More Transitions

Quixit, Inc., the company I started in 2005 to distribute scientifically based casual online games that focus on specific cognitive skills, such as attention and memory, was acquired yesterday by SBT, a French firm based in Lyon, France. As of today, I will no longer be affiliated with the new company, now called HappyNeuron, Inc. In my roles as CEO of neuroscience technology companies, Quixit and previously Scientific Learning Corporation, I have enjoyed getting to know the scientists, researchers, journalists, publishers, and many others so keenly interested in trying to figure out how to add to our knowledge base about healthy lifestyle choices, the impact of nutrition and exercise on brain health, and the major effects of mental stimulation in keeping our minds healthy and agile. So much is known yet so little has made its way to most people. And there is so much work that needs to be done. I look forward to the now-frequent research reports coming out almost on a weekly basis from respected research institutions on these topics and applaud those in the trenches working to prevent and treat diseases of the mind.

I continue to be curious about and interested in brain fitness and how we all can lower the probabilities of age-related cognitive decline, especially Alzheimer's and other kinds of dementia. I've seen first-hand how devastating the effects can be on the patient, family, and friends. The good news? We can all hope and expect that we will see great strides in our lifetimes in what we know about these horrific diseases of the mind.

Change typically forces new learning and is an excellent way to keep our brains in shape. So change is in the air for me and I welcome this opportunity to move into something new and different.

Evening: Conflict, Regret, Resolution, Peace

I have recently gone through losing my mother first to dementia and then to death. I of course felt that my experiences were unique. And probably universal, although knowing how exactly is a little difficult. The movie, Evening, proves that lots of other people have probably lived through similar situations. The fights between siblings (just too much tension builds up). The last gasp of incredible focus and energy that comes from saying good-bye. The memories that both warm and invade almost every moment. The tears. The regrets. The guilt. The love. The amazing ability of the mind to worry about mistakes and to grasp redemption and resolution and come to peace.

I was lucky enough to see an early preview of Evening at the beautiful, restored art deco theater, the Smith Rafael Center in San Rafael, California, also the home of the California Film Institute, sponsor of the Mill Valley Film Festival. The cast of this film is truly amazing: Vanessa Redgrave and her daughter, Natasha Richardson, Meryl Street and her daughter, Mamie Gummer; Glenn Close, Claire Danes, Eileen Atkins, Patrick Wilson, and Hugh Dancy. Just to see all these incredible actors in one film was a wonderful experience.

The director, Lajos Koltai (formerly a cinematographer of films such as Being Julia) and one of the writers, Michael Cunningham, Pulitzer Prize winner for his novel, The Hours, were on hand for Q&A after the film. The film was inspired by Susan Minot's beloved novel.

Asked if the film is a "chick flick," both Cunningham and Koltai said, emphatically, "No!" I agree. It explores universal conflicts that come up between parents and children, between siblings, and between memories, yearnings, and a desire to feel that we've lived every moment to its fullest and made the best decisions that we could have made, that we loved well and lived well.

A lovely film. It will be coming out in theaters on June 29. Try to see it.

In Search of Memory

In Search of Memory, the Emergence of a New Science of Mind, by Eric R. Kandel, is not what I had in mind for summer reading. I was looking for a mystery when I wandered over to the nonfiction area of my little neighborhood bookstore. Kandel's book looked interesting, was highly portable in paperback, and a possible choice for my upcoming plane trip. I knew Eric Kandel was at Columbia and was a Nobel Prize winner for his work on the mind but that was about it.

I read a few pages, overcame my belief that this one could likely be dry as dust and bought it. It turns out that Mr. Kandel is quite a writer in addition to being a great scientist. He pulled me in immediately with his descriptions of his early life in Vienna and I never got out again. From there, I was whisked into his love affair with medicine and science and the mind, not to mention real people, like his wife and children. He intertwined his love of art, music, fine wines, and good friends with his fascination with the behavior of the aplysia's cells and the biology of memory. He also managed to sneak in a chronology of scientific research on cognition and the mind from its early beginnings until today and in an understandable, extremely interesting way.

He included a poem, written by his young daughter, titled (of course) "The Aplisa." "An aplisa is like a squishy snail. In rain in snow in sleet in hail. When it is angry, it shoots out ink. The ink is purple, not pink. An aplisa cannot live onland. It doesn't have feet so it can't stand. It has a very funny mouth, And in winter it goes to the south." Kandel was clearly obsessed and his family knew it. The rest of us on the planet should be thankful for his compulsive curiosity about what was happening in the cells of the aplysia. We are also fortunate that a number of other creative scientists were beginning to think about the mind differently than in the past at around the same time so they could build on each others' work. They were beginning to realize that so many of the mind's functions are controlled by the biology of the cell. Amazing that understanding the chemical reactions in the cells of one of earth's smallest organisms has enabled gigantic progress in our understanding of what we like to think is one of the most complicated organs on earth, the human brain.

For a magnificent review, please take a look at the Neurophilosophy blog. Better yet, read the book. A great story. A wonderful life.

Happiness Is All in Our Brains

I've been fascinated by the recent research findings on happiness. As in so many other areas of neuroscience, scientists have assumed that our happiness quotient is hard-wired in our brains. We humans are sort of stuck with a glass that's either half-full or half-empty. Period. And for some people, there's nothing in the glass. We have a "happiness setting." And guess what? Just as researchers have found that our brains are plastic and capable of change in so many other areas--it's beginning to look like we can change our happiness settings, too--short-term and long-term.

For many years, the emphasis has been on finding a pill that will lift depression. Although many people have been helped enormously by these pharmacological palliatives, many others have not been helped or have had serious side-effects and complications from the drugs. Finally, neuropsychologists and neuroscientists are asking the other side of the question: what makes us happy? how can we feel happier? are there simple ways to lift our spirits to chronic happiness? optimism, even? And do we even need to discuss how critical these feelings are to our quality of life at every age?

The holidays are an especially good time to release the findings of these studies, given that so many people feel particularly lonely and depressed during this time of year.

OK, so what can we do? As psychologist Ed Diener of the University of Illinois says, "Set-point is not destiny." Promising methods coming out of the research include (l) focusing on "signature" strengths (through a questionnaire) and then using those strengths to choose more satisfying daily activities; and (2) thinking of three good things that happen each day just before going to sleep. According to Sonja Lyubomirsky from the University of California, Riverside, these two exercises made a significant difference in people's happiness when they regularly and consistently used them. Of course, as the pu-pu platter of happiness exercises that are proven to work increases, we will each need to experiment to find our own best method.

In other research on happiness, several researchers have been looking at the link between money and happiness. Most people seem to believe that money buys happiness. In fact, folks who move from abject poverty to a more comfortable relationship with money do become measurably happier. But as we move up the wealth scale, it appears that money becomes less and less important to our overall happiness. Makes sense.

I think Diener has it right when he points out that happiness is really all about "process and striving." What he didn't say, in my mind, is more important: happiness is all about feeling purpose in life.

Obnoxious and Cranky? You're Very Intelligent! (If You're 60+)

So the real question is: do our personalities change as we get older? Jacqueline Bichsel and colleagues at Morgan State College in Baltimore say yes. Younger intelligent people explore adventurous avenues to learn new and different things. Older people, according to Bichsel's study, just get cranky. Or maybe impatient. Or maybe really irritated. Maybe when a patronizing person calls a 60+ year-old professional woman "young lady" or raises the voice volume to ear-piercing levels, speaking slowly, as to a child. Maybe then, an intelligent 60+ person may come up with a few choice words, articulate, to the point, OK--cranky! And maybe really intelligent people just have infinitely more word choices available to them to show their displeasure.

I found Mary Blair Immel's "My Turn" in the July 31 Newsweek great for summing up the likely feelings of so many really intelligent people as they get older. Take a look at "I'm Old--And I'm Just Fine With That." The sub-title is even better: "Think I need to hear platitudes and "compliments" to feel good about myself. Think again."

Suppose we could have a study on exactly what incites this crankiness in the 60+ crowd? Which personality traits would those be?

technorati: brain, mind, aging, Boomers

How to Get Really Good at Anything

It turns out all our teachers and coaches were right: experts in just about any field are made not born. The people who practice the most learn the most, according to a large amount of psychological evidence gathered together in Phillip E. Ross' "The Expert Mind," published in the August 2006 Scientific American.

But how do they do it? I've always joked that intuition is "compressed experience." I may be right. Some of the key questions involving "expert" minds have revolved around how information is stored in our brains and then retrieved. Those who work hard at becoming experts in a particular area see similar situations come up again and again, whether in chess, music, or I suppose, surgery. The brain begins to chunk the information and build templates to use later, if a similar situation arises again. When it does, our brains fall back on the templates but quickly, using short-term memory, customize our actions--and the template-- by making small changes where needed. This skill enables experts to quickly make correct decisions about chess moves, for example. And a pro tennis player's mind is likely to use the same mechanisms, when she anticipates where a ball may hit and is there ready for it. Ross notes that this "knowledge-guided perception" enables true experts to correctly guess what is likely to happens next and prepare for it. And these mental templates are built through repetition and experience, in other words: time put in on the task, enabling us to store information in long-term memory and customize it when we retreive it.

As Ross points out, there are many more experts and prodigies in many fields today than there were formerly, in great part due to using computers that provide many times more "experience" than humans can. Of course, intense motivation and the ability to focus deeply and immediately are also traits that experts have in common.

Ross leaves us with a compelling question: Instead of asking, "Why can't Johnny read?" we should be asking, "Why should there be anything in the world he can't learn to do?" And I would add: at any age.


technorati: brain, mind,education, memory

Researchers Devise Test to Predict Dementia Risk

Today a team from the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Finland published findings in the scientific journal, Lancet Neurology, which reinforces numerous other studies looking at parts of the Alzheimer's puzzle. After following more than 1400 people for 20 years, the team concluded that multiple lifestyle issues dramatically affect brain power over the years. Poor management of these factors can increase the probabilities of dementia. Or put in a more positive light, paying attention to these lifestyle choices can increase the probability of remaining mentally sharp and agile throughout life. The factors examined include an emphasis on learning from the get-go and throughout life, low blood pressure, low cholesterol, and staying away from the obese zone. Yep, "use it or lose it" is about to become even more of a Boomer mantra.

Regular physical exercise, stress management, good nutrition, social interactions with friends and family, and yes, brain exercise are all part of the prevention picture. There is currently no cure for Alzheimer's or dementia. Using these findings, the team has come up with a simple test to gauge a particular person's probabilities of remaining healthy or succumbing to Alzheimer's or vascular dementia. And the test will also, no doubt, be a motivational tool for change in many cases. Most of us see a fit brain and healthy mind as the key to quality of life.

The tantalizing tidbit here is that there does appear to be a link between heart disease and dementia. It is so interesting that the same lifestyle considerations factor so hugely in both.

Great to have a study that puts it all together!

technorati: brain, mind, health and wellness, Boomers

Lonely?

Researchers tell us that we Americans have fewer close confidants than ever before. A few years ago, the average was three and this year it's down to two people that qualify for important discussions. And the percentage of people who put one non-relative in this group went down fairly precipitously, from 80% to 57%, implying that we don't have time to make friends or we don't go outside our own families or our definition of friendship may have shifted.

On the other hand, we've just found out from the Pew Research folks that there are now 12 million people blogging, with males and females taking to this new communication form almost equally. Even more interesting, 57 million people are reading blogs regularly. And the majority of the blogs have to do with the experience of just living life, in spite of the high profile ones on politics and tech. Sounds like people are discussing important things.

And blogs, people talking about what's important to them, are definitely a huge way to get the word out--about almost anything, according to Steve Rubel, among others.

Does anyone have any idea how many emails a day there are or in a month or a year? Don't some percentage of those count as important discussions? Ironic that high tech has pushed us into what had become an outmoded way of expressing ourselves just a few years ago--writing. As some fabulous letter-writers of centuries past knew, far more depth and intimacy can often be expressed in writing than in face-to-face conversations. And, bonus for our minds, thoughtful writing usually takes good thinking.

technorati: blog mind

WordPlay: the Movie

I found WordPlay just plain fun, very much like the NY Times crossword puzzles that are the center of attraction here. The movie was short, crisp, amusing, and interesting. The clips of President Clinton, the Indigo Girls, and Jon Stewart, among others, added texture.

I also know the thinking by researchers on crossword puzzles. There's been a huge surge in interest in them in part because people think they help keep the brain fit. But many scientists have looked at crossword puzzles over time and come to the conclusion that the cognitive skills needed are so one-dimensional that the brain is really not worked very much at all. But there have been some studies in which crossword puzzles did increase the probabilities of keeping sharp throughout life by 41% compared to reading at 35%, and dancing and interactive games from 69-76%, if participation was at least four times/week. In other words, the more we spend time on mentally stimulating tasks, the greater the probability that our brains will continue to be quick and agile. Scientists have dismissed crossword puzzles in the past because they are typically just memory coding exercises that don't translate to much else. Once the player knows the author's style, it's an even smaller memory finding subset.

But the NY Times puzzles have got to be different, especially Saturday's and Sunday's. I note that the study cited above was in the NYC area. Maybe those study participants---oh, well, you know where I'm going with this. But, really, these puzzles require deductive thinking, grasping an overall theme, and , OK, yes, calling up puzzle memory but also large doses of general cultural knowledge memory not to mention good visual scanning skills. Typically, exercises that use multiple cognitive skills at once are the ones that make a difference in brain fitness. I think the NY Times puzzles qualify.

But mostly, they're fun. And we all know less stress is good for every part of us, including our brains.

mind
health and wellness

Why Speak?

Back in the 70s when I was in graduate school studying linguistics, I thought Chomsky had it all wrong. He emphasized the uniqueness of human language and the deep structure of grammar and syntax programmed into our brains. He calculated that this structure wafts up to our mind's surface to become language, innate only to us humans. He hypothesized this predisposition to innate structure as the driving force behind expression.

I studied linguistics, the science of language, in graduate school not long after I returned from a stint in the Peace Corps in Africa where I had to learn new languages--French and Arabic-- to communicate enough to live on a daily basis, buying food, finding transportation and housing, and dealing with the other critical basics of life. I was forced into situations that were so different from where I grew up in rural Georgia that everyday made me wonder about and examine the links between culture and language, religion, food, among many other topics. Which comes first--the cultural meaning or the language. how do they shape each other, how can the syntax of languages be so different and so conceptually the same, why do the people of the world speak so many different languages, what really makes us want to communicate? Is it really possible, as Chomsky said, that syntax and grammar programmed into our brains make us want to speak? I didn't think so then and I don't now. I was motivated to learn to speak in a strange, new situation and language because I wanted to fit into the social fabric of my town. I wanted people to think I had a brain--communicating does that for us--and that I could live independently and responsibly.

It occured to me that we are all driven by intent--don't we just need to get things done? I know that was a big motivation for me. I just needed to buy food or get my hair cut or pay the water bill. And knowing the language made it all much easier and more efficient. And I got the respect of others in the process. Few others spoke English then so being mute or considered stupid was not an option I liked.

So when I heard a recent NPR piece on the research advances made in working with apes, it rang a bell in my memory. Researchers at the Great Ape Trust near Des Moines, Iowa, have observed that apes can learn to understand oral language and express themselves, if given tools that are suitable to them. Furthermore, they make the effort because they need to be understood. In other words, they want something and the easiest and most efficient way to get it is to use language. They also want to be part of the human social network, since there aren't many apes in Iowa. From this work, it's beginning to look like meaning and intent drive language acquisition and use. Grammar and syntax may just be part of our capacity for fluid intelligence, logic we need to make the rules of language so that everyone uses those rules and the social network wheels are greased. It seems logical. If this latest research is correct, then meaning may be the driver of the whole communication thing. We communicate because we need to. I like it. Makes sense to me.

language
mind