Author Archives: C. Schaad

Does Mozart make babies smarter?

Music has lots of strange properties, and can even be beneficial to your health as I discussed in a previous blog post, but can classical music make infants smarter? The rumored “Mozart’s Effect” claims that playing classical music when you’re pregnant will make your baby smarter, but there’s no actual evidence that this does anything. (In addition, they use this effect to describe the short-term improvement derived from listening to classical music, regardless of age) Is this all myth, or is there some fact to this saying?

I also brought Mozart to play while he sleeps to make him smarter because leading experts say Mozart makes babies smarter.”

Many studies have been conducted and shown that listening to classical music can help improve test results, for an example this is seen in one study where students who listened to Mozart before a test scored an average of 8 to 9 points higher to than those who didn’t. (It is important to note that the effect wore off after 15 minutes.) But those are college students, so what kind of effect does music have on babies, or even infants who haven’t been born yet?

One study was conducted where 12 mothers played a particular song for three months, and then when the children were one year old they placed them in a room and played three songs: one of which was the song their mother selected. The children seemed to have a clear preference for the song that was played to them while in the womb. This makes some logical sense, considering that babies can recognize their parent’s voices when they’re born. It’s not too much of a stretch to assume they could recognize other sounds if they heard them enough. Although, you could argue that this is all due to chance, especially with such a tiny sample size. Still, it’s not too far out there to suggest that these babies are, at some level, processing sounds. But do these sounds have any real effect?

An analysis of sixteen different studies found that while there was a brief improvement, it was only temporary and doesn’t actually increase your intelligence. This sentiment is resounded by other articles, and the general consensus is that classical music gives you a temporary boost in performance, but doesn’t increase your intelligence – and the same goes for your babies. You can play classical music for your babies, but there’s currently no evidence to prove that will have any significant effect on your child’s intelligence.

 

The Power of Music

Music is certainly a force to be reckoned with. I’ll admit I’ve had a song make me tear up, feel inspired, or pumped me and make me feel like running a marathon. Music has the power to sway our emotions, but can music heal us? Is it possible for a series of sound waves to have an healing effect on us?

Sound Of Music Lady - THE PATIENT'S ALIVE WITH THE SOUND OF MUSIC

A study set to see if music could improve symptoms of those in the hospital with schizophrenia. A single blind (the assessors were blind) randomized control trial took place with 81 participants. A variety of music was played for the patients along with a trained music therapist. Those who had music therapy added to their standard care had greater improvement with their symptoms in comparison to those who just had standard care. I believe this study was set up and controlled very well. The sample size is a little bit on the small size, but I believe that it isn’t small enough to make the findings obsolete.

An article reported on the neurochemistry of music, and noted that music can have positive physical effects such as: reducing heart rate, blood pressure, and cortisol levels. It adds in addition that a proposed mechanism of music is that it can regulate stress, arousal and emotions by initiating brainstem responses. It suggests that tempo plays a big role, and that the brainstem fires in response to the tempo.

Another article discusses the power of music, claiming that music affects the heart, arteries, and lungs and could even help patients who have circulatory conditions. They had volunteers listen to orchestras play, and also had them listen to two minutes of silence. Researchers found that rising crescendos raised blood pressure, heart rate, and respiration rates. In contrast, calming music did the opposite. During the two minute silence volunteer’s blood pressure and heart rate was reduced.

Can music heal? Well, it isn’t going to cure cancer, or destroy Ebola, but it definitely has some positive physical effects on our bodies. Music therapy is a field that has seen surprising and positive results and will continue to. In addition, music can certainly be cheaper than lots of other treatments with no side effects. There’s no harm in popping in some ear buds and listening to Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9.

 

Is it Time to Start Cracking Down?

Preparing to take on a challenge, I find myself pressing against my knuckles to hear that satisfying sound of my knuckles cracking – time to get to work! However, I’ve heard countless times from grandparents and parents that this habit will lead to giant joints in my fingers and arthritis. But does cracking your knuckles really cause arthritis? It’s time I get to the bottom of this age old rumor and see if there are any answers.

This article explains that there is space between your joints where dissolved gases in your joint fluid start to make tiny bubbles. These bubbles combine into bigger bubbles which get popped by the extra fluid that rushes into the space when you apply pressure to your knuckles. So is this bad for you? Dr. Donald L. Unger performed an investigation for over 60 years where he cracked the knuckles on his left hand at least twice a day, but never cracked the knuckles on his right hand. Despite this, he never found signs of arthritis in either hand. This itself doesn’t prove anything, after all some people smoke and never get lung cancer, but smoking can still lead to lung cancer.

Another interesting study was performed where twenty-eight residents of a nursing home were asked whether or not they cracked their knuckles. Those who had were less likely to have osteoarthritis in their hands. While fascinating, I believe the sample size in the study is way too small to prove much of anything, and it could very easily be due to chance.

A larger study from 1990 was conducted where researchers examined the hands of 300 people over the age of 45. The results found that those who cracked their knuckles seemed to have weaker grips, and 84% had signs of swelling in their hands. However, they still couldn’t say that knuckle crackers had more osteoarthritis. With a larger sample size, this study has more substance to it than the previous research. This article, however, makes an argument against this study: Maybe those who crack their knuckles have a proneness for problems later on, and knuckle cracking isn’t a cause, but merely an indicator.

A more recent study (2011) with over 200 participants looked at both if people cracked their knuckles and how often they did it. Ultimately, the rate of cracking didn’t make a substantial difference for arthritis, and the results of the study found that there wasn’t a different between those who did and did not crack their knuckles.

What can we take away from all of these studies? Nothing conclusion. Not enough research has been conducted on the issue, and the research that has been conducted is typically too small to make any conclusions based off it. For now, keep cracking your knuckles until actual evidence is found that it causes arthritis. Just don’t go too hog-wild. There’s no reason yet to believe your grandparents when they tell you that you’ll get giant ugly knuckles and terrible arthritis when you get old.

 

 

 

Butterflies in your Stomach?

As I strolled across campus between my classes, I found myself thinking of my girlfriend and noticed the familiar sensation of “butterflies in my stomach.” I wondered, what is this sensation exactly? Why is it that when we think, or see the person of our affections our stomachs feel all fluttery? An article by pediatrician Howard Bennett explores the sensation and helps to explain it.

The article simply explains that it stems from your “fight-or-flight” response.  In a “fight-or-flight” situation, your brain sends signals to your hypothalamus and pituitary gland (the section of your brain responsible for controlling your hormones and lots of bodily functions). Your pituitary gland then signals your adrenal glands down on top of your kidneys, which releases chemicals into your blood stream. These chemicals cause your heart rate to rise, blood pressure to increase, and better circulation in your muscles, so you can either fight or flee better! So what does this have to do with your stomach? While your blood is being redirected to your lungs and muscles, there is less going to other organs like your stomach. Summarized in a sentence: When you’re stressed, more blood is circulating in your muscles and lungs and less to your stomach which gives it that fluttery sensation.

However, this still doesn’t answer our question. I certainly don’t feel stressed when I think about my girlfriend, so why does my stomach get butterflies in it? Research done at the University College London helps to delve further into this question.

For their experiment they found volunteers who reported being in love, and selected 11 women and 6 men who were in their mid twenties. They scanned the volunteer’s brain activity and showed them photographs of both loved ones or a friend of the same sex and age as their lover. When shown a photo of a lover there was activity in four brain regions that weren’t activated when looking at the picture of their friend. One of these regions is the medial insula, which is believed to play a role in perception, homeostasis and emotion. One of the roles in particular seems to be perception of the gut, which had the researchers wondering if it played a part in the butterflies in the stomach sensation.

I believe that the sample size is a bit too small to really conclude anything, but it does offer some interesting theories as to what is causing that fluttering feeling. Researchers said that they were sure they were measuring love, and not just sexual attraction (although they admit it’s a factor) but this brings up an interesting point. Perhaps it’s merely the attraction that causes us to become flustered and redirect blood a little more to other sections of the body and away from our stomachs. It doesn’t seem like there’s a conclusion yet, but it certainly is some good food for though.

 

Why are we Afraid of Spiders?

The apartment complex I live in is home to dozens of giant, idle, and generally creepy daddy long-leg spiders. I often find myself feeling a bit anxious as I rush down the cramped halls with corners lined by dangling arachnids.  While I am aware that a wide majority of spiders are absolutely harmless, I still find myself intimidated by the spiders that are smaller than the palm of my hand. To further the confusion, I haven’t had any traumatic experiences with spiders, so why should I be afraid of them? A study conducted by Graham Davey at City University London attempts to delve into this question.

Davey interviewed 118 undergraduate students about their spider fears, and approximately 75% of those sampled were either mildly or severely afraid of spiders. A majority of those afraid of spiders were female, and many of those scared of spiders reported having a family member with similar fears. From his results, Davey found that arachnophobia didn’t result from a traumatic event, and it didn’t stem from the fear of being bitten either. What he did find was that the fear came from none other than the spider’s “legginess.”

Davey comes to the conclusion that “Animal fears may represent a functionally distinct set of adaptive responses which have been selected for during the evolutionary history of the human species.” This suggests that a fear of spiders was one of many animal phobias instilled over time through evolution to ensure safety. Davey expands on his ideas in a blog post where he discusses disgust as a factor. He asks the question of how animals are associated with “disgust” and this links to diseases and illnesses. He uses a historical analyziation to suggest that spiders were associated with disease in Europe during the Middle Ages. Davey theorizes that this spider phobia was created by accidentally associating spiders with illnesses they didn’t actually cause (i.e: The Black Plague) He concludes with the idea that culture, and disgust play a focal point in our fear of spiders.

While I think Davey’s original study had a very small sample size and didn’t prove much, his expansions on the subject are fascinating and bring up many good points. He makes a great point of a possible link between family members and shared phobias. If a child sees a parent being afraid of a spider, that child might learn that it’s good to be afraid of spiders and develop a fear of arachnids. This follows the psychological concept of social learning (where we learn from observation) very well. This could be an easy way the fear was transferred from generation to generation.

In general, there are many reasons why we might be afraid of spiders. Maybe when you were four years old a giant spider crawled inside your mouth and you’ve been terrified since, however, events like these don’t happen to most people. Various theories suggest our non-explainable phobia could be a result of evolution, genetics, culture, or social learning through family members.

 

Are Women Less Likely to Give Birth on Halloween?

With Halloween on the fast approach, I decided to go hunting for some scientific studies relating to the holiday, and I unexpectedly found a rather interesting and strange article. A 2010 Yale study suggests a link between symbolic holidays and US birthrates: with an increase of spontaneous births on Valentine’s Day, and a decrease on Halloween. I could not believe that this could actually be real. I mean, it does not make any sense for a woman to subconsciously be able to control when she gives birth just based on holidays, does it?

The study created a database using all birth-certificate information in the US and examined the weeks before and after Valentine’s Day and Halloween from the years 1996 to 2006 (11 years). The window for Valentine’s Day had over 1.6 million births, and the Halloween window had over 1.8 million births.

Full-size image (64 K)

Over this 11 year period, there was a 5.3 percent decrease in spontaneous births and a 16.9 percent decrease in c-section births on Halloween when compared to the births the week before and after. In contrast, Valentine’s Day showed a 3.6 percent increase in spontaneous births and a 12.1  percent increase in c-section births. (Showed in the graphs above by the rises and dips in the graphs)

The Yale researchers did their best to explain this “phenomenon” as spontaneous births should (logically) be out of the mother’s control. They argue “A previously unnoticed psychophysiological mechanism may explain this pattern” and go on to explain that the positive implications of Valentine’s Day may on a psychological level increase the mother’s determination to start giving birth. In contrast, the negative implications of Halloween might increase her will to oppose starting labor. These tendencies might have an effect on the mechanism that controls the timing of birth.

Observing the study, I think their research was well conducted. An eleven year period is a good section of time, and offers sufficient data. However, the question must be asked, does correlation equal causation? Not always, as we’ve said in class many times. At first glance, I thought surely this was just correlation, but not causation. However, after reading through the study, I do think that the correlation agrees with their hypothesis. This doesn’t necessarily prove causation though. The results could always be a product of chance, but since the study was done over 11 years I’m inclined to believe that the odds of the results coming out of chance are fairly low. Lots of things are correlated without any causation.

In addition, there is no risk of reverse causation, since that would say that instead of Valentine’s Day causing more spontaneous births, the spontaneous births cause Valentine’s Day (which obviously makes no sense). So while this observational study doesn’t prove anything, it does show some interesting statistics and offers some more interesting questions: Can pregnant women effect their births on a subconscious level? What causes a woman to go into labor, and what impacts the timing of birth?

Why do we like the music we like?

This question has always itched in the back of my mind, “Why do we like the music we like?” My only leads were the assumptions that it was either A. Something we haven’t discovered yet or B. Something very complicated I would never be able to understand. There doesn’t seem to be a complete answer to this question yet, but there is interesting research into this question and some helpful clues into what’s happening inside our brains. This article asks the same question and attempts to get some answers.

The two primary components working in our brains when we listen to music we like are the auditory cortex and the accumbens nucleus. The auditory cortex processes and stores all of the sounds we hear, and each person’s auditory cortex is unique. The accumbens nucleus shows signs of reward and pleasure. The Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital ran an experiment to see how these two regions of the brain interact with each other. During the study they found that “the accumbens lights up when it hears new music after the song has been filtered through the auditory cortex”  (ideastations). During this process, the accumbens and auditory cortex communicate and give a reaction to the music – presumably you enjoy it or you do not. This result suggests that the accumbens, the region that plays a role in pleasure, has a hand in our reactions to hearing different music and could have an impact on what kind of music we enjoy listening to.

If this is true, then this could lead to a lot of addition questions: Are we programmed to like certain music? Could other things impact our interest in music, such as culture and context? Perhaps through our life our auditory cortex grows adjusted to hearing certain sounds, and becomes uninterested in other kinds of music. For an example, older people who love classical or jazz, but can’t stand listening to metal music. Does age also make a difference? We can’t quite answer these questions, but it’s some great food for thought.

source article

Can we smell sickness?

In all of my classes I’ve heard an orchestra of sniffling, coughing, and sneezing all throughout the lectures. With so many sick students stuffed into a classroom it’s the prime location to spread illnesses. Besides the most obvious signs of hacking coughs and sneezing, could it be possible for our bodies to smell sickness on others? This article analyzes recent studies, and comes up with the conclusion that it’s more likely than not.

Photograph Source

A study that was conducted at a medical university in Sweden suggested that sickness has the odor of a highly active immune system. They performed an experiment where they had eight individuals give body odor samples. Before one session of sample collections they injected each participant with the endotoxin lipopolysaccharide which activities our immune systems, and in another session they inserted a salt solution that wouldn’t have any affect on the immune system. They collected the tightly fitted sweaty T-shirts and had forty volunteers smell the samples twice in a random order and then rate the smell on the intensity, how pleasant the smell was, and how healthy it smelled.

The results showed that the placebo shirts were listed as having a less intense, more pleasant and much healthier scent than the LPS shirts. The researchers suggested that this could have been a “behavioral adaption” and that this could’ve evolved as “a disease-avoidance mechanism.” I wasn’t particularly surprised by the results myself, but an important question is, we can trust the results on the study?

This experiment wasn’t particularly large-scale, and when it comes down to it the results are relying on anecdotal evidence. Despite this, I believe they did a good job controlling for chance by making the participants smell samples twice in random orders. While they offered strong results, correlation does not always equal causation, but if it does in this case then the results offer some good food for thought. One of mankind’s greatest enemies is diseases: the infections invisible to our eyes that destroy our bodies from the inside. Could this possible ability to smell sickness have evolved as a self-defense mechanism? Perhaps our bodies learned over time how to detect illness to protect us from catching it. Could we possibly smell sickness on others before they begin to feel the effects of their illness?

This evidence doesn’t necessarily suggest we should smell everyone to see if their sick or not, or that we should avoid smelly people because we might get ill. However, if you think the sick person next to you in class smells strange, this could be a clue as to why.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/we-can-smell-the-ramped-up-immune-system-of-sick-people-2014-1#ixzz3DcbkwyyE

Initial Blog Post!

Greetings, my name is Cas and I was born and raised right here in State College! I

“Photography is one of my favorite hobbies! Here’s a photo I took this past spring!” 

I’m enrolled in this course as a way to fulfill my general education requirements. My adviser suggested this class to me because it was a science course for non science majors. It seemed like the best and most enjoyable option, so I signed up for SC 200. As for why I am not planning to become a Science major, this is due to the fact that I have never been particularly good at the subject. I’ve always seen science as a subject you need to be really smart to excel in, and I’ve had very limited experience with science courses. I was home schooled for many years in middle school, and we didn’t cover much conventional science. In addition, the science courses and requirements in the high school I attended were very loose, so I did not get much exposure to the subject. So for a summary, it would probably be because I don’t have much interest in science, and I don’t find myself smart enough to do well in it anyways.

Here is a video of an experiment we were shown in my Psychology class that studies inequality between monkeys. It’s short, pretty funny, and definitely worth watching so check it out!