<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/individuals-with-alcohol-use-disorder-have-much-higher-concentration-of-glutathione-in-certain-brain-areas/" 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;">Individuals with alcohol use disorder have much higher concentration of glutathione in certain brain areas</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 25th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An analysis of neuroimaging data from individuals with alcohol use disorder showed that these individuals tend to have higher concentrations of the antioxidant glutathione in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex region of their brains. Interestingly, individuals with this disorder who had fewer heavy drinking days in the past two weeks tended to have higher concentrations of glutathione in this brain region. The research was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112705"><em>Drug and Alcohol Dependence</em></a>.</p>
<p>Alcohol use disorder is a medical condition characterized by an inability to control or stop drinking alcohol despite negative consequences. It involves both physical dependence and psychological compulsion to consume alcohol. Symptoms include tolerance, withdrawal symptoms when the person stops drinking, and continued use despite harm to health or relationships.</p>
<p>Chronic alcohol use affects the brain’s structure and function. It can shrink brain volume, especially in areas like the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, which are important for decision-making, memory, and self-control. Chronic heavy drinking also disrupts neurotransmitter systems, including GABA, glutamate, and dopamine, altering mood, behavior, and cognition. Long-term alcohol use can damage white matter in the brain, slowing down communication between brain regions. It may also reduce the brain’s ability to produce and regulate certain antioxidants, increasing vulnerability to oxidative stress.</p>
<p>People with alcohol use disorder tend to have problems with attention, impulse control, and emotional regulation. Some brain changes can improve with abstinence, but others may be long-lasting or permanent, depending on severity and duration.</p>
<p>Study author James J. Prisciandaro and his colleagues wanted to compare concentrations of glutathione in the brains of individuals with alcohol use disorder and those of light drinkers. Glutathione is the brain’s primary antioxidant. When chronic heavy drinking increases oxidative stress in the brain, the brain increases the production of glutathione to try to compensate for this change and reduce it.</p>
<p>Oxidative stress is an imbalance between harmful free radicals and the body’s ability to neutralize them with antioxidants (like glutathione). With continued heavy drinking, the body’s capacity to counter oxidative stress through increased production of antioxidants is eventually overwhelmed, resulting in diminished levels of antioxidants and cell and tissue damage due to oxidative stress.</p>
<p>The researchers analyzed data from a previous study that included 20 individuals with alcohol use disorder who were not previously treated and 20 light drinkers matched with them on demographic characteristics. These individuals completed a Time-Line Followback daily drinking interview for the previous 14 days, allowing researchers to map their alcohol use patterns.</p>
<p>After that, they underwent magnetic resonance imaging of their brains. The researchers used the neuroimaging data to estimate glutathione levels in participants’ brains. Most participants were men of European descent in their twenties who had last consumed alcohol within 7 days before undergoing neuroimaging for this study.</p>
<p>Results showed that participants with alcohol use disorder drank much more alcohol than light drinkers. Neuroimaging showed that they had significantly higher concentrations of glutathione in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex region of their brains compared to light drinkers. Interestingly, individuals with alcohol use disorder who had fewer heavy drinking days in the past two weeks tended to have higher concentrations of glutathione in this brain region. This association was not present among light drinkers.</p>
<p>“The findings from this preliminary study are consistent with an interpretation of compensatory GSH [glutathione] upregulation [increase in production] in response to moderate oxidative stress in treatment-naïve individuals with AUD [alcohol use disorder], adding unique support to oxidative stress models of alcohol-related cellular damage and highlighting the potential promise of antioxidant treatments for AUD,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the biochemical changes in the brain associated with heavy drinking. However, it should be noted that these data come from a small group of mostly young males. Results on other demographic groups might not be identical.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112705">Brain glutathione levels and associations with recent drinking in treatment-naïve individuals with alcohol use disorder versus light drinkers,</a>” was authored by James J. Prisciandaro, Joseph P. Schacht, Andrew P. Prescot, and Raymond F. Anton.</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/humans-still-beat-ai-at-one-key-creative-task-new-study-finds/" 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;">Humans still beat AI at one key creative task, new study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 25th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>In a new experiment comparing different types of collaboration, researchers found that pairs of humans working together produced more original ideas than individuals collaborating with artificial intelligence or using internet search tools. The findings suggest that human interaction still holds a creative edge—especially when it comes to generating novel ideas—despite the growing capabilities of generative AI like ChatGPT.</p>
<p>Generative artificial intelligence has made headlines <a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-study-on-ai-assisted-creativity-reveals-an-interesting-social-dilemma/" target="_blank">for its apparent creative capabilities</a>, from composing music to brainstorming business ideas. These systems, such as ChatGPT, can generate content based on patterns in massive datasets. As they become increasingly integrated into everyday tasks, many researchers have begun to ask whether AI can actually enhance human creativity—or even surpass it.</p>
<p>To investigate this question, a team of researchers led by Min Tang at the University Institute of Schaffhausen compared creative performance across several types of collaboration. Their goal was to determine how working with AI stacks up against other sources of external input—like working with another human or using the internet for inspiration. The study was published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.1519" target="_blank">The Journal of Creative Behavior</a>.</em></p>
<p>The researchers recruited 202 university students in Germany, mostly studying business-related fields, and assigned them to one of four conditions: human–human dyads, human–internet (using Google), or human–ChatGPT collaborations, with two types of instructions for the AI group. Each participant or pair completed four creative tasks, including two alternate uses tests (e.g., finding unusual uses for pants or a fork), a consequences task (e.g., imagining a world without food), and a creative problem-solving activity.</p>
<p>Before and after the tasks, participants answered surveys about their creative confidence and perceptions of the collaboration. The researchers also evaluated participants’ creative output using both trained human judges and an automated scoring system based on a large language model.</p>
<p>When it came to generating divergent ideas—the kinds of ideas that branch out and explore many possibilities—human–human pairs consistently performed best. Across all three divergent thinking tasks, their responses were rated as more original and clever by human judges than those produced by participants who used ChatGPT or Google. </p>
<p>The most striking difference came in the “fork” task, where human pairs significantly outshone the other groups. The researchers found no meaningful difference in performance between those who collaborated with ChatGPT and those who used internet search tools.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the human–human pairs were also the only group to show an increase in creative confidence after completing the tasks. Participants in these pairs reported feeling more capable and creative at the end of the session, suggesting that working with another person not only inspired better ideas, but also helped people feel better about their own creativity. Those who worked with ChatGPT or Google did not experience a similar boost.</p>
<p>The study also highlighted differences in how participants perceived their collaborators. Those in the human–human condition saw their partners as equally contributing to the task. But people who used Google tended to view themselves as the main driver of the ideas, while those who used ChatGPT saw the AI as doing most of the creative heavy lifting. While ChatGPT was seen as more helpful than Google, participants often attributed the success of the collaboration to the AI rather than to their own input.</p>
<p>One of the more surprising findings came from the automated scoring system, which rated the ChatGPT-assisted ideas as more creative than those from human–human teams. This result was the opposite of what human judges concluded. After further analysis, the researchers discovered that the AI scoring system was heavily influenced by the length of the responses. </p>
<p>Since ChatGPT-generated responses tended to be longer and more elaborate, the automated system may have mistaken verbosity for creativity. Once the researchers accounted for this factor, the advantage for ChatGPT disappeared.</p>
<p>This discrepancy between human and AI evaluations points to what the researchers call “elaboration bias”—a tendency for automated scoring systems to overvalue longer, more detailed responses, even if they are not especially novel. The findings raise questions about whether current AI tools can reliably assess creativity, especially in languages or contexts they were not extensively trained on.</p>
<p>The researchers caution that their study only looked at a specific kind of creativity—divergent thinking—where originality and unusualness are key. They did not find any significant differences between the groups on the problem-solving task, which involved selecting the most serious consequence from the earlier task and coming up with a creative but useful solution. It’s possible that AI tools may still be helpful in tasks that require refining or converging on an idea, rather than generating a wide range of new ones.</p>
<p>There are also limitations in how much the study can tell us about real-world creative collaborations. Participants used ChatGPT and Google in a lab setting, with constraints on how they could interact with the tools. The researchers did not analyze the actual back-and-forth between people and AI, which could reveal more about how ideas are accepted, rejected, or transformed during the creative process. In future studies, recording these interactions might help explain why AI partnerships seem less effective at boosting creativity—and why people sometimes feel less ownership over ideas generated with the help of a machine.</p>
<p>While generative AI may still play a role in helping people think outside the box, the new study suggests it hasn’t replaced the unique spark that can come from two people bouncing ideas off each other. Collaboration between humans continues to generate not only more original ideas, but also more confidence in one’s own creative abilities. As the researchers put it, “creativity is a unique human endowment that is not easily replicated by AI.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.1519" target="_blank">‘Who’ Is the Best Creative Thinking Partner? An Experimental Investigation of Human–Human, Human–Internet, and Human–AI Co-Creation</a>,” was authored by Min Tang, Sebastian Hofreiter, Christian H. Werner, Aleksandra Zielińska, and Maciej Karwowski.</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-shows-congressional-stock-gains-come-at-democracys-expense/" 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 shows Congressional stock gains come at democracy’s expense</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 25th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study suggests that when Americans learn about members of Congress profiting from stock trading, their trust in Congress falls—and so does their willingness to comply with the laws that Congress passes. Researchers found that people who read about Congressional stock trades rated Congress as less legitimate, believed its laws were less fair, and were less inclined to follow them. These effects appeared to stem not from the size of the profits themselves, but from a broader sense that such behavior signaled corruption.</p>
<p>The findings were published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2501822122" target="_blank">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a></em> by <a href="https://sites.google.com/view/raihan-alam/" target="_blank">Raihan Alam</a> and Tage S. Rai of the Rady School of Management at the University of California, San Diego. Their research aimed to understand how financial self-interest among lawmakers influences public perceptions of legitimacy—a concept central to how democratic institutions function.</p>
<p>Insider trading generally refers to the use of non-public information to gain an advantage in the stock market. Although members of Congress are not exempt from insider trading laws, they are allowed to trade stocks while in office, provided they disclose their transactions. Critics argue that this creates an appearance of impropriety, especially when lawmakers buy or sell stocks in industries they oversee.</p>
<p>In recent years, watchdog groups such as Unusual Whales have documented cases where lawmakers earned unusually high returns from stock trading. These reports have sparked public backlash and calls for stricter rules, including bipartisan proposals to ban stock trading by members of Congress. But while the political debate continues, researchers have only begun to explore how these revelations affect public attitudes toward democratic institutions.</p>
<p>“For about a year, I was working on a project with my advisor, Dr. Tage Rai, on what happens to cooperative behavior when punishment becomes incentivized or profitable,” explained Alam, a PhD student in Management and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow.</p>
<p>“Our idea was that when authorities can materially benefit from engaging in punishment, people will become less willing to engage in cooperative behavior because they can no longer trust/predict that good cooperative behavior will be rewarded and bad selfish behavior will be punished, and further, if authorities start to signal selfishness, then it becomes unclear to everyone whether they’re even supposed to cooperate in the first place, or whether they should be selfish too. </p>
<p>“As I was working on this project, Unusual Whales had released their annual report on stock profiteering by members of Congress,” Alam continued. “I read the report in January and it made me wonder if a similar thing was going on. Specifically, if members of Congress are behaving in corrupt ways, the general public might view them as less legitimate and might become less willing to follow their laws.” </p>
<p>To explore these questions, Alam and Rai conducted two preregistered experiments using online samples of U.S. adults recruited in January 2025.</p>
<p>In the first experiment, 506 participants were randomly assigned to read one of two reports. One report described the educational backgrounds of members of Congress. The other described a recent analysis by Unusual Whales showing that some lawmakers earned stock market returns exceeding 100% in 2024—far surpassing the performance of the S&P 500. The report also noted that these trades occurred in industries that members of Congress help regulate.</p>
<p>After reading the assigned report, participants answered questions about how much they trusted Congress, how corrupt they believed it was, and how legitimate they thought it was as a governing body. They also rated how fair they believed Congressional laws were, whether they thought the laws served the public or benefited lawmakers, and how willing they were to comply with those laws.</p>
<p>To determine whether these effects were specific to financial gain, a second experiment introduced an additional twist. In this follow-up study, 664 participants read about a fictional Congressman who either made a large profit from stock trades, lost a large amount of money, or was simply described as serving on committees with no mention of stock trading. This allowed the researchers to isolate the effects of stock trading itself—regardless of whether it was profitable.</p>
<p>In the first experiment, participants who read about Congressional stock trading viewed Congress as less trustworthy, more corrupt, and less legitimate than those who read about lawmakers’ educational backgrounds. They also rated Congressional laws as less fair and more self-serving, and reported less willingness to follow them.</p>
<p>Importantly, these effects were statistically significant across all measures. For example, perceptions of trustworthiness, corruption, and legitimacy all differed by about three-quarters of a point on a 7-point scale between the trading and control groups. These differences may seem small, but in social science research, they represent meaningful shifts in opinion.</p>
<p>The researchers also conducted additional analyses to understand why these effects occurred. They found that perceptions of legitimacy played a central role. In other words, learning about stock trading did not simply lead people to reject specific laws—it led them to question whether Congress as an institution had the right to make laws in the first place. This loss of legitimacy explained much of the drop in willingness to comply.</p>
<p>The second experiment supported these conclusions. Whether the fictional Congressman gained or lost money from his trades, participants who learned about the trades rated him as more corrupt and less legitimate than those in the control condition. These participants also said they were less likely to follow his laws and believed the laws were less fair. These effects were again driven by reductions in perceived legitimacy, rather than the financial outcome itself.</p>
<p>“I was surprised we found the effect on compliance with the law,” Alam told PsyPost. “I was confident that exposure to the report would make people view Congress as less legitimate but was unsure whether this would necessarily affect reported compliance.”</p>
<p>Supplemental studies reinforced the broader point. In one small study, participants who read about Congressional stock trading rated legislative procedures as less fair. In another, participants overwhelmingly rated it as unfair for lawmakers to trade stocks in industries they help regulate.</p>
<p>The results of this research suggest that even legal behavior—if perceived as ethically questionable—can harm public trust in democratic institutions. When people see lawmakers engaging in behavior that appears self-serving, they may begin to question not just individual politicians but the legitimacy of the institution as a whole.</p>
<p>This has important implications for public policy. While previous debates have focused on whether lawmakers gain an unfair financial advantage, the study highlights a different concern: that stock trading may weaken the moral authority of Congress itself. As a result, the researchers argue, banning or restricting Congressional stock trading could help restore public confidence and reinforce democratic norms.</p>
<p>“To me the takeaway is that stock trading by members of Congress has negative consequences for our democracy,” Alam said. “A natural conclusion of this is that efforts to regulate the practice could play a role in restoring trust in government.”</p>
<p>However, the study is not without limitations. All the results are based on self-reported attitudes in an online survey, rather than actual behavior. The researchers acknowledge that while attitudes are informative, they don’t always translate directly into action. Future research could examine whether these findings hold over time, whether repeated exposure to reports of trading compounds the effects, and whether people’s actual behavior—such as voting or obeying new laws—is influenced in similar ways.</p>
<p>“I became a social psychologist to not only understand the human mind but to also do work that can speak to current events,” Alam added. “This was such a great taste of doing the latter and through it I have been able to talk to reach many people. It makes me want to keep working on applied problems.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2501822122" target="_blank">Knowledge of politician stock trading reduces congressional legitimacy and compliance with the law</a>,” was published May 20, 2025.</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/psychedelics-alter-neurochemical-signals-tied-to-hunger-and-mood-in-the-hypothalamus/" 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;">Psychedelics alter neurochemical signals tied to hunger and mood in the hypothalamus</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 24th 2025, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251330783" target="_blank">Journal of Psychopharmacology</a></em> has found that a single dose of psilocybin leads to widespread changes in gene expression for several neuropeptides in the rat hypothalamus, while ketamine has a more limited effect. The findings suggest that these psychedelics may influence systems involved in mood, appetite, and stress regulation through different molecular pathways in the brain.</p>
<p>Psilocybin and ketamine are both psychoactive substances being studied for their potential as fast-acting antidepressants. Psilocybin is found naturally in psychedelic mushrooms and is known for its effects on perception and consciousness, while ketamine is a synthetic drug originally developed as an anesthetic. </p>
<p>Psilocybin works by stimulating serotonin receptors in the brain, particularly a subtype known as 5-HT2A, which is involved in mood, cognition, and perception. Ketamine acts on a different system—it blocks a type of glutamate receptor called NMDA, which plays a role in learning, memory, and synaptic plasticity.</p>
<p>The new study was conducted by researchers at the Medical University of Silesia in Poland, Lancaster University in the UK, and the Polish Academy of Sciences. Their goal was to better understand how these psychedelics affect the hypothalamus, a region deep in the brain that controls many basic functions like hunger, temperature regulation, sleep, and emotional responses. The researchers focused on the expression of genes related to various neuropeptides—small protein-like molecules that help neurons communicate and regulate physiological states.</p>
<p>To explore this, the researchers used adult male Wistar–Han rats. The animals were housed in standard laboratory conditions and given either psilocybin or ketamine. Psilocybin was administered in two doses (2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg), while ketamine was given at a dose of 10 mg/kg. Control animals received an injection of saline. </p>
<p>The drugs were administered just once. Seven days later, the animals were euthanized and their brains were dissected to extract the hypothalamus. The researchers then measured the levels of messenger RNA (mRNA)—the molecules that carry genetic instructions for protein production—for a range of neuropeptides and their receptors using a technique called real-time PCR.</p>
<p>The neuropeptides examined included both well-known and recently discovered molecules, such as nesfatin-1, phoenixin, spexin, neuromedin U, neuropeptide S, and 26RFa. These molecules are involved in processes such as hunger and satiety, stress responses, and emotional regulation. The team also measured expression of several serotonin receptors, which are thought to play a key role in the action of psilocybin.</p>
<p>The results showed that psilocybin, particularly at the higher 10 mg/kg dose, led to widespread changes in gene expression in the hypothalamus. Several neuropeptides and their receptors showed increased mRNA levels, including phoenixin, nesfatin-1 (through its precursor NUCB2), neuropeptide S, and the receptors GPR173, NPSR, and MC4R. These increases suggest enhanced activity in multiple neuropeptide signaling pathways. </p>
<p>Interestingly, psilocybin also significantly raised the expression of the serotonin receptors 5-HT1A, 5-HT2A, and 5-HT2B, but not 5-HT2C. This pattern points to selective engagement of serotonin receptor subtypes in the hypothalamus.</p>
<p>One notable exception was neuromedin U (NMU), which showed decreased expression following psilocybin treatment. NMU is known to suppress appetite, so its reduction may indicate a potential mechanism for appetite-promoting effects observed in some settings. The dual increase in both appetite-suppressing and appetite-stimulating neuropeptides highlights the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of psychedelic effects at the molecular level.</p>
<p>Ketamine, in contrast, produced a much smaller set of changes. It increased the expression of NUCB2, GPR173, and POMC, but did not affect most of the other neuropeptides or serotonin receptors. These limited changes may reflect ketamine’s different pharmacological profile and its main action on NMDA receptors rather than serotonin systems.</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that the effects of psilocybin on the hypothalamus may be linked to its potential therapeutic benefits for disorders like depression and anorexia. For instance, a recent clinical study found that a single dose of psilocybin helped reduce symptoms in women with anorexia nervosa, a condition often associated with abnormalities in appetite regulation and body image. Although this animal study does not directly model anorexia or depression, it raises the possibility that psilocybin could be altering brain circuits involved in food intake and emotional processing.</p>
<p>Still, the study also raises new questions. While changes in mRNA levels suggest shifts in gene activity, it is unclear how these changes affect protein production and actual neuropeptide function in the brain. The authors did not measure protein levels or behavioral outcomes in the rats, so the functional significance of the gene expression changes remains speculative. Follow-up studies using techniques like immunohistochemistry or behavioral assays would be needed to connect these molecular changes to actual effects on feeding behavior, mood, or stress responses.</p>
<p>The researchers also acknowledge limitations related to the use of rodent models. Although rats offer a controlled and well-studied system for examining brain mechanisms, they do not experience consciousness or self-awareness in the same way humans do. Disorders like anorexia involve complex cognitive and emotional disturbances, including distorted body image and compulsive behaviors, that are difficult or impossible to replicate in animals. As such, results from rodent studies must be interpreted with caution when trying to draw conclusions about human psychiatric conditions.</p>
<p>Another caveat is the relatively small number of animals used and the limited focus on gene expression rather than downstream protein or behavioral outcomes. Despite these constraints, the study provides a new starting point for exploring how psychedelic drugs may interact with deep brain regions like the hypothalamus, which have been less studied compared to cortical areas involved in perception and cognition.</p>
<p>Future research will need to examine whether the gene expression changes observed in this study lead to long-term shifts in behavior, hormone levels, or energy regulation. It will also be important to investigate how stress, social factors, or chronic exposure to psychedelics might interact with these molecular pathways. If supported by further evidence, this line of research could help explain how psychedelics influence appetite, mood, and physiological balance—and potentially inform new treatments for disorders involving disrupted homeostasis and emotional regulation.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251330783" target="_blank">Psilocybin and ketamine affect novel neuropeptides gene expression in the rat hypothalamus</a>,” was authored by Artur Pałasz, Marta Pukowiec, Katarzyna Bogus, Aleksandra Suszka-Świtek, Łukasz Filipczyk, Kinga Mordecka-Chamera, John J Worthington, Maria Sygidus, Adam Wojtas, Agnieszka Bysiek, and Krystyna Gołembiowska.</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/zapping-the-brains-prefrontal-cortex-with-electricity-helps-people-learn-math/" 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;">Zapping the brain’s prefrontal cortex with electricity helps people learn math</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 24th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p class="theconversation-article-title"><span>A painless, non-invasive brain stimulation technique can significantly improve how young adults learn maths, my colleagues and I found in a </span><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003200&utm_source=pr&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=plos006">recent study</a><span>. In a paper in <em>PLOS Biology</em>, we describe how this might be most helpful for those who are likely to struggle with mathematical learning because of how their brain areas involved in this skill communicate with each other.</span></p>
<div class="theconversation-article-body">
<p>Maths is essential for many jobs, especially in science, technology, engineering and finance. However, a <a href="https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/skills-matter_9789264258051-en.html">2016 OECD report</a> suggested that a large proportion of adults in developed countries (24% to 29%) have maths skills no better than a typical seven-year-old. This <a href="https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/skills-matter_9789264258051-en.html">lack of numeracy</a> can contribute to lower income, poor health, reduced political participation and even diminished trust in others.</p>
<p>Education often widens rather than closes the gap between high and low<br>
achievers, a phenomenon known as the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250184530_'Matthew'_Effects_in_Education">Matthew effect</a>. Those who start with an advantage, such as being able to read more words when starting school, tend to pull further ahead. Stronger educational achievement has been also associated with socioeconomic status, higher motivation and greater engagement with material learned during a class.</p>
<p><a href="https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2007.00439.x">Biological factors</a>, such as genes, brain connectivity, and chemical signalling, have been shown in some studies to play a stronger role in learning outcomes than environmental ones. This has been well-documented in different areas, including maths, where differences in biology may explain educational achievements.</p>
<p>To explore this question, we recruited 72 young adults (18–30 years old) and taught them new maths calculation techniques over five days. Some received a placebo treatment. Others received <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51553-7">transcranial random noise stimulation</a> (tRNS), which delivers gentle electrical currents to the brain. It is painless and often imperceptible, unless you focus hard to try and sense it.</p>
<p>It is possible tRNS may cause long term side effects, but in previous studies my team assessed participants for cognitive side effects and found no evidence for it.</p>
<p>Participants who received tRNS were randomly assigned to receive it in one of two different brain areas. Some received it over the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/dorsolateral-prefrontal-cortex">dorsolateral prefrontal cortex</a>, a region critical for memory, attention, or when we acquire a new cognitive skill. Others had tRNS over the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/posterior-parietal-cortex">posterior parietal cortex</a>, which processes maths information, mainly when the learning has been accomplished.</p>
<p>Before and after the training, we also scanned their brains and measured levels of key neurochemicals such as gamma-aminobutyric acid (gaba), <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001325">which we showed previously</a>, in a 2021 study, to play a role in brain plasticity and learning, including maths.</p>
<p>Some participants started with weaker connections between the prefrontal and parietal brain regions, a biological profile that is associated with poorer learning. The study results showed these participants made significant gains in learning when they received tRNS over the prefrontal cortex.</p>
<p>Stimulation helped them catch up with peers who had stronger natural connectivity. This finding shows the critical role of the prefrontal cortex in learning and could help reduce educational inequalities that are grounded in neurobiology.</p>
<p>How does this work? One explanation lies in a principle called <a href="https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000348">stochastic resonance</a>. This is when a weak signal becomes clearer when a small amount of random noise is added.</p>
<p>In the brain, tRNS may enhance learning by gently boosting the activity of underperforming neurons, helping them get closer to the point at which they become active and send signals. This is a point known as the “firing threshold”, especially in people whose brain activity is suboptimal for a task like maths learning.</p>
<p>It is important to note what this technique does not do. It does not make the best<br>
learners even better. That is what makes this approach promising for bridging gaps,<br>
not widening them. This form of brain stimulation helps level the playing field.</p>
<p>Our study focused on healthy, high-performing university students. But in similar studies on children with <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04649-x">maths learning disabilities</a> (2017) and with <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-023-02547-7">attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder</a> (2023) my colleagues and I found tRNS seemed to improve their learning and performance in cognitive training.</p>
<p>I argue our findings could open a new direction in education. The biology of the learner matters, and with advances in knowledge and technology, we can develop tools that act on the brain directly, not just work around it. This could give more people the chance to get the best benefit from education.</p>
<p>In time, perhaps <a href="https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008886">personalised, brain-based</a> interventions like tRNS could support learners who are being left behind not because of poor teaching or personal circumstances, but because of natural differences in how their brains work.</p>
<p>Of course, very often education systems aren’t operating to their full potential because of inadequate resources, social disadvantage or systemic barriers. And so any brain-based tools must go hand-in-hand with efforts to tackle these obstacles.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/260134/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/could-electric-brain-stimulation-lead-to-better-maths-skills-260134">original article</a>.</em></p>
</div></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/brain-scans-shed-light-on-how-green-space-might-support-childrens-cognitive-development/" 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;">Brain scans shed light on how green space might support children’s cognitive development</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 24th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A large-scale study of U.S. children has found that exposure to green spaces in urban areas is associated with healthier brain development, fewer emotional and behavioral problems, and improved cognitive performance. The findings, published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102625" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Environmental Psychology</a></em>, suggest that different types of green environments may shape children’s mental health and thinking skills in distinct ways.</p>
<p>Cities offer many conveniences, but they often come at the cost of reduced natural surroundings. Past studies have shown that access to parks, trees, and other green spaces can benefit children’s mental health and cognitive abilities. However, it has remained unclear exactly how green space exposure affects the developing brain, particularly during the sensitive period of late childhood and early adolescence. The new study aimed to shed light on this question by linking various indicators of green space to brain imaging data, mental health measures, and cognitive test scores from thousands of children across the United States.</p>
<p>The research team analyzed data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, which includes neuroimaging and behavioral information from more than 11,000 children aged 9 to 10. For this particular analysis, the researchers focused on two groups: 8,430 children with complete brain structure data and 8,161 with detailed white matter imaging. To ensure accurate measurement of environmental exposure, they excluded children who had moved recently and those with missing data.</p>
<p>To capture children’s level of exposure to green space, the researchers used nine indicators derived from national land-use and vegetation databases. These included measures such as tree canopy, different types of forest cover, and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, a satellite-based estimate of greenery. These data were used to characterize the amount and type of vegetation surrounding each child’s home.</p>
<p>Brain structure was measured using high-resolution MRI scans. The researchers examined several aspects of brain anatomy, including cortical thickness, surface area, subcortical volume, and overall cortical volume. White matter microstructure, which reflects the integrity of the brain’s communication pathways, was assessed using diffusion imaging techniques that measure how water moves through white matter tissue.</p>
<p>To identify patterns linking green space exposure to brain features, the researchers applied a statistical method called Group Factor Analysis. This technique helps detect hidden relationships across large sets of variables—in this case, environmental data and neuroimaging metrics. The resulting factors were then used to predict children’s scores on standardized mental health and cognitive tests, while adjusting for other influences such as household income and parental education.</p>
<p>The analysis revealed several important findings. One of the strongest patterns to emerge—called BSGFA 1—showed that greater exposure to urban greenery, including tree canopy and mixed vegetation, was associated with larger surface area and volume in many parts of the brain. This included areas involved in visual processing and sensorimotor functions, such as the superior parietal lobule and fusiform gyrus.</p>
<p>Children with higher BSGFA 1 scores also had fewer emotional and behavioral problems, as rated by their parents, and scored higher on tests of crystallized intelligence, which reflects accumulated knowledge and language skills.</p>
<p>Another key pattern, called WGFA 1, linked green space exposure to healthier white matter properties. Children with higher WGFA 1 scores had stronger white matter connectivity and lower levels of diffusion in their brain tissue, suggesting more efficient communication between brain regions. These children also showed fewer externalizing behaviors—such as impulsivity and aggression—and performed better on both fluid and crystallized intelligence tasks. Fluid intelligence, which involves reasoning and problem-solving, is thought to depend especially on white matter efficiency.</p>
<p>Interestingly, not all green spaces were associated with positive outcomes. A different pattern, labeled WGFA 2, reflected greater exposure to forest-dense areas and showed a negative relationship with white matter health and fluid intelligence. This finding suggests that forest-heavy environments might offer fewer opportunities for visual, motor, and social engagement compared to more open or community-oriented green spaces like urban parks.</p>
<p>The researchers proposed several explanations for these effects. Natural environments may reduce stress and mental fatigue, which in turn promotes healthier brain development. This idea fits with existing theories like Attention Restoration Theory, which suggests that nature helps people recover from cognitive overload, and Stress Reduction Theory, which proposes that greenery elicits calming emotional responses. The study also expanded on these theories by showing that exposure to green environments might actually shape the physical structure of the brain during a key period of development.</p>
<p>The results held up even after adjusting for neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors such as income, education, and access to health resources. This means that the benefits linked to green space exposure could not be fully explained by broader advantages of living in wealthier or more resource-rich areas. However, some effects—particularly the relationship between greenery and crystallized intelligence—appeared to be partially influenced by these neighborhood conditions.</p>
<p>The study had several strengths, including its large and diverse sample, use of advanced brain imaging, and integration of multiple environmental and biological indicators. It also revealed how different types of green environments may have different effects on the developing brain. For example, while general greenery like tree canopy and urban vegetation was consistently linked to positive outcomes, dense forest cover showed more mixed or even negative associations with brain connectivity and reasoning ability.</p>
<p>At the same time, the study had limitations. Because it was cross-sectional, it could not determine whether green space exposure directly caused changes in brain structure or behavior. Longitudinal and experimental studies will be needed to better establish causal relationships. The study also relied on satellite and census data to estimate environmental exposure, which may not capture the quality of green spaces or how often children actually used them. Future research could benefit from combining objective measures with personal reports of nature experiences and time spent outdoors.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102625" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associations Among green space exposure, brain, and mental health and cognition in the Adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) study</a>,” was authored by Jia Liu, Yumeng Yang, Tianjiao Kong, Ran Liu, and Liang Luo.</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/new-study-shows-brain-circuit-disruption-mimics-antidepressant-effects/" 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;">New study shows brain circuit disruption mimics antidepressant effects</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 24th 2025, 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://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-024-06667-w" target="_blank">Psychopharmacology</a></em> has found that damaging a specific brain region called the nucleus reuniens reduces depression-like behavior in both male and female rats. The study also showed that male and female brains respond differently to antidepressant treatments and brain circuit changes, highlighting the importance of considering sex as a biological factor in mental health research.</p>
<p>Depression is one of the most disabling health conditions worldwide and affects women at about twice the rate of men. While current antidepressants are helpful for many people, they often take several weeks to work and fail to relieve symptoms in up to one-third of patients. Researchers are actively exploring new targets in the brain that could lead to faster and more effective treatments.</p>
<p>One promising direction involves understanding the brain circuits that regulate stress and emotional processing. The nucleus reuniens, a small region in the thalamus, acts as a bridge between two areas heavily implicated in depression—the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. </p>
<p>Previous work by the same research group showed that disrupting the nucleus reuniens in male rats reduced depression-like behaviors and prevented stress-related brain changes. However, these earlier experiments were done only in males. Given the well-established sex differences in depression, the team sought to replicate their findings in females and compare how male and female rats respond to common antidepressants when this brain circuit is disrupted.</p>
<p>The study was conducted by <a href="http://psychopharmacology.med.uoa.gr/dalla.html" target="_blank">Christina Dalla</a> of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and her colleagues. They used adult male and female Wistar rats and divided them into multiple groups based on sex, surgery type (sham or nucleus reuniens lesion), and drug treatment (sertraline, clomipramine, or vehicle).</p>
<p>To disrupt the brain circuit, some rats received a precise lesion to the nucleus reuniens using a chemical (NMDA). The others underwent a sham surgery with no actual brain damage. After a recovery period, the animals were tested in the Forced Swim Test, a well-known behavioral assay used to evaluate antidepressant effects. In this test, rats are placed in water and their behavior is observed—immobility is seen as a sign of despair, while swimming and climbing suggest active coping.</p>
<p>The rats were either untreated or received one of two antidepressants before the test. Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, while clomipramine is a tricyclic antidepressant that affects both serotonin and norepinephrine. After testing, the researchers examined brain tissue to assess activity levels in key regions using a marker of neuronal activation called c-Fos.</p>
<p>The nucleus reuniens lesion produced antidepressant-like effects in both male and female rats. Animals with the lesion showed less immobility and more active behavior, particularly swimming, during the Forced Swim Test. These behavioral changes were similar in size to those seen with sertraline and clomipramine treatment, suggesting that disrupting this brain circuit has strong effects on mood-related behaviors.</p>
<p>However, the researchers also found important differences between sexes and between the effects of the two antidepressants.</p>
<p>In female rats, baseline behavior showed more immobility and less swimming compared to males, regardless of surgery or treatment. Both antidepressants reduced immobility and increased active behaviors in males and females, but only clomipramine increased climbing. Head shaking, a behavior linked to serotonin function, was increased by sertraline and the lesion in males, but only partly in females.</p>
<p>Looking at brain activation patterns, the researchers found that females showed higher activity in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus than males after the swim test. This elevated activation was reduced by clomipramine in females, but not by sertraline. In contrast, male rats did not show these changes, suggesting that their brain response to stress and antidepressants is different.</p>
<p>In the nucleus reuniens itself, females had lower activation than males at baseline and after sertraline treatment. Clomipramine reduced activity in this brain region, but only in males. Interestingly, the lesion abolished many of the usual correlations between behavior and brain activity, suggesting that disrupting the circuit changes how the brain processes stress.</p>
<p>These results show that the same brain manipulation—damaging the nucleus reuniens—can produce similar behavioral outcomes in both sexes, but the underlying brain activity patterns differ. Serotonergic and noradrenergic antidepressants also affect brain regions differently depending on sex, even when they produce similar outward behavior.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the importance of brain circuits and sex in depression, but it has some limitations. The researchers used the Forced Swim Test as their main behavioral measure. This test is widely used in antidepressant research but does not capture the full complexity of depression in humans. It measures behavioral responses to acute stress, which may not reflect long-term mood changes. Future studies should explore whether the same effects are seen in other models of depression, such as chronic stress paradigms.</p>
<p>Another area for future research is understanding how different neurotransmitter systems—such as glutamate, serotonin, and norepinephrine—interact within this brain circuit. The nucleus reuniens is known to use glutamate to communicate between brain regions, and it receives serotonin input but not much norepinephrine. This may explain why its lesioning mimics the effects of sertraline more than clomipramine.</p>
<p>Finally, the role of sex hormones in modulating these brain responses remains an open question. Estrogen and testosterone may influence how brain regions like the prefrontal cortex respond to stress and medication, especially in females.</p>
<p>“In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of sex as a factor when interpreting findings pertaining to circuits and their contribution to depressive-like phenotypes,” the researchers wrote. “Indeed, sex differences can emerge not only in behavioral tests and treatment response, but also in the contribution of infralimbic structures in depression. Importantly, we demonstrate that the [nucleus reuniens] is indeed crucially involved in the stress response.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-024-06667-w" target="_blank">Prefrontal cortex—nucleus reuniens—hippocampus network exhibits sex-differentiated responses to stress and antidepressant treatment in rats</a>,” was authored by V. Kafetzopoulos, N. Kokras, Filippos Katsaitis, N. Sousa, H. Leite‑Almeida, I. Sotiropoulos, and C. Dalla.</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>