6 ms·

I never thought a reduction could result in an improvement. The brain is so fascinating! "The researchers found "substantial" reductions in the volume of grey

by 6DM 10y ago

I never thought a reduction could result in an improvement. The brain is so fascinating! "The researchers found "substantial" reductions in the volume of grey matter in the brains of first-time mothers. The grey matter changes occurred in areas of the brain involved in social interactions used for attributing thoughts and feelings to other people - known as "theory-of-mind" tasks. The researchers thought this would give new mothers an advantage in various ways - help them recognise the needs of their child, be more aware of potential social threats and become more attached to their baby."

Ensorceled 10y ago
Seems logical: a temporary "this isn't the time to think about the needs of your extended family" signal lasting just up until the point the kid can toddle around would be survival enhancer.
- caminante 10y ago
  See, I don't think it seems consistent. The author says that the reduction would make mom's MORE aware of social threats. What am I missing?
  - johnlbevan2 10y ago
    By being less able to read into the multiple possible reactions of a person; e.g. - "they're looking at my baby because she's cute" - "they're looking at my baby because they want to kill him" - "they're looking at my baby to feign interest in my life" ...the mothers are able to focus on the important options: - "they're probably a threat" - "they're probably not a threat"
    - 6DM 10y ago
      I think this was ultimately the leap I was missing. The narrowing down of choices does tend to make things clearer and decisions easier.
      - alphydan 10y ago
        Following that argument then simple-minded businessmen or people with a Manichean world-view should be great at taking care of babies, since they make quick judgement calls? It sounds a little too simplistic, doesn't it?
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        That's a function of how well calibrated are those judgement calls with well-being of the baby. Soldiers who make quick judgement calls are better than ones who don't; but they're trained to have their judgement properly calibrated with the task at hand.
    - dsacco 10y ago
      While this would be a good followup study, I want to call out that it's not supported in the original research whatsoever. Presently, it's just speculation based on which areas of the brain are impacted by the grey matter alterations.
    - Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
      This is a good description. When I came home with my firstborn years ago, my once-beloved cats suddenly looked like malicious, germy predators.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    You're not missing anything. As user joncrocks comments in this subthread, the actual study[1] does not do anything other than measure the structural changes. The "why" of the grey matter alterations (which appear to primarily occur in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus regions) and their resulting impacts are not quantified at all beyond offering hypotheses for future studies. It is disingenuous to call these alterations "improvements" and any attempt at extrapolating the results to real-world improvements in e.g. perceiving threats in strangers is complete speculation. There simply isn't any material in the research to justify labeling these changes as positive or negative. The authors do give a few good-faith remarks about how these changes could improve e.g. facial recognition (for a certain subset of defined metrics to satisfy "improve", of course), but there isn't actually evidence to support this. It's conjecture based on what we know of the brain. What we can reasonably say based on this research is that women experience grey matter reductions after pregnancy that may have an impact on their executive and social functioning skills (if we extrapolate from the specific areas impacted in the brain). Obviously, this depends upon the statistical rigor involved in the study's interpretation as well, but I'm not going to comment on that. As a meta point, this study is another disappointing demonstration of the way in which the media frames legitimate studies and primes scientific discourse. It is excellent research that stands on its own, and a great contribution to neuroscience at that. There is no need to color the results with speculation, which is cleverly couched between actual results in an optimal context. My partner brought this study up with me at dinner last night, as it had already started making the rounds. Naturally, when I asked her for concrete examples of these "improvements" and how they were supported by the study, she couldn't offer any, and was annoyed by my questioning. Not only did the articles do an intellectual disservice to her (and others!) by priming her expectations with illegitimate results, they encouraged a "pre-chewed" version of the study that would not hold up to real challenge or inquiry. I subscribe to Nature (and many of its subjournals), and I absolutely refuse to read scientific literature from secondary sources if I can find the study. But this isn't a reasonable expectation for everyone; in a world where most people aren't going to click through to read a 4 - 20 page study, this sort of coverage diminishes the general public's appreciation of scientific results at best, and encourages dangerous interpretations of legitimate data at worst. ________________________ 1. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nn.4458.pdf http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nn.445...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joncrocks 10y ago
I'd be slightly careful here about separating out the findings from the speculation. The study[1] looked at what changed in the women's brains, the regions in which it changed, and then tested to see which areas 'lit up' when viewing a picture of their own child vs. other children. In addition measurements were taken over time to see how permanent the changes were. The reasons for change and the actual/quantitative impact of the changes would have to come from another study. While what the "researchers thought" is interesting, it's not supported by any evidence, i.e. no measurements were taken to see if any of the suggested improvements were present. [1] http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.4458.html http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.44...
- mistermann 10y ago
  FWIW my wife underwent a drastic personality change after giving birth, and I would definitely agree with this being one of the symptoms. But just one data point of course.
  - zeroer 10y ago
    What was the change?
    - mistermann 10y ago
      The part of my experience that seemed relevant to the article: areas of the brain involved in social interactions used for attributing thoughts and feelings to other people - known as "theory-of-mind" tasks ...was that I noticed she wouldn't differentiate between whether something had actually happened or not. For example, she could get quite angry at someone for something they didn't do, just thinking they "might" do it. Then again, maybe this personality aspect had been there all along and I had never noticed until the additional stress of having a new baby. EDIT: Please don't downvote me for answering a question.
  - a_bonobo 10y ago
    Then again, we had a baby four months ago and I haven't yet detected any change in personality
danielam 10y ago
Perhaps specialization of those regions in a way that aids (that stage of) motherhood in some way?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by 6DM 10y ago

Ensorceled 10y ago

Seems logical: a temporary "this isn't the time to think about the needs of your extended family" signal lasting just up until the point the kid can toddle around would be survival enhancer.

caminante 10y ago
See, I don't think it seems consistent. The author says that the reduction would make mom's MORE aware of social threats. What am I missing?
- johnlbevan2 10y ago
  By being less able to read into the multiple possible reactions of a person; e.g. - "they're looking at my baby because she's cute" - "they're looking at my baby because they want to kill him" - "they're looking at my baby to feign interest in my life" ...the mothers are able to focus on the important options: - "they're probably a threat" - "they're probably not a threat"
  - 6DM 10y ago
    I think this was ultimately the leap I was missing. The narrowing down of choices does tend to make things clearer and decisions easier.
    - alphydan 10y ago
      Following that argument then simple-minded businessmen or people with a Manichean world-view should be great at taking care of babies, since they make quick judgement calls? It sounds a little too simplistic, doesn't it?
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        That's a function of how well calibrated are those judgement calls with well-being of the baby. Soldiers who make quick judgement calls are better than ones who don't; but they're trained to have their judgement properly calibrated with the task at hand.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    While this would be a good followup study, I want to call out that it's not supported in the original research whatsoever. Presently, it's just speculation based on which areas of the brain are impacted by the grey matter alterations.
  - Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
    This is a good description. When I came home with my firstborn years ago, my once-beloved cats suddenly looked like malicious, germy predators.
- dsacco 10y ago
  You're not missing anything. As user joncrocks comments in this subthread, the actual study[1] does not do anything other than measure the structural changes. The "why" of the grey matter alterations (which appear to primarily occur in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus regions) and their resulting impacts are not quantified at all beyond offering hypotheses for future studies. It is disingenuous to call these alterations "improvements" and any attempt at extrapolating the results to real-world improvements in e.g. perceiving threats in strangers is complete speculation. There simply isn't any material in the research to justify labeling these changes as positive or negative. The authors do give a few good-faith remarks about how these changes could improve e.g. facial recognition (for a certain subset of defined metrics to satisfy "improve", of course), but there isn't actually evidence to support this. It's conjecture based on what we know of the brain. What we can reasonably say based on this research is that women experience grey matter reductions after pregnancy that may have an impact on their executive and social functioning skills (if we extrapolate from the specific areas impacted in the brain). Obviously, this depends upon the statistical rigor involved in the study's interpretation as well, but I'm not going to comment on that. As a meta point, this study is another disappointing demonstration of the way in which the media frames legitimate studies and primes scientific discourse. It is excellent research that stands on its own, and a great contribution to neuroscience at that. There is no need to color the results with speculation, which is cleverly couched between actual results in an optimal context. My partner brought this study up with me at dinner last night, as it had already started making the rounds. Naturally, when I asked her for concrete examples of these "improvements" and how they were supported by the study, she couldn't offer any, and was annoyed by my questioning. Not only did the articles do an intellectual disservice to her (and others!) by priming her expectations with illegitimate results, they encouraged a "pre-chewed" version of the study that would not hold up to real challenge or inquiry. I subscribe to Nature (and many of its subjournals), and I absolutely refuse to read scientific literature from secondary sources if I can find the study. But this isn't a reasonable expectation for everyone; in a world where most people aren't going to click through to read a 4 - 20 page study, this sort of coverage diminishes the general public's appreciation of scientific results at best, and encourages dangerous interpretations of legitimate data at worst. ________________________ 1. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nn.4458.pdf http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nn.445...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

joncrocks 10y ago

I'd be slightly careful here about separating out the findings from the speculation. The study[1] looked at what changed in the women's brains, the regions in which it changed, and then tested to see which areas 'lit up' when viewing a picture of their own child vs. other children. In addition measurements were taken over time to see how permanent the changes were. The reasons for change and the actual/quantitative impact of the changes would have to come from another study. While what the "researchers thought" is interesting, it's not supported by any evidence, i.e. no measurements were taken to see if any of the suggested improvements were present. [1] http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.4458.html http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.44...

mistermann 10y ago
FWIW my wife underwent a drastic personality change after giving birth, and I would definitely agree with this being one of the symptoms. But just one data point of course.
- zeroer 10y ago
  What was the change?
  - mistermann 10y ago
    The part of my experience that seemed relevant to the article: areas of the brain involved in social interactions used for attributing thoughts and feelings to other people - known as "theory-of-mind" tasks ...was that I noticed she wouldn't differentiate between whether something had actually happened or not. For example, she could get quite angry at someone for something they didn't do, just thinking they "might" do it. Then again, maybe this personality aspect had been there all along and I had never noticed until the additional stress of having a new baby. EDIT: Please don't downvote me for answering a question.
- a_bonobo 10y ago
  Then again, we had a baby four months ago and I haven't yet detected any change in personality

danielam 10y ago

Perhaps specialization of those regions in a way that aids (that stage of) motherhood in some way?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]