What is the science of improving the brain called?

[Folan]

Hi,

 

I want to know more about how the brain can be improved as in better memory, quicker/more complex thoughts etc. But my searches only give gimmick sites promising to do it for you in exchange for your money.

 

I'm interested in the actual science behind it, I'm assuming it hasn't got to the point where you can seriously improve your brain yet but neuroscience is too general and none of the more specific terms I have come across really describe what I mean. Is there a name for it?

 

Regardless of that I would like to learn about it, real details, despite how complicated it might be so a point in the right direction would be appreciated. I have no real knowledge of neuroscience but I want to read what I can before deciding whether or not to study it at university.

 

Thanks

[Psycho]

Neuroscience is primarily the biochemistry and physiology of the brain, however this isn't currently understood well enough to categorically say how to improve memory, the way memories are formed has only been elucidated in the last 10 years and the process is still going on to find the relevant molecular pathways.

[PhDwannabe]

Psycho is right in his characterization of the relatively dim understanding we have of these processes. Essentially, our ability to add function to already-functioning brains is almost zero. The research is there, but it's pretty paper-thin at this point. There is simply not enough to go on yet. There is nowhere trustworthy I can direct you to, and you're right to smell a gimmick--right now, it's just about 100% gimmick. Give it a few decades. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.

[Folan]

Shame, makes sense though. So assuming I do want to end up going into this I guess I should start with neuroscience in general? Real information on that is easy enough to find but if anyone knows of a good place to start I would appreciate the help.

[Appolinaria]

Pretty sure I've read about numerous things that improve memory in humans...

[PhDwannabe]

Pretty sure I've read about numerous things that improve memory in humans...

I'm sure you have. So have I. But because I'm in the psych field, and to some extent know the research, and get to hang around smart people who are part of the field and know the state of the field, I can speak to the scientific status of those things with at least some authority.

 

Can "memory" be "improved?" Of course it can. With tricks. That's how people memorize thousands of digits of pi, or incredible amounts of holy books: tricks. They're not difficult to come by, not difficult to learn. But that's somewhat distinct from what he's asking.

[Appolinaria]

I'm sure you have. So have I. But because I'm in the psych field, and to some extent know the research, and get to hang around smart people who are part of the field and know the state of the field, I can speak to the scientific status of those things with at least some authority.

 

Can "memory" be "improved?" Of course it can. With tricks. That's how people memorize thousands of digits of pi, or incredible amounts of holy books: tricks. They're not difficult to come by, not difficult to learn. But that's somewhat distinct from what he's asking.

 

Yes, yes. This is understood. I think you are taking my questions personally, when I'm genuinely curious. Aside from tricks to memorize digits of pi, aren't there things that occur neurologically that contribute to memory... and are not just theories but have been proven? Isn't preventing or diminishing the inevitable degeneration of the brain that comes with age considered an improvement? What about improving synaptic plasticity of the hippocampus? Hasn't it been shown to be affected by things like stress?

[iNow]

Vitamin B and practice/repetition

 

Omega-3s might help, too, but not with the same impact as B vitamins.

[Appolinaria]

+1

[Xittenn]

Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology

 

Ginko Biloba?

[Psycho]

Vitamin B and practice/repetition

 

Omega-3s might help, too, but not with the same impact as B vitamins.

Lol, I think that kind of proved our point, "Vitamin B" is actually 8 different substances that have different functions, where as Omega-3's are a group of fatty acids some which have been shown to have no positive neurological effects at all, but ironically the "inactive" ones are still sold to consumers as working chemicals as they are too lazy to look up what they put in their mouths.

 

But if that is all it takes to get +1 these days.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Psycho

[PhDwannabe]

iNow, on 29 October 2011 - 12:00 AM, said:

 

Vitamin B and practice/repetition

 

Omega-3s might help, too, but not with the same impact as B vitamins.

 

Lol, I think that kind of proved our point, "Vitamin B" is actually 8 different substances that have different functions, where as Omega-3's are a group of fatty acids some which have been shown to have no positive neurological effects at all, but ironically the "inactive" ones are still sold to consumers as working chemicals as they are too lazy to look up what they put in their mouths.

 

But if that is all it takes to get +1 these days.

 

Indeed, anyone will be able to find a "study"--or even several of them--that shows some positive neurological benefit of these and many other substances. The problem is that stuff that doesn't work shows up efficacious in studies all the time. That's why we keep doing them. The problem is that you have to know a lot about the area to carefully critique a study's methods and the limitations on its findings. It's the body of literature that counts, and its context in the larger trend of science in the area. And the body of literature does not currently say that B vitamins, or ginko, or omega-3s are going to make you noticeably smarter.

[Appolinaria]

p squared, if omega 3 fatty acids have no positive affect, why do websites like bbc and .gov support this idea?

[Psycho]

p squared, if omega 3 fatty acids have no positive affect, why do websites like bbc and .gov support this idea?

I didn't say omega 3 fatty acids have no positive affect neither did PhDwannabe, I said that certain ones don't, which is well documented, PhDwannabe said that there isn't enough conclusive evidence to come to the conclusion that they have useful affects. As to why the media and governments miss represents data, it is normally to make sales or get votes.

 

The facts are that certain fatty acids have been shown to be in the brain such as docosahexaneoic acid this has an anti-inflammatory property in cardiovascular disease, so it is very unlikely to be bad for you and many people don't get a high enough proportion against other fatty acids in their diet in comparisons to proportions in the brain, whether this is relevant still isn't known but current research says it isn't in the short term. But the actual neurological effects of DHA aren't truly understood at the physiological level let alone the molecular one.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Psycho

[PhDwannabe]

To echo what Psycho said: exactly. Might omega-3s be important for neurological health in the long-term? Yes. I'd even be willing to go with probably. Does that mean they'll make you smarter? A thousand times no. There is a gulf between those two assertions you'd need a jet airliner to get across.

[iNow]

And the body of literature does not currently say that B vitamins, or ginko, or omega-3s are going to make you noticeably smarter.

But it does suggest that B vitamins, specifically B12 and maybe B6 and B3, improve memory... Which was my central point. Supplementing this point, we also know that B9 deficiency increases the odds of spinal tube defects, that B1 deficiency greatly increases the odds of encephalopathies like Wernicke's disease and Korsakoff's psychosis, and that B12 deficiency affects myelin formation and significantly increases the likelihood of dementia (by at least 4x).

 

Given this, my proposal above (and the OPs positive reaction to it) is hardly worthy of the derision and scorn you both so readily put forth. I did not mention ginko, I did not mention intelligence (as nobody here has yet clearly defined it), and my reference to omega-3s was offered in such a way as to openly acknowledge the uncertainty in their overall effect.

 

Perhaps you'd have been less confused had I quoted the section of the previous post to which I was responding (the part about memory). That's my fault. Mea culpa. I guess I made the mistake of assuming that something so obvious would be readily clear to people who are even remedially versed in these topics.

[Appolinaria]

To echo what Psycho said: exactly. Might omega-3s be important for neurological health in the long-term? Yes. I'd even be willing to go with probably. Does that mean they'll make you smarter? A thousand times no. There is a gulf between those two assertions you'd need a jet airliner to get across.

 

Is it necessary to equate being smarter/intelligent with better memory?

 

Take Autism. IE Asperger's; plenty of people with this can remember a huge amount of things about a specific topic....but don't function at normal intelligence level when it comes to things like feeling empathy, or communication.

 

 

I don't think being able to retain memories, or rapidly think, necessarily contributes to intelligence.

 

 

 

 

Psycho & PhD, can you please give me your opinion on synaptic plasticity of the hippocampus? I've read an article that something as simple & common as stress can impair LTP in the hippocampus of rats... is this bullshit?

 

Thanks!

[PhDwannabe]

But it does suggest that B vitamins, specifically B12 and maybe B6 and B3, improve memory... Which was my central point. Supplementing this point, we also know that B9 deficiency increases the odds of spinal tube defects, that B1 deficiency greatly increases the odds of encephalopathies like Wernicke's disease and Korsakoff's psychosis, and that B12 deficiency affects myelin formation and significantly increases the likelihood of dementia (by at least 4x).

The negative effects of the deficiencies does not, in any way, suggest positive effects of excess. The state of the science does not currently lean towards any kind of supplementation above and beyond a normal healthy diet as being efficacious to improve memory or other cognitive functions substantially above an individual's personal baseline. Can you show me perhaps a meta-analysis or two which disagrees with me here?

 

That's my fault. Mea culpa. I guess I made the mistake of assuming that something so obvious would be readily clear to people who are even remedially versed in these topics.

On a completely separate note, passive-aggression is decidedly un-cute.

 

 

And, Appolinaria:

I don't think being able to retain memories, or rapidly think, necessarily contributes to intelligence.

On the contrary, these are two large components of general cognitive ability.

Edited October 30, 2011 by PhDwannabe

[iNow]

The negative effects of the deficiencies does not, in any way, suggest positive effects of excess.

At no point did I mention they needed to be taken in excess. I implore you to please try to improve your reading comprehension abilities.

 

 

On a completely separate note, passive-aggression is decidedly un-cute.

 

I guess it's good that I wasn't going for "cute."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10681269?dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8602585?dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1365868?dopt=Citation

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042457?dopt=Citation

 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6015&page=311

Edited October 30, 2011 by iNow

[Appolinaria]

The negative effects of the deficiencies does not, in any way, suggest positive effects of excess. The state of the science does not currently lean towards any kind of supplementation above and beyond a normal healthy diet as being efficacious to improve memory or other cognitive functions substantially above an individual's personal baseline. Can you show me perhaps a meta-analysis or two which disagrees with me here?

 

 

On a completely separate note, passive-aggression is decidedly un-cute.

 

 

And, Appolinaria:

 

"I don't think being able to retain memories, or rapidly think, necessarily contributes to intelligence."

 

On the contrary, these are two large components of general cognitive ability.

 

 

You're implying cognitive ability = intelligence.

 

Okay, so if Omega 3's improve LTP in the hippocampus of rats (aka memory- a large contributor to general cognitive function you spoke of) , then they make you more intelligent. So why did you say this earlier?

 

 

"To echo what Psycho said: exactly. Might omega-3s be important for neurological health in the long-term? Yes. I'd even be willing to go withprobably. Does that mean they'll make you smarter? A thousand times no. There is a gulf between those two assertions you'd need a jet airliner to get across."

 

 

 

 

[Psycho]

At no point did I mention they needed to be taken in excess. I implore you to please try to improve your reading comprehension abilities.

 

I guess it's good that I wasn't going for "cute."

Really kind of ironic, no one at any point has asserted that any of the chemicals under discussion aren't in the brain or have no affect on it, what we have been say is that placing them in excess into the system has no affect on underlying brain function, which is vastly different from what any of your papers which say it has an affect on brain function in people with impaired memory, with little even mentioned into the underlying reasoning of why. So yes if you are malnourished these supplements will help, the same way Vitamin A will stop you going blind, however eating a gram of vitamin A a day isn't going to give you X-ray vision, it will give you a headache and make you sick.

 

Is it necessary to equate being smarter/intelligent with better memory?

It would be a major contributing factor, though the specific ability to remember doesn't make you intelligent, the ability to make connections between things therefore understanding the bigger picture does and that requires you to remember many different ideas.

.

can you please give me your opinion on synaptic plasticity of the hippocampus? I've read an article that something as simple & common as stress can impair LTP in the hippocampus of rats... is this bullshit?

You would have to find the study, but without reading it it seems like a logical assertion, if you are under pressure to do something or get away from it the mind would be distracted from other processes as they seem less important.

 

Okay, so if Omega 3's improve LTP in the hippocampus of rats (aka memory- a large contributor to general cognitive function you spoke of) , then they make you more intelligent. So why did you say this earlier?

They don't make you more intelligent, your level of intelligence is exactly the same until you choose to put more information into the system and then you may remember more of that information than if you had a deficiency in DHA and arachidonic acid, however it has been shown that short term supplementation with these fatty acids doesn't actually change the proportional levels of them in young adult humans, but over a six month period more affect was shown.

 

The study on mice shows that originally the levels of DHA and AA are down regulated, this could be due to deficiency of the precursor or levels of anabolism of the fatty acid in the first place that doesn't occur in humans or only in the elderly. The only thing DHA and AA have been shown to do is to keep you at optimum performance, which in some maybe a increase in memory but only due to incorrect dietary intake in the first place. This is forgetting that there are other omega-3 fatty acids that have little effect, hence using the term omega-3 fatty acids is incorrect.

[iNow]

Really kind of ironic, no one at any point has asserted that any of the chemicals under discussion aren't in the brain or have no affect on it

Sigh. Let me try once more. This is a bit frustrating. I was not challenging any assertions you or the wannabe made. I never suggested you asserted any such thing. Again, reading comprehension appears to be lacking here in you two. At no point did I even begin to suggest that you two "asserted that any of the chemicals under discussion aren't in the brain or have no affect on it."

 

Ultimately, you were challenging the comments I made, and you were doing so by misrepresenting them with a tone of derision. In some circles, this is known as a logical fallacy, and a poor form of argument. For future reference, this site is one of those circles.

 

I found your comments and replies rather odd, especially since nothing I said was either inaccurate or exaggerated. I was even kind enough to clarify for you both what I ACTUALLY said on more than one occasion. I did this because of the way you continued to misrepresent my points. Finally, I offered evidence in support of each argument which I ACTUALLY made... and I then went on to clarify yet again it had zero to do with taking anything in "excess."

 

Let me say this another way before I leave you to your sandbox like a bunch of snot covered toddlers. The vast majority of people will from time to time experience vitamin deficiencies of some type and magnitude. One of those deficiencies is often with B vitamins. Supplementing with them WILL assist in memory function when diet alone is [EDIT] not [/EDIT] enough. You don't have to be some malnourished emaciated Unicef marketeer showing your ribs and swatting away flies for this truth to hold, and it would be nice if you'd cease from continuing to imply otherwise.

 

As a note for your own personal improvements, you should recognize that your strawman arguments are further weakened by the suggestion that my comments are equivalent to saying excess vitamin A will result in xray vision. Your points are misrepresentative, myopic, and mocking. My points have been simple, specific, and supported. That's really all there is to it.

Edited October 30, 2011 by iNow

[Psycho]

At no point did I even begin to suggest that you two "asserted that any of the chemicals under discussion aren't in the brain or have no affect on it."

By defining other effects of the chemicals in the brain and nervous system irrelevant to the topic the assertion is implicit.

 

I found your comments and replies rather odd, especially since nothing I said was either inaccurate or exaggerated. I was even kind enough to clarify for you both what I ACTUALLY said on more than one occasion. I did this because of the way you continued to misrepresent my points. Finally, I offered evidence in support of each argument which I ACTUALLY made... and I then went on to clarify yet again it had zero to do with taking anything in "excess."

 

What you did is misrepresent data, by stating that all of the Vitamin B and Omega-3 fatty acids have neurological effects which isn't true and then ignored the fact you had done this by nitpicking B1, B3, B6 and B12 out of a group of 8, which are only grouped due to confusion in the past and in no way chemically. Also ignored was known research which shows the effects of arachidonic acid and docosahexanemoic acid are far more prevalent than the effects of other omega-3 fatty acids such as alpha-linolenic acid, once again joining together groups of chemicals that have different effects some having none at all.

 

Your assertions were incorrect and not in keeping with the current ideas that the level research has achieved, there is little evidence that these chemicals have shown neurological enhancement in neurologically healthy human subjects with a balanced diet, the only time it has been prevalent is in cases of deficiency or in the old; where it could just as easily be due to changes in metabolic pathways as deficiency.

[John Cuthber]

What is the science of improving the brain called?

Education.

[iNow]

What you did is misrepresent data, by stating that all of the Vitamin B and Omega-3 fatty acids have neurological effects

Can you please share a specific quote to demonstrate where exactly you think I did this?