<table style="border:1px solid #adadad; background-color: #F3F1EC; color: #666666; padding:8px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; line-height:16px; margin-bottom:6px;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:20px;font-weight:bold;">PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/childhood-maltreatment-linked-to-greater-cognitive-difficulties-than-previously-thought/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Childhood maltreatment linked to greater cognitive difficulties than previously thought</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 12th 2024, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study of adults from the US Midwest who experienced childhood maltreatment found that those with objective records of maltreatment tended to show pervasive cognitive deficits compared to individuals without such records. These cognitive deficits were not observed in individuals who self-reported childhood maltreatment but lacked objective documentation. The research was published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(24)00224-4/fulltext"><em>The Lancet Psychiatry</em></a>.</p>
<p>Childhood maltreatment refers to abuse or neglect experienced by a child, typically at the hands of a caregiver, parent, or other authority figure. It can take many forms, including physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect.</p>
<p>Physical abuse involves causing bodily harm or injury to the child, while emotional abuse includes behaviors such as constant criticism, humiliation, or manipulation that harm the child’s psychological well-being. Sexual abuse refers to any sexual activity with a child, often involving exploitation or coercion. Neglect, on the other hand, occurs when a child’s basic needs—such as food, shelter, healthcare, and emotional support—are not adequately met.</p>
<p>Childhood maltreatment can have long-term consequences, affecting a child’s physical, emotional, and cognitive development. Survivors of childhood maltreatment are at higher risk of developing mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and difficulties forming healthy relationships.</p>
<p>Study authors Andrea Danese and Cathy Spatz Widom note that documented childhood maltreatment is believed to trigger toxic biological responses that lead to brain damage, detectable through neuropsychological examinations. However, most studies rely on retrospective self-reports, which are often considered insufficiently reliable or even invalid, rather than objective measures such as documented reports of childhood maltreatment.</p>
<p>With this in mind, Danese and Widom conducted a study to explore whether cognitive impairments in adults, which are thought to result from brain-damaging processes, are more strongly associated with objectively documented or self-reported experiences of childhood maltreatment. Their aim was to determine which of these two types of measures is more reliable in studies of childhood maltreatment.</p>
<p>The study participants included 908 individuals from documented cases of childhood physical and sexual abuse and neglect, and a matched group of 667 individuals without any documented cases of abuse or neglect. The group of children who survived childhood maltreatment was formed in 1986 and interviewed on three occasions: in 1989–1995, 2000–2002, and 2003–2005.</p>
<p>The authors used official reports of child abuse and neglect involving study participants as objective measures of childhood maltreatment. They exclusively considered court-documented cases involving children younger than 12 years at the time of the abuse or neglect.</p>
<p>Subjective measures of childhood maltreatment were based on participants’ self-reports, including the Conflict Tactics Scale, the Self-Report of Childhood Abuse Physical, and an assessment of childhood neglect developed by the study authors. During the interviews, participants also completed a series of cognitive assessments (the Quick Test, the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised Level II, the Stroop Test, the Trail Making Test, and part of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) and assessments of depression and anxiety symptoms (the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale).</p>
<p>Participants with official records of childhood maltreatment showed, on average, cognitive deficits in most tests compared to participants without such records. The magnitude of these differences was low to moderate. In contrast, participants who recalled childhood maltreatment experiences but had no objective records did not show cognitive deficits compared to those without any maltreatment experiences.</p>
<p>However, participants who self-reported childhood maltreatment (with or without objective records) tended to experience more episodes of depression and anxiety compared to individuals without such self-reports. Participants with only objective records of maltreatment did not show an increased risk of depression or anxiety.</p>
<p>“We found that cognitive deficits are concentrated among individuals with objective experiences of childhood maltreatment and not observed in those with subjective measures. Cognitive deficits did not explain the associations between different maltreatment measures and later psychopathology. Differential associations of objective and subjective experiences of maltreatment with cognitive deficits point to differences between the constructs identified by either measure,” the authors concluded.</p>
<p>The findings suggest that using only retrospective self-reports may obscure the significant cognitive impairments that are more prevalent in those with documented histories of childhood neglect, potentially leading to an underestimation of the long-term cognitive and functional challenges these individuals face.</p>
<p>“While there are some important exceptions, most research in this area has relied on retrospective reports of childhood maltreatment from adult participants,” Danese said in a news release. “Our study has shown that this reliance on retrospective reports has likely resulted in researchers and clinicians underestimating the extent to which individuals with documented cases of maltreatment, and particularly neglect, are experiencing cognitive deficits.”</p>
<p>“Our study highlights the importance of identifying young people who have experienced neglect so that the proper support can be put in place, for example, to mitigate the negative consequences in education and employment.”</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the link between childhood maltreatment and cognitive deficits. However, it should be noted that the study design does not allow for definitive cause-and-effect conclusions. While it is possible that childhood maltreatment leads to cognitive deficits, it is also possible that children with cognitive deficits are at a higher risk of being maltreated. Other explanations for this link remain open as well.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00224-4">Objective and subjective experiences of childhood maltreatment and their relationships with cognitive deficits: a cohort study in the USA,</a>” was authored by Andrea Danese and Cathy Spatz Widom.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/both-siderism-debunked-study-finds-conservatives-more-anti-democratic-driven-by-two-psychological-traits/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Both-sidesism debunked? Study finds conservatives more anti-democratic, driven by two psychological traits</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 12th 2024, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00096-3"><em>Communications Psychology</em></a> has found that anti-democratic tendencies in the United States are not evenly distributed across the political spectrum. According to the research, conservatives exhibit stronger anti-democratic attitudes than liberals, and this difference can be partially explained by psychological traits, specifically right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation.</p>
<p>Democracy in the United States has come under increasing strain in recent years, with events such as the January 6th Capitol attack fueling concerns about the state of the country’s political system. Many people tend to blame both liberals and conservatives for these developments, assuming that political extremism and anti-democratic tendencies are equally present on both sides. However, the research team wanted to investigate whether this assumption holds true.</p>
<p>“I believe that what motivated our interest in this topic comes mainly from an experience that Americans and Brazilians have unfortunately shared in politics recently: high political polarization and radicalization of the conservative-rightist side leading to violent, anti-democratic uprisings in federal capitals claiming that legitimate electoral results were fraudulent,” said study co-author Débora de Oliveira Santos, a Ph.D. candidate at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul and former visiting researcher at the Social Justice Lab at the New York University.</p>
<p>“So, that caught our attention in understanding whether there was a relationship between ideology and anti-democratic attitudes. In this scenario, this paper was an opportunity to take an in-depth look at anti-democratic tendencies in American society, analyzing whether there were indeed ideological asymmetries in attitudes towards democracy, as well as to what extent these asymmetries could be related to psychological differences.”</p>
<p>Co-author John T. Jost, a professor and director of the Social Justice Lab at the New York University, added: “I have a longstanding interest in left-right ideological asymmetries in beliefs, opinions, and values, as well as underlying motivations and behavioral tendencies, and their implications for democratic functioning. This was the subject of my most recent book, <em><a href="https://amzn.to/4h25lm8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Left & Right: The Psychological Significance of a Political Distinction</a></em>.”</p>
<p>The study utilized data from the 2022 Health of Democracy Survey, which was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. The survey was part of the AmeriSpeak Panel and included a nationally representative sample of 1,557 adults in the United States. The respondents were selected based on various demographic factors, such as age, race, ethnicity, education, and gender, to ensure the sample reflected the broader U.S. population.</p>
<p>Participants answered a wide range of questions designed to measure their political views, psychological traits, and attitudes toward democratic norms. Specifically, the researchers were interested in three key psychological factors: right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and political system justification.</p>
<p>Right-wing authoritarianism refers to a combination of three attitudes: authoritarian submission (a tendency to submit to authorities seen as legitimate), authoritarian aggression (a tendency to be aggressive on behalf of those authorities), and conventionalism (a high degree of adherence to traditional social norms). Social dominance orientation measures the extent to which individuals endorse social hierarchies and inequality, while political system justification assesses the extent to which individuals support the current political system and view it as legitimate and fair.</p>
<p>To gauge participants’ democratic and anti-democratic tendencies, the survey included questions on seven key areas: support for democratic rights and guarantees, political equality in voting, freedom of speech, willingness to defect from democratic norms, tolerance of disliked groups, willingness to vote for anti-democratic candidates, and support for political violence.</p>
<p>The findings revealed significant differences between conservatives and liberals in their support for democratic principles. Conservatives, compared to liberals, were less supportive of political equality and legal rights and guarantees. In other words, conservatives were less likely to agree with statements such as “Everyone should be allowed to vote” and “The law should treat everyone the same, regardless of wealth or power.”</p>
<p>Conservatives were also more likely to endorse actions that defy democratic norms, such as voting for candidates who reject the legitimacy of elections and being more willing to justify political violence. In particular, they were more likely to agree with statements such as “The true American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it” and “I support the use of violence to ensure my party’s candidate wins the 2024 presidential election” compared to liberals.</p>
<p>“Our results indicate that ideology plays a significant role in shaping people’s attitudes towards democracy,” de Oliveira Santos said. “Our analyses show that individuals who identify as conservative or Republican have less regard for democratic norms and principles.”</p>
<p>Importantly, these findings held even after controlling for the effects of political ideological and partisan extremism. “Contrary to common assumptions, anti-democratic attitudes are not attributed to ideological or partisan extremism but rather to right-leaning ideological and partisan identification,” de Oliveira Santos told PsyPost. “Therefore, the notion that liberals and conservatives are equally anti-democratic does not hold up in reality.”</p>
<p>“In the United States and several other countries, democracy is at risk, and the threat is largely coming from the political right, especially the far right.”</p>
<p>The researchers found that the differences between liberals and conservatives were partly explained by psychological traits. Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation were both higher among conservatives and were linked to greater anti-democratic tendencies.</p>
<p>Interestingly, political system justification had the opposite effect. Conservatives who were high in political system justification showed more support for freedom of speech and legal rights and guarantees, and were less likely to endorse anti-democratic behaviors. This suggests that while conservatives tend to be more authoritarian and dominance-oriented, those who strongly believe in maintaining the current political system are less likely to support anti-democratic actions.</p>
<p>“While right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation increased anti-democratic tendencies among those with a conservative political orientation, political system justification seems to mitigate attitudes that go against democracy,” de Oliveira Santos explained. “This finding adds to other research, such as Langer et al. (2023) evidence on how voting for radical right parties is related to low system justification, and it may shed light on possible strategies and interventions for attitudes and behaviors that threaten democracy based on system justification.”</p>
<p>The study also examined attitudes toward the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Among Republicans, 27.5% expressed positive feelings toward the insurrectionists, compared to just 5.96% of Democrats. Both Republicans and Democrats who approved of the insurrectionists were higher in right-wing authoritarianism than their fellow partisans who disapproved. Among Democrats who approved of the insurrectionists, social dominance orientation was also significantly higher.</p>
<p>This suggests that individuals on both sides of the political spectrum who supported the insurrection shared authoritarian and dominance-oriented psychological traits, although these tendencies were much more prevalent among Republicans.</p>
<p>“It is also worth mentioning that both Republicans and Democrats who expressed favorable feelings towards the January 6, 2021, uprisings were more conservative and also had higher levels of right-wing authoritarianism than their co-partisans,” de Oliveira Santos told PsyPost. “This finding adds to what we found about conservative ideology being a relevant factor in lower support for democracy.”</p>
<p>But as with any study, there are some limitations to consider. First, the research is based on a cross-sectional survey, meaning it captures a snapshot of people’s beliefs and attitudes at a single point in time. As a result, the study cannot establish causal relationships.</p>
<p>“Since our analyses were based on a cross-sectional survey, there are inferential limitations that should be addressed in experimental or longitudinal designs,” de Oliveira Santos noted. “Additionally, our study focuses solely on the context of American politics, which has been marked by high political polarization and holds a two-party institutional arrangement. Although we believe that these results may be similar in other countries, such as Brazil, it would be pertinent to replicate the research elsewhere.”</p>
<p>“One thing we don’t know and perhaps won’t know for several years is how much of the ‘blame,’ so to speak, for anti-democratic behavior is attributable to President Trump himself, and how much is attributable to the conservative voters who support him.”</p>
<p>The researchers hope to expand this research by replicating it in different countries to see how political, cultural, and institutional contexts influence the relationship between ideology and anti-democratic attitudes. They also want to explore how ideology and psychological factors like authoritarianism shape support for explicitly anti-democratic regimes, such as dictatorships. The long-term goal is to use social science research to help preserve and protect liberal democracy in the United States and elsewhere.</p>
<p>“Many people in academia, journalism, and elsewhere are highly motivated to blame ‘both sides’ for the sorry state of democracy in the United States, but ‘both sides’ are very clearly not to blame, at least not equally so,” Jost added. “I have written about <a href="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/josi.12633" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the problem of ‘both-sideology’ here</a>.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00096-3">Liberal-conservative asymmetries in anti-democratic tendencies are partly explained by psychological differences in a nationally representative U.S. sample</a>,” was authored by Débora de Oliveira Santos and John T. Jost.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/little-known-psychedelic-found-to-have-a-fascinating-effect-on-cognitive-flexibility-after-just-a-single-dose/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Little-known psychedelic found to have a fascinating effect on cognitive flexibility after just a single dose</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 12th 2024, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02439-2"><em>Molecular Psychiatr</em></a>y has revealed that a single dose of the psychedelic drug 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) can lead to long-lasting changes in brain structure and cognitive flexibility in mice. The researchers found that mice treated with DOI became more attuned to previously overlooked cues, allowing them to learn more efficiently from their experiences. These effects appeared to depend on the timing of drug administration and the animals’ experiences after the treatment.</p>
<p>DOI is a synthetic psychedelic from the amphetamine class that acts primarily by activating serotonin receptors in the brain. It is known for inducing long-lasting alterations in perception and has been studied for its ability to promote neuroplasticity, or the brain’s ability to form new connections. But much of this work has focused on the short-term effects immediately following drug administration.</p>
<p>Less is known about how these structural changes in the brain translate into long-term behavioral adaptations, particularly in relation to cognitive flexibility, a key feature of mental health and well-being. Cognitive flexibility is the ability to adapt one’s thinking or behavior in response to new information or changing circumstances, and impairments in this ability are often linked to mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.</p>
<p>“My research interests are about cognitive flexibility in general and its relationship to brain plasticity changes. Many neuropsychiatric conditions share a common symptom of cognitive rigidity, so I wanted to study how enhancing neuroplasticity could unlock a more flexible cognitive state to get a stuck brain unstuck. When I was writing my PhD proposal, the psychedelic hype was just starting to pick up and what attracted me was the idea that I can use these drugs as a tool to induce rapid and enduring neuroplasticity,” explained Merima Šabanović, a postdoctoral associate at the Department of Psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine.</p>
<p>“Serotonergic psychedelic compounds have recently emerged as promising treatments for various psychiatric conditions, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. It has been suggested that the ability of these compounds to rapidly promote the brain’s capacity to change its structure and function could be the catalyst for broad behavioral shifts, but evidence for a measurable cognitive change is lacking, especially over an extended period post-treatment.”</p>
<p>The study, conducted while Sabanovic was a PhD candidate at the University of Oxford, was carried out on young adult mice to assess the structural and cognitive effects of DOI. The researchers administered a single dose of DOI to the mice and then evaluated their behavior using a complex reversal learning task designed to measure cognitive flexibility. This task required the mice to adapt their behavior based on changing reward patterns, allowing the researchers to see how well the animals could learn from both positive and negative outcomes.</p>
<p>In addition to behavioral testing, the researchers performed brain imaging to assess changes in brain structure following DOI treatment. They used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to look for alterations in brain volume, focusing on regions associated with sensory processing and cognitive control. Brain samples were collected from the mice 24 to 36 hours after drug administration to capture the early structural changes, as well as several weeks later to investigate any long-term effects.</p>
<p>The researchers also varied the timing between the drug treatment and the testing to explore whether the post-drug experiences influenced the outcomes. In some cases, the mice were allowed to continue with the learning tasks in the days following the DOI treatment, while in other cases, they were barred from these tasks to see how a lack of post-drug experience would affect their cognitive flexibility.</p>
<p>Šabanović and her colleagues confirmed that a single dose of DOI led to measurable changes in brain structure within just one day. Specifically, they found significant increases in the volume of several brain regions, including sensory and association areas of the cortex, as well as subcortical structures involved in higher-order cognitive processes. These findings align with previous research showing that psychedelics promote rapid growth in dendritic spines and synaptic connections, both of which are markers of neuroplasticity.</p>
<p>However, the most interesting findings emerged when the researchers looked at how DOI affected the mice’s cognitive flexibility in the reversal learning task. Initially, the DOI-treated mice did not show any significant improvements in overall decision-making accuracy compared to the control group. But when the researchers introduced a novel challenge—a sudden change in the reward structure—the DOI-treated mice exhibited a unique learning strategy.</p>
<p>Unlike the control mice, which primarily learned from rewards, the DOI-treated mice began to learn from the absence of rewards, or “reward omissions.” This represents a shift in cognitive strategy, indicating heightened sensitivity to previously overlooked negative feedback.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that these cognitive effects were not immediate but developed over time. Mice that underwent the novel challenge one week after DOI treatment showed significant improvements in their ability to adapt to the new task structure, suggesting that the benefits of DOI on cognitive flexibility require time to manifest.</p>
<p>Interestingly, when the researchers tested the mice just one day after drug treatment, they did not observe these improvements, suggesting that the timing of the post-drug challenge plays a critical role in how the drug influences cognitive flexibility.</p>
<p>The study also showed that the experiences the mice had during the week following DOI treatment were crucial. Mice that were allowed to continue practicing the learning task during this period showed greater improvements in cognitive flexibility, while those that were barred from the task did not exhibit the same level of improvement. In fact, the latter group performed worse than the control group in some cases, suggesting that the cognitive benefits of DOI may depend on ongoing cognitive engagement after the drug is administered.</p>
<p>“In this study, we uncovered that a single moderate dose of psychedelic drug (±)-DOI has long-term effects on how adaptable the mice can be in a complex decision-making task,” Šabanović told PsyPost. “Strikingly, (±)-DOI caused a paradigm shift in the cognitive strategy such that the animals developed a new sensitivity to reward omissions never before seen in mice that we have tested on this task. Usually, the mice ignore the trials where they don’t get a reward, which would be like us learning only from the questions we got right on an exam, and completely ignoring the ones we got wrong. However, the mice that were injected with (±)-DOI beforehand were able to use these previously overlooked cues in the weeks after treatment and perform better at the task as a result.”</p>
<p>“Even though the underlying idea was simple – find the cognitive effects of a single psychedelic treatment days and weeks after the compound had left the system – the approach was risky as complex cognitive tasks in mice demand months of daily training and testing, with no guarantee of findings. We were testing healthy mice after all, there was no deficit to rescue, and mice are actually very good at the task to begin with. So, with there being only a small window for performance to change, we were surprised to see that a single dose of this drug could have such big and unique effects weeks after the treatment.”</p>
<p>“We got lucky in a way to have done our experiments in the order that we did, because we got the ‘good’ positive results first – the change in strategy, and the better adaptability with the one-week gap before the cognitive challenge,” Šabanović explained. “In hindsight, if we had gotten two rounds of negative results, we may have abandoned the project with me rushing to graduate in time. However, we still controlled our initial excitement about a positive result and approached those findings with caution.”</p>
<p>“Instead of jumping to what could be the next ‘big thing’ for the project, we wondered what else could explain our results, specifically whether the one-week gap between drug treatment and the novel challenge was the key. We zeroed in on rigorous, albeit very time-consuming controls to decipher what shaped the behavior we were seeing.”</p>
<p>“Then it turned out that the significant effect on novel adaptability did not manifest immediately after treatment, as effects were absent when we tested mice one day after the (±)-DOI injection, nor when the animals were barred from training between drug treatment and the novel rule reversal,” Šabanović continued. “The crucial concept that kept being the subject of our discussions was <em>consolidation</em> — the slow process through which molecular and neuronal changes transform into enduring alterations in brain circuitry via a pruning process of ‘downward plasticity’ directed by the environment. Earlier cognitive studies of psychedelics focused on the acute or immediate post-acute phase when the drug either did nothing or made performance worse (not surprising considering the profound psychedelic effects on attention and sensory processing).”</p>
<p>The fact that the cognitive benefits of DOI were only observed after a delay suggests that the full effects of psychedelics on cognitive flexibility may take time to develop. This raises questions about the optimal timing for therapeutic interventions involving psychedelics. Future studies could explore how different intervals between drug administration and cognitive challenges influence the outcomes.</p>
<p>“The link between the rapidly induced neuroplasticity and mood changes seen with psychedelics indeed deserves the attention that the research community has been spending on such studies,” Šabanović said. “But, other drugs can also induce such effects. What is unique to psychedelics is how long these effects last, for months and even years, translating to shifts in personality – something that other drugs very much fail to do. And while great work is being done studying spines and dendrites, receptors and synapses, the preclinical behaviors we are measuring to translate and study the mechanisms of the transformations observed in the clinic are still limited to short-term effects and reductive antidepressant tests.”</p>
<p>“As we marvel at these striking immediate post-treatment effects and navigate the psychedelic research field that is still young and changeable, have we been overlooking the critical phase when neuronal plasticity truly integrates into the brain and its directing of cognition and behavior? Our work suggests that enduring behavioral changes seem to unfold in a different rhythm, one that demands a greater understanding of downward plasticity and how the context in which these changes transpire shape the effects that we are seeing.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02439-2">Lasting dynamic effects of the psychedelic 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine ((±)-DOI) on cognitive flexibility</a>,” was authored by Merima Šabanović, Alberto Lazari, Marta Blanco-Pozo, Cristiana Tisca, Mohamed Tachrount, Aurea B. Martins-Bach, Jason P. Lerch, Mark E. Walton, and David M. Bannerman.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/people-are-overconfident-in-their-ability-to-predict-the-beliefs-of-those-outside-their-social-circles/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">People are overconfident in their ability to predict the beliefs of those outside their social circles</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 11th 2024, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>The people who took part in riots and counterprotests in England and Northern Ireland this summer are probably very confident that they know the views and beliefs of those they oppose. But they are probably wrong. Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67311-3">new research</a> shows we struggle to understand the minds of people who differ from us.</p>
<p>People categorise each other socially. Those we think of as similar to ourselves are part of what social scientists call our “in-group” while those we think of as different are deemed an “out-group”. These differences can be based on race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, sexual orientation or class, to name a few.</p>
<p>We understand that there are lots of different types of people with varying beliefs in our in-group. For example, a white person knows that not all white people are alike. Yet people tend to think all <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.536">members of an out-group are the same</a>, with similar beliefs and views. What’s more, people are often wrong about what these are.</p>
<p>Our research tested this by asking 256 people from the US to predict the social and political beliefs of others. Of these participants, there were 119 men and 137 women, with an average age of 45, and the group was split evenly between those with left- and right-leaning political views. We presented participants with statements such as “immigrants are good for society” and asked them to what extent they agreed. We then showed them the responses of other people who had been asked the same question.</p>
<p>If the participant said they strongly agreed that immigrants are good for society, they would be presented with someone who said they strongly disagreed with this. This would make them out-group to the participant.</p>
<p>Now aware that the other person disagreed with them on one belief, we would then ask them to predict this other person’s opinion on a different topic, such as “everyone should have access to legal abortion” or “it is right that same-sex marriage is now legal and acceptable”. The participant might assume that people who are anti-immigration are also anti-abortion or against same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>We asked people to repeat this task with various beliefs for both in-group and out-group members.</p>
<p>Each time someone predicted what the other person thought, we asked them to state how confident they were that their prediction was correct on a scale from “not at all” to “extremely confident”. We found that people were consistently very confident that their predictions were accurate (75% confident) but, for out-group members, they were wrong more than 60% of the time.</p>
<p>We then assessed how well people’s confidence was aligned with their accuracy. For in-group members who were asked to predict the views of other in-group members, their confidence was well placed: the more confident they were, the more accurate they were. It was a different story for their prediction of the views of out-group members: the more confident they were, the more likely it was that they were wrong.</p>
<p>This shows that people think they are much better at understanding out-groups than they actually are.</p>
<p>Generally, people are better at understanding in-group members because we <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Frev0000160">interact with them more</a>. We build up a good understanding of the range of people within our in-group, learning that they are all individuals, differing in their thoughts, beliefs and views. We are confident we understand them and, because of our experience with them, we usually can.</p>
<p>In contrast, our understanding of out-group members is often limited to what we’ve heard about them on the news, via word of mouth or on social media. If this information is overly simplistic or not accurate, then much like other disinformation, it gives rise to commonly held misconceptions about the out-group and the views they hold.</p>
<p>We apply the understanding we have of a few out-group members to everyone in the group, meaning we misunderstand a lot of people, but we think we understand them very well.</p>
<p>The consequences of this are, unfortunately, well known and serious. People <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-16429-012">value the lives of out-group members less</a>. People are <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-16429-018">less likely to help out-group members</a> as distrust, dislike and hostility towards them increases. People also become less willing to engage with out-groups, preferring not to work with, live near, or even sit <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15982112/">near an out-group member</a>. As societies become more polarised in this way, there are fewer chances for incorrect views to be challenged and corrected.</p>
<h2>Understanding others better</h2>
<p>We conducted a second experiment to try to find a way to counter these incorrect assumptions. This time, we told people whether their predictions were right or wrong.</p>
<p>Encouragingly, we found that by making people aware of their incorrect assumptions about out-group members, people started making better, more accurate predictions. They also became more aware of which people they were more or less likely to be able to understand.</p>
<p>It seems that making people aware of the real views and beliefs of out-group members can change how they think about them.</p>
<p>This is why it is so critical that people are exposed to the views of a diverse range of people. Hearing their stories and gaining insight into who they are as individuals – their personalities, beliefs, desires and emotions – helps us understand that, like our in-group, the out-group is made up of many different types of people. Over time, this makes it more likely that we will treat them with humanity.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/236273/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/people-think-they-are-much-better-at-understanding-others-than-they-actually-are-new-research-236273">original article</a>.</em></p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/study-links-need-for-closure-to-traumatic-bonding-in-victims-of-intimate-partner-violence/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Study links need for closure to traumatic bonding in victims of intimate partner violence</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 11th 2024, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study of female clients at centers supporting victims of intimate partner violence in Nigeria found that the need for closure was associated with traumatic bonding. The study’s authors proposed that intimate partner violence may increase the need for closure, which, in turn, may increase traumatic bonding—making one more likely to stay with an abusive partner. The research was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241234074"><em>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</em></a>.</p>
<p>Intimate partner violence refers to any form of physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, or economic harm inflicted by a current or former partner or spouse. Physical violence includes actions like hitting, slapping, or strangling, while emotional and psychological abuse involves intense shouting, verbal harassment, manipulation, threats, and controlling behavior. Sexual violence encompasses forced or unwanted sexual acts, and economic abuse refers to controlling a partner’s financial resources or limiting their access to financial independence.</p>
<p>In previous centuries, some societies around the world tolerated certain forms of violence in intimate relationships, particularly when perpetrated by individuals in positions of authority within a family or social unit. However, societal norms varied greatly across cultures and time periods. In more recent decades, changes in social norms and laws have increasingly made such violence socially unacceptable and unlawful, leading to a rise in reported cases of domestic violence, as greater awareness and legal protections have encouraged more victims to come forward.</p>
<p>Study author Uwemedimo S. Isaiah and his colleagues noted that survivors of intimate partner violence face the decision of whether to remain in an abusive relationship or leave it. However, cultural norms in Nigeria make it difficult for women who are victims of this type of violence to leave. Many often decide to stay with an abusive partner despite continued violence or the risk of further abuse.</p>
<p>The study aimed to investigate whether the need for closure and traumatic bonding play a role in the decision to stay in an abusive relationship. Traumatic bonding is an intense emotional tie created between an abused individual and their abuser as a result of recurrent (and frequently interrupted) cycles of violence. Because intimate partner violence typically occurs in cycles, it can create strong traumatic bonds through these inconsistent patterns of punishment (violence) and reward (temporary cessation of violence). The need for closure refers to a desire for a definite answer on a topic—any answer—rather than facing confusion and ambiguity.</p>
<p>The study participants were 345 women, selected from clients who visited the Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SART) in Awka and the Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Team, both in Nigeria. Their ages ranged from 18 to 61 years, and on average, they had been married for 10 years. Seventy-six percent of them had children.</p>
<p>The participants completed assessments of their exposure to intimate partner violence (the Composite Abuse Scale), their need for closure (the Need for Closure Scale, Short version), and traumatic bonding (the Stockholm Syndrome Scale).</p>
<p>Results showed that older participants reported stronger traumatic bonding. Individuals reporting stronger traumatic bonding also tended to report a higher need for closure. Intimate partner violence predicted two out of the three aspects of traumatic bonding: psychological damage and love dependence, but not core Stockholm Syndrome.</p>
<p>The study’s authors proposed a statistical model suggesting that exposure to intimate partner violence increases the need for closure, and in turn, the need for closure increases traumatic bonding. Results indicated that this relationship between the factors is indeed possible.</p>
<p>“Need for closure (NFC) mediated the correlation between IPV [intimate partner violence] and TB [traumatic bonding], demonstrating that NFC is a channel by which IPV is transcribed into TB and that IPV’s impact on TB may be amplified by NFC. NFC may promote behaviors that enhance the chance of traumatic bonding. Our findings demonstrate the effects of NFC in the formation and maintenance of traumatic bonds in IPV victims, as well as how these might be used to free people who are suffering from TB in IPV settings,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study makes a valuable contribution to the scientific understanding of the psychological processes underlying victims’ decisions to stay with their abusers. However, it should be noted that the study’s design does not allow for any cause-and-effect conclusions to be drawn from the data. While the results show that the model proposed by the study’s authors is possible, more research is needed to confirm that it accurately describes the relationships between these factors.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241234074">Need for closure is linked with traumatic bonding among victims of intimate partner violence: A mediation approach,</a>” was authored by Uwemedimo S. Isaiah, James E. Effiong, Innih Udokang, Samson Ogwuche, Emekubong N. Udoukok, and Steven Kator Iorfa.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/surprise-finding-non-neuronal-cells-produce-significant-portion-of-amyloid-plaque-in-alzheimers-disease/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Surprise finding: Non-neuronal cells produce significant portion of amyloid plaque in Alzheimer’s disease</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 11th 2024, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-024-01730-3"><em>Nature Neuroscience</em></a> has uncovered an important role for a specific type of brain cell, called oligodendrocytes, in the formation of amyloid plaques—a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. These cells, previously thought to be unrelated to plaque buildup, were found to contribute to about 30% of the amyloid plaques in mouse models of Alzheimer’s, with the rest produced by neurons.</p>
<p>The study’s findings challenge the traditional understanding that neurons are the primary source of these plaques and could open the door to new treatment strategies that target both neurons and oligodendrocytes.</p>
<p>Alzheimer’s disease affects millions of people worldwide, yet its underlying causes remain poorly understood. One of the primary features of Alzheimer’s is the buildup of amyloid-beta plaques in the brain, which are thought to disrupt communication between neurons and lead to cognitive decline. Traditionally, neurons have been identified as the sole producers of amyloid-beta proteins that form these plaques.</p>
<p>However, previous studies have hinted that neurons might not be the only source of amyloid-beta. This new study was designed to explore whether other brain cells, specifically oligodendrocytes, could also contribute to plaque formation. Oligodendrocytes are glial cells that form myelin, the insulating layer that helps neurons send electrical signals efficiently. Investigating their role in amyloid production could provide a broader understanding of Alzheimer’s disease and point to novel therapeutic approaches.</p>
<p>“Alzheimer’s disease is a debilitating neurodegenerative disease and the leading cause of dementia. Although some therapeutic options exist to mitigate disease symptoms, and some are targeted and approved as therapies, most have limited effects and only delay disease progression slightly. Moreover, no preventative measures exist against Alzheimer’s disease, which is expected to be more prevalent in our aging population,” said corresponding author Andrew Octavian Sasmita, a postdoctoral researcher at University College Cork.</p>
<p>“The exact cause of Alzheimer’s disease remains debated and is still generally unknown, but disease hallmarks include the accumulation of amyloid-beta plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau neurofibrillary tangles. The former is known to deposit earlier and influences the aggregation of the latter. Although viewed as pathological deposits, both proteins are generated intrinsically by our neural cells, and it remains a question whether the disease progresses due to the overproduction or failure of clearance of such proteins.”</p>
<p>“Most available therapies have been aimed at targeting amyloid-beta, including the recently approved amyloid-beta immunotherapy,” Sasmita explained. “However, the cellular source of amyloid-beta itself has remained debated, especially in recent years, with past research acknowledging that neurons, especially excitatory neurons, are the sole producers of amyloid-beta that get deposited into plaques. Our study sought to fill in this research gap and to answer the question of whether other cell types in the brain contribute to amyloid-beta deposition, which is a key concept in our basic understanding of Alzheimer’s disease.”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted the study using genetically modified mice designed to model Alzheimer’s disease. These mice carried specific mutations that caused their brains to produce amyloid-beta plaques. To investigate the role of oligodendrocytes in plaque formation, the scientists employed a method called RNA sequencing, which allowed them to analyze gene expression in different cell types within the brain. They focused on a protein called BACE1, which is a key enzyme in the production of amyloid-beta.</p>
<p>In the first part of the experiment, the team selectively “knocked out” BACE1 production in oligodendrocytes, meaning they disabled the gene responsible for creating BACE1 in these cells. By doing this, the researchers could measure how much less amyloid-beta was produced when oligodendrocytes were unable to produce BACE1. They then compared these findings to a second group of mice in which BACE1 was knocked out only in neurons. The researchers were able to measure the resulting changes in plaque formation in both groups of mice.</p>
<p>To quantify the amount of amyloid plaque, the researchers used a combination of molecular imaging techniques and biochemical assays. These methods allowed them to visualize the plaques in the brain and measure amyloid-beta levels, providing a clear comparison between mice with functioning BACE1 in oligodendrocytes and neurons and those without.</p>
<p>The researchers found that when BACE1 was knocked out in oligodendrocytes, the amount of amyloid-beta plaques in the brain was reduced by about 30%. This means that nearly one-third of the amyloid plaques found in the brains of Alzheimer’s model mice were produced by oligodendrocytes.</p>
<p>These findings were surprising because previous research had focused almost exclusively on neurons as the producers of amyloid. “However, we discovered that amyloid processing components are expressed by various neural cell types, particularly oligodendrocytes,” Sasmita told PsyPost.</p>
<p>In contrast, when BACE1 was knocked out in neurons, the researchers observed a much larger reduction in amyloid plaque formation. This confirmed that neurons are still the primary contributors to amyloid plaque buildup, but the significant role played by oligodendrocytes suggests that they also make an important contribution, especially once plaque formation has started.</p>
<p>According to Robert Vassar, one of the study’s co-authors and a professor at Northwestern University, neurons seem to “get the ball rolling” in terms of amyloid plaque buildup, but once a certain threshold is reached, oligodendrocytes become a major contributor to further plaque accumulation.</p>
<p>“By combining various findings from our study, we highlighted that the production of amyloid-beta itself does not linearly correlate with amyloid plaque deposition, the latter being the most well-known readout of Alzheimer’s disease mouse models in preclinical research,” Sasmita said.</p>
<p>“Simply put, a certain percentage reduction in amyloid plaque pathology due to any intervention does not mean that amyloid-beta production is halted by that same percentage. In fact, it is less than the said percentage amount. This is due to the non-linear relationship between amyloid-beta production and plaque deposition, which follows sigmoidal kinetics. Amyloid-beta molecules need to reach a certain threshold concentration in the brain before plaque deposition occurs. This is an often-overlooked concept in Alzheimer’s disease.”</p>
<p>The researchers also noted that amyloid produced by neurons in the cortex and hippocampus could travel along neuronal projections and deposit in other brain regions, indicating that amyloid plaques can form not only locally but also distally via long neuronal connections.</p>
<p>“In one arm of our study, we ablated BACE1 in excitatory neurons primarily in the cortex and hippocampus,” Sasmita said. “However, this resulted in not only a major reduction of local plaque numbers but also distal ones in deeper, subcortical regions, such as the thalamus. This indicates that neuronal amyloid-beta is released to form extracellular plaques via long neuronal projections (axons) and also at synaptic terminals.”</p>
<p>The new finding that oligodendrocytes play a significant role in amyloid plaque formation could help explain why many current therapies targeting neurons have not been as effective as hoped.</p>
<p>“Selectively targeting amyloid processing components in oligodendrocytes could prove beneficial,” Sasmita said. “In fact, BACE1 inhibitor clinical trials failed due to, presumably, the detrimental effects of widespread BACE1 inhibition, especially on neuronal well-being. Further basic research is required, however, to better understand the functions of amyloid processing in non-neuronal cells, especially oligodendrocytes. This is imperative before moving further in leveraging non-neuronal amyloid processing for disease therapies.”</p>
<p>As groundbreaking as these findings are, the study has some limitations that need to be considered. First, the research was conducted in mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease, which, while informative, do not perfectly replicate the human condition. The role of oligodendrocytes in human brains may differ from what was observed in mice. Oligodendrocytes are also more abundant in humans than in mice, so their contribution to amyloid plaque formation could be even greater in people with Alzheimer’s disease.</p>
<p>“A recent study (Shapson-Coe et al., 2024) showed that oligodendrocytes are the predominant cell type in a human cortical region, which implies that non-neuronal amyloid-beta production could differ largely between mouse models and patients, especially given that mice have far fewer oligodendrocytes and white matter,” Sasmita noted.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the study only looked at the effects of BACE1 knockout at a specific point in the disease process. It is unclear whether targeting BACE1 in oligodendrocytes later in the disease would produce the same reduction in amyloid plaques or if early intervention is necessary for this approach to be effective.</p>
<p>“Although this study has limited immediate clinical relevance, it furthers our knowledge on the basic pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease and opens up alternative avenues for therapeutic strategies,” Sasmita said.</p>
<p>Future research could explore several important questions raised by this study. For example, researchers could investigate whether targeting BACE1 specifically in oligodendrocytes could lead to effective treatments for Alzheimer’s disease in humans. Another promising area for future research is to explore whether other types of brain cells contribute to amyloid-beta production. While this study focused on oligodendrocytes, other glial cells such as astrocytes and microglia might also play a role in plaque formation.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-024-01730-3">Oligodendrocytes produce amyloid-β and contribute to plaque formation alongside neurons in Alzheimer’s disease model mice</a>,” was authored by Andrew Octavian Sasmita, Constanze Depp, Taisiia Nazarenko, Ting Sun, Sophie B. Siems, Erinne Cherisse Ong, Yakum B. Nkeh, Carolin Böhler, Xuan Yu, Bastian Bues, Lisa Evangelista, Shuying Mao, Barbara Morgado, Zoe Wu, Torben Ruhwedel, Swati Subramanian, Friederike Börensen, Katharina Overhoff, Lena Spieth, Stefan A. Berghoff, Katherine Rose Sadleir, Robert Vassar, Simone Eggert, Sandra Goebbels, Takashi Saito, Takaomi Saido, Gesine Saher, Wiebke Möbius, Gonçalo Castelo-Branco, Hans-Wolfgang Klafki, Oliver Wirths, Jens Wiltfang, Sarah Jäkel, Riqiang Yan, and Klaus-Armin Nave.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/babies-early-sounds-are-more-purposeful-than-previously-thought-study-suggests/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Babies’ early sounds are more purposeful than previously thought, study suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 11th 2024, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in <em><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299140" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PLOS One</a> </em>suggests that the vocalizations babies make in their first year of life follow specific patterns, challenging the long-held belief that these early sounds are random. By analyzing all-day home recordings of infants, researchers found that babies actively explore different types of sounds, even when not prompted by adults. These early vocalizations often occur in clusters, hinting at an organized process of vocal development that may be crucial for later speech and communication.</p>
<p>While much research has focused on how social interaction and imitation of caregivers contribute to language learning, less attention has been given to babies’ own vocal exploration. The researchers wanted to investigate whether babies practice making different kinds of sounds independently of adult interaction, and if these sounds occur in patterns rather than randomly. By understanding how and why babies produce these sounds, scientists hope to uncover foundational processes that support language acquisition, as well as develop new ways to track healthy vocal development in early infancy.</p>
<p>“Infants’ endogenous vocalizations and their exploration of different vocal types serve as foundations for subsequent language development, and the exploration surely influences social interaction and imitation. Despite its significance, exploratory practice of vocal types has received very little attention in the literature until our recent papers, particularly when contrasted with the literature’s emphasis on social interaction and imitation,” said study author Hyunjoo Yoo, an assistant professor at The University of Alabama and director of the <a href="https://abclab.ua.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alabama Baby Communication (ABC) Lab</a>.</p>
<p>“Moreover, our understanding of vocal development during the precanonical stage, which occurs before infants produce canonical babbling syllables such as ‘ma’ or ‘ba’ (typically emerging around 5–7 months), remains limited. Given the theoretical and clinical importance of spontaneous vocal production and exploration, coupled with the scarcity of research on this topic, we embarked on an extensive empirical investigation into vocal type exploration and practice.”</p>
<p>The study involved 130 typically developing infants, who were monitored using day-long audio recordings captured in their homes. These infants were part of a larger study on vocal development conducted by the Marcus Autism Center in collaboration with Emory University. The researchers collected 1,154 recordings, representing an average of 8.9 recordings per infant. Each recording was randomly sampled to analyze 21 five-minute segments, allowing the researchers to observe vocalizations at different times of the day.</p>
<p>The key sounds the researchers focused on were what they called “protophones,” which include non-linguistic vocalizations that babies make in their first year. These protophones were divided into three main types: vocants (vowel-like sounds), squeals (high-pitched sounds), and growls (low-pitched or harsh sounds). Coders, trained to identify these categories, systematically analyzed the recordings to detect patterns of clustering—that is, periods where one type of sound, such as squeals, occurred repeatedly in a short span of time. They also tracked whether these patterns changed as the infants aged.</p>
<p>The researchers discovered that infant vocalizations are far from random. Instead, they found evidence of “clustering”—the repeated occurrence of specific sound types within particular time periods. Approximately 40% of the infants’ recordings showed significant clustering of squeals or growls, meaning that babies produced these sounds in noticeable bursts rather than distributing them evenly across the day.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the study found that this clustering happened whether or not adults were actively interacting with the child. This suggests that infants are practicing vocalizing independently, engaging in what the researchers called “vocal play.” This play may serve as a form of exploration, allowing infants to experiment with and refine their ability to control their voices.</p>
<p>“Our findings reveal that infants engage in practice with various vocal types from the earliest months of life, indicating their efforts to consolidate specific dimensions of vocalizations,” Yoo told <em>PsyPost</em>. “Through endogenous practice with these categories, infants learn to produce distinct vocal types, laying a foundation for further language development.”</p>
<p>The results showed that clustering patterns varied with age. While researchers had initially expected the most clustering to occur around 3–4 months, a period often thought of as the beginning of vocal play, they found that clustering occurred at all ages.</p>
<p>“Based on prior literature about vocal play, we expected either the emergence or the highest proportion of vocal type clustering to occur around 3–4 months,” Yoo explained. “However, we discovered that this age range did not exhibit the highest proportion of significant clustering. Interestingly, our data indicated that clustering occurred across all age groups (including the very youngest group), with some increase in rates from 5 months onward. Nonetheless, due to the limitation of our simplified coding scheme, we are not inclined to view this pattern of age results as offering the final word about vocal category clustering.”</p>
<p>The highest rates of clustering, particularly for squeals, occurred after 5 months. Growls, on the other hand, showed more consistent clustering across all ages. This might suggest different developmental timelines for controlling high-pitched versus low-pitched sounds, although more research is needed to confirm this.</p>
<p>“We were surprised by the distinct developmental trajectories of squeals and growls,” Yoo said. “Notably, there were relatively stable significant proportions of growl clustering across the six age groups, contrasting with higher proportions of squeal clustering beyond 5 months of age. We speculated that this discrepancy could be linked to the development of phonatory control, as squeals are produced in high pitch, potentially requiring particularly advanced vocal fold control compared to low-pitched growls. However, these speculations warrant further investigation into the development of vocal fold control.”</p>
<p>Despite its valuable insights, the study has some limitations. The coding system used to categorize vocalizations simplified the infants’ sounds into three broad categories (vocants, squeals, and growls), but infant vocalizations are more complex than this. More detailed analysis of subcategories of sounds—such as different types of squeals or growls—could provide a deeper understanding of how infants develop control over their voices.</p>
<p>This line of research has the potential to yield significant practical applications, particularly in identifying early markers for communication disorders.</p>
<p>“One of the primary reasons for our pursuit of the question of clustering is that it could turn out to be a useful marker in screening for disorders of communication,” Yoo explained. “Recently, we studied clustering in typically developing infants and infants later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We found that both typically developing infants and infants later diagnosed with ASD showed clustering patterns in their first year, suggesting that all the infants in this study appeared to be practicing vocal categories. The results provide support for the idea that vocal play and clustering of vocal types may be a fundamental property of human development, laying a deep foundation for later speech and language development.”</p>
<p>“Based on this finding, we could envision two follow-up studies. First, a follow-up study would be an investigation of vocal category exploration in developmentally delayed infants to see if there is a difference. Second, we would compare American and Korean-learning infants on the degree to which they cluster infant vocal categories. We have already explored this topic with a small portion of the data (11 infants from each language) and found no cross-language difference, as clustering of vocal types may be a fundamental property of human development. However, it would be more interesting and reliable to see this conclusion with large-scale data.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299140" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Infant vocal category exploration as a foundation for speech development</a>,” was authored by Hyunjoo Yoo, Pumpki Lei Su, Gordon Ramsay, Helen L. Long, Edina R. Bene, and D. Kimbrough Oller.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>Forwarded by:<br />
Michael Reeder LCPC<br />
Baltimore, MD</strong></p>
<p><strong>This information is taken from free public RSS feeds published by each organization for the purpose of public distribution. Readers are linked back to the article content on each organization's website. This email is an unaffiliated unofficial redistribution of this freely provided content from the publishers. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><s><small><a href="#" style="color:#ffffff;"><a href="https://blogtrottr.com/unsubscribe/565/DY9DKf">unsubscribe from this feed</a></a></small></s></p>