February 11, 2012 - Wall Street Journal Online

Neuroscience is in the process of reinventing itself. For 400 years, the brain was seen as a machine with parts, each performing a single mental function in a single brain location. Eventually the brain was seen as a computer with hard-wired circuits, all [...]]]> By Dr. Norman Doidge

February 11, 2012 - Wall Street Journal Online

Neuroscience is in the process of reinventing itself. For 400 years, the brain was seen as a machine with parts, each performing a single mental function in a single brain location. Eventually the brain was seen as a computer with hard-wired circuits, all formed and finalized in childhood. It was believed that the brain’s circuitry was only alterable in certain “critical periods,” or brief windows of extreme plasticity; these were thought to occur in childhood, when experience helped to form the brain’s circuitry. The conventional wisdom was that certain skills must be learned early on; it was generally “too late” for adults to pick up a new language or musical skill. Plasticity was for kids.

But in the past few decades mainstream neuroscience has reversed itself, demonstrating that the brain is “neuroplastic” from cradle to grave. Neuroplasticity is the property of the brain that allows it to change its structure and function through mental experience. This discovery has led to new treatments for learning disabilities and for strokes (so that adults can at times, through brain exercises, develop new circuitry and cure themselves). A host of neurological and psychiatric problems and injuries can now be addressed through mind-based interventions.

The question thus inevitably arises: What ambitious kinds of learning might we, as adults, undertake? Is the brain plastic enough, say, for a 39-year-old adult without any apparent musical skill to learn an instrument and become a musician? In “Guitar Zero,” the cognitive psychologist Gary Marcus sets out to answer this question by using himself as a guinea pig.

Marcus tells us that, since childhood, he had yearned to be musical and play the electric guitar but had concluded that he lacked the talent (hence, “Guitar Zero”). His friend Daniel Levitin, an accomplished musician, neuroscientist and the author of “This Is Your Brain on Music,” tried to give Mr. Marcus a few guitar lessons and joked that he suffered from “congenital arrhythmia.” But one day, fiddling with the videogame Guitar Hero, which gives a player the illusion of playing guitar licks by pressing the right button at the right moment, Mr. Marcus was so enthralled that he decided to spend his coming sabbatical trying to learn to play guitar—in effect, testing whether his brain was plastic enough to do so. This book recounts the 18-month experience, practicing up to six hours a day. “Guitar Zero” is a refreshing alternation between the nitty-gritty details of learning rock-guitar licks and Mr. Marcus’s survey of the relevant scientific literature on learning and the brain.

The conditions for plastic change are altered after the critical period. Babies in a critical period for language development can learn words effortlessly, for example: As I like to put it, babies don’t furrow their brows to pick up new words as adults do when cramming for a vocabulary test. After the critical period, deliberate mental effort and focus alter the brain’s circuitry and grow new connections.

Brain scans show that musicians’ new neuronal connections vary according to the instrument they play. Violinists have their signature brain changes, brass players theirs. Loving what we do helps to form these new connections, because the same dopamine chemistry that gives us the pleasurable rush of reward consolidates new brain connections.

Immersion fosters learning after the critical period, not only because it enforces more practice time. Adults have more difficulty learning than children in part because they have built up so many language habits that they have to overcome. This too is a product of brain plasticity: The circuits we use the most get stronger and “outcompete” others. Immersion prevents us from reinforcing those habits.

I knew an intelligence officer who had failed to learn languages repeatedly until he was appointed head of the CIA’s Latin American desk. Now his problem was serious. He moved abroad, lived with a Spanish family that couldn’t speak any English, and became fluent in months. Mr. Marcus’s immersion included not just playing but learning music theory and conducting interviews with musicians. Guitarist Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine), we learn, didn’t start playing until he was 17, but he practiced six hours a day for four years while a doing an undergraduate degree at Harvard. He missed only three days, for a total of 8,760 hours.

“Guitar Zero” makes some delightful counterintuitive fine points. Kids are not quicker learners; but they are more persistent. Kids will practice riffs over and over, just as they will play a new videogame ad nauseam. In the end, Mr. Marcus does not become the next Jimi Hendrix, but he can play guitar, perform in a band and write songs, and he has overcome his supposedly hard-wired “congenital” arrhythmia.

Most important, his life has been significantly changed; it is more balanced, its joy enhanced by his becoming musical. Few people can imagine taking off 18 months to change themselves in such a way, but then few know it is possible. For those who look forward, in “retirement,” to honoring the lifelong yearnings they have neglected, “Guitar Zero” is good news. Neuroplastic discoveries about adult development are a good reason for the word “retirement” to itself be retired. We may be happiest if we work our brains as hard as ever—doing something we love.

Wall Street Journal Online – Researchers for the first time are documenting the basic wiring of the brain, the complex relationships among billions of neurons that are responsible for reason, memory and emotion. The work eventually could lead to better understanding of schizophrenia, autism, multiple sclerosis and other disorders.

New [...]]]> By Robert Lee Hotz

Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Randy Buckner, PhD and the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging. www.humanconnectomeproject.org

Wall Street Journal Online – Researchers for the first time are documenting the basic wiring of the brain, the complex relationships among billions of neurons that are responsible for reason, memory and emotion. The work eventually could lead to better understanding of schizophrenia, autism, multiple sclerosis and other disorders.

For years, researchers have probed the brain with imaging techniques that can pick up simple changes in neural activity, but the fundamental anatomy of thought has eluded detection. No one knows yet exactly how the brain stores information or shapes human nature.

Researchers do believe, however, that all cognition emerges from the interplay of electrochemical impulses along the brain’s circuitry, which can call a word to mind, apply the rules of grammar and voice it aloud in 600 milliseconds.

So as a foundation upon which to build future understanding, researchers at the Human Connectome Project, the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle and other centers are beginning to chart the brain’s major circuits.

In recent months, these research teams have devised ways to make magnetic-resonance brain scans seven times more quickly and analyze neural connections 50 times faster than a year ago. And they have invented two techniques to better reveal the brain’s connections.

Researchers are also assembling databases linking brain scans, medical data, psychological profiles and genetic information from several thousand people, to try to understand how this labyrinth of links shapes the mind.

The hope is that a map of the brain’s physical wiring eventually will lead to answers about what causes mental conditions such as schizophrenia, which may be linked to the breakdown of neural connections. And as with the Human Genome Project that mapped the human genetic code, the researchers aim to make their findings about neural connections available for others to study.

“The study of connectivity is as hot as hot can get,” said Susan Bookheimer, a neuropsychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who is the new head of the Organization of Human Brain Mapping, a large international professional society of neuroimaging researchers.

Among the most complex structures in the universe, the average brain contains about 100 billion specialized cells called neurons—as many cells as stars in the Milky Way— linked by 150 trillion or so connections known as synapses. By current means, it could take researchers years to trace the 10,000 or so synapses that branch from just a single neuron. By comparison, the scientists who sequenced the first human genome had to map only three billion base-pair sequences of DNA.

“That is a million times more connections than the genome has letters of DNA,” said computational neuroscientist Sebastian Seung at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is developing ways to automate the mapping of individual synapses.

The field is so new that it didn’t have a name until 1995, when Indiana University neuroscientist Olaf Sporns dubbed the nervous system’s tangle of cells and synapses the “connectome” (pronounced connect-tome).

Leading the way today is the Human Connectome Project, a five-year, $40 million effort funded by the National Institutes of Health. Researchers at 11 institutions are mapping the largest conduits among brain regions by combining four imaging techniques, including a new method called diffusion magnetic-resonance imaging that allows researchers for the first time to accurately map the white matter of nerve fibers.

Starting this summer, Human Connectome Project researchers will begin scanning the brains of 1,200 healthy young adults. The subjects will include 300 pairs of twins, whose brains may help highlight the hereditary influence on neural connections.

The scientists plan to combine those brain scans with medical records and demographic information in electronic dossiers that can be analyzed on the project’s supercomputer. By pooling data about so many people, they hope to detect the relationships among patterns of neural connections, healthy brain behavior and neural disorders. They also hope to map variations between individuals and link them to behaviors to better understand what makes each person unique. “In essence, we will match form and function,” said project principle investigator David Van Essen at Washington University in St. Louis.

Already, researchers are finding hints that the brain’s electrical signals are relayed through a series of central hubs on their way to more-specialized regions, in a system organized like an airline’s routes.

At the same time, researchers at the privately funded Allen Institute for Brain Science are finishing a $55 million human brain atlas that offers the first interactive guide to the brain’s anatomy and genes. In November, the institute released a three-dimensional, high-resolution map of neural connections in the mouse brain.

“We want to understand the ties between the wiring and the underlying genes,” said Allan Jones, the institute’s chief executive. The institute plans to link the brain atlas to data assembled through the connectome project.

More broadly, these efforts are encouraging brain researchers to share data more openly.

At the Child Mind Institute in New York, Michael Milham and his colleagues recently persuaded researchers at 33 centers around the world to pool 1,300 data sets on brain connections into one public collection. Almost immediately, researchers discovered something new: the first signs of a universal architecture of brain connections underlying most day-to-day neural activity.

To link these physical circuits to behavior, Dr. Milham and colleagues next month will begin conducting brain scans and psychiatric tests on 1,000 people in a four-year, $1.6-million NIH project. “People are seeing more of the merits of sharing,” he said. “But there is still a lot of pushback.”

Source Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203750404577175331430981986.html?

November 14, 2011 – The Wall Street Journal 

A brain area that helps orchestrate mental activity works overtime in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, reflecting the internal struggle to hold more than one thing in mind at a time, neuroscientists reported Sunday.

The scientists used a functional magnetic imaging scanner [...]]]> by Robert Lee Hotz

November 14, 2011 – The Wall Street Journal 

A brain area that helps orchestrate mental activity works overtime in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, reflecting the internal struggle to hold more than one thing in mind at a time, neuroscientists reported Sunday.

The scientists used a functional magnetic imaging scanner to track signs of neural activity among 19 affected children and 23 other children who were asked to remember a simple sequence of letters. The scientists discovered that a critical mental control area, called the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, worked much harder and, perhaps, less efficiently among children with attention problems.

This fundamental difference in brain function might be an underlying cause of the inattentiveness, impulsivity and focus problems that make it hard for ADHD children to concentrate in the classroom, the scientists said during an annual gathering of 31,000 brain researchers in Washington, D.C.

“Our findings suggest that the function as well as the structure of this brain area is different in children with ADHD,” said Wayne State University biologist Tudor Puiu, who reported the team’s findings Sunday at a conference held by the Society for Neuroscience. “It might explain the cognitive problems we see in the classroom.”

All told, about two million U.S. children have been diagnosed with attention problems. No one yet understands the basic neurobiology responsible for the mental ailment, which has grown more common since 2003, according to a survey by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration.

The portion of those with the most severe symptoms who are treated with prescription stimulants, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine (Adderall), also has continued to rise, the National Institutes of Health reported in September.

The finding reported Sunday adds to growing biomedical evidence that those diagnosed with the attention disorder—arguably the most common childhood behavioral issue—have unusual patterns of brain function that can persist well into adulthood.

Overall, the brain of an ADHD child matures normally, but it may take up to three years longer to fully develop, especially in areas at the front of the brain’s cortex, an outer layer of tissue important in controlling attention, reasoning and planning.

Researchers have also reported a range of specific anatomical differences among ADHD children that may be linked to behavioral problems. Earlier this month, researchers at New York University’s Langone School of Medicine reported that ADHD children appeared to have a significantly thinner cortex and less gray matter than other children in some areas involved in regulating attention and emotion.

In a separate study, other scientists said they had determined that ADHD children have differences in the caudate nucleus, which is involved in learning and memory, compared to other children.

“These networks are disrupted,” said Mr. Puiu. “The ADHD brain has to work harder than the normal brain.”

Source Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190504577036330647583846.html?KEYWORDS=adhd

by Teresa Aubele, Ph.D., and Susan Reynolds

Many are conjecturing that Sunday’s Super Bowl will hinge on Tom Brady’s right arm, but according to his coach, Bill Belichick, Brady’s brain may be the deciding factor. In a CBS News interview, Belichick described [...]]]> February 3, 2012 – Psychology Today

by Teresa Aubele, Ph.D., and Susan Reynolds

Many are conjecturing that Sunday’s Super Bowl will hinge on Tom Brady’s right arm, but according to his coach, Bill Belichick, Brady’s brain may be the deciding factor. In a CBS News interview, Belichick described Brady’s brain as a superstar. “Tom works hard. But he has a great ability to comprehend a lot of different things. Our plays, our adjustments, defensive tendencies, defensive coverages, game situations, down and distance score, wind, field position-all those kinds of things. He’s just able to put that into one computer chip up in his mind and sort it all out,” Belichick said.

Belichick is no slouch when it comes to brainpower either. According to CBS, he is considered one of the best coaches, if not the best, at the game’s chess match. A master at eliminating an opponent’s strength and exploiting their weaknesses, Belichick brings, what CBS describes as a “jeweler’s eye” for detail to the game. Together, Brady and Belichick have won 140 games-more than any other coach-quarterback combination in NFL history.

Super Bowl quarterbacks Tom Brady and Eli Manning (Charles Krupa, AP)

Unfortunately, at least for the Patriots, Eli Manning is also known for having superstar brainpower. When he’s at the top of his game, Manning thinks fast  on his feet, literally picking a defense apart in seconds, and keeps his cool under fire. He also has a reputation for doing his homework and intently studying his opponents.

National Review columnist Neil Minkoff predicts that Tom Brady will lose his focus during the big game, noting that the stakes are very high, i.e., immortality. “The fourth (Super Bowl) ring places him on par with his childhood hero Joe Montana as a champion,” Minkoff wrote. “The rest of his career-the MVPs, the passing records, the 16-0 2007 season-surpasses Montana and Brady becomes the Greatest of All Time.”

Minkoff suggested that this will lead to Brady overthinking the game. “A great athlete displays unconscious competence, which is high performance achieved by reflex without thinking. This is what all of those thousands of hours of practice achieve, moving action from conscious thought to reflex, but outside thoughts disrupt the flow of unconscious muscle memory.” According to Minkoff, Brady may be so focused on his legacy that he loses his automatic reflexes and falls victim to thinking too much.

So what creates a Super Bowl brain?

Both quarterbacks obviously have superior ability to absorb information, process stimuli, and integrate information faster than most of us, and both are skillful at overruling their emotions under the gun.  But while a lot of reporters are trying to pinpoint the mind games that each team will have to master-or overcome-to win the big game, it may all come down to which quarterback has successfully trained his brain to win.

Both Brady and Manning have had the ability to consciously cultivate (by using his mind) which parts of the brain he wished to strengthen, rewire, or even regenerate (see our previous column “Plastic Is Fantastic”). As experienced quarterbacks, each has bolstered neuronal activity in the regions of his brain by employing their minds (and bodies) when repetitively focusing upon game strategy, studying videos of previous games, and repeatedly playing and practicing football. Doing so has sparked neuronal activity and thereby increased neuronal responsiveness to stimuli related to the game…

Check out the rest of the article here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/prime-your-gray-cells/201202/super-bowl-battle-the-quarterback-brains

By Alison Gopnik

“What was he thinking?” It’s the familiar cry of bewildered parents trying to understand why their teenagers act the way they do.

How does the boy who can thoughtfully explain the reasons never to drink and drive end up in a drunken crash? [...]]]> January 28, 2012 – The Wall Street Journal

By Alison Gopnik

“What was he thinking?” It’s the familiar cry of bewildered parents trying to understand why their teenagers act the way they do.

Harry Campbell

How does the boy who can thoughtfully explain the reasons never to drink and drive end up in a drunken crash? Why does the girl who knows all about birth control find herself pregnant by a boy she doesn’t even like? What happened to the gifted, imaginative child who excelled through high school but then dropped out of college, drifted from job to job and now lives in his parents’ basement?

Adolescence has always been troubled, but for reasons that are somewhat mysterious, puberty is now kicking in at an earlier and earlier age. A leading theory points to changes in energy balance as children eat more and move less.

At the same time, first with the industrial revolution and then even more dramatically with the information revolution, children have come to take on adult roles later and later. Five hundred years ago, Shakespeare knew that the emotionally intense combination of teenage sexuality and peer-induced risk could be tragic—witness “Romeo and Juliet.” But, on the other hand, if not for fate, 13-year-old Juliet would have become a wife and mother within a year or two.

Our Juliets (as parents longing for grandchildren will recognize with a sigh) may experience the tumult of love for 20 years before they settle down into motherhood. And our Romeos may be poetic lunatics under the influence of Queen Mab until they are well into graduate school.

What happens when children reach puberty earlier and adulthood later? The answer is: a good deal of teenage weirdness. Fortunately, developmental psychologists and neuroscientists are starting to explain the foundations of that weirdness.

The crucial new idea is that there are two different neural and psychological systems that interact to turn children into adults. Over the past two centuries, and even more over the past generation, the developmental timing of these two systems has changed. That, in turn, has profoundly changed adolescence and produced new kinds of adolescent woe. The big question for anyone who deals with young people today is how we can go about bringing these cogs of the teenage mind into sync once again…

Read the rest of the article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577181351486558984.html?KEYWORDS=teenage+brain

TIME.com – Scientists have found that the brain development of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is delayed but otherwise typical, according to a new study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Comparing brain scans of children aged 6 to 16 who had the common [...]]]> November 12, 2007 – Krista Mahr

TIME.com – Scientists have found that the brain development of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is delayed but otherwise typical, according to a new study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Comparing brain scans of children aged 6 to 16 who had the common psychiatric disorder with scans of those who did not, researchers found that some areas in the ADHD brain — particularly those involved in thinking, attention and planning — matured an average of three years later than “healthy” brains, but otherwise followed normal patterns of development.

The results, which were published today in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), offer  new insight into why kids usually seem to outgrow their ADHD, says Dr. Philip Shaw, who led the research team at the Child Psychiatry Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). “It doesn’t mean we can just sit back and do nothing,” Shaw says, but the findings complement “what psychiatrists have been telling parents for years,” that most kids with ADHD do get better.

Shaw and his colleagues compiled data from the brain scans of 446 children, half of whom had ADHD. The scans used new imaging technology that allowed researchers to “watch” some 40,000 points in the subjects’ brains over time, and to figure out which specific regions of the brain developed, or thickened, at different rates. On average, in children with ADHD, the age at which 50% of the 40,000 points on the cortex — the brain’s outer mantle — achieved peak thickness was 10 1/2, three years behind the typically developing kids whose cortex matured at age 7 1/2. The lag was most obvious in the prefrontal cortex, the study found, the area of the brain critical to cognitive functions like memory, attention focusing, higher-order motor control and the ability to suppress inappropriate responses and thoughts. One region, however, appeared to develop faster in the ADHD brain: the primary motor cortex. Combined with the delay in higher-order motor control, researchers theorize, it could explain why kids with ADHD are so fidgety and restless.

Aside from the timing of maturation, the brains of children with ADHD appear to develop the same way typical brains do, from back to front. “Do [kids with ADHD] have basically have the same sequence of brain development? That’s a yes,” says Shaw. “Do they completely catch up with other kids? That’s what we’re looking at now.”

ADHD is the most common psychiatric childhood disorder in the United States, but it’s not bound by geography; diagnosis of ADHD is increasing globally. Since 1993, use of stimulant drugs to treat ADHD has more than tripled worldwide, according to one study. Symptoms for the disorder include impulsiveness, hyperactivity and poor concentration, and can develop over several months. Though most people outgrow the hyperactivity aspect — characterized by having trouble sitting still, moving around when others are seated, or talking while others are talking — about a quarter to a third of children and teenagers carry their ADHD into adulthood. Some environmental factors like lead exposure, smoking during pregnancy and food additives have been linked with increased risk of the disorder, but there’s still debate in the mental health community about whether the cause is mostly genetic or environmental. What’s clear, though, is that ADHD is highly heritable — if one parent has or had the condition, their child has about a 70% chance of inheriting it.

Though the new study may eventually help scientists identify why ADHD causes the brain to develop slower and how kids can get better sooner, Shaw says it won’t help doctors diagnose the disorder today. ADHD diagnoses still have to be made through clinical evaluations, and for now, treatment still means the widely used psycho-stimulant drugs, like Ritalin, and behavioral therapy.

As doctors continue learning about the ADHD brain, however, more and more alternative treatments, such as attention training and psychotherapy, are gaining traction. Research shows that the brain is not static — that it can physically change with experience. Studies reveal that the brains of some piano players, for instance, are more developed in the areas responsible for finger movement, while in the brains of people who have practiced meditation long-term, the attention centers are physically larger than average.

The ability to pay better attention is one of those things that people can consciously and physically improve in themselves, says Dr. Lidia Zylowska, who heads a program for ADHD patients at the UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center. Zylowska’s early research in meditation — one technique within the larger practice of mindful awareness — suggests that it can improve older ADHD patients’ ability to stay focused. The practice may also work for kids. “We always think that our brain makes our mind, but it may work the other way,” says Zylowska. “You can have an impact on your biology.”

Source Article: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1683069,00.html#ixzz1l4s8CY8m

ABSTRACT: Neurofeedback (NF) could help to improve attentional and self-management capabilities in children   with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In a randomised controlled trial, NF training was found to be superior to a computerised attention skills training (AST) (Gevensleben et al. in J Child Psychol [...]]]> Holger Gevensleben, Birgit Holl, Björn Albrecht, Dieter Schlamp, Oliver Kratz, Petra Studer, Aribert Rothenberger, Gunther H. Moll and Hartmut Heinrich

ABSTRACT: Neurofeedback (NF) could help to improve attentional and self-management capabilities in children   with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In a randomised controlled trial, NF training was found to be superior to a computerised attention skills training (AST) (Gevensleben et al. in J Child Psychol Psychiatry 50(7):780–789, 2009). In the present paper, treatment effects at 6-month follow-up were studied. 94 children with ADHD,    aged 8–12 years, completed either 36 sessions of NF training (n = 59) or a computerised AST (n = 35). Pre-training, post-training and  follow-up assessment encompassed several behaviour rating scales (e.g., the German ADHD rating scale, FBB-HKS) completed by parents. Follow-up information was analysed in 61 children (ca. 65%) on a per-protocol basis. 17 children (of 33 dropouts) had started a medication after the end of the training or early in the follow-up period. Improvements in the NF group (n = 38) at follow-up were superior to those of the control group (n = 23) and comparable to the effects at the end of the training. For the FBB-HKS total score (primary outcome measure), a medium effect size of 0.71 was obtained at follow-up. A reduction of at least 25% in the primary outcome measure (responder criterion) was observed in 50% of the children in the NF group. In conclusion, behavioural improvements induced by NF training in children with ADHD were maintained at a 6-month follow-up. Though treatment effects appear to be limited, the results confirm the notion that NF is a clinically efficacious module in the treatment of children with ADHD.

READ THE FULL STUDY HERE

Breathing is an activity most of us don’t think about, but there are many ways to breathe and we breathe differently in different situations. Breathing a certain way can assist us in how we relate to a situation, and therefore impact our wellness. Changing how we are breathing [...]]]> January 17, 2012 – Mark B. Levin

Photo Credit: anatomyblue.com

Breathing is an activity most of us don’t think about, but there are many ways to breathe and we breathe differently in different situations. Breathing a certain way can assist us in how we relate to a situation, and therefore impact our wellness. Changing how we are breathing can relax the body, help our mind focus, change our emotional state and reduce the impact of stress. Changing how we are breathing can foster the self-healing powers of our body.

For thousands of years, ancient cultures emphasized special breathing practices because they were found to have value for a person’s health and wellness. Eastern meditation, relaxation and movement practices including yoga, t’ai chi and qigong incorporate breathing as an integral component of the activity.

We take over 17,000 breaths a day. In addition to providing us with oxygen, breathing triggers numerous physiological mechanisms. Most of us have learned to breathe a certain way and we can learn to breathe in alternative ways. Changing the way we breathe can result in physiological changes that benefit us.

We take in oxygen through our mouth or nose. The process of   breathing takes place mainly in the chest cavity, which includes the lungs, diaphragm and rib cage. The top and sides of the chest cavity house the ribs and intercostal muscles. The bottom of the chest cavity includes the dome-shaped diaphragm. Inside the chest cavity is the  heart and two lungs. The diaphragm is located in your abdomen area.

Two basic ways of breathing are chest breathing and deep breathing. Many people use shallow chest breathing.

Deep breathing is sometimes called diaphragmatic breathing, natural breathing or abdominal breathing. The breath is focused in the diaphragm rather than in the chest. Deep breathing serves to trigger relaxation, which causes the blood capillaries to expand, allowing more oxygen to travel to locations where healing is needed. Deep breathing using our diaphragm efficiently pulls oxygen into all areas of our lungs, which is more beneficial than shallow chest breathing.

Deep breathing is more effective in pumping lymph fluid throughout the body, which stimulates self-healing. The lymph fluid contains immune cells which are targeted to fight bacteria and viruses. In addition, deep breathing shifts the production of brain chemicals which promote healing.

When we mainly use shallow upper-chest breathing, we reduce the efficiency of our lungs and the respiratory system. Compared to deep breathing, shallow breathing results in less blood flow and less productive distribution of the vital lymph fluids. It also reduces the amount of digestive juices available for the digestive process and weakens the functioning of various systems in the body.

Here are two ways to tell if you’re a chest breather or a diaphragm breather. Place your right hand on your upper chest and your left hand on your abdomen in your navel area. Breathe normally. If the right hand rises first, you are upper-chest breathing. If the left hand rises first, you are deep diaphragm breathing. Another method is to see which hand rises more. If your right hand rises more, you’re a chest breather. If your left hand rises more, you are an abdomen breather. Now perform the exercise by breathing slowly through your nose and see if you notice a difference.

To relax and practice deep breathing, take a slow deep breath through your nose and fill the lower portion of your lungs first and then fill the upper portion of your lungs. Then exhale slowly through your nose. Repeat the exercise. This practice is best performed lying on your back or sitting erect.

You can use deep breathing to create an environment in your body favorable to healing. You can use it to reduce the impact of stress, relax and calm yourself, stop an automatic reaction to a situation and create a pause to allow you to act rather than react, stop a negative thought from occurring or minimize its effect, and refocus your mind.

During the day take deep breaths and see how your body and mind respond.

Source Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-b-levin/breathing-health_b_1191566.html

Abstract

It is well established that sleep-dependent memory consolidation improves performance of motor and cognitive tasks. We asked whether such enhancement is possible in short sessions of awake states, and seek to identify underling mechanisms of memory consolidation and learning. Current literature suggests that consolidation of [...]]]> R. N. Rozengurt^1*, A. Barnea² and M. Reiner¹

Abstract

It is well established that sleep-dependent memory consolidation improves performance of motor and cognitive tasks. We asked whether such enhancement is possible in short sessions of awake states, and seek to identify underling mechanisms of memory consolidation and learning. Current literature suggests that consolidation of memory during sleep may be associated with Theta EEG spectra activity; hence we used neurofeedback (NF) for increasing Theta in order to achieve a similar effect to sleep, i.e. improve learning. 35 subjects were trained on a motor sequence task. Following training, the subjects were divided into three groups. First group used NF to increase power of Theta band, second group increased Beta, and a control group took 45 minutes of a break instead. We measured speed and accuracy before motor training, post-training, post-NF, one and two days later, and a week after training. Results showed a significant improvement, similar to sleep- related improvements, in speed following Theta training but not following Beta training or following the Break. Also, there were further delayed gains in all three groups after the first and second night’s sleep. A week later there was an additional gain in the Theta group but  not in the Beta or Control groups. Moreover, there was a decrease in the number of errors in the Theta group after the NF training, but an increase in errors in the Beta and Control groups. There was strong correlation between Theta/Beta ratio during NF and improvement rates after every night.