Dana Foundation Blog

C’est la vie: Heschl’s gyrus affects language learning

My fiancé can speak English, French and Italian fluently. By reading Spanish signs, overhearing conversations, watching Spanish television shows and even reading food labels in Spanish, he has been able to slowly but surely pick up that language as well.

This idea of “picking up” a language is, you’ll excuse the expression, foreign to me; it makes it sound easy. A new study reported in the New York Times suggests why it’s so easy for my fiancé and so difficult for me: a brain region known as the Heschl’s gyrus.

In the study, which appears in the online journal Cerebral Cortex, researchers report that a larger left Heschl’s gyrus corresponds with a higher aptitude for learning foreign languages. Researchers gave English-speaking students 18 tonal words to learn and found that those with a smaller Heschl’s gyrus were less likely to retain the vocabulary.

Not only does this research suggest why my fiancé can speak so many languages, but it also gives me peace of mind when I think back to my struggles in French class. If only I could go back and say to my teacher, “Don’t blame me, blame my Heschl’s gyrus!”

-- Heidi Ogrodnek

Monkeys can play the odds

Trying my hand at the roulette table this past weekend in Atlantic City, I found that unfortunately I am not the best at playing the odds. But a new study shows that monkeys might actually be pretty good. According to University of Washington neuroscientists Michael Shadlen and Tianming Yang (reporting in the June 3 issue of Nature), rhesus macaques have decision-making capabilities similar to those of humans.

This is because they use a region in the brain called the lateral intraparietal area (LIA), associated with attention and visual processing, when they need to predict outcomes during complex tasks, explains an article in ScienceNOW Daily News. Shadlen and Yang showed the macaques colored shapes; if a monkey selected the correct target, its chances of receiving a reward were increased. In the end, the monkeys selected the correct shape (based on the color most likely to be rewarded) 75 percent of the time.

By attaching electrodes to the LIA in the monkeys' brains, the researchers also were able to view 64 neurons in the area that reacted to the shapes in a way that suggests the monkeys were using earlier evidence to predict whether or not they would obtain the reward.

This is the first time neuroscientists have found that this area is involved with predicting success, and more evidence that monkeys can make rational decisions. Maybe down the road we'll see how they fare at the card tables.

-- Heidi Ogrodnek

Dogs have a lot to say

My dog’s tail begins to wag with such momentum when I walk through the door that it shakes his entire body. His greeting, coupled with a few barks and some jumping, has always led me to believe that he was happy. But as The New York Times reported recently, a wag of the tail can also mean the opposite.

An Italian neuroscientist and two veterinarians teamed up to report their evidence of emotional asymmetry in the canine brain, ''Asymmetric tail-wagging responses by dogs to different emotive stimuli,'' in the March 20 issue of Current Biology. They put people, a cat, and an aggressive dog in front of the test dogs and observed tail-wagging responses. They found, as in humans, that the left brain (right side of the rump) appears to reflect attraction or happiness, the right brain fear or unhappiness. Humans tend to contort their faces to demonstrate these emotional responses, while dogs wag their tails.

This phenomenon is another blow to the theory held by some in neuroscience that only humans express brain symmetry. And next time your dog starts wagging his tail more to the left, he may be trying to tell you something.

-- Heidi Ogrodnek (photo of Tyson the dog by Heidi Ogrodnek)

The Perils of Gift Giving

Why is it that the ones closest to us always seem to have the hardest time when it comes to gift giving? In the December issue of the Journal of Consumer Research, marketing professors Davy Lerouge and Luk Warlop imply that attitude prediction is to blame. (See WebMD story)

They suggest that when we give gifts, we make assumptions based on “pre-stored information” or preconceived ideas about what our loved ones really want. (For instance, when my boyfriend says, “I just want socks for Christmas,” I say to myself, “What he really needs is a watch.” This actually happened.) The researchers concluded that we actually absorb more information and signals about what kind of gift to give when buying for a stranger than for people we know well.

This research would have benefited from the close brain-science work of Brian Knutson and colleagues at Stanford University, who studied shopping from a different angle. Here, as reported in the New York Times, economists worked alongside psychologists to examine the brain and how we justify purchases to ourselves. They suggest that it is actually a slothful insula, the part of the brain that detects an unpleasant smell or taste, that is at least partly responsible for bad purchases.

Dopamine receptors were activated when shoppers saw things that they wanted to buy, but the insula was activated when they saw a high price. Those with a “lazy insula” made the purchase regardless of price.

Bottom line: we have the best intentions when we shop, but—be it from the perspective of social research or brain science—we make choices we may later regret. I suppose I’ll try to stick with the socks.

-- Heidi Ogrodnek

(this item appeared earlier in a slightly different form)

Why is it that the ones closest to us always seem to have the hardest time when it comes to gift giving? In the December issue of the Journal of Consumer Research, marketing professors Davy Lerouge and Luk Warlop imply that attitude prediction is to blame. (See WebMD story)

They suggest that when we give gifts, we make assumptions based on “pre-stored information” or preconceived ideas about what our loved ones really want. (For instance, when my boyfriend says, “I just want socks for Christmas,” I say to myself, “What he really needs is a watch.” This actually happened.) The researchers concluded that we actually absorb more information and signals about what kind of gift to give when buying for a stranger than for people we know well.

This research would have benefited from the close brain-science work of Brian Knutson and colleagues at Stanford University, who studied shopping from a different angle. Here, as reported in the New York Times, economists worked alongside psychologists to examine the brain and how we justify purchases to ourselves. They suggest that it is actually a slothful insula, the part of the brain that detects an unpleasant smell or taste, that is at least partly responsible for bad purchases.

Dopamine receptors were activated when shoppers saw things that they wanted to buy, but the insula was activated when they saw a high price. Those with a “lazy insula” made the purchase regardless of price.

Bottom line: we have the best intentions when we shop, but—be it from the perspective of social research or brain science—we make choices we may later regret. I suppose I’ll try to stick with the socks.

-- Heidi Ogrodnek

(this item appeared earlier in a slightly different form)

Snakes on a…Brain?

This has been the summer of the snake, spotlighted both by the release of the horror film “Snakes on a Plane” by a slew of research studies. The phrase “Snakes on a Brain,” coined after the Samuel L. Jackson film, has made headlines (SEED magazine, the New York Times) in past weeks thanks to this coincidence.

What is this strange attraction to these slithering serpents? It turns out that whether we view them as friend or foe, we seem strangely interested in snakes, and maybe for good reason.

In the July issue of The Journal of Human Evolution, Lynne Isbell at the University of California at Davis offers a preliminary explanation for this phenomenon, tracing it to our evolutionary makeup. Isbell and her fellow researchers suggest that snakes guided the development of the primate (and thus the human) brain.

This new theory, which includes evidence from both neuroscience and immunology, proposes that apes coexisted with snakes for hundreds of years but did not build up an innate immunity to fend off snake venom, as originally thought. Instead, they developed a visual system that allowed them to detect snakes before they could strike.

It was long thought that the brain expansion of the monkey was brought on by the need to survive and hunt for food. Now it appears that these ‘venomous villains’ were the first predators of monkeys and therefore guided the development of the primate brain.

Meanwhile, scientists at the Mayo Clinic Stroke Center have been testing a new experimental medication, made from snake venom, that breaks up blood clots by thinning the blood. This new treatment may be able to prevent blood clots from growing in the brain. Stroke treatments up to now have carried a risk of hemorrhage and also disability for patients. Snake venom works to promote blood flow, and thus bypass such effects.

Whether the movie “Snakes on a Plane” warranted all the hype or not, perhaps we truly should reserve a spot for snakes in our brain.

-- Heidi Ogrodnek

This has been the summer of the snake, spotlighted both by the release of the horror film “Snakes on a Plane” by a slew of research studies. The phrase “Snakes on a Brain,” coined after the Samuel L. Jackson film, has made headlines (SEED magazine, the New York Times) in past weeks thanks to this coincidence.

What is this strange attraction to these slithering serpents? It turns out that whether we view them as friend or foe, we seem strangely interested in snakes, and maybe for good reason.

In the July issue of The Journal of Human Evolution, Lynne Isbell at the University of California at Davis offers a preliminary explanation for this phenomenon, tracing it to our evolutionary makeup. Isbell and her fellow researchers suggest that snakes guided the development of the primate (and thus the human) brain.

This new theory, which includes evidence from both neuroscience and immunology, proposes that apes coexisted with snakes for hundreds of years but did not build up an innate immunity to fend off snake venom, as originally thought. Instead, they developed a visual system that allowed them to detect snakes before they could strike.

It was long thought that the brain expansion of the monkey was brought on by the need to survive and hunt for food. Now it appears that these ‘venomous villains’ were the first predators of monkeys and therefore guided the development of the primate brain.

Meanwhile, scientists at the Mayo Clinic Stroke Center have been testing a new experimental medication, made from snake venom, that breaks up blood clots by thinning the blood. This new treatment may be able to prevent blood clots from growing in the brain. Stroke treatments up to now have carried a risk of hemorrhage and also disability for patients. Snake venom works to promote blood flow, and thus bypass such effects.

Whether the movie “Snakes on a Plane” warranted all the hype or not, perhaps we truly should reserve a spot for snakes in our brain.

-- Heidi Ogrodnek

Peeping Tom: Prenatal voyeurism and its possible side effects

“There was a study about ultrasounds done by someone whom we are all very familiar with,” someone said this morning at our weekly Dana Press staff meeting. Most of us thought of big-name neuroscientists, members of the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives. Suddenly, from across the table, we heard, “Tom Cruise?”

Cruise, of course, purchased an ultrasound machine to “take pictures” of his unborn daughter. The popularity of such pictures is growing—machines are now available even in some shopping malls. But a new study by Pasko Rakic, a Dana Alliance member and head of the Department of Neurobiology at Yale University, suggests that expectant parents may want to think twice.

Rakic exposed pregnant mice to ultrasound waves for 30 minutes or longer and found that the developing nerve cells did not migrate to their proper positions in the brain.

Might ultrasound potentially harm the fetus? Could it possibly be one cause of rising rates of autism and other neural disorders in children?

Before you skip your next doctor’s appointment, it is important to keep in mind that this study is preliminary, small, and conducted on mice. Not only are human brains much larger than mouse brains, but during the study the ultrasound probe was held stationary over the mouse brain the entire time. In humans, of course, the probe moves around, scanning the entire body of the fetus; the amount of time the brain is exposed to the ultrasound wave is far less.

The study ought to make old Tom nervous that unnecessary sonograms might be risky. The study by Rakic and his research team will be featured in “News from the Frontier” in the September-October issue of BrainWork. They next plan to study nonhuman primates for similar effects. Tom Cruise and others: Stay tuned.

-- Heidi Ogrodnek

“There was a study about ultrasounds done by someone whom we are all very familiar with,” someone said this morning at our weekly Dana Press staff meeting. Most of us thought of big-name neuroscientists, members of the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives. Suddenly, from across the table, we heard, “Tom Cruise?”

Cruise, of course, purchased an ultrasound machine to “take pictures” of his unborn daughter. The popularity of such pictures is growing—machines are now available even in some shopping malls. But a new study by Pasko Rakic, a Dana Alliance member and head of the Department of Neurobiology at Yale University, suggests that expectant parents may want to think twice.

Rakic exposed pregnant mice to ultrasound waves for 30 minutes or longer and found that the developing nerve cells did not migrate to their proper positions in the brain.

Might ultrasound potentially harm the fetus? Could it possibly be one cause of rising rates of autism and other neural disorders in children?

Before you skip your next doctor’s appointment, it is important to keep in mind that this study is preliminary, small, and conducted on mice. Not only are human brains much larger than mouse brains, but during the study the ultrasound probe was held stationary over the mouse brain the entire time. In humans, of course, the probe moves around, scanning the entire body of the fetus; the amount of time the brain is exposed to the ultrasound wave is far less.

The study ought to make old Tom nervous that unnecessary sonograms might be risky. The study by Rakic and his research team will be featured in “News from the Frontier” in the September-October issue of BrainWork. They next plan to study nonhuman primates for similar effects. Tom Cruise and others: Stay tuned.

-- Heidi Ogrodnek