<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/the-surprising-way-the-brains-dopamine-rich-reward-center-adapts-as-a-romance-matures/" 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;">The surprising way the brain’s dopamine-rich reward center adapts as a romance matures</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 7th 2026, 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 the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaf127" target="_blank">Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience</a></em> provides evidence that the human brain processes romantic partners differently than close friends, specifically within the reward system. The research suggests that while the brain creates a unique neural signature for a partner early in a relationship, this distinction tends to fade as the bond matures. These findings offer insight into how the biological drivers of romantic love may evolve from passion to companionship over time.</p>
<p>Relationships involve complex psychological states that differentiate a committed partner from a platonic friend. Scientists have sought to map these differences in the brain to understand the biological foundations of human bonding. Much of this research focuses on the nucleus accumbens. This small region deep within the brain, which relies heavily on the neurotransmitter dopamine, plays a central role in processing rewards and motivation.</p>
<p>Evidence from animal studies indicates that the nucleus accumbens is essential for forming pair bonds. Research on monogamous prairie voles shows that neurochemical signaling in this area drives the preference for a specific partner. The brain appears to undergo plastic changes that reinforce the bond.</p>
<p>Human studies have attempted to replicate these findings by comparing brain activity in response to partners versus friends. However, the results have been inconsistent. Some experiments observed higher activity in the nucleus accumbens for partners, while others found no significant difference. This inconsistency might stem from the fact that opposite-sex friends can sometimes be viewed as potential romantic alternatives.</p>
<p>“Romantic relationships are typically characterized by exclusivity, strong commitment, and passionate love, which distinguish them from friendships,” said study author Kenji Fujisaki<br>
of the Department of Psychology at Kyoto University.</p>
<p>“We aimed to identify the neural mechanisms that distinguish romantic partners from friends. In addition, as romantic relationships develop, most people experience psychological fluctuations over time, raising the question of how neural processing of a partner may change as a relationship matures. Finally, given prior theory and evidence that opposite-sex friends can sometimes be potential or alternative partners, we were interested in whether the brain represents an opposite-sex friend more similarly to a romantic partner or to a same-sex friend.”</p>
<p>The study involved 47 heterosexual male participants. All participants were between the ages of 20 and 29 and were currently in a romantic relationship. The average length of these relationships was approximately 18 months. The researchers excluded individuals who were married or had children to control for the effects of long-term domestic partnership or parenthood.</p>
<p>To ensure the study captured genuine social bonds, the participants selected their own close friends to be part of the stimuli. They chose a close female friend and a close male friend. These friends, along with the romantic partners, provided short video clips for the experiment.</p>
<p>The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging to monitor brain activity while participants engaged in a specific activity called the social incentive delay task. This task is designed to measure the anticipation of a social reward. Participants saw a cue on a screen indicating which person would appear.</p>
<p>After a short delay, a target appeared on the screen for a fraction of a second. Participants had to press a button as quickly as possible. If they were successful, they saw a video clip of their partner, female friend, or male friend smiling and making a positive gesture. These gestures included waving, clapping, or making a “V-sign.”</p>
<p>If the participants were too slow, they saw a neutral expression instead. This design allowed the researchers to isolate the brain activity associated with anticipating social approval from specific people. The team analyzed the imaging data using a technique known as multivoxel pattern analysis.</p>
<p>Standard analysis looks at whether a brain region is “on” or “off.” In contrast, multivoxel pattern analysis examines the specific pattern of activity across many small segments of brain tissue. This allows researchers to see if the “neural fingerprint” for one person differs from another, even if the overall activity level is the same.</p>
<p>The behavioral results showed that the men were highly motivated by their partners. Participants reacted faster when anticipating a video of their partner compared to either friend. They also rated the videos of their partners as more likeable than those of their friends.</p>
<p>The brain imaging results revealed that the nucleus accumbens encodes the romantic partner in a distinct manner. The computer algorithms used in the analysis successfully differentiated the brain activity patterns associated with the partner from those associated with the female friend. This discrimination was possible across the nucleus accumbens and other related brain structures.</p>
<p>The researchers then assessed the similarity of these neural patterns. They found that in the nucleus accumbens, the representation of the female friend was more similar to the male friend than to the partner. This suggests that the brain categorizes the partner as a unique social entity, distinct from the general category of friendship.</p>
<p>A key finding emerged regarding the duration of the romantic relationships. The researchers analyzed whether the distinctiveness of the partner’s neural signature was related to how long the couple had been together. They observed a negative correlation between relationship length and neural specificity.</p>
<p>Participants who had been in their relationships for a longer time showed less distinct neural differences between their partner and their female friend. In the nucleus accumbens, the unique pattern that separated the partner from the friend appeared to diminish as the relationship length increased. This trend remained statistically significant even after the researchers controlled for self-reported levels of intimacy, passion, and commitment.</p>
<p>These results align with psychological theories describing the trajectory of love. Early stages of romance are often characterized by “passionate love,” which involves intense longing and motivation. This stage likely requires highly specific activity within the brain’s reward system to facilitate bond formation.</p>
<p>As a relationship stabilizes, it often transitions into “companionate love.” This form of love is characterized by deep attachment and friendship. The findings suggest that as this transition occurs, the biological processing of the partner in the reward system becomes less distinguishable from that of a close friend.</p>
<p>This reduction in neural distinctiveness does not imply a decline in the quality of the relationship. It may instead reflect a shift in how the relationship is biologically maintained. The intense, reward-driven signaling required to establish a bond may be less necessary for maintaining a stable, long-term union.</p>
<p>“Our results suggest that the way the brain represents a romantic partner is not fixed, but can evolve as a relationship develops,” Fujisaki told PsyPost. “Early in relationships, a reward-related brain region called the nucleus accumbens showed clearly differentiated activity patterns for a partner compared with an opposite-sex friend. In longer relationships, this neural distinction became less pronounced. This change may reflect a shift from the passionate love characteristic of early-stage relationships toward a more stable, companionate form of love that shares features with close friendship.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations. The research relied on cross-sectional data. This means it compared different people at different relationship stages rather than following the same individuals over time. Longitudinal studies would be necessary to confirm that these changes occur within the same person.</p>
<p>The sample consisted entirely of heterosexual males. This decision was made to reduce biological variability in the sample. However, it limits the ability to generalize the findings to women or individuals with different sexual orientations. Future research needs to include more diverse samples to see if these neural patterns are universal.</p>
<p>The study focused primarily on the nucleus accumbens and the dorsal striatum. While these areas are central to reward, other brain regions are involved in social bonding. Areas responsible for emotional regulation or cognitive processing may take on a larger role in long-term relationships.</p>
<p>There is also the potential for misinterpretation regarding the “reduced specificity” finding. “A common misinterpretation would be to assume that reduced neural distinctiveness means that love or relationship quality is declining,” Fujisaki said. “Our findings do not support this conclusion, and the observed pattern should be understood as a group-level tendency that may vary across individuals.”</p>
<p>Future research could investigate identifying these complementary brain systems. It would be valuable to understand what neural mechanisms support enduring bonds once the specific reward processing in the nucleus accumbens becomes less pronounced. Additionally, examining how major life transitions like cohabitation or marriage affect these patterns could provide further insight.</p>
<p>“This study raises a new question: if partner-specific processing in the nucleus accumbens becomes less distinct over time, what neural mechanisms help sustain long-term relationships?” Fujisaki explained. “Moving forward, it would be worth identifying complementary brain systems that support enduring bonds.”</p>
<p>“In addition, further developing this work by examining neural processes underlying cognition and behavior characteristic of romantic relationships, while taking individual differences into account, may deepen our understanding of romantic bonding. Ultimately, this line of research could provide insights that help foster healthier and more satisfying romantic relationships.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaf127" target="_blank">Reduced neural specificity for a romantic partner in the nucleus accumbens over relationship duration</a>,” was authored by Kenji Fujisaki, Ryuhei Ueda, Ryusuke Nakai, and Nobuhito Abe.</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/the-scientist-who-predicted-ai-psychosis-has-issued-another-dire-warning/" 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;">The scientist who predicted AI psychosis has issued another dire warning</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 7th 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>More than two years ago, Danish psychiatrist Søren Dinesen Østergaard published a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/49/6/1418/7251361" target="_blank">provocative editorial</a> suggesting that the rise of conversational artificial intelligence could have severe mental health consequences. He proposed that the persuasive, human-like nature of chatbots might push vulnerable individuals toward psychosis. </p>
<p>At the time, the idea seemed speculative. In the months that followed, however, clinicians and journalists began documenting real-world cases that mirrored his concerns. Patients were developing fixed, false beliefs after marathon sessions with digital companions. Now, the scientist who foresaw the psychiatric risks of AI has issued a new warning. This time, he is not focusing on mental illness, but on a potential degradation of human intelligence itself.</p>
<p>In a new letter to the editor published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.70069" target="_blank">Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica</a></em>, Østergaard argues that academia and the sciences are facing a crisis of “cognitive debt.” He posits that the outsourcing of writing and reasoning to generative AI is <a href="https://www.psypost.org/chatgpt-linked-to-declining-academic-performance-and-memory-loss-in-new-study/" target="_blank">eroding the fundamental skills</a> required for scientific discovery. The commentary builds upon a growing body of evidence suggesting that while AI can mimic human output, relying on it may physically alter the brain’s ability to think.</p>
<p>Østergaard’s latest writing is a response to a letter by Professor Soichiro Matsubara. Matsubara had previously highlighted that AI chatbots might harm the writing abilities of young doctors and damage the mentorship dynamic in medicine. Østergaard agrees with this assessment but takes the argument a step further. He contends that the danger extends beyond mere writing skills and strikes at the core of the scientific process: reasoning.</p>
<p>The psychiatrist acknowledges the utility of AI for surface-level tasks. He notes that using a tool to proofread a manuscript for grammar is largely harmless. However, he points out that technology companies are actively marketing “reasoning models” designed to solve complex problems and plan workflows. While this sounds efficient, Østergaard suggests it creates a paradox. He questions whether the next generation of scientists will possess the cognitive capacity to make breakthroughs if they never practice the struggle of reasoning themselves.</p>
<p>To illustrate this point, he cites the developers of AlphaFold, an AI program that predicts protein structures. This technology resulted in the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for researchers from Google DeepMind and the University of Washington.</p>
<p>Østergaard argues that it is not a given that these specific scientists would have achieved such heights if generative AI had been available to do their thinking for them during their formative years. He suggests that scientific reasoning is not an innate talent. It is a skill learned through the rigorous, often tedious practice of reading, thinking, and revising.</p>
<p>The concept of “cognitive debt” is central to this new warning. Østergaard draws attention to a preprint study by Kosmyna and colleagues, titled “<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872" target="_blank">Your brain on ChatGPT</a>.” This research attempts to quantify the neurological cost of using AI assistance. The study involved participants writing essays under three conditions: using ChatGPT, using a search engine, or using only their own brains.</p>
<p>The findings of the Kosmyna study provide physical evidence for Østergaard’s concerns. Electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring revealed that participants in the ChatGPT group showed substantially lower brain activation in networks typically engaged during cognitive tasks. The brain was simply doing less work. More alerting was the finding that this “weaker neural connectivity” persisted even when these participants switched to writing essays without AI.</p>
<p>The study also found that those who used the chatbot had significant difficulties recalling the content of the essays they had just produced. The authors of the paper concluded that the results demonstrate a pressing matter of a likely decrease in learning skills. Østergaard describes these findings as deeply concerning. He suggests that if AI use indeed causes such cognitive debt, the educational system may be in a difficult position.</p>
<p>This aligns with other recent papers regarding “cognitive offloading.” A commentary by Umberto León Domínguez published in <em>Neuropsychology</em> explores the idea of <a href="https://www.psypost.org/catastrophic-effects-can-ai-turn-us-into-imbeciles-this-scientists-fears-for-the-worst/" target="_blank">AI as a “cognitive prosthesis.”</a> Just as a physical prosthesis replaces a limb, AI replaces mental effort. While this can be efficient, Domínguez warns that it prevents the stimulation of higher-order executive functions. If students do not engage in the mental gymnastics required to solve problems, those cognitive muscles may atrophy.</p>
<p>Real-world examples are already surfacing. Østergaard references a report from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation about a high school student who used ChatGPT to complete approximately 150 assignments. The student was eventually expelled. While this is an extreme case, Østergaard notes that widespread outsourcing is becoming the norm from primary school through graduate programs. He fears this will reduce the chances of exceptional minds emerging in the future.</p>
<p>The loss of critical thinking skills is not just a future risk but a present reality. A study by Michael Gerlich published in the journal <em>Societies</em> found a <a href="https://www.psypost.org/ai-tools-may-weaken-critical-thinking-skills-by-encouraging-cognitive-offloading-study-suggests/" target="_blank">strong negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities</a>. The research indicated that younger individuals were particularly susceptible. Those who frequently offloaded cognitive tasks to algorithms performed worse on assessments requiring independent analysis and evaluation.</p>
<p>There is also the issue of false confidence. A study published in <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em> by Daniela Fernandes and colleagues found that while AI helped users score higher on logic tests, it also <a href="https://www.psypost.org/users-of-generative-ai-struggle-to-accurately-assess-their-own-competence/" target="_blank">distorted their self-assessment</a>. Participants consistently overestimated their performance. The technology acted as a buffer, masking their own lack of understanding. This creates a scenario where individuals feel competent because the machine is competent, leading to a disconnect between perceived and actual ability.</p>
<p>This intellectual detachment mirrors the emotional detachment Østergaard identified in his earlier work on AI psychosis. In his previous editorial, he warned that the “sycophantic” nature of chatbots—their tendency to agree with and flatter the user—could reinforce delusions. A user experiencing paranoia might find a willing conspirator in a chatbot, which confirms their false beliefs to keep the conversation going.</p>
<p>The mechanism is similar in the context of cognitive debt. The AI provides an easy, pleasing answer that satisfies the immediate need of the user, whether that need is emotional validation or a completed homework assignment. in both cases, the human user surrenders their agency to the algorithm. They stop testing reality or their own logic against the world, preferring the smooth, frictionless output of the machine.</p>
<p>Østergaard connects this loss of human capability to the ultimate risks of artificial intelligence. He cites Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel laureate in physics often called the “godfather of AI.” Hinton <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/27/godfather-of-ai-raises-odds-of-the-technology-wiping-out-humanity-over-next-30-years" target="_blank">has expressed concerns</a> that there is a significant probability that AI could threaten humanity’s existence within the next few decades. Østergaard argues that facing such existential threats requires humans who are cognitively adept.</p>
<p>If the population becomes “cognitively indebted,” reliant on machines for basic reasoning, the ability to maintain control over those same machines diminishes. The psychiatrist emphasizes that we need humans in the loop who are capable of independent, rigorous thought. A society that has outsourced its reasoning to the very systems it needs to regulate may find itself ill-equipped to handle the consequences.</p>
<p>The warning is clear. The convenience of generative AI comes with a hidden cost. It is not merely a matter of students cheating on essays or doctors losing their writing flair. The evidence suggests a fundamental change in how the brain processes information. By skipping the struggle of learning and reasoning, humans may be sacrificing the very cognitive traits that allow for scientific advancement and independent judgment.</p>
<p>Østergaard <a href="https://www.psypost.org/chatgpt-psychosis-this-scientist-predicted-ai-induced-delusions-two-years-later-it-appears-he-was-right/" target="_blank">was correct</a> when he flagged the potential for AI to distort reality for psychiatric patients. His new commentary suggests that the distortion of our intellectual potential may be a far more widespread and insidious problem. As AI tools become more integrated into daily life, the choice between cognitive effort and cognitive offloading becomes a defining challenge for the future of human intelligence.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.70069" target="_blank">Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Outsourcing of Scientific Reasoning: Perils of the Rising Cognitive Debt in Academia and Beyond</a>,” was published January 21, 2026.</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/support-for-banning-hate-speech-tends-to-decrease-as-people-get-older/" 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;">Support for banning hate speech tends to decrease as people get older</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 6th 2026, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An analysis of the 2019-2024 <a href="https://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/new-zealand-attitudes-and-values-study.html" target="_blank">New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study</a> data revealed that support for free speech has been decreasing during this period across all age groups. In contrast, there was little change in the level of support for restricting hate speech. The research was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70107"><em>Political Psychology</em></a>.</p>
<p>Free speech is the right of individuals to express ideas, opinions, and information without undue interference or punishment from authorities. It includes spoken words, writing, art, protest, and other forms of expression. Free speech allows people to criticize those in power and hold governments accountable. It supports the search for truth by allowing competing ideas to be debated openly.</p>
<p>Free speech protects individual autonomy by respecting people as thinking agents capable of forming their own views. In democratic societies, free speech enables informed voting and meaningful public participation. It helps minorities and marginalized groups voice their experiences and challenge dominant narratives. Without free speech, fear and conformity tend to replace creativity and innovation. For these reasons, free speech is widely seen as a foundation of free, pluralistic, and resilient societies.</p>
<p>In spite of this, some argue that the right to free speech should be restricted at least in some cases. Traditionally, arguments for this have been focused on maintaining social order and reducing security risk. However, in recent decades, arguments in favor of restricting free speech as a way to protect marginalized groups have become more common. Offensive or disparaging speech targeting groups based on race, religion, gender, or sexuality has generated tensions between the support for free speech and the need to promote social inclusion of these groups.</p>
<p>Study author Maykel Verkuyten and his colleagues wanted to examine the contributions of age, time period, and generation of birth to changes in attitudes toward free speech and hate speech restrictions in New Zealand. They note that support for free speech in New Zealand is likely to be high, but that minority group members might be more supportive of hate speech restriction than majority members because they are typically the target of speech that denigrates their ethnic or racial identity.</p>
<p>These authors analyzed data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study collected between 2019 and 2024. The analysis included data belonging to 50,662 participants who responded to questions of interest for this analysis at least once over the five annual assessments conducted in this period.</p>
<p>The respondents provided the data used in this analysis by rating on a scale from 1 to 7 how strongly they support free speech (“Although I may disagree with the opinions that other people hold, they should be allowed to express those views publicly.”) and how strongly they support restriction of hate speech (“People who hold opinions that are harmful or offensive to minority groups should be banned from expressing those views publicly.”).</p>
<p>Results showed that, in the examined period, general support for free speech has decreased across all age groups (all birth cohorts). This was the case both in ethnic majority and minority groups. In contrast, support for restricting hate speech was relatively stable in this period. This was particularly the case among ethnic minority groups.</p>
<p>“Free speech is critical for liberal democracies to function well, but it has limits. Traditionally, concerns about social order and security are considered to justify free speech restrictions, but increasingly there is a focus on possible offense and harm to minority groups. The increased prominence of egalitarian norms and values may ultimately lead to lower tolerance of speech that is considered to harm the status, dignity, and well-being of minority groups,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific knowledge about changes in support for free speech and speech restrictions in New Zealand. However, it should be noted that both support for free speech and for restricting hate speech were self-reported using only single items. Studies using more objective or more comprehensive measures of these attitudes might produce different results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70107">Changes in support for free speech and hate speech restrictions: Cohort, aging, and period effects among ethnic minority and majority group members,</a>” was authored by Maykel Verkuyten, Kumar Yogeeswaran, Elena Zubielevitch, Kieren J. Lilly, and Chris G. Sibley.</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/recreational-ecstasy-use-is-linked-to-lasting-memory-impairments/" 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;">Recreational ecstasy use is linked to lasting memory impairments</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 6th 2026, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Use of the drug MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy, may lead to lasting difficulties with learning and memory that persist long after a person stops taking it. A new analysis indicates that people who use the drug recreationally perform worse on cognitive tests than those who have never used it. These deficits appear to remain the same even in individuals who have abstained from the drug for months or years. These findings were published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251389559" target="_blank">Journal of Psychopharmacology</a></em>.</p>
<p>The chemical 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methamphetamine, or MDMA, is a synthetic substance that alters mood and perception. It works primarily by causing a massive release of serotonin in the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that plays a major role in regulating sleep, mood, and memory. The drug prevents the brain from reabsorbing this chemical, which creates the feelings of euphoria and empathy that users seek. However, this mechanism also depletes the brain’s supply of serotonin.</p>
<p>Animal studies have provided evidence that MDMA can be neurotoxic. Experiments with rats and primates suggest that repeated exposure to the drug can damage the nerve endings that release serotonin. These changes can last for a long time. In humans, brain imaging studies have shown alterations in the serotonin systems of heavy users. These changes often appear in the neocortex and the limbic system, which are brain areas essential for thinking and memory.</p>
<p>Researchers want to understand if these changes are permanent. Some imaging studies suggest that the brain might recover after a period of abstinence. However, it is not clear if the return of serotonin markers corresponds to a recovery in mental sharpness. This question is relevant for public health as well as clinical medicine. There is a renewed interest in using MDMA therapeutically to treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Understanding the long-term safety profile of the substance is necessary for both patients and recreational users.</p>
<p>To address this question, a team of researchers led by Hillary Ung and Mark Daglish conducted a systematic review. They are affiliated with Metro North Mental Health and the University of Queensland in Australia. The team searched through medical databases for every available study on the topic. They looked for research that assessed cognitive function in recreational MDMA users.</p>
<p>The researchers applied strict criteria to select the studies. They only included research that focused on individuals who had abstained from MDMA for at least six months. This duration was chosen to ensure that the participants were not experiencing withdrawal or the immediate aftereffects of the drug. The researchers also required that the studies use standardized neurocognitive testing tools.</p>
<p>Fourteen articles met the requirements for the review. From these, the researchers extracted data to perform a meta-analysis. This statistical technique combines the results of multiple small studies to find patterns that might be invisible in a single experiment. The analysis focused primarily on the domain of learning and memory, as this was the most commonly tested area across the studies.</p>
<p>The analysis revealed a clear distinction between those who used MDMA and those who did not. People with a history of MDMA use performed significantly worse on memory tests compared to people who were drug-naïve. The specific deficits were most notable in verbal memory. This involves the ability to remember and recall words or verbal information.</p>
<p>The researchers then compared current users against the abstinent users. Current users were defined as those who had used the drug recently, while the abstinent group had stopped for at least six months. The analysis found no statistical difference between these two groups. The cognitive performance of those who had quit was essentially the same as those who were still using the drug.</p>
<p>This lack of improvement was unexpected. One might predict that the brain would heal over time. However, the data did not show a correlation between the length of abstinence and better memory scores. Even in studies where participants had abstained for two years or more, the memory deficits remained. This suggests that the impact of MDMA on memory may be long-lasting or potentially permanent.</p>
<p>The review also examined other cognitive domains. These included executive function, which covers skills like planning and paying attention. The results for these areas were less consistent. Some data pointed to deficits in executive function, but the evidence was not strong enough to draw a firm conclusion. There was also limited evidence regarding impairments in language or motor skills.</p>
<p>The authors of the study advise caution when interpreting these results. They noted that the quality of the available evidence is generally low. Most of the studies included in the review were cross-sectional. This means they looked at a snapshot of people at one point in time rather than following them over many years. It is possible that people who choose to use MDMA have pre-existing differences in memory or impulsivity compared to those who do not.</p>
<p>Another major complication is the use of other drugs. People who use ecstasy recreationally rarely use only that substance. They often consume alcohol, cannabis, or cocaine as well. While the researchers tried to account for this, it is difficult to isolate the specific effects of MDMA from the effects of these other substances. Alcohol and cannabis are known to affect memory. It is possible that the deficits observed are the result of cumulative polydrug use rather than MDMA alone.</p>
<p>The purity of the drug is another variable. The studies relied on participants reporting how many pills they had taken in their lifetime. However, the amount of active MDMA in a street pill varies wildly. Some pills contain very high doses, while others contain none at all. This makes it impossible to calculate a precise dose-response relationship.</p>
<p>The researchers also pointed out that the drug market has changed. Many of the studies in the review were conducted in the early 2000s. Since then, the average strength of ecstasy tablets has increased significantly. Users today might be exposing themselves to higher doses than the participants in these older studies. This could mean that the cognitive risks are higher for modern users.</p>
<p>The findings have implications for the potential reversibility of brain changes. While some brain imaging studies show that serotonin transporters may regenerate over time, this study suggests that functional recovery does not necessarily follow. It is possible that the brain structures recover, but the functional connections remain altered. Alternatively, six months might simply be too short a time for full cognitive recovery to occur.</p>
<p>The study provides a sobering perspective on recreational drug use. The deficits in learning and memory were moderate to large in size. For a young person in an educational or professional setting, such deficits could have a tangible impact on their daily life. The inability to retain new information efficiently could hinder academic or career progress.</p>
<p>The authors call for better research designs in the future. They recommend longitudinal studies that assess people before they start using drugs and follow them over time. They also suggest using hair analysis to verify exactly what substances participants have taken. This would provide a more objective measure of drug exposure than self-reporting.</p>
<p>Until better data is available, the current evidence suggests a risk of lasting harm. Stopping the use of MDMA stops the immediate risks of toxicity. However, it may not immediately reverse the cognitive toll taken by previous use. The brain may require a very long time to heal, or the changes may be irreversible.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251389559" target="_blank">Long-term neurocognitive side effects of MDMA in recreational ecstasy users following sustained abstinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis</a>,” was authored by Hillary Ung, Gemma McKeon, Zorica Jokovic, Stephen Parker, Mark Vickers, Eva Malacova, Lars Eriksson, and Mark Daglish.</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-psychology-research-changes-how-we-think-about-power-in-the-bedroom/" 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 psychology research changes how we think about power in the bedroom</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 6th 2026, 15:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251390006" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</a></em> suggests that having a sense of power in a relationship promotes sexual assertiveness, while perceiving a partner as powerful fosters a willingness to accommodate their needs. The findings indicate that healthy sexual dynamics are not about one person holding dominance over another. Instead, the most satisfying interactions appear to occur when both individuals feel they have influence within the relationship.</p>
<p>Power dynamics are frequently viewed as potential sources of conflict or exploitation within intimate relationships. A common assumption is that if one partner holds power, they might satisfy their own desires while neglecting their partner. Alternatively, the partner with less power might feel forced to comply with unwanted activities.</p>
<p>“Power is commonly thought of as dangerous, particularly within sexual relationships,” said study author Nickola Overall, a professor at the University of Auckland and head of <a href="https://relationships.auckland.ac.nz/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the REACH Lab</a>. ”</p>
<p>“People who have high power in relationships might assert their own sexual need while neglecting their partner’s desires. But lacking power is also problematic. People who have low power in relationships might inhibit their desires and comply to undesired sexual activity. Despite these negative implications of having power and lacking power, how power relates to sexual assertiveness, neglect, and compliance is unclear.”</p>
<p>The researchers sought to clarify how a person’s own sense of power and their perception of their partner’s power distinctly shape sexual motivations and behaviors. They applied a theoretical framework that separates power into two distinct processes.</p>
<p>The first is “actor power,” or the individual’s own perceived ability to influence outcomes. The second is “perceived partner power,” or the individual’s belief in their partner’s ability to influence outcomes. The researchers proposed that one’s own power drives the decision to approach or inhibit sexual desires. Simultaneously, the perception of a partner’s power drives the decision to accommodate or neglect the partner’s needs.</p>
<p>“Most frameworks assume that one partner higher in power will be more assertive in pursuing their sexual needs in ways that neglect the other partner who will be pressured to comply,” Overall explained. “These frameworks assume that power is zero-sum in relationships – if one person has more power, then the other person has less power.”</p>
<p>“But relationships can involve both people having high power (mutually influencing each other), both having low power (lacking influence over each other), or one having more power than the other. And each person’s power can influence their behavior for potential good or ill.”</p>
<p>“All prior studies have only focused on one type of behavior, such as sexual assertiveness or sexual compliance, making assumptions about how these behaviors are linked, such as partners high in power asserting their needs risking the other person complying to undesired sexual activity. But, these distinct behaviors may be shaped by different processes and do not provide a full picture of people’s sexual relationships.”</p>
<p>“So we examined various outcomes relevant to different theories of power, including sexual assertiveness (e.g., comfort initiating sex), sexual compliance (e.g., agreeing to engage in undesired sexual activity), and sexual accommodation vs. neglect (e.g., being more vs. less willing to compromise and being more vs. less understanding when partners are not in the mood),” Overall said.</p>
<p>The research team conducted three separate studies. The first study involved 270 participants recruited from an online platform. These individuals were in committed, mixed-gender relationships and were currently childfree. The sample included 130 women and 140 men. Participants completed the Sense of Power Scale to rate their own ability to influence their partner. They responded to statements such as “I think I have a great deal of power.” They also completed a version of the scale assessing their partner’s power.</p>
<p>In this first study, participants also rated their comfort with initiating and refusing sex. They responded to direct statements like “I am comfortable initiating sex.” Additionally, they reported their history of compromising on sexual frequency or activities over the past six months.</p>
<p>The data showed that individuals who felt they had more power reported greater comfort in both initiating and refusing sexual intimacy. In contrast, those who perceived their partners as having more power expressed a higher willingness to compromise on sexual matters. The results suggested two separate pathways. One pathway leads to personal assertiveness. The other pathway leads to responsiveness to a partner.</p>
<p>The second study aimed to validate these initial observations with a more detailed methodology. The researchers recruited 152 couples, totaling 304 participants. This design allowed the team to analyze data from both partners in a relationship. The study included the same power measures as the first study but added the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness. This index measures how openly participants express sexual needs. It includes items such as “I communicate my sexual desires to my partner.”</p>
<p>The second study also assessed sexual compliance. This construct refers to engaging in unwanted sexual activity. Participants rated items such as “I find myself having sex when I do not really want it.” Additionally, the researchers measured sexual communal strength. This is defined as the motivation to meet a partner’s needs. Participants answered questions regarding how far they would go to meet their partner’s sexual desires.</p>
<p>The findings from the second study reinforced the distinction between the two types of power. Participants with higher personal power scores reported higher levels of sexual assertiveness. Perhaps more importantly, those with lower personal power scores reported higher levels of sexual compliance. This suggests that engaging in unwanted sex is often driven by a lack of personal agency rather than the pressure of a powerful partner.</p>
<p>On the other hand, viewing a partner as powerful was linked to greater communal strength. This indicates that perceiving a partner as powerful motivates individuals to meet that partner’s needs rather than simply submit to them out of fear.</p>
<p>The third study expanded the scope further with a sample of 412 individuals recruited online. This iteration aimed to replicate the previous findings and introduce new measures. The researchers assessed “sexual acquiescence,” which captures participation in specific sexual acts without desire but without coercion.</p>
<p>They also measured reactions to sexual rejection. The team wanted to see if high power might lead to “sexual enticement,” or nagging a partner who has refused sex. They also measured “sexual understanding,” which involves accepting a partner’s lack of desire without negative feelings.</p>
<p>Consistent with the previous studies, high personal power predicted assertiveness. Low personal power predicted engaging in unwanted sex. Perceiving a partner as powerful predicted reacting to sexual rejection with understanding rather than persistence. The study found no evidence that high power leads to pressuring behaviors like enticement. This challenges the idea that powerful individuals inevitably use their influence to coerce partners.</p>
<p>Across all three studies, the researchers tested whether the effects differed between men and women. The analysis showed that the fundamental links between power and behavior were consistent regardless of gender. While men reported higher baseline levels of assertiveness and women reported higher compliance, the way power influenced these behaviors was the same for both groups. For both men and women, feeling powerful enabled them to say “no” when they wanted to. For both groups, seeing their partner as influential motivated them to be accommodating.</p>
<p>The researchers also examined “asymmetries,” or whether having more power than one’s partner caused specific issues. The results offered little evidence that power imbalances were the primary driver of behavior. The findings suggest that the combination of high actor power and high perceived partner power may yield the best outcomes. In this scenario, individuals feel free to express their own desires while simultaneously caring for their partner’s needs.</p>
<p>“Both people having power in relationships is important for people to enjoy a fulfilling sex life,” Overall told PsyPost. “When people lack power in their relationships—people feel unable to influence their partner—they are more likely to inhibit their sexual desires, such as being less comfortable in initiating sex or expressing their sexual needs and more likely to engage in sexual activity they do not desire. Sexual inhibition and compliance undermine people’s health and wellbeing, but also restrict the development of satisfying, connected relationships.”</p>
<p>“When partners lack power in relationships—people feel their partner is unable to influence them—they are more likely to neglect their partners’ needs, such as being less willing to compromise with their partner about when and how they have sex or being less understanding when their partner is not in the mood. Neglecting partners’ needs will harm both people in relationships because couples need to accommodate each other’s needs and desires to have fulfilling satisfying sex lives.”</p>
<p>“In short, healthy sexual relationships involve people being able to satisfy their own desires while accommodating their partner’s needs and desire. Hitting this sweet spot requires both partners having power in their relationship.”</p>
<p>These new findings align closely with recent research by Robert Körner and Astrid Schütz, which challenged the idea that power in relationships is a zero-sum game. In their studies published in <em><a href="https://www.psypost.org/feeling-powerful-in-a-relationship-appears-to-benefit-both-you-and-your-partner/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Journal of Sex Research</a></em> and <em><a href="https://www.psypost.org/power-balance-and-relationship-quality-surprising-insights-from-new-psychology-research/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Social Psychological and Personality Science</a></em>, Körner and Schütz established that relationship quality and sexual satisfaction hinge on an individual’s absolute sense of power rather than a perfect balance of power between partners.</p>
<p>The current study builds on this foundation by mapping these power dynamics to specific behavioral outcomes. While Körner and Schütz demonstrated that feeling powerful predicts positive sexual motivation, the new results explain how this functions: personal power drives the confidence to assert needs, whereas perceiving a partner as powerful drives the motivation to be generous and accommodating.</p>
<p>Both sets of research converge on the conclusion that high mutual power is preferable to power asymmetries or shared powerlessness. Körner and Schütz found that having a powerful partner does not diminish one’s own satisfaction, and similarly, the current study found no evidence that power imbalances are the primary driver of harmful behaviors like sexual compliance or neglect. Instead, both lines of inquiry suggest that the healthiest sexual dynamics occur when both partners feel a high sense of agency.</p>
<p>The new findings also offer a behavioral explanation for <a href="https://www.psypost.org/study-uncovers-three-sexual-power-profiles-and-only-one-is-linked-to-relationship-satisfaction/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the profiles identified</a> by Roxanne Bolduc and her colleagues in the <em>Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy</em>. Bolduc’s research indicated that individuals with egalitarian views and flexible preferences experience greater relationship satisfaction than those adhering to rigid or conflicted gender roles.</p>
<p>The current study supports this by demonstrating that the psychological mechanisms of power function similarly for men and women. By showing that high actor power promotes assertiveness and high partner power promotes accommodation regardless of gender, the findings illustrate why egalitarian dynamics, where both partners exercise influence, likely lead to the superior relationship outcomes observed in Bolduc’s “flexible” profile.</p>
<p>While the new findings provide insight into relationship dynamics, the study relies on self-reported data. Participants may not accurately report or be fully aware of their own behaviors. This is particularly true regarding sensitive topics like compliance or enticement. The cross-sectional nature of the data also prevents drawing definitive conclusions about cause and effect. It is possible that engaging in specific sexual behaviors influences a person’s sense of power, rather than the other way around.</p>
<p>Future research could benefit from longitudinal designs to track these dynamics over time. The samples consisted largely of people in established, committed relationships. Power dynamics might function differently in casual dating scenarios or relationships characterized by severe conflict. In contexts with less commitment, power imbalances might carry more risk of negative outcomes than observed in this study. Additionally, experimental studies could help clarify whether shifting a person’s sense of power directly causes changes in their sexual behaviors.</p>
<p>“Some perspectives warn that power can be dangerous by providing the opportunity to exploit low power others,” Overall added. “Our data show that in close relationships having power is likely to be more beneficial than harmful. People who felt they had power to influence their partner were more assertive in expressing their sexual needs and less compliant to unwanted sexual activity, but they were not less willing to compromise with their partners or less understanding when their partners were not in the mood. Similarly, people who perceived their partner had high power were more willing to compromise with their partner and less likely to neglect their partner’s needs, but they were not more likely to comply to unwanted sexual activity.”</p>
<p>“Many perspectives also suggest that power asymmetries are critical—one person having more power than the other risks greater neglect and compliance. But testing interactions between people’s own and their partners’ power did not provide any evidence for this. Instead, the few interactions that emerged suggested that jointly holding power solidified rather than reduced the positive effects of power – greater assertiveness in expressing sexual needs and accommodation of the partners’ sexual desires and lower compliance and partner neglect.”</p>
<p>“That said, our investigation examined power and sexual behavior within long-term intimate relationships in which both people care about and have some power over each other,” Overall continued. “In non- intimate contexts, like the workplace, one person holding power over another who has little or no counterpower could produce particularly harmful dynamics in which the person high in power can assert their needs while neglecting the other who may be more likely to comply. The risk of these harmful outcomes could also be greater in younger samples and dating couples that are not yet committed to one another, or in contexts where greater asymmetries between men and women restrict women’s power and sexual behavior.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251390006" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Actor Power and Perceived Partner Power Differentially Relate to Sexual Behavior and Motivations</a>,” was authored by Nickola C. Overall, Jessica A. Maxwell, Amy Muise, Nina Waddell, and Auguste G. Harrington.</p>
<hr>
<p class="ng-star-inserted"><span class="ng-star-inserted">Five key points from the article:</span></p>
<ul class="ng-star-inserted">
<li class="ng-star-inserted">
<p class="ng-star-inserted"><strong class="ng-star-inserted"><span class="ng-star-inserted">Distinct roles of power:</span></strong><span class="ng-star-inserted"> The researchers identified two separate processes: “actor power” (a person’s own sense of influence), which drives sexual assertiveness and the confidence to refuse sex, and “perceived partner power” (a person’s view of their partner’s influence), which motivates a willingness to accommodate and compromise on the partner’s needs.</span></p>
</li>
<li class="ng-star-inserted">
<p class="ng-star-inserted"><strong class="ng-star-inserted"><span class="ng-star-inserted">The “sweet spot” for satisfaction:</span></strong><span class="ng-star-inserted"> Contrary to the idea that power in relationships is a zero-sum game where one person dominates the other, the findings suggest that the best sexual dynamics occur when </span><span class="ng-star-inserted">both</span><span class="ng-star-inserted"> partners feel influential. This mutual power allows individuals to pursue their own desires while simultaneously caring for their partner’s needs.</span></p>
</li>
<li class="ng-star-inserted">
<p class="ng-star-inserted"><strong class="ng-star-inserted"><span class="ng-star-inserted">Roots of sexual compliance:</span></strong><span class="ng-star-inserted"> The study found that engaging in unwanted sexual activity (compliance) is primarily driven by a lack of personal agency (low actor power) rather than pressure from a powerful partner. Individuals who feel powerless are more likely to inhibit their own desires and agree to sex they do not want to avoid conflict.</span></p>
</li>
<li class="ng-star-inserted">
<p class="ng-star-inserted"><strong class="ng-star-inserted"><span class="ng-star-inserted">Gender consistency:</span></strong><span class="ng-star-inserted"> The link between power and sexual behavior was consistent for both men and women. Regardless of gender, feeling powerful facilitated boundary-setting and assertiveness, while perceiving a partner as influential fostered a motivation to be understanding and responsive to that partner.</span></p>
</li>
<li class="ng-star-inserted">
<p class="ng-star-inserted"><strong class="ng-star-inserted"><span class="ng-star-inserted">Alignment with previous research:</span></strong><span class="ng-star-inserted"> These findings reinforce other recent studies suggesting that relationship satisfaction depends on high absolute levels of power for both partners rather than just an equitable balance. The research supports the notion that egalitarian dynamics, where both parties exercise influence, produce better outcomes than rigid or conflicted gender roles.</span></p>
</li>
</ul></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-find-evidence-of-epstein-barr-virus-activity-in-spinal-fluid-of-multiple-sclerosis-patients/" 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 find evidence of Epstein-Barr virus activity in spinal fluid of multiple sclerosis patients</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 6th 2026, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Emerging research has provided fresh evidence regarding the role of viral infection in the development of multiple sclerosis. By analyzing immune cells extracted from the spinal fluid of patients, scientists identified a specific population of “killer” T cells that appear to target the Epstein-Barr virus. The findings suggest that an immune response directed at this common pathogen may drive the neurological damage associated with the disease. The study was published in the journal <em><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-025-02412-3" target="_blank">Nature Immunology</a></em>.</p>
<p>Multiple sclerosis is a chronic condition in which the immune system mistakenly attacks myelin, the protective sheath covering nerve fibers in the central nervous system. This damage disrupts communication between the brain and the rest of the body. For decades, scientific inquiry focused heavily on CD4+ T cells. These are immune cells that help coordinate the body’s defense response.</p>
<p>However, pathologists have observed that a different type of immune cell is actually more abundant in the brain lesions of patients. These are CD8+ T cells, also known as cytotoxic or “killer” T cells. Their primary function is to destroy cells that have been damaged or infected by viruses. Despite their prevalence at the site of injury, the specific targets they hunt in the central nervous system have remained largely unknown.</p>
<p>There is a strong epidemiological link between the Epstein-Barr virus and multiple sclerosis. Almost every person diagnosed with the condition tests positive for previous exposure to this virus. Yet, because the virus infects the vast majority of the global population, the mere presence of the virus does not explain why some individuals develop the disease while others do not.</p>
<p>Joseph J. Sabatino Jr., a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues sought to resolve this ambiguity. They aimed to determine what specific proteins the CD8+ T cells in the central nervous system were recognizing. The team hypothesized that identifying the targets of these cells could reveal the mechanism driving the disease.</p>
<p>The researchers collected samples of cerebrospinal fluid and blood from human participants. The study group included 13 individuals with multiple sclerosis or clinically isolated syndrome, a precursor to the disease. For comparison, they also collected samples from five control participants who were healthy or had other neurological conditions.</p>
<p>Obtaining cerebrospinal fluid is an invasive procedure. This makes such samples relatively rare and difficult to acquire, particularly from patients in the early stages of the disease. The team used a technology called single-cell RNA sequencing to analyze these samples. This method allows scientists to examine the genetic activity of thousands of individual cells simultaneously.</p>
<p>The investigators paid particular attention to the T cell receptors found on the surface of the immune cells. These receptors function like unique identification cards or keys. Each one is shaped to bind with a specific protein fragment, or antigen. When a T cell encounters its specific target, it clones itself repeatedly to create an army capable of eliminating the threat.</p>
<p>In the spinal fluid of patients with multiple sclerosis, the researchers found groups of CD8+ T cells that were genetically identical. This indicated they had undergone clonal expansion. These expanded groups were found in much higher concentrations in the spinal fluid than in the blood of the same patients. This suggests that these cells were not just passing through but were actively recruited to the central nervous system to fight a specific target.</p>
<p>To identify that target, the research team employed several antigen discovery strategies. One method involved a technique known as yeast display. The researchers created a library of hundreds of millions of yeast cells, each displaying a different protein fragment on its surface. They exposed the T cell receptors from the patients to this library to see which proteins they would bind.</p>
<p>This screening process initially identified synthetic protein fragments that acted as “mimics” for the true target. While these mimics bound to the receptors, they did not necessarily provoke a functional immune response. To find the naturally occurring target, the researchers compared the genetic sequences of the receptors against databases of known viral antigens.</p>
<p>This comparison yielded a match for the Epstein-Barr virus. Specifically, the receptors from the expanded CD8+ T cells matched those known to target proteins produced by the virus. To validate this finding, the team used CRISPR gene-editing technology. They engineered fresh T cells from healthy donors to express the exact receptors found in the multiple sclerosis patients.</p>
<p>When these engineered cells were exposed to Epstein-Barr virus peptides, they became activated and released inflammatory cytokines. This confirmed that the receptors identified in the spinal fluid were indeed specific for the virus. The team found that these virus-specific cells were highly activated and possessed the molecular machinery necessary to migrate into tissues and kill cells.</p>
<p>The researchers also investigated whether the virus itself was present in the central nervous system. They analyzed the cerebrospinal fluid for viral DNA. They detected genetic material from the Epstein-Barr virus in the fluid of both patients and controls. However, the presence of DNA alone only indicates that the virus is there, not necessarily that it is active.</p>
<p>To assess viral activity, the team looked for viral RNA transcripts. These are produced when the virus is reading its own genes to make proteins. They found higher levels of a specific transcript called BamHI-W in the fluid of patients with multiple sclerosis compared to the control group. This transcript is associated with the virus’s lytic phase, a period when it is actively replicating.</p>
<p>The detection of lytic transcripts suggests that the virus is not dormant in these patients. Instead, it appears to be reactivating within the central nervous system or the immune cells trafficking there. This reactivation could be the trigger that causes the immune system to expand its army of CD8+ T cells.</p>
<p>Some theories of autoimmune disease propose a mechanism called molecular mimicry. This occurs when a viral protein looks so similar to a human protein that the immune system attacks both. The researchers tested the Epstein-Barr virus-specific receptors against human proteins that resembled the viral targets. They found no evidence of cross-reactivity. The T cells attacked the virus but ignored the human proteins.</p>
<p>This finding implies that the immune system in multiple sclerosis may not be confused. It may be accurately targeting a viral invader. The collateral damage to the nervous system could be a side effect of this ongoing battle between the immune system and the reactivated virus.</p>
<p>The gene expression profile of these cells supported this idea. The virus-specific T cells expressed high levels of genes associated with migrating to tissues and persisting there. They appeared to be an “effector” population, primed for immediate defense rather than long-term memory storage.</p>
<p>“Looking at these understudied CD8+ T cells connects a lot of different dots and gives us a new window on how EBV is likely contributing to this disease,” said senior author Joe Sabatino in a press release. The study provides a clearer picture of the cellular machinery at work in the disease.</p>
<p>There are limitations to the study that warrant consideration. The sample size was small, involving only 18 participants in total. This is a common challenge in studies requiring invasive spinal fluid collection. While the researchers identified Epstein-Barr virus targets for some of the expanded T cell clones, the targets for the majority of the expanded cells remain unidentified.</p>
<p>It is also not yet clear if the viral reactivation causes the disease or if the disease state allows the virus to reactivate. The immune system is complex, and inflammation in the brain could theoretically create an environment that favors viral replication. Further research will be necessary to establish the direction of causality.</p>
<p>Future studies will likely focus on larger cohorts of patients. Researchers will need to determine if these virus-specific cells are present at all stages of the disease or only during early development. Additionally, understanding where the virus resides within the central nervous system remains a priority. The virus typically infects B cells, another type of immune cell, and their presence in the brain is a hallmark of multiple sclerosis.</p>
<p>The implications for treatment are notable. Current therapies for multiple sclerosis largely function by suppressing the immune system broadly or by trapping immune cells in the lymph nodes so they cannot enter the brain. If the disease is driven by a viral infection, therapies targeting the virus itself could offer a new approach. Antiviral drugs or vaccines designed to suppress the Epstein-Barr virus might help reduce the immune activation that leads to neurological damage.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-025-02412-3" target="_blank">Antigen specificity of clonally enriched CD8+ T cells in multiple sclerosis</a>,” was authored by Fumie Hayashi, Kristen Mittl, Ravi Dandekar, Josiah Gerdts, Ebtesam Hassan, Ryan D. Schubert, Lindsay Oshiro, Rita Loudermilk, Ariele Greenfield, Danillo G. Augusto, Gregory Havton, Shriya Anumarlu, Arhan Surapaneni, Akshaya Ramesh, Edwina Tran, Kanishka Koshal, Kerry Kizer, Joanna Dreux, Alaina K. Cagalingan, Florian Schustek, Lena Flood, Tamson Moore, Lisa L. Kirkemo, Isabelle J. Fisher, Tiffany Cooper, Meagan Harms, Refujia Gomez, University of California, San Francisco MS-EPIC Team, Claire D. Clelland, Leah Sibener, Bruce A. C. Cree, Stephen L. Hauser, Jill A. Hollenbach, Marvin Gee, Michael R. Wilson, Scott S. Zamvil & Joseph J. Sabatino Jr.</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/world-trade-center-responders-with-ptsd-show-signs-of-accelerated-brain-aging/" 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;">World Trade Center responders with PTSD show signs of accelerated brain aging</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 6th 2026, 12:00</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/10.1038/s41398-025-03769-7" target="_blank">Translational Psychiatry</a></em> has found that post-traumatic stress disorder is associated with accelerated biological aging in the brain. Researchers found that World Trade Center responders with PTSD had brains that appeared approximately three years older than their chronological age compared to responders without the disorder. This research suggests that the condition involves tangible structural changes to the brain that persist long after the initial trauma.</p>
<p>The health impacts of the September 11, 2001 attacks extend well beyond the immediate physical injuries sustained at Ground Zero. Many responders who assisted in the rescue and recovery efforts developed chronic psychological conditions. PTSD remains particularly prevalent in this population. Previous studies have linked the disorder to various markers of accelerated aging in the body, such as changes in immune function and inflammation.</p>
<p>The specific impact of the disorder on the biological aging of the brain itself has remained less clear. Determining how PTSD affects brain structure is necessary for understanding long-term health risks. Individuals with the condition face a higher statistical likelihood of developing age-related conditions like memory decline or dementia earlier in life. By identifying biological markers of brain aging, scientists hope to create better tools for early diagnosis and treatment.</p>
<p>“Nearly a quarter of World Trade Center responders continue to experience chronic PTSD more than two decades after 9/11, yet we still lack clear biological markers that capture its long-term impact on the brain,” said study author Azzurra Invernizzi of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.</p>
<p>“Previous MRI studies showed structural and functional brain differences in responders with PTSD, but these findings were often region-specific and difficult to translate into an overall picture of brain health. We wanted to address this gap by asking whether PTSD is associated with <em>accelerated brain aging</em> — a single, intuitive metric that reflects cumulative brain<br>
changes and may help explain long-term cognitive and health risks in this population.”</p>
<p>The research team recruited 99 World Trade Center responders to participate in the study. This group included 47 individuals diagnosed with PTSD and 52 individuals with no history of the disorder. The participants were matched based on key demographics such as age, sex, and occupation to ensure a fair comparison. The average age of the participants was approximately 55 years.</p>
<p>Each participant underwent a high-resolution structural magnetic resonance imaging scan. The researchers then employed a specialized artificial intelligence tool called BrainAgeNeXt to analyze these scans. This tool uses a form of deep learning called a convolutional neural network. The model estimates a person’s “brain age” based on anatomical features captured in the MRI data.</p>
<p>The model was previously trained on over 11,000 MRI scans from healthy individuals to learn what a brain typically looks like at different stages of life. This training allows the software to bypass manual measurements and identify complex patterns across the entire brain volume. The team calculated a metric known as the Brain Age Difference for each responder.</p>
<p>This number represents the gap between the age predicted by the MRI scan and the person’s actual chronological age. A positive number indicates the brain appears older than expected. A negative number suggests it appears younger or consistent with healthy aging. The researchers used this metric to compare the two groups of responders.</p>
<p>“Brain age is a summary measure, not a diagnosis, but even modest shifts are meaningful because they reflect widespread changes across the brain rather than isolated regions,” Invernizzi explained. “Accelerated brain aging has been linked in other studies to cognitive decline and increased risk for age-related neurological conditions.”</p>
<p>The analysis revealed a significant distinction between the groups. Responders diagnosed with PTSD showed an average Brain Age Difference of approximately 3.07 years. In contrast, responders without the disorder showed an average difference of negative 0.43 years. This indicates that the brains of those with the condition showed structural signs associated with advanced age compared to their trauma-exposed peers.</p>
<p>“One striking aspect was how clearly PTSD status alone distinguished brain aging trajectories, even among individuals with shared exposures and similar demographic characteristics,” Invernizzi told PsyPost. “This suggests that PTSD itself may play a central role in shaping long-term brain outcomes, beyond general stress or aging effects.”</p>
<p>Further examination linked these higher brain age estimates to specific anatomical changes. The researchers observed associations between increased brain age and larger volumes of cerebrospinal fluid and ventricular spaces. These patterns typically signify a loss of brain tissue or atrophy. In the PTSD group specifically, a smaller thalamus was associated with an older-appearing brain. The thalamus is a region involved in sensory processing and fear regulation.</p>
<p>The study also assessed the duration of time responders spent working at the World Trade Center site. The data indicated that the length of exposure moderated the relationship between the disorder and brain age. Responders with PTSD who spent more time working at the disaster site tended to show greater increases in estimated brain age.</p>
<p>This interaction suggests that the combination of the psychological condition and prolonged exposure to the environmental stressors of the site may compound the effects on brain structure. Responders faced both psychological trauma and exposure to particulate matter and toxins during the recovery efforts. The study implies these factors might work synergistically to accelerate aging processes.</p>
<p>“The key takeaway is that PTSD is not only a psychological condition—it is associated with measurable, long-lasting changes in the brain,” Invernizzi said. “In responders exposed to the extreme trauma of 9/11, PTSD was linked to a brain that appears ‘older’ than expected for a person’s chronological age. This underscores the importance of recognizing PTSD as a condition with real biological consequences and reinforces the need for long-term monitoring and support for affected individuals.”</p>
<p>While the findings provide insight into the biological footprint of PTSD, there are limitations to consider. The study utilized a cross-sectional design. This means the data was collected at a single point in time. This structure prevents researchers from proving that the disorder caused the accelerated aging. It remains possible that pre-existing brain differences made some individuals more susceptible to developing the condition.</p>
<p>“It’s important to note that an ‘older-appearing’ brain does not mean inevitable cognitive decline or neurodegenerative disease,” Invernizzi noted. “Brain age is a statistical biomarker, not a clinical diagnosis. Additionally, while our findings show a strong association between PTSD and accelerated brain aging, they do not prove causality.”</p>
<p>Future research efforts will likely focus on longitudinal studies that track participants over many years. Monitoring how these brain age markers change over time could help clarify the direction of the relationship between trauma and aging. Scientists also aim to investigate whether specific treatments or lifestyle interventions might slow or reverse these patterns. </p>
<p>“Our next steps include examining how brain aging relates to cognitive performance, physical health, and functional outcomes over time, as well as identifying factors—such as treatment, resilience, or lifestyle—that may slow or reverse accelerated brain aging in PTSD,” Invernizzi told PsyPost. “Ultimately, we hope this work will inform targeted interventions and improve long-term care for trauma exposed populations.”</p>
<p>“This study also highlights the potential of advanced AI-based neuroimaging tools to capture complex brain changes in real-world clinical populations. By using a data-driven approach trained on thousands of brain scans, we can move closer to objective, scalable biomarkers that complement traditional clinical assessments and help bridge neuroscience and public health.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-025-03769-7" target="_blank">MRI signature of brain age underlying post-traumatic stress disorder in World Trade Center responders</a>,” was authored by Azzurra Invernizzi, Francesco La Rosa, Anna Sather, Elza Rechtman, Ismail Nabeel, R. Sean Morrison, Alison C. Pellecchia, Stephanie Santiago-Michels, Evelyn J. Bromet, Roberto G. Lucchini, Benjamin J. Luft, Sean A. Clouston, Erin S. Beck, Cheuk Y. Tang, and Megan K. Horton.</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/this-behavior-explains-why-emotionally-intelligent-couples-are-happier/" 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;">This behavior explains why emotionally intelligent couples are happier</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 6th 2026, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research suggests that emotional intelligence improves romantic relationships primarily through a single, specific behavior: making a partner feel valued and appreciated. While emotionally intelligent people employ various strategies to manage their partners’ feelings, the act of valuing stands out as the most consistent driver of relationship quality. This finding implies that the key to a happier partnership may be as simple as regularly expressing that one’s partner is special. The study appears in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251399696" target="_blank">Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</a></em>.</p>
<p>Emotional intelligence is broadly defined as the ability to perceive, understand, and manage emotions. Psychologists have recognized a connection between this skill set and successful romances. People with higher emotional intelligence generally report higher satisfaction with their partners. Despite this established link, the specific mechanisms explaining why these individuals have better relationships have remained unclear.</p>
<p>One theory proposes that the answer lies in how people regulate emotions. This concept encompasses not only how individuals manage their own feelings but also how they influence the feelings of those around them. This latter process is known as extrinsic emotion regulation. In a romantic partnership, this often involves one person trying to cheer up, calm down, or validate the other.</p>
<p>To investigate this theory, a research team led by Hester He Xiao from the University of Sydney in Australia conducted a detailed study. They aimed to identify which specific regulatory behaviors bridge the gap between emotional intelligence and relationship satisfaction. The researchers sought to understand if emotionally intelligent people are simply better at helping their partners navigate difficult feelings.</p>
<p>The study included 175 heterosexual couples, comprising 350 individuals in total. The participants were recruited online and ranged in age from their early 20s to their 80s. The researchers designed a longitudinal study that spanned 14 weeks. This design allowed them to track changes and associations over time rather than just capturing a single snapshot.</p>
<p>Participants completed surveys in three separate waves. In the first wave, they assessed their own emotional intelligence levels. They answered questions about their ability to appraise and use emotions. In the second wave, they reported on the specific strategies they used to make their partners feel better. The researchers focused on three “high-engagement” strategies: cognitive reframing, receptive listening, and valuing.</p>
<p>Cognitive reframing involves helping a partner view a situation from a new, more positive perspective. Receptive listening entails encouraging a partner to vent their emotions while paying close attention to what they say. Valuing consists of actions that make the partner feel special, important, and appreciated. In the final wave, participants rated the overall quality of their relationship, considering factors like trust, closeness, and conflict levels.</p>
<p>The researchers used a statistical approach called the Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model. This method treats the couple as a unit. It allows scientists to see how one person’s emotional intelligence affects their own happiness, known as an actor effect. It also reveals how that same person’s intelligence affects their partner’s happiness, known as a partner effect.</p>
<p>The analysis revealed that valuing was the primary mediator for both men and women. Individuals with higher emotional intelligence were more likely to use valuing strategies. In turn, frequent use of valuing was associated with higher relationship quality for both members of the couple. This means that when a person feels their partner values them, the relationship improves. Simultaneously, the person doing the valuing also perceives the relationship as better.</p>
<p>This finding was unique because it applied consistently across genders. Whether the high-emotional-intelligence partner was male or female, the pathway was the same. They used their emotional skills to convey appreciation. This action created a positive feedback loop that boosted satisfaction for everyone involved.</p>
<p>The other two strategies showed less consistent results. Cognitive reframing and receptive listening did play roles, but they functioned differently for men and women. For example, men with higher emotional intelligence were more likely to use receptive listening. When men listened attentively, their female partners reported better relationship quality. However, the men themselves did not report a corresponding increase in their own relationship satisfaction from this behavior.</p>
<p>Women’s use of receptive listening showed a different pattern. When women listened attentively, it was linked to better relationship quality for both themselves and their male partners. This suggests a gender difference in how listening is experienced. For women, engaging deeply with a partner’s emotions appears to be mutually rewarding. For men, it primarily benefits the partner.</p>
<p>Cognitive reframing also displayed gendered nuances. Men’s use of reframing—helping a partner see the bright side—predicted higher relationship quality for their female partners. Women’s use of reframing did not show this same strong association in the primary analysis. These variations highlight that while valuing is universally beneficial, other support strategies may depend on who is using them.</p>
<p>The researchers also looked at whether these behaviors predicted changes in relationship quality over time. They ran an analysis controlling for the couples’ initial satisfaction levels. In this stricter test, the mediation effect of valuing disappeared. This result indicates that while emotional intelligence and valuing are linked to high relationship quality in the present, they may not drive long-term improvements.</p>
<p>This distinction is important for understanding the limits of the findings. The behaviors seem to maintain a good relationship rather than transforming a bad one. High emotional intelligence helps sustain a high level of functioning. It does not necessarily predict that a relationship will grow happier over the 14-week period if it starts at a certain baseline.</p>
<p>There was one unexpected finding in the change-over-time analysis. Men’s emotional intelligence was associated with a decrease in their female partners’ relationship quality relative to the baseline. This hints at a potential “dark side” to emotional intelligence. It is possible that some individuals use their emotional skills for manipulation or self-serving goals, though this interpretation requires further study.</p>
<p>The study had several limitations that affect how the results should be viewed. The sample consisted primarily of White, English-speaking participants from Western countries. Cultural differences in how emotions are expressed and regulated could lead to different results in other populations. Additionally, the study relied on self-reports for all measures. Participants described their own behaviors, which can introduce bias.</p>
<p>People often perceive their own actions differently than their partners do. A person might believe they are listening attentively, while their partner feels ignored. Future research would benefit from asking partners to rate each other’s regulation strategies. This would provide a more objective measure of how well these strategies are actually performed.</p>
<p>The timing of the data collection is another factor to consider. The study took place between August and October 2021. This was a period when many people were still adjusting to life after the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The unique stressors of that time may have influenced how couples relied on each other for emotional support.</p>
<p>Future research should also explore the context in which these strategies are used. The current study asked about general attempts to make a partner feel better. It did not distinguish between low-stakes situations and high-conflict arguments. It is possible that cognitive reframing or listening becomes more or less effective depending on the intensity of the distress.</p>
<p>Despite these caveats, the core message offers practical insight. While complex psychological skills help, the most effective behavior is relatively straightforward. Making a partner feel valued acts as a powerful buffer. It connects emotional ability to tangible relationship success. For couples, focusing on simple expressions of appreciation may be the most efficient way to utilize emotional intelligence.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251399696" target="_blank">Valuing your partner more: Linking emotional intelligence to better relationship quality</a>,” was authored by Hester He Xiao, Kit S. Double, Rebecca T. Pinkus, and Carolyn MacCann.</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>