point in time to help focus attention. In a series of object-matching tests, the researchers found that 3-year-olds can hold a maximum of 1.3 objects in visual working memory, while 4-year-olds reach capacity at 1.8 objects. By comparison, adults max out at 3 to 4 objects, according to prior studies.
“This is literally the first look into a 3 and 4-year-old’s brain in action in this particular working memory task,” says John Spencer, psychology professor at the UI and corresponding author of the paper, which appears in the journal NeuroImage.
The research is important, because visual working memory performance has been linked to a variety of childhood disorders, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, developmental coordination disorder as well as affecting children born prematurely. The goal is to use the new brain imaging technique to detect these disorders before they manifest themselves in children’s behavior later on.
“At a young age, children may behave the same,” notes Spencer, who’s also affiliated with the Delta Center and whose department is part of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, “but if you can distinguish these problems in the brain, then it’s possible to intervene early and get children on a more standard trajectory.”
Plenty of research has gone into better understanding visual working memory in children and adults. Those prior studies divined neural networks in action using function magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). That worked great for adults, but not so much with children, especially young ones, whose jerky movements threw the machine’s readings off kilter. So, Spencer and his team turned to functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), which has been around since the 1960s but has never been used to look at working memory in children as young as three years of age.
“It’s not a scary environment,” says Spencer of the fNIRS. “No tube, no loud noises. You just have to wear a cap.”
Like fMRI, fNIRS records neural activity by measuring the difference in oxygenated blood concentrations anywhere in the brain. You’ve likely seen similar technology when a nurse puts your finger in a clip to check your circulation. In the brain, when a region is activated, neurons fire like mad, gobbling up oxygen provided in the blood. Those neurons need another shipment of oxygen-rich blood to arrive to keep going. The fNIRS measures the contrast between oxygen-rich and oxygen-deprived blood to gauge which area of the brain is going full tilt at a point in time.
The researchers outfitted the youngsters with colorful, comfortable ski hats in which fiber optic wires had been woven. The children played a computer game in which they were shown a card with one to three objects of different shapes for two seconds. After a pause of a second, the children were shown a card with either the same or different shapes. They responded whether they had seen a match.
The tests revealed novel insights. First, neural activity in the right frontal cortex was an important barometer of higher visual working memory capacity in both age groups. This could help clinicians evaluate children’s visual working memory at a younger age than before, and work with those whose capacity falls below the norm, the researchers say.
Secondly, 4-year olds showed a greater use than 3-year olds of the parietal cortex, located in both hemispheres below the crown of the head and which is believed to guide spatial attention.
"This suggests that improvements in performance are accompanied by increases in the neural response," adds Aaron Buss, a UI graduate student in psychology and the first author on the paper. "Further work will be needed to explain exactly how the neural response increases—either through changes in local tuning, or through changes in long range connectivity, or some combination."
“Forrest Gump” mice show too much of a good thing, can be bad
A line of genetically modified mice that Western University scientists call “Forrest Gump” because, like the movie character, they can run far but they aren’t smart, is furthering the understanding of a key neurotransmitter called acetylcholine (ACh). Marco Prado, PhD, and his team at Robarts Research Institute say the mice show what happens when too much of this neurotransmitter becomes available in the brain. Boosting ACh is a therapeutic target for Alzheimer’s disease because it’s found in reduced amounts when there’s cognitive failure. Prado’s research is published in the Journal of Neuroscience.
“We wanted to know what happens if you have more of the gene which controls how much acetylcholine is secreted by neurons,” says Prado, a Robarts scientist and professor in the Departments of Physiology and Pharmacology and Anatomy and Cell Biology at Western’s Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry. “The response was the complete opposite of what we expected. It’s not a good thing. Acetylcholine release was increased threefold in these mice, which seemed to disturb cognitive function. But put them on a treadmill and they can run twice as far as normal mice before tiring. They’re super-athletes.” In addition to its function in modulating cognitive abilities, ACh drives muscle contraction which allowed for the marked improvement in motor endurance.
One of the tests the scientists, including first author Benjamin Kolisnyk, used is called the touch screen test for mice which uses technology similar to a tablet. After initiating the test, the mice have to scan five different spots on the touch screen to see a light flash, and then run and touch that area. If they get it right they get a reward. Compared to the control mice, the “Forrest Gump” mice failed miserably at the task. The researchers found the mice, which have the scientific name ChAT-ChR2-EYFP, had terrible attention spans, as well as dysfunction in working memory and spatial memory.
Prado interprets the research as showing ACh is very important for differentiating cues. So if your brain is presented with a lot of simultaneous information, it helps to pick what’s important. But when you flood the brain with ACh, your brain loses the ability to discern what’s relevant. This study was funded mainly by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
(Source: communications.uwo.ca)
A 20-minute bout of yoga stimulates brain function immediately after
Researchers report that a single, 20-minute session of Hatha yoga significantly improved participants’ speed and accuracy on tests of working memory and inhibitory control, two measures of brain function associated with the ability to maintain focus and take in, retain and use new information. Participants performed significantly better immediately after the yoga practice than after moderate to vigorous aerobic exercise for the same amount of time.
The 30 study subjects were young, female, undergraduate students. The new findings appear in the Journal of Physical Activity and Health.
“Yoga is an ancient Indian science and way of life that includes not only physical movements and postures but also regulated breathing and meditation,” said Neha Gothe, who led the study while a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Gothe now is a professor of kinesiology, health and sport studies at Wayne State University in Detroit. “The practice involves an active attentional or mindfulness component but its potential benefits have not been thoroughly explored.”
“Yoga is becoming an increasingly popular form of exercise in the U.S. and it is imperative to systematically examine its health benefits, especially the mental health benefits that this unique mind-body form of activity may offer,” said Illinois kinesiology and community health professor Edward McAuley, who directs the Exercise Psychology Laboratory where the study was conducted.
The yoga intervention involved a 20-minute progression of seated, standing and supine yoga postures that included isometric contraction and relaxation of different muscle groups and regulated breathing. The session concluded with a meditative posture and deep breathing.
Participants also completed an aerobic exercise session where they walked or jogged on a treadmill for 20 minutes. Each subject worked out at a suitable speed and incline of the treadmill, with the goal of maintaining 60 to 70 percent of her maximum heart rate throughout the exercise session.
“This range was chosen to replicate previous findings that have shown improved cognitive performance in response to this intensity,” the researchers reported.
Gothe and her colleagues were surprised to see that participants showed more improvement in their reaction times and accuracy on cognitive tasks after yoga practice than after the aerobic exercise session, which showed no significant improvements on the working memory and inhibitory control scores.
“It appears that following yoga practice, the participants were better able to focus their mental resources, process information quickly, more accurately and also learn, hold and update pieces of information more effectively than after performing an aerobic exercise bout,” Gothe said. “The breathing and meditative exercises aim at calming the mind and body and keeping distracting thoughts away while you focus on your body, posture or breath. Maybe these processes translate beyond yoga practice when you try to perform mental tasks or day-to-day activities.”
Many factors could explain the results, Gothe said. “Enhanced self-awareness that comes with meditational exercises is just one of the possible mechanisms. Besides, meditation and breathing exercises are known to reduce anxiety and stress, which in turn can improve scores on some cognitive tests,” she said.
“We only examined the effects of a 20-minute bout of yoga and aerobic exercise in this study among female undergraduates,” McAuley said. “However, this study is extremely timely and the results will enable yoga researchers to power and design their interventions in the future. We see similar promising findings among older adults as well. Yoga research is in its nascent stages and with its increasing popularity across the globe, researchers need to adopt rigorous systematic approaches to examine not only its cognitive but also physical health benefits across the lifespan.”
Practice makes perfect? Not so much
Turns out, that old “practice makes perfect” adage may be overblown.
New research led by Michigan State University’s Zach Hambrick finds that a copious amount of practice is not enough to explain why people differ in level of skill in two widely studied activities, chess and music.
In other words, it takes more than hard work to become an expert. Hambrick, writing in the research journal Intelligence, said natural talent and other factors likely play a role in mastering a complicated activity.
“Practice is indeed important to reach an elite level of performance, but this paper makes an overwhelming case that it isn’t enough,” said Hambrick, associate professor of psychology.
The debate over why and how people become experts has existed for more than a century. Many theorists argue that thousands of hours of focused, deliberate practice is sufficient to achieve elite status.
Hambrick disagrees.
“The evidence is quite clear,” he writes, “that some people do reach an elite level of performance without copious practice, while other people fail to do so despite copious practice.”
Hambrick and colleagues analyzed 14 studies of chess players and musicians, looking specifically at how practice was related to differences in performance. Practice, they found, accounted for only about one-third of the differences in skill in both music and chess.
So what made up the rest of the difference?
Based on existing research, Hambrick said it could be explained by factors such as intelligence or innate ability, and the age at which people start the particular activity. A previous study of Hambrick’s suggested that working memory capacity – which is closely related to general intelligence – may sometimes be the deciding factor between being good and great.
While the conclusion that practice may not make perfect runs counter to the popular view that just about anyone can achieve greatness if they work hard enough, Hambrick said there is a “silver lining” to the research.
“If people are given an accurate assessment of their abilities and the likelihood of achieving certain goals given those abilities,” he said, “they may gravitate toward domains in which they have a realistic chance of becoming an expert through deliberate practice.”
Video games: bad or good for your memory?
After the horrific shooting sprees at Columbine High School in 1999 and Virginia Tech in 2007, players of violent video games, such as First Person Shooter (FPS) games, have often been accused in the media of being impulsive, antisocial, or aggressive.
Positive effects
However, the question is: do First Person Shooter games also have positive effects for our mental processes? At the University of Leiden, we investigated whether gaming could be a fast and easy way to improve your memory.
Develop an adaptive mindset
Indeed, the new generations of FPS (compared to strategic) games are not just about pressing a button at the right moment but require the players to develop an adaptive mindset to rapidly react and monitor fast moving visual and auditory stimuli.
Gamers compared to non-gamers
In a study published in Psychological Research Journal, Dr. Lorenza Colzato and her fellow researchers compared, on a task related to working memory, people who played at least five hours weekly with people who never played video games.
More flexible brain
The researchers found that gamers outperformed non-gamers. They suggest that video game experience trains your brain to become more flexible in the updating and monitoring of new information enhancing the memory capacity of the gamers.
Drug Could Improve Working Memory of People with Autism
People with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often have trouble communicating and interacting with others because they process language, facial expressions and social cues differently. Previously, researchers found that propranolol, a drug commonly used to treat high blood pressure, anxiety and panic, could improve the language abilities and social functioning of people with an ASD. Now, University of Missouri investigators say the prescription drug also could help improve the working memory abilities of individuals with autism.
Working memory represents individuals’ ability to hold and manipulate a small amount of information for a short period; it allows people to remember directions, complete puzzles and follow conversations. Neurologist David Beversdorf and research neuropsychologist Shawn Christ found that propranolol improves the working memory performance of people with an ASD.
“Seeing a tiger might signal a fight or flight response. Nowadays, a stressor such as taking an exam could generate the same response, which is not helpful,” said Beversdorf, an associate professor in the Departments of Radiology and Neurology in the MU School of Medicine. “Propranolol works by calming those nervous responses, which is why some people benefit from taking the drug to reduce anxiety.”
Propranolol increased working memory performance in a sample of 14 young adult patients of the MU Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders but had little to no effect on a group of 13 study participants who do not have autism. The researchers do not recommend that doctors prescribe propranolol solely to improve working memory in individuals with an ASD, but patients who already take the prescription drug might benefit.
“People with an Autism Spectrum Disorder who are already being prescribed propranolol for a different reason, such as anxiety, might also see an improvement in working memory,” said Christ, an associate professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences in the MU College of Arts and Science.
Future research will incorporate clinical trials to assess further the relationship between cognitive and behavioral functioning and connectivity among various regions of the brain.
The study, “Noradrenergic Moderation of Working Memory Impairments in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder,” was published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. Kimberly Bodner, a psychological sciences doctoral student at MU, and Sanjida Saklayen from the Ohio State University College of Medicine co-authored the study.
Training the Brain to Improve on New Tasks
A brain-training task that increases the number of items an individual can remember over a short period of time may boost performance in other problem-solving tasks by enhancing communication between different brain areas. The new study being presented this week in San Francisco is one of a growing number of experiments on how working-memory training can measurably improve a range of skills – from multiplying in your head to reading a complex paragraph.
(Image: Nelson Marques)
“Working memory is believed to be a core cognitive function on which many types of high-level cognition rely, including language comprehension and production, problem solving, and decision making,” says Brad Postle of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who is co-chairing a session on working-memory training at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society (CNS) annual meeting today in San Francisco. Work by various neuroscientists to document the brain’s “plasticity” – changes brought about by experience – along with technical advances in using electromagnetic techniques to stimulate the brain and measure changes, have enabled researchers to explore the potential for working-memory training like never before, he says.
The cornerstone brain-training exercise in this field has been the “n-back” task, a challenging working memory task that requires an individual to mentally juggle several items simultaneously. Participants must remember both the recent stimuli and an increasing number of stimuli before it (e.g., the stimulus “1-back,” “2-back,” etc). These tasks can be adapted to also include an audio component or to remember more than one trait about the stimuli over time – for example, both the color and location of a shape.
Through a number of experiments over the past decade, Susanne Jaeggi of the University of Maryland, College Park, and others have found that participants who train with n-back tasks over the course of approximately a month for about 20 minutes per day not only get better at the n-back task itself, but also experience “transfer” to other cognitive tasks on which they did not train. “The effects generalize to important domains such as attentional control, reasoning, reading, or mathematical skills,” Jaeggi says. “Many of these improvements remain over the course of several months, suggesting that the benefits of the training are long lasting.”
As yet unresolved and controversial, however, has been understanding which factors determine whether working-memory training will generalize to other domains, as well as how the brain changes in response to the training. Work by Postle’s group using a new technique of applying electromagnetic stimulation on the brains of people undergoing working-memory training addresses some of these questions.
Training increases connectivity
Bornali Kundu of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who works in Postle’s laboratory, used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with electroencephalography (EEG) to measure activity in specific brain circuits before and after training with an n-back task. “Our main finding was that training on the n-back task increased the number of items an individual could remember over a short period of time,” explains Kundu, who is presenting these new results today. “This increase in short-term memory performance was associated with enhanced communication between distant brain areas, in particular between the parietal and frontal brain areas.”
In the n-back task, Kundu’s team presented stimuli one-at-a-time on a computer screen and asked participants to decide if the current stimulus matched both the color and location of the stimulus presented a certain number of presentations previously. The color varied among seven primary colors, and the location varied among eight possible positions arranged in a square formation. The control task was playing the video game Tetris, which involves moving colored shapes to different locations, but does not require participants to remember anything. Before and after the training, researchers administered a range of cognitive tasks on which subjects did not receive training, and simultaneously delivered TMS while recording EEG, to measure communication between brain areas during task performance.
After practicing the n-back task for 5 hours a day and 5 days per week over 5 weeks, subjects were able to remember more items over short periods of time. Importantly, for those whose working memory improved, communication between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and parietal cortex also improved. “This is in comparison to the control group, who showed no such differences in neural communication after practicing Tetris for 5 weeks,” Kundu says.
Working-memory training also produced improvement on cognitive tasks for which participants were not trained that are also believed to rely on communication between the parietal cortex and DLPFC. For two of these tasks – the ability to detect a change in a briefly presented array of squares, and the ability to detect a red letter “C” embedded in a field of distracting stimuli of rotated red “C”s and blue “C”s – those who had trained in the n-back test also showed a decrease in task-related EEG. The training exercise had registered a similar decrease. “The overall picture seems to be that the extent of transfer of training to untrained tasks depends on the overlap of neural circuits recruited by the two,” Kundu says.
Developing future therapies
Moving forward, many cognitive neuroscientists are working to see how working-memory training may specifically help clinical populations, such as patients with ADHD. “If we can learn the ‘rules’ that govern how, why, and when cognitive training can produce improvements that generalize to untrained tasks, it may be that therapies can be developed for patients suffering from neurological or psychiatric disease,” Postle says.
Both Jaeggi’s team, as well as Torkel Klingberg of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, who is also presenting at the symposium today in San Francisco, have had success with such training for children with ADHD, decreasing the symptoms of inattention. “Here, the reason working-memory training may transfer to tests of fluid intelligence, as well as to a reduction in ADHD-associated hyperactivity symptoms, may be because both of those complex behaviors use some of the same brain circuits also used in performing the working-memory training tasks,” Kundu says.
“Individual differences in working memory performance have been related to individual differences in numerous real world skills such as reading comprehension, performance on standardized tests, and much more,” she adds. “I would not expect the same sorts of transfer effects that have been seen with working-memory training to happen if an individual practiced a task that used a minimally overlapping network, such as, for example, shooting three-pointers – which presumably uses different brain areas like primary and secondary motor cortex and the cerebellum.”
Jaeggi says that it is important to understand that cognitive abilities are not as unchangeable as some might think. “Even though there is certainly a hereditary component to mental abilities, that does not mean that there are not also components that are malleable and respond to experience and practice,” she says. “Whereas we try to strengthen participants’ working memory skills in our research, there are other routes that are possible as well, such as for example physical or musical training, meditation, nutrition, or even sleep.”
Despite all the promising research, Jaeggi says, researchers still need to understand many aspects of this work, such as “individual differences that influence training and transfer effects, the question of how long the effects last, and whether and how the effects translate into more real-world settings and ultimately, academic achievement.”
(Source: cogneurosociety.org)
Brain Games are Bogus
A decade ago, a young Swedish researcher named Torkel Klingberg made a spectacular discovery. He gave a group of children computer games designed to boost their memory, and, after weeks of play, the kids showed improvements not only in memory but in overall intellectual ability. Spending hours memorizing strings of digits and patterns of circles on a four-by-four grid had made the children smarter. The finding countered decades of psychological research that suggested training in one area (e.g., recalling numbers) could not bring benefits in other, unrelated areas (e.g., reasoning). The Klingberg experiment also hinted that intelligence, which psychologists considered essentially fixed, might be more mutable: that it was less like eye color and more like a muscle.
It seemed like a breakthrough, offering new approaches to education and help for people with A.D.H.D., traumatic brain injuries, and other ailments. In the years since, other, similar experiments yielded positive results, and Klingberg helped found a company, Cogmed, to commercialize the software globally. (Pearson, the British publishing juggernaut, purchased it in 2010.) Brain training has become a multi-million-dollar business, with companies like Lumosity, Jungle Memory, and CogniFit offering their own versions of neuroscience-you-can-use, and providing ambitious parents with new assignments for overworked but otherwise healthy children. The brain-training concept has made Klingberg a star, and he now enjoys a seat on an assembly that helps select the winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. The field has become a staple of popular writing. Last year, the New York Times Magazine published a glowing profile of the young guns of brain training called “CAN YOU MAKE YOURSELF SMARTER?”
The answer, however, now appears to be a pretty firm no—at least, not through brain training. A pair of scientists in Europe recently gathered all of the best research—twenty-three investigations of memory training by teams around the world—and employed a standard statistical technique (called meta-analysis) to settle this controversial issue. The conclusion: the games may yield improvements in the narrow task being trained, but this does not transfer to broader skills like the ability to read or do arithmetic, or to other measures of intelligence. Playing the games makes you better at the games, in other words, but not at anything anyone might care about in real life.
Altered brain activity responsible for cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia
Cognitive problems with memory and behavior experienced by individuals with schizophrenia are linked with changes in brain activity; however, it is difficult to test whether these changes are the underlying cause or consequence of these symptoms. By altering the brain activity in mice to mimic the decrease in activity seen in patients with schizophrenia, researchers reporting in the Cell Press journal Neuron on March 20 reveal that these changes in regional brain activity cause similar cognitive problems in otherwise normal mice. This direct demonstration of the link between changes in brain activity and the behaviors associated with schizophrenia could alter how the disease is treated.
"We artificially decreased activity of the mediodorsal thalamus region of the brain in the mouse and found that it is sufficient to lead to deficits in working memory and other schizophrenia-like cognitive deficits," says senior author Dr. Christoph Kellendonk of Columbia University in New York City. "Our findings further suggest that decreased thalamic activity interferes with cognition by disrupting communication between the thalamus and the prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain that has already been shown to be important for working memory," he added.
The researchers made their discovery by giving mice a drug that decreased activity selectively in the mediodorsal thalamus region of the brain. They then tested the animals in various cognitive tasks involving levers and mazes. The investigators found that even a subtle decrease in the activity of the mediodorsal thalamus led to altered connectivity between this brain region and the prefrontal cortex region and that the altered connectivity was associated with a variety of cognitive impairments experienced by patients with schizophrenia.
The findings likely apply to humans because patients with schizophrenia have decreased thalamic activity as well as altered connectivity between the thalamus and the prefrontal cortex. “Our work suggests that these two findings may be linked,” explains co-senior author Dr. Joshua Gordon, also of Columbia University. “One next step would be to examine this relationship in patients. For example, one could ask whether deficits in thalamic activity and connectivity between the thalamus and prefrontal cortex are correlated with each other.”
Cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia include problems with memory and behavioral flexibility, two processes that are essential for activities of daily living. These symptoms are resistant to current treatments, but this study’s findings provide new information for the design of potentially more effective therapies that target the neuronal mechanisms underlying patients’ cognitive problems.
(Source: eurekalert.org)