<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</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/robot-assisted-therapy-improves-communication-in-autistic-children/" 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;">Robot-assisted therapy improves communication in autistic children</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 28th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study of children with autism spectrum disorder found that a therapeutic intervention using robots was effective in improving their social development and participation in social activities. After the intervention, participants showed greater improvement in communication and reciprocal social interaction compared to both a control group and a group that received a comparable intervention delivered by a human therapist. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06236-2"><em>the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders</em></a>.</p>
<p>Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by difficulties in social communication and by restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities. Symptoms usually emerge in early childhood but can vary widely in severity. Some individuals with ASD have intellectual and language impairments, while others have average or above-average intelligence and advanced verbal skills.</p>
<p>People with ASD often struggle with interpreting social cues, forming relationships, or adapting to changes in routine. Sensory sensitivities—such as being overwhelmed by certain sounds, lights, or textures—are also common. Although ASD is a lifelong condition, many individuals can lead independent lives with appropriate support.</p>
<p>Early diagnosis and intervention are associated with better outcomes. Prior research has found that some children with ASD respond more positively to robots than to human interaction. Building on this, study author Eva Yin-han Chung and her colleagues investigated whether a robotic intervention program could enhance social engagement in children with ASD. Social engagement refers to the development of skills that allow a child to participate in reciprocal interactions with others, which is a key component of broader social participation.</p>
<p>The study involved 60 children with ASD between the ages of 5 and 11. All had an IQ of at least 70 and were able to follow simple commands. Six participants were girls. The children were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a robotic intervention group, a human-instructed group, or a control group.</p>
<p>The robotic intervention group used the humanoid NAO robot to assist the therapist in delivering the sessions. The program taught two-way communication, basic emotions, imitation, and reciprocal responses. Over 12 weekly sessions, children engaged in structured social games, story-based activities, and singing and dancing routines. The NAO robot features a simplified face with multicolored blinking eyes and is roughly the size of a two-year-old child, making it approachable and engaging for young participants.</p>
<p>The human-instructed group received the same content, delivered by a therapist without the aid of a robot. Children in the control group did not receive any intervention during the study period. All children were assessed before and after the 12-week program using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), which measured social communication and parent-reported social responsiveness, respectively.</p>
<p>Results showed that children in the robotic intervention group had significantly greater improvements in social communication compared to the other two groups. They demonstrated the most substantial gains in communication and reciprocal social interaction on the ADOS. Parent-reported improvements on the SRS also favored the robotic and human-instructed groups over the control group, though the difference between the robotic and human groups was not statistically significant in that measure.</p>
<p>“The effectiveness of [the] robotic intervention programme to enhance the social communication and participation was confirmed. Future studies may also consider adding a maintenance phase to document how the effects of the intervention carry over to the participants over a longer period,” the authors wrote.</p>
<p>While the study offers promising evidence for the use of robots in autism therapy, it has several limitations. The sample size was relatively small, and the researchers did not assess whether the observed benefits were maintained over time. Future research could investigate the long-term effects of such interventions and explore whether they translate to real-world social settings beyond the treatment environment.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06236-2">Effectiveness of Robotic Intervention on Improving Social Development and Participation of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder – A Randomised Controlled Trial</a>,” was authored by Eva Yin-han Chung, Kenneth Kuen-fung Sin, and Daniel Hung-kay Chow.</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/high-caffeine-intake-linked-to-greater-psychological-distress-in-people-with-depression/" 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;">High caffeine intake linked to greater psychological distress in people with depression</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 28th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://karger.com/cxp/article/11/1/37/924285/Caffeine-Consumption-Psychological-Distress-and" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Complex Psychiatry</a></em> has found that people with a history of depression who consume high amounts of caffeine tend to report higher levels of psychological distress. The researchers also found that certain genetic differences are associated with how much caffeine people drink and how sensitive they are to its effects. While caffeine use was not strongly linked to sleep satisfaction, people who said caffeine interfered with their sleep typically consumed less of it.</p>
<p>The study was designed to explore how caffeine consumption, sleep satisfaction, and psychological distress are connected in people with a history of depression, and whether genetic variants might explain some of these associations. Caffeine is the world’s most widely used psychoactive substance, often praised for its alertness-boosting effects.</p>
<p>But at higher doses, or in sensitive individuals, caffeine can increase anxiety and interfere with sleep. Although research has shown that moderate caffeine use may reduce the risk of developing depression in otherwise healthy individuals, less is known about its effects in people who have already been diagnosed or treated for depression.</p>
<p>“Caffeine is common, viewed as safe, and increasingly marketed toward and consumed by younger people,” said study author <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/harry-mcintosh-845a10298/">Harry McIntosh</a>, a PhD student at the University of Queensland. “At the same time, mental health problems are on the rise and insomnia is an important symptom of a number of mental health disorders. We’re interested in caffeine consumption because it may be something that people suffering from mental health problems can change to improve their mental health and sleep.”</p>
<p>To explore these questions, the researchers used data from the Australian Genetics of Depression Study. Over 11,000 adults who had been diagnosed with or treated for depression completed detailed questionnaires about their caffeine consumption, sleep, and mental health. Of those, about 9,000 also provided DNA samples, allowing researchers to examine genetic differences previously linked to caffeine metabolism and sensitivity.</p>
<p>Caffeine consumption was measured by asking participants how many servings of caffeinated coffee, tea, soft drinks, and energy drinks they typically drank per day. Participants were grouped into low (0–2 drinks), medium (3–5 drinks), or high (6 or more drinks) caffeine consumers. Psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, a commonly used measure of anxiety and depression symptoms. Sleep satisfaction was measured with a single question from the Insomnia Severity Index. Participants were also asked whether they felt caffeine interfered with their ability to sleep, which served as a proxy for caffeine sensitivity.</p>
<p>The researchers then used linear regression models to examine how caffeine use was related to distress and sleep satisfaction, adjusting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and other substance use (including alcohol, nicotine, and painkillers). They also looked at whether specific genetic variants were linked to caffeine intake and sensitivity.</p>
<p>The analysis found that participants who drank six or more caffeinated drinks per day scored higher on the psychological distress scale than those who consumed fewer drinks. For each additional caffeinated beverage consumed per day, participants’ distress scores increased by 0.2 points on a 50-point scale. While this is a small effect, it was statistically significant. People in the medium caffeine group (3–5 drinks per day) did not differ significantly from those in the low group, suggesting that only higher levels of consumption are linked to greater distress.</p>
<p>Interestingly, there was little evidence that caffeine consumption negatively affected sleep satisfaction in this group. Although those with higher caffeine intake reported slightly lower sleep satisfaction, the difference was small and did not remain statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons.</p>
<p>“We expected caffeine consumption to be associated with poorer sleep, which it wasn’t,” McIntosh told PsyPost.</p>
<p>Instead, caffeine sensitivity itself appeared to play a larger role. People who reported that caffeine interfered with their sleep were far less likely to drink large amounts of it. Each additional caffeinated drink consumed per day was associated with a 16% lower likelihood of reporting caffeine sensitivity. This suggests that people may naturally reduce their intake if they notice it disrupts their sleep.</p>
<p>“People naturally adjust how much caffeine they consume based on how they respond to it,” McIntosh said. “If caffeine was negatively impacting you, you’d probably reduce your intake accordingly, this could explain why caffeine was not associated with poor sleep quality.”</p>
<p>The genetic analysis offered further insight into why some people consume more caffeine than others. Several genetic variants were associated with differences in caffeine intake. For example, a variant near the <em>AHR</em> gene (rs4410790) was linked to increased caffeine use, while a variant near the <em>CYP1A2</em> gene (rs2472297) was linked to lower consumption. These genes are involved in caffeine metabolism. People with faster metabolism may consume more caffeine to maintain the same level of alertness, while slower metabolizers may consume less.</p>
<p>A separate variant near the <em>MMS22L/POU3F2</em> genes (rs34645063) was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting caffeine sensitivity. This finding is consistent with earlier research showing that this genetic region may be linked to both lower caffeine consumption and increased sensitivity.</p>
<p>Other variants in genes like <em>ADORA2A</em>—which encodes a receptor targeted by caffeine in the brain—were only weakly linked to consumption and did not remain significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Still, the results suggest that genetic differences play a role in shaping both how much caffeine people consume and how their bodies respond to it.</p>
<p>“Our work is focused on those diagnosed with depression,” McIntosh told PsyPost. “Higher caffeine consumption was associated with higher reported levels of current stress in people regardless of sleep quality. The effect size was not large but was statistically significant. However, we cannot assign a causal relationship because participants may increase caffeine consumption in response to symptoms of depression such as fatigue or lack of motivation. Common genetic variants play a sizeable role in how our body handles caffeine and were associated with consuming a larger or smaller number of caffeinated drinks each day.”</p>
<p>One of the main strengths of the study is its large sample size and inclusion of genetic data, which allowed researchers to detect even small effects. However, there are some limitations to consider. The data were cross-sectional, meaning they captured only one moment in time. This makes it difficult to determine cause and effect.</p>
<p>“Our data has only one timepoint and measures variables instead of controlling them experimentally, so we cannot use it to definitively state that caffeine is causing distress, or that people with higher stress are then choosing to consume more caffeine,” McIntosh noted.</p>
<p>Another caveat is that the study sample consisted entirely of people with a history of depression. This means the results may not apply to the general population, especially those without mental health conditions. Future research using more precise measures of caffeine intake and longitudinal designs could help clarify how these relationships unfold over time.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1159/000545393" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Caffeine Consumption, Psychological Distress, and Insomnia in a Cohort of Individuals with Depression</a>,” was authored by Harry A. McIntosh, Aleah J. Borgas, Nisreen Aouira, Brittany L. Mitchell, Jacob J. Crouse, Sarah E. Medland, Ian B. Hickie, Naomi R. Wray, Nicholas G. Martin, Christel M. Middeldorp, and Enda M. Byrne.</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/scientists-identify-delusion-like-cognitive-biases-that-predict-conspiracy-theory-belief/" 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;">Scientists identify delusion-like cognitive biases that predict conspiracy theory belief</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 28th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People who believe in conspiracy theories may be more likely to exhibit specific cognitive biases also found in individuals with subclinical delusional thinking, according to a pair of new studies published in <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.70045"><em>Applied Cognitive Psychology</em></a>. The research found that cognitive tendencies such as jumping to conclusions, emotional reasoning, and anomalous perception were significantly associated with both general and specific conspiracy beliefs.</p>
<p>Conspiracy theories are widely held beliefs that certain powerful groups secretly conspire to achieve harmful goals. These theories are not supported by strong evidence, yet they persist across cultures and political contexts. Events like the January 6 U.S. Capitol riot and the public embrace of conspiracy narratives by influential figures have made it increasingly important to understand the psychological foundations of conspiratorial thinking.</p>
<p>The researchers behind the current study wanted to explore whether some of the same cognitive patterns found in delusional ideation—typically studied in the context of psychosis—might also be present in individuals who are prone to conspiracy theories. Although conspiracy beliefs are not considered clinical delusions, both involve believing things that lack evidentiary support and often resist counterevidence. By focusing on cognitive biases commonly associated with psychosis, the researchers hoped to clarify whether these patterns help explain why some people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.</p>
<p>“I team teach a course at Southern New Hampshire University about the psychology of conspiracy theories,” explained Professor Peter Frost, the corresponding author of the study. “My colleague and I came across research showing that teaching people to recognize logical fallacies and cognitive biases can decrease people’s belief in conspiracy theories. That led some student researchers and I to question whether some people who are prone to cognitive biases are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. The other authors on the paper are undergraduates from SNHU.”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted two studies using online surveys distributed through social media platforms such as Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram. Both studies used the Cognitive Bias Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQp), a 30-item tool designed to measure cognitive biases related to delusional thinking. Participants were not informed of the questionnaire’s link to psychosis to avoid biasing their responses.</p>
<p>In the first study, the researchers collected data from 200 participants, the majority of whom were white and female, with an average age of 37. Participants also completed the Generic Conspiracy Beliefs Scale (GCBS), which measures a person’s general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories across domains like government, health, and extraterrestrials. (For example, “A small, secret group of people is responsible for making all major world decisions, such as going to war.”)</p>
<p>The second study followed a similar procedure with a new sample of 182 participants, averaging 41 years old. This time, the researchers used a custom questionnaire that asked participants to rate their agreement with 14 specific contemporary conspiracy beliefs. These included theories related to global elites, immigration policy, and public health. (For example, “Moon landings have never happened, and the proofs have been fabricated by NASA and the US government,” “The current U.S. border policy and/or certain groups of people are secretly doing things to change the racial mix of the country,” and “The earth is actually flat and/or hollow.”)</p>
<p>In both studies, participants answered questions from the CBQp assessing seven types of cognitive biases: anomalous perception (perceiving stimuli that are not present), catastrophizing (expecting the worst), dichotomous thinking (seeing things in black-and-white terms), emotional reasoning (relying on feelings over logic), intentionalizing (assuming others’ actions are intentional and malicious), jumping to conclusions (making snap judgments without sufficient evidence), and interpreting ambiguous events as threatening.</p>
<p>In the first study, the researchers found that five of the seven cognitive biases were positively associated with generalized conspiracy beliefs. The strongest relationship was with jumping to conclusions, which had a correlation coefficient of 0.67. Anomalous perception also showed a strong relationship (r = 0.54), followed by moderate correlations with intentionalizing, interpreting ambiguous events as threatening, and emotional reasoning. Catastrophizing and dichotomous thinking did not show statistically significant correlations in this sample.</p>
<p>Together, the cognitive biases explained more than half (56%) of the variation in participants’ general tendency to believe in conspiracies. This finding supports the idea that people who are more susceptible to certain thinking errors are also more likely to endorse conspiratorial ideas, even if they are not experiencing clinical symptoms of delusion.</p>
<p>In the second study, which focused on specific conspiracy beliefs, the researchers found a similar pattern. Jumping to conclusions was again the strongest predictor (r = 0.57), followed by anomalous perception (r = 0.45) and intentionalizing (r = 0.32). Emotional reasoning and threat interpretation also showed modest correlations, while catastrophizing and dichotomous thinking did not reach statistical significance.</p>
<p>Although the second study explained a smaller portion of the variance in conspiracy belief (about 37%), the pattern of findings closely mirrored those from the first study. This suggests that the same cognitive biases may underlie both general beliefs in conspiracies and more context-specific conspiracy theories tied to current events.</p>
<p>“I was not sure how this study would turn out,” Frost told PsyPost. “We kept seeing research showing that belief in conspiracy theories, like QAnon, tends to occur for emotional reasons. It offers justification and scapegoating that, at least in the short run, addresses emotional issues. Our research shows that some cognitive biases, like jumping to conclusions and intentionality, are strongly correlated with conspiratorial thinking. Even if conspiracy theories serve some emotional need, it is easier to justify them if you possess certain cognitive biases.”</p>
<p>The results contribute to a growing body of research showing that conspiracy thinking is not simply a matter of ignorance or personality but may stem from underlying cognitive patterns. While belief in conspiracies is not itself a sign of mental illness, the study found that biases commonly observed in people with subclinical delusional ideation—such as interpreting random or ambiguous information as meaningful or hostile—are also present among conspiracy believers.</p>
<p>“There is a part of our population that, although not clinically delusional, engage in thinking that is associated with delusional thinking,” Frost explained. “They tend to jump to conclusions without carefully considering evidence. They perceive things that others don’t, like ghosts or spirits. They suspect intention where there is no evidence for it. They might substitute emotional reactions for reason when making important decisions. These are the risk factors that make some people more susceptible to believing in conspiracy theories.”</p>
<p>“Before social media and the internet, we had to mix with people that might not share our same views. Today, if you believe that some people are actually lizards—the reptilian conspiracy theory—you can surround yourself with like-minded people in a chat. Even though only 4% of people tend to believe in this theory, encountering others who have a similar belief can embolden a cognitive bias that might not have manifested had the person been in more mixed company.”</p>
<p>While the studies offer valuable insights, they have some limitations. Both relied on self-reported data and non-random online samples, which may not be fully representative of the general population. The participants were disproportionately white and female, limiting the generalizability of the findings across different demographic groups.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the study design was correlational. It cannot determine whether cognitive biases cause conspiracy beliefs or if belief in conspiracies reinforces these biases over time. Longitudinal or experimental research would be needed to explore questions of causality.</p>
<p>“We don’t know if cognitive biases make certain people more susceptible to conspiracy theory belief or if going down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories results in greater susceptibility towards cognitive biases,” Frost noted. “There may also be a bidirectional influence.”</p>
<p>Despite the caveats, the research offers new evidence that conspiratorial thinking is closely tied to specific patterns of cognitive bias. While not diagnostic of mental illness, these biases reflect systematic ways of processing information that can leave people more vulnerable to unverified and often harmful beliefs.</p>
<p>“The ultimate goal for me is to understand the causes behind why conspiracy theory belief spreads,” Frost said. “Once we understand the causes better, it would be easier to help prevent it or remediate it. Too many of my students tell me how belief in conspiracy theories has led to rifts in their families. This is a trend, now in the mainstream, that is causing significant stress for far too many families and friends.”</p>
<p>“I also believe that our research suggests that too many people are susceptible to cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Critical thinking or at least recognition of illogical arguments could help prevent people from believing in disinformation. A democratic society relies on basic logic and critical thinking. Our educational system needs to teach this at an early age, along with media literacy.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70045" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cognitive Biases Associated With Specific and Generalized Beliefs in Conspiracy Theory</a>,” was authored by Peter J. Frost, Alyssa Simard, Lauren Iraci, Serena Stack, Carolyn Gould-Faulkner, Abby Alexakos, Manny Fernandez, and Shubham Oza.</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/only-a-specific-dose-of-psilocybin-induces-lasting-antidepressant-like-effects-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;">Only a specific dose of psilocybin induces lasting antidepressant-like effects, study suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 27th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2025.111368" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry</a></em> has found that a single moderate dose of psilocybin produces rapid and lasting antidepressant-like effects in rats, without the unwanted side effects seen at higher doses. The researchers showed that only an intermediate dose improved mood-related behaviors and social interaction while avoiding changes in body temperature, locomotion, and weight gain.</p>
<p>Psilocybin is the active ingredient in so-called magic mushrooms. It is a psychedelic compound that alters perception and consciousness and has attracted increasing interest as a potential treatment for depression, especially among individuals who have not responded to traditional antidepressants. Clinical trials have shown that even a single administration of psilocybin can lead to significant improvements in symptoms, sometimes lasting for weeks or months. However, because it can also produce strong hallucinogenic effects and other physiological changes, scientists are still working to determine the safest and most effective dosage.</p>
<p>In this new study, a team of researchers led by Lenka Seillier at Charles University in Prague aimed to better understand the relationship between psilocybin dose and its behavioral and physiological effects in an animal model. By testing a range of doses, they hoped to pinpoint the amount of psilocybin that produces therapeutic benefits while minimizing adverse outcomes.</p>
<p>The researchers used 40 male Wistar rats and divided them into five groups. Each group received either a saline control injection or one of four psilocybin doses: 0.1, 0.32, 1.0, or 3.2 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. The study design included multiple behavioral tests to assess antidepressant-like effects, social interaction, and pleasure responses. They also monitored side effects such as changes in body temperature, movement, and weight gain. In addition, they examined whether psilocybin altered levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein involved in brain plasticity that is often linked to depression.</p>
<p>To assess antidepressant-like effects, the researchers used the forced swim test, a standard behavioral test in animal models of depression. In this task, less immobility and more active behaviors such as climbing are considered signs of a more hopeful or motivated behavioral state. They also used a sucrose preference test to evaluate sensitivity to reward and a social interaction test to measure sociability. Each test was repeated across several weeks to assess both immediate and long-term effects.</p>
<p>The researchers found that the 0.32 mg/kg dose of psilocybin had the strongest antidepressant-like effect. Rats that received this dose were more active in the forced swim test, spent more time engaging in social behavior, and showed a stronger preference for sweetened water—an indicator of heightened sensitivity to pleasure. Importantly, these effects were evident both shortly after treatment and weeks later, suggesting that the benefits were long-lasting.</p>
<p>Higher doses of psilocybin, by contrast, did not produce these same benefits. In fact, the rats that received 1.0 or 3.2 mg/kg showed no improvement in mood-related behaviors. These higher doses also led to adverse effects, including reduced locomotion, decreased body temperature, and lower body weight gain over time. The results suggest that these side effects may mask or interfere with potential antidepressant effects at higher doses.</p>
<p>The team also measured head-twitch responses, a behavior commonly used in rodents as a proxy for psychedelic effects in humans. The number of these responses followed an inverted U-shaped curve, peaking at the 0.32 mg/kg dose and declining at the higher doses, likely due to the overall suppression of movement caused by those doses.</p>
<p>In terms of biological effects, the researchers found that psilocybin increased levels of BDNF in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex—two brain regions implicated in mood and depression. These increases occurred in a dose-dependent, linear fashion, meaning the more psilocybin the rats received, the higher the BDNF levels. However, this pattern did not align with the behavioral improvements, which only occurred at the moderate dose. This suggests that while BDNF may play a role in psilocybin’s effects, it is not the only factor at work and may not directly predict therapeutic outcomes.</p>
<p>The study highlights a narrow window of optimal dosing for psilocybin. At low doses, there was little effect. At moderate doses, the drug enhanced mood-related behavior without causing harmful physiological changes. But at high doses, the risk of side effects increased, and the benefits disappeared. This finding underscores the importance of dose selection in ongoing research and clinical applications.</p>
<p>As with any study, there are limitations. The study was conducted in healthy rats rather than animal models of depression, which may limit its generalizability. The researchers also note that they did not examine potential sex differences, which could be relevant for translating findings to human populations. Additionally, while they identified a mismatch between BDNF levels and behavioral outcomes, they did not investigate other molecular pathways that might help explain the observed effects.</p>
<p>Future studies could expand on this work by exploring how psilocybin affects rats with depression-like symptoms, whether similar effects are seen in female animals, and what other brain systems may contribute to the therapeutic effects. Investigating the role of specific serotonin receptors could also help clarify how different doses influence mood, perception, and physical responses.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2025.111368" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psilocybin has a narrow therapeutic window as an antidepressant treatment</a>,” was authored by Lenka Seillier, Barbora Čechová, Alexandre Seillier, and Romana Šlamberová.</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/menopause-symptoms-may-signal-future-dementia-risk-new-research-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;">Menopause symptoms may signal future dementia risk, new research suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 27th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Hot flashes, night sweats, vaginal dryness, urinary tract infections, irregular periods, low libido, trouble sleeping, brain fog, mood swings — and in rare cases, even a burning tongue sensation. What might all these symptoms have in common? They can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa764">all be signs of menopause</a>.</p>
<p>But could these symptoms hint at a greater story? New research suggests that menopause symptoms are not just immediate hurdles to overcome; they might also hold clues about a person’s future health, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03564-3">including their risk for conditions like dementia</a>. However, to understand this connection, we must first understand what menopause is and how it affects the brain and body.</p>
<h2>What is menopause?</h2>
<p>Menopause marks the natural end of a woman’s menstrual periods, typically occurring in their late 40s or early 50s. Officially, menopause describes the specific day when someone has gone a full year without a period.</p>
<p>However, menopause doesn’t happen overnight. It often starts years earlier with a phase called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa764">perimenopause</a>. During this time, the body prepares for menopause, and hormone levels — especially estrogen — fluctuate. This transition can last several years, often bringing symptoms like irregular periods, hot flashes, mood swings and more.</p>
<p>Once periods stop completely, a woman enters postmenopause. Unfortunately, symptoms don’t always end here; some may persist for years, and new symptoms may appear.</p>
<p>These stages — perimenopause, menopause and postmenopause — are all part of the same journey, though <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2024.2445303">each person’s experience is unique</a>.</p>
<h2>An all too similar patient’s journey</h2>
<p>While menopause is a natural process, its <a href="https://www.endo.theclinics.com/article/S0889-8529(22)00037-8/abstract">symptoms</a> can feel anything but. Some people may experience mild or no symptoms, while others struggle with numerous and severe symptoms that disrupt <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/menopause">daily life</a>.</p>
<p>Symptoms like anxiety can make socializing difficult, sleep problems can lead to exhaustion and brain fog can make even simple tasks feel daunting. Together, these challenges can affect thoughts, feelings and social lives — key aspects to overall health.</p>
<h2>Why menopause matters beyond the present</h2>
<p>Understanding menopause and its symptoms is just the beginning. Beyond being a transitional phase, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2024.108130">challenges of menopause</a> may offer a unique window into future brain health.</p>
<p>Take Alzheimer’s disease, the most common cause of dementia, marked by progressive memory loss, emotional and personality changes, and eventually, a loss of independence. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2020.100879">Women are twice as likely as men</a> to develop Alzheimer’s disease. In the past, research thought this difference was because women live longer than men, but new research suggests that menopause-related hormone changes may also play a critical role.</p>
<h2>The role of hormones in brain health</h2>
<p>During menopause, the ovaries stop producing eggs, triggering significant <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/endocrines2040036">hormonal changes</a>. One major change is the drop in estrogen, a hormone not only essential for reproduction, but also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11010-024-05071-4">brain health</a>.</p>
<p>Estrogen helps protect memory, strengthen neural connections, regulate mood and remove harmful proteins from the brain. When estrogen levels fall, these health benefits may weaken, possibly leaving the brain and body more vulnerable to harmful changes.</p>
<p>During these hormonal changes, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2018.07.004">menopause symptoms may also emerge</a>. While symptoms were once thought to be temporary, albeit uncomfortable, side-effects of menopause, these symptoms may also signal underlying brain changes linked to dementia risk.</p>
<h2>Future cognitive and behavioural health</h2>
<p>While past research has examined how individual menopausal symptoms may relate to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097/gme.0000000000001910">dementia risk</a>, our research team (led by Dr. Zahinoor Ismail, a physician-scientist) asked: could the number of symptoms experienced also indicate early warning signs of dementia?</p>
<p>We explored this by analyzing changes in:</p>
<ol>
<li>Cognition (for example, memory, thinking, and problem-solving) and</li>
<li>Behaviour (for example, emotions, personality, and social interactions).</li>
</ol>
<p>While cognitive changes are often top of mind when thinking about dementia, behavioural changes are equally important but frequently overlooked, and might also be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2024.02.006">early warning signs</a>.</p>
<p>We examined data from 896 postmenopausal participants in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahr.2024.100207">CAN-PROTECT study</a>, an online Canadian project on aging and brain health. Participants recalled the type and number of symptoms they experienced during perimenopause and completed tests assessing their current cognition and behaviour.</p>
<p>Among the participants, 74.3 per cent experienced perimenopausal symptoms — an average four symptoms per person — with hot flashes (88 per cent) and night sweats (70 per cent) being most common.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301165">Our findings</a> revealed that experiencing more symptoms during perimenopause was associated with greater cognitive and behavioural changes later in life, suggesting the burden of perimenopausal symptoms not only affected immediate well-being, but could also signal long-term brain health risks.</p>
<p>While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear, these findings highlight the importance of recognizing menopausal symptoms as potential early indicators of future brain health.</p>
<p>Interestingly, participants who used estrogen-based hormone therapies for perimenopausal symptoms showed fewer behavioural changes than non-users, suggesting a possible role for estrogen in dementia risk reduction. However, further research is critical <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt1288">to clarify the timing</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v11.i8.412">long-term effects</a> of hormone therapy.</p>
<p>It’s important to understand that these findings show a relationship between symptom burden and later brain health, but do not prove that one causes the other. We still need more research to understand why a connection exists and how it works.</p>
<h2>Why this research matters</h2>
<p>Our research highlights a crucial link: experiencing multiple perimenopausal symptoms may be related to cognitive and behavioural changes, which are early risk markers of dementia. Recognizing these symptoms as potential warning signs could help health care providers identify risks sooner and explore ways to protect brain health over time.</p>
<p>Menopause is more than a life transition; it may offer critical insights into long-term brain health. Supporting research like <a href="https://www.can-protect.ca/">CAN-PROTECT</a>, which is still recruiting participants, can help us uncover how menopause experiences shape dementia risk, paving the way for earlier interventions and better outcomes.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/253216/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/menopause-symptoms-may-be-critical-to-understanding-alzheimers-disease-risk-in-women-253216">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/too-much-chatgpt-study-ties-ai-reliance-to-lower-grades-and-motivation/" 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;">Too much ChatGPT? Study ties AI reliance to lower grades and motivation</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 27th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study published in the journal <em><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13489-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Education and Information Technologies</a></em> finds that students who are more conscientious tend to use generative AI tools like ChatGPT less frequently, and that using such tools for academic tasks is associated with lower self-efficacy, worse academic performance, and greater feelings of helplessness. The findings highlight the psychological dynamics behind AI adoption and raise questions about how it may shape students’ learning and motivation.</p>
<p>Generative AI refers to computer systems that can create original content in response to user prompts. Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are a common example. These tools can produce essays, summaries, explanations, and even simulate conversation—making them attractive to students looking for quick help with academic tasks. But their rise has also sparked debate among educators, who are concerned about plagiarism, reduced learning, and the ethical use of AI in classrooms.</p>
<p>“Witnessing excessive reliance among some of my students on generative AI tools like ChatGPT made me wonder whether these tools had implications for students’ long term learning outcomes and their cognitive capacity,” said study author Sundas Azeem, an assistant professor of management and organizational behavior at SZABIST University.</p>
<p>“It was particularly evident that for those activities and tasks where students relied on generative AI tools, classroom participation and debate was considerably lower as similar responses from these tools increased student agreement on topics of discussion. With reduced engagement in class, these observations sparked my concern whether learning goals were actually being met.</p>
<p>“At the time we started this study, most studies on students’ use of generative AI were either opinion-based or theoretical, exploring the ethics of generative AI use,” Azeem continued. “The studies exploring academic performance seldom considered academic grades (CGPA) for academic outcomes, and also ignored individual differences such as personality traits.</p>
<p>“Despite the widespread use, not all students relied on generative AI use equally. Students who who were otherwise more responsible, punctual, and participative in class seemed to rely lesser on generative AI tools. This led me to investigate if there were personality differences in the use of these tools. This gap, coupled with rising concerns about fairness in grading and academic integrity inspired me for this study.”</p>
<p>To explore how students are actually engaging with generative AI, and how their personality traits influence this behavior, the researchers surveyed 326 undergraduate students from three major universities in Pakistan. The students were enrolled in business-related programs and spanned from their second to eighth semester. Importantly, the study used a three-wave, time-lagged survey design to gather data over time and minimize common biases in self-reported responses.</p>
<p>At the first time point, students reported their personality traits and perceptions of fairness in their university’s grading system. Specifically, the researchers focused on three personality traits from the Big Five model: conscientiousness, openness to experience, and neuroticism. These traits were selected because of their relevance to academic performance and technology use. For example, conscientious students tend to be organized, self-disciplined, and achievement-oriented. Openness reflects intellectual curiosity and creativity, while neuroticism is associated with anxiety and emotional instability.</p>
<p>In the second time point, participants reported how frequently they used generative AI tools—especially ChatGPT—for academic purposes. In the third and final wave, students completed measures assessing their academic self-efficacy (how capable they felt of succeeding academically), their experience of learned helplessness (a belief that efforts won’t lead to success), and reported their cumulative grade point average.</p>
<p>Among the three personality traits studied, only conscientiousness was significantly linked to AI use. Students who scored higher in conscientiousness were less likely to use generative AI for academic work. This finding suggests that conscientious individuals may prefer to rely on their own efforts and are less inclined to take shortcuts, aligning with prior research showing that this personality trait is associated with academic honesty and self-directed learning.</p>
<p>“Our study found that students who are more conscientious are less likely to rely on generative AI for academic tasks due to higher self-discipline and perhaps also higher ethical standards,” Azeem told PsyPost. “They may prefer exploring multiple sources of information and other more cognitively engaging learning activities like researching and discussions.”</p>
<p>Contrary to expectations, openness to experience and neuroticism were not significantly related to AI use. While previous research has linked openness to a greater willingness to try new technologies, the researchers suggest that students high in openness may also value originality and independent thought, potentially reducing their reliance on AI-generated content. Similarly, students high in neuroticism may feel uneasy about the accuracy or ethics of AI tools, leading to ambivalence about their use.</p>
<p>The researchers also examined how perceptions of fairness in grading might shape these relationships. But only one interaction—between openness and grading fairness—was marginally significant. For students high in openness, perceiving the grading system as fair was associated with lower AI use. The researchers did not find significant interactions involving conscientiousness or neuroticism.</p>
<p>“One surprising finding was that fairness in grading only marginally influenced generative AI use, and only for the personality trait openness to experience, showing that regardless of grading fairness, generative AI is gaining widespread popularity,” Azeem said. “This is telling, given that we had anticipated students would rely more on generative AI tools with an aim to score higher grades, when they perceived grading was unfair. Also, while individuals high in openness to experience are generally early adopters of technologies our study reported no such findings.”</p>
<p>More broadly, the researchers found that greater use of generative AI in academic tasks was associated with several negative outcomes. Students who relied more heavily on AI reported lower academic self-efficacy. In other words, they felt less capable of succeeding on their own. They also experienced greater feelings of learned helplessness—a state in which individuals believe that effort is futile and outcomes are beyond their control. Additionally, higher AI use was linked to slightly lower academic performance as measured by GPA.</p>
<p>These patterns suggest that while generative AI may offer short-term convenience, its overuse could undermine students’ sense of agency and reduce their motivation to engage deeply with their coursework. Over time, this reliance might erode critical thinking and problem-solving skills that are essential for long-term success.</p>
<p>Further analysis revealed that the use of generative AI also mediated the link between conscientiousness and academic outcomes. Specifically, students who were more conscientious were less likely to use AI, and this lower use was associated with better academic performance, greater self-efficacy, and less helplessness.</p>
<p>“A key takeaway for students, teachers, as well as academic leadership is the impact of students’ reliance on generative AI tools on their psychological and learning outcomes,” Azeem told PsyPost. “For example, our findings that generative AI use is associated with reduced academic self-efficacy and higher learned helplessness are concerning as students may start believing that their own efforts do not matter. This may lead to reduced agency where they believe that academic success is dependent on external tools rather than internal competence. As the overuse of generative AI erodes self-efficacy, students may doubt their ability to complete assignments or challenging problems without the help of AI. This may make students passive learners, hesitating to attempt tasks without support.</p>
<p>“When they feel less in control or doubt themselves for a long time, it may lead to distorted learning habits as they may believe generative AI will always provide the answer. This may may also make academic tasks boring rather than challenging, further stunting resilience and intellectual growth. Our findings imply that while generative AI is here to stay, its responsible integration into academia through policy making as well as teacher and student training is key to its effective outcomes.”</p>
<p>“Our findings did not support the common idea that generative AI tools help perform better academically,” Azeem explained. “This makes sense given our findings that generative AI use increases learned helplessness. Academic performance (indicated by CGPA in our study) relies more on individual cognitive abilities and subject knowledge, which may be adversely affected with reduced academic self-efficacy. Accordingly, teachers, students, as well as the general public should exercise caution in relying on generative AI tools excessively.”</p>
<p>The study — like all research — include some limitations. The sample was limited to business students from Pakistani universities, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cultures or academic disciplines. The researchers relied on self-reported measures, though they took steps to reduce bias by spacing out the surveys and using established scales.</p>
<p>“The self-reported data may be susceptible to social desirability bias,” Azeem noted. “In addition, while our study followed a time-lagged design that enables temporal separation between data collection, causal directions between generative AI use and its outcomes can be better mapped through a longitudinal design. Likewise, in order to design necessary interventions and training plans, it may help future studies to investigate conditions under which generative AI use leads to more positive and less negative learning outcomes.”</p>
<p>“In the long term, I aim to conduct longitudinal studies that investigates long-term student development like creativity, self-regulation, and employability over multiple semesters. This may help bridge the emerging differences in literature regarding the positive versus harmful effects of generative AI for students. I also intend to explore other motivational traits besides personality, that may influence generative AI use. Perhaps this stream of studies may empower me to design interventions for integrating AI literacy and ethical reasoning for effective generative AI use among students in the long run.”</p>
<p>The findings raise larger questions about the future of education in an era of accessible, powerful AI. If generative tools can complete many academic tasks with minimal effort, students may miss out on learning processes that build confidence, resilience, and critical thinking. On the other hand, AI tools could also be used to support learning, for example, by helping students brainstorm, explore new perspectives, or refine their writing.</p>
<p>“While our study alarms us to the potential adverse effects of generative AI for students, literature is also available supporting its positive outcomes,” Azeem said. “Therefore, as AI tools become increasingly embedded in education, it is vital that policy makers, educators, and edtech developers go beyond binary views of generative AI as either inherently good or bad. I believe that guiding responsible use of generative AI while mitigating risks holds the key to enhanced learning.”</p>
<p>“To be specific, instructor training for designing AI-augmented learning activities can help foster critical thinking. These can emphasize encouraging student reflection on AI-generated content in order to address some caveats of generative AI use in the classroom. Likewise, promoting fair and transparent grading systems may reduce incentives for misuse. With unchecked and unregulated use of generative AI among students, learned helplessness is likely to become prevalent. This may impair the very capacities that education is intended to develop: independence, critical thinking, and curiosity. Amid all the buzz of educational technology, our study emphasizes that technology adoption is as much a psychological issue, as it is a technological and ethical one.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13489-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Personality correlates of academic use of generative artificial intelligence and its outcomes: does fairness matter?</a>,” was authored by Sundas Azeem and Muhammad Abbas.</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>