Do Our Schools Teach "Cognitive Tools?"

In this age of high-stakes testing, schools focus on telling students WHAT to learn. How well do they teach students HOW to learn? ... not very well in my experience both as a middle-school curriculum developer and as a university science professor. I ran across a review of a new book entitled "The Future of Education. Re-imagining Our Schools from the Ground Up." The book apparently focuses on three goals of education: 1) socialization, 2) mastery of information, and 3) promotion of mental development. The book's author emphasizes a need to re-orient these goals around teaching "cognitive tools." Neuroscience is expected to reveal what those tools are, and it is the job of the school to teach those cognitive tools. Have schools even identified a set of cognitive tools? I know they don't explicitly appear in the national science standards. Communication between neuroscientists and school teachers is limited--they live in two different worlds. Moreover, the educational culture is not amenable to major change, especially one that requires teachers to re-orient their basic approach to teaching.

An example that I have mentioned before is the need to teach students how to memorize more effectively, using for example, the principles in my book. Few teachers teach memorization skills, and many have a prejudice against doing so. Also, it is increasingly clear that teaching students to increase the span of their working memory will raise student IQ and problem-solving skills. Yet I know of no school system or teacher that does that. Memorization skills are not tested on standardized tests and therefore are not taught. Real reform is a long way off. Many politicians and teachers think the solution for school reform is more money. Wrong!

Source: Egan, K. 2008. The Future of Education. Reimagining Our Schools from the Ground Up. Yale University Press. New Have, Ct. 203 p.

The Ethics of Drug Enhancers of Memory

Few people would argue against using drugs like Aricept to help Alzheimer's patients. Few would complain about using propranolol to assist in treatment of post-traumatic stress syndrome. But what about using memory-enhancing drugs for normal people?

For now, the question is moot, because there are no drugs that have been proven to help normal people. But such drugs are on the horizon. Several drug companies are working on such drugs. One drug was recently discovered in animals to have a positive side effect of improving memory. The drug, Fasudil, increases blood flow in the brain of rats and has potential for treating stroke in humans. This drug has now been found by Matthew Huentelman, an investigator at the non-profit Translational Genomics Research Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. to affect a gene that promotes memory, and when tested in 18-month old (middle-aged) rats, enabled the rats to perform better in water-maze learning and memory tests. The older rats performed as well as young rats. I don't know if this work is published yet (it is widely reported in the lay press), and it certainly has not been replicated.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that it is correct. Are there ethical issues for normal people taking it to improve their memory, to get better performance at work, or for students to get better grades? Some students already take Ritalin or amphetamines to improve their performance. Is this like doping in sports? Or will we come to accept use of such drugs as preventive medicine, forestalling or preventing dementia, Alzheimers's or even normal mental decline with age?

Erasing Fear Memories

I have discussed elsewhere a new idea for treating unpleasant memories, such as post-traumatic stress syndrome. The latest treatment being investigated by some researchers is based on using a common blood pressure drug, propranolol, which has a side effect of blocking the re-consolidation of emotions associated with old memories when those memories are recalled.

The original idea was first confirmed in rats. Now a study indicates that the approach can work in humans and might become a clinically valuable treatment. In this human study, subjects were given a mild shock when shown pictures of spiders on the first day of the study. Their fear response was measured as the eyeblink startle reflex to a loud noise. On day 2 of the study, the memory reactivation phase, the study volunteers exhibited the same response to the fearful stimuli (the spider pictures) as on day 1. On day 3, 20 of the subjects were given 40 mg of propranolol, and the remaining 20 were given a placebo. Next, the entire group was exposed to the fearful stimuli. The propranolol group did not exhibit the same startle response as on previous days. The placebo group showed no change in startle response compared to days 1 or 2. In other words, the drug reduced the emotional response, yet did not reduced the memory of the learned event.

Thus, it seems that if propranolol is in the body at the time when one recalls a bad memory, the emotional impact of the memory can diminish without impairing the ability to remember the item. Psychiatric treatment protocols remain to be worked out. Notice that in this situation the learned fear response was recent. Nobody knows if this effect occurs with old, well-entrenched fear memories. Another issue that nobody seems to be asking is the possibility that people on this kind of blood pressure medication might be suffering impairments of emotional memories that they don't want to lose. Does this drug cause a general dulling of emotions?

Source:

Merel Kindt, Marieke Soeter, Bram Vervliet (2009). Beyond extinction: erasing human fear responses and preventing the return of fear Nature Neuroscience DOI: 10.1038/nn.2271

Training Working Memory May Be Rewarding

Biological reward comes from the release of the neurotransmitter, dopamine. Performing working memory tasks promotes dopamine release. In the study of human subjects by Fiona McNab and colleagues in Stockholm, human males (age 20-28) were trained on working memory tasks with a difficulty level close to their individual capacity limit for 35 minutes per day for 5 weeks. After such training, all subjects showed increased working memory capacity. Functional MRI scans also showed that the memory training increased the cerebral cortex density of dopamine D1 receptors, the receptor subtype that mediates feelings of euphoria and reward.

Students who make good grades feel good about their success. Likewise, people who are "life-long learners" have discovered that learning lots of new things makes them feel good. Though this present study did not rigorously test the idea, it is possible that learning how to improve your working memory capacity can also make you feel good.

Source: McNab, F. et al. 2009. Changes in cortical dopamine D1 receptor binding associated with cognitive training. Science. 323: 800-802.

Eat Your Blueberries - But Not With Cereal.

I have reported earlier on a study indicating that blueberries are good for memory. Actually, there are several studies indicating that blueberries are good for mental function in general. Blueberries contain polyphenolics, the levels of which are indicated by the amount of two compounds, ferulic acid and caffeic acid. Ferulic acid helps to stabilize cell walls and protects the nervous system. It lowers blood pressure. Caffeic acid also protects neurons and may even prevent neural degeneration. Both compounds are powerful antioxidants.

Blueberries are potent anti-inflammatory agents. One study in rats fed a diet including a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a 2% blueberry diet showed that within just two weeks the blueberry supplement activated anti-inflammatory genes in the brain much more than did the anti-inflammatory drug.

Now, a recent report indicates that the health benefits of blueberries are blocked by milk. Phenolics have a high affinity for protein, and the binding to milk protein prevents phenolics from accessing body cells. The study that demonstrated this effect involved measuring blood levels of the blueberry phenolics at various times after human volunteers consumed 200 gms of blueberries with 200 ml of either water or milk. Levels of phenolics rose sharply when water was consumed, but there was no increase when milk was consumed.

Heat destroys blueberry phenolics. So even though blueberry pie tastes great, it won't help your health. Only fresh blueberries provide useful levels of phenolics.

So, the recommendation is to consume blueberries without proteins. It should suffice to eat blueberries either one hour before eating other foods or two hours afterwards. For me, I will eat my blueberries alone an hour before my milk and cereal.

Sources:

Serafini, M. et al. 2009. Antioxidant activity of blueberry fruit is impaired by association with milk. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.11.023

Shukitt-Hale, B. et al. 2008. Blueberry polyphenols attenuate kainic acid-induced decrements in cognition and alter inflammatory gene expression in rat hippocampus. Nutr. Neuroscience. 11 (4): 172-182.

The Love Hormone and Memory for Faces

When you see an attractive face, a warm glow may ensue. When you see an ugly or threatening face, just the opposite occurs. Studies in animals have made it clear that a hormone from the pituitary gland, oxytocin, modulates such responses. In animals, oxytocin helps them decide whether to shun another animal or to approach for such purposes as socialization and mating. Oxytocin promotes approach behavior and suppresses avoidance.

If the same processes occur in humans (we use oxytocin too), then it should be reflected in how we react emotionally to others. Well, it does, and that is why it is sometimes called the “love hormone.” The best documentation for such action is that oxytocin is released in great amounts when a mother gives birth and increases the mother-infant bond. How robust this effect is in people is not clear.

Oxytocin could be important for remembering other people. In an experiment in Switzerland, men received a single nasal-spray dose of oxytocin and tested for their ability to recognize previously seen faces. The hormone improved recall of faces seen the day before, but had no effect on remembering non-social objects such as houses, landscapes, or sculptures. The study involved 44 male volunteers who were given three puffs of spray in each nostril of either oxytocin or a placebo. After a 40-minute delay to let the drug reach the brain, subjects were shown photos of 84 faces (half male, half female; 1/3 emotionally positive, 1/3 emotionally negative, and 1/3 neutral) and 84 images of inanimate objects for 3.5 seconds each. One day later, they were shown the same 84 pictures mixed randomly with other pictures they had not seen and asked to identify which photos they remembered and which were new from the previous day.

During the initial exposure (encoding) no differences were found in ratings for approachability (likeability) of either the faces or inanimate objects. Likewise, no oxytocin-related differences were seen for the emotional subcategories of positive, negative, or neutral, although everyone had more difficulty in remembering emotionally neutral faces. Gender of the faces did not seem to make much difference. Maybe this lack of effect was due to insufficient dosage (a single spray of three puffs may not be enough).

Where the drug effect was evident was in recognition memory of the faces. Oxytocin also increased the ability to realize that a new face had not been in the initial encoding group on the learning day.

Other studies have shown that oxytocin has a general pro-social effect, such as trust, for example.Take home message? One thought is the next time you want to attract someone, you might make yourself more memorable if you offered them some nasal spray laced with oxytocin. Of course that is too socially awkward. But one thing that is more practical is to take a few snorts of spray before going to a meeting or conference where you need to remember the new people you meet. Novartis already makes such a spray (Syntocinon). However, the drug’s medical use is to induce labor in pregnant women.

My second thought is there may something to the old saying about “love at first sight.” Certain faces may, for unknown reasons, cause a surge in endogenous secretion of oxytocin in the brain of the viewer and thus give that face a greater impact. Women knew all along the importance of having a memorable face; that’s why they wear makeup and fuss over their hair.

Source:

Rimmele, U. et al. 2009. Oxytocin makes a face in memory familiar. J. Neuroscience. 29 (1): 38-42.

Talking Makes It Memorable

Students learn better when they can discuss test items with their peers. A group of professors at University of Colorado, Boulder, reported a study in which they tested the value of allowing peer discussion of questions during lecture. To break up the monotony of traditional lecture in a genetics course, the lecture was periodically interrupted with a paired set of similar multiple-choice questions (Q1 and Q2) for any given concept was asked back to back. For each question, each student voted for the correct answer with a "clicker," and tallies of votes were automatically posted on the instructors podium computer. After the vote on Q1, students were allowed to discuss possible answers (without being told what the right answer was) and then allowed to vote again. Then, they were asked a second question on the same concept (Q2) and voted without discussion.

Performance results were markedly enhanced on the second vote on Q1. For example, pooled over 16 sets of questions, the average correct response to Q1 without discussion was 52%. But 92% got the question right after they were allowed to discuss it with peers (usually 3-4 classmates). Of this same group, 90% then got Q2 right.

Gains were also seen in the group the gave the wrong vote the first time they saw Q1 (48%). Of these, 42% got the answer correct after they discussed it with peers and 77% got Q2 right. Of those who missed Q1, even after discussion, 44% got Q2 right. This indicates that the understanding gained from discussing Q1 helped them with Q2.

The advantage seen here of discussion is primarily one of improved understanding, not necessarily improved memory. But memory should also be improved because peer discussion engages students in thinking, and thinking promotes consolidation. The sound feedback from talking also reinforces memory. Students recognized a memory benefit, as exemplified in the comment "the answer almost sticks better (italics mine) because we talked through it instead of just hearing the answer." What I would like to have seen is a controlled study of two classes, one that got their lecture interrupted with questions in this way and another class that did not, with a final exam given to both groups in which half the questions were the same as those used in class and half that were new but related.

Source:

Smith, M. K. et al. 2009. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science. 323: 122-124.

Caffeine or Nap: Which Helps Memory?

Caffeine gets our brain pumped up. We are more alert and perhaps should remember things better. Naps have recently been found to help the memory consolidation process. Until now, nobody has made a direct comparison of these two factors in the same people under identical conditions. But Sara Mednick and her colleagues at the University of California, San Diego, now report some helpful findings.
They tested caffeine in a single dose of 200 mg (roughly equivalent to 2-3 cups of coffee) and compared with an episode of napping (60-90 min) or placebo on the effects on performance on three types of memory tasks. For verbal memory, they tested recall and recognition memory of word lists 7 hours after learning, with an intervening nap, caffeine dose, or placebo. In addition, they conducted memory tests for a finger tap and texture discrimination task.They also conducted short-term memory on a different set of words after the first experiment.
Compared with either caffeine or placebo, naps were more effective in the word recall test, both in the consolidation test and in the short-term memory condition. Caffeine actually impaired word recall in the short-term memory task, even though the caffeine had been given some seven hours earlier. Naps also improved recognition memory in the consolidation test and recall of the texture discrimination learning. For the finger-tap learning, naps were ineffective and caffeine markedly impaired performance. The caffeine group did feel less sleepy in the late afternoon immediately prior to the memory testing, but that did not help their memory performance.
What I take from this is that the morning coffee may help you awaken, but don’t count on it to improve your memory. Other research does show that caffeine enhances mood and alertness, reaction times and speed, but don’t count on it to help your memory for things you learn that day. Note to students: all-night study sessions are a bad idea for lots of reasons and probably made much worse by drinking lots of coffee. Note to bosses: letting workers take an afternoon snooze might be a good idea.

Source:
Mednick, S. C. et al. 2008. Comparing the benefits of caffeine, naps, and placebo on verb al, motor and perceptual memory. Behavioural Brain Research. 193: 79-86.