New Business Takes On Epidemic of Poor Posture and Spine Disorders – PR Web

Boise Chiropractor

BOISE, Idaho (PRWEB) January 24, 2022

A brand new chiropractic clinic and spine rehab facility, Optimal Spine & Posture, is now open and serving the Boise, ID communities. Optimal Spine & Posture not only specializes in posture, but an array of spine disorders including low back pain, neck pain, headaches and migraines, hyperkyphosis and scoliosis.

Optimal Spine & Posturesspine rehab and wellness center not only provides its patients with the most effective and reliable methods of treating musculoskeletal conditions, butthey strive to empowertheir patients with the knowledge and tools that allow them to protect themselves from future injury and to positively influence their own future state of healthand well-beingin the years to come.

The team at Optimal Spine & Posture is led by Dr. Justin Anderson, D.C. who is an advanced certified Chiropractic Biophysics clinician and diplomate. Chiropractic Biophysics or CBP is a biomechanically based technique system that uses a combined chiropractic and spinal rehabilitation approach. A graduate of Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, IA, Dr. Justin has over 3,000 hours of post-doctorate coursework in clinical biomechanics and clinical study. As an advanced CBP diplomate, researcher, and instructor, Dr. Anderson now has two studies published in peer-reviewedmedicaljournals detailing the successesachieved in his practices.

At Optimal Spine & Posture our clinic encompasses aculturethatcultivateshealth, healing, and prosperity from the inside out.We consider total body health to provide a comprehensive understanding of biology, physiology, and body mechanics as it relates to your quality of life, says owner and clinic director Dr. Justin Anderson.

We put the health ofourpatients first, working to provide care that resolves the real problem and not merely the symptom,with theconsideration ofpreventative carein the future.We provide a friendly, high-energyatmosphere thatoffers ourpatients a warm,lovingenvironmentand provides them peace of mind in their healthcare decisions.

About Optimal Spine & Posture

Optimal Spine & Posture is the trusted leader in spine correction, an innovative force, where chiropractic meets advanced spine correction.

Specializing in neck and back pain, advanced spine correction, auto injury, scoliosis rehabilitation and scoliosis bracing, headaches and migraines.

At Optimal Spine & Posture there are treatment options for pain relief, spine correction and structural restoration, along with wellness care for those seeking to continue to function at optimal levels once their problem is corrected.

Optimal Spine & PostureAddress: 6744 N Glenwood St, Boise, ID 83714, United StatesPhone: +1 208-748-5909Website: https://optimalchiropracticboise.comBoise Chiropractor

Share article on social media or email:

See the original post:
New Business Takes On Epidemic of Poor Posture and Spine Disorders - PR Web

Researchers from the GIST propose ultrasound stimulation as an effective therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in new study – EurekAlert

image:Ultrasound Stimulation as an Effective Therapy for Alzheimers Disease view more

Credit: Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology

With the increase in average life expectancy in many parts of the world, certain age-related diseases have become more common. Alzheimers disease (AD), unfortunately, is one of them, being extremely prevalent within aging societies in Japan, Korea, and various European countries. Currently there is no cure or an effective strategy to slow down the progression of AD. As a result, it causes much suffering to patients, families, and caregivers as well as a massive economic burden.

Fortunately, a recent study by a team of scientists at the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST) in Korea has just demonstrated that there might be a way to combat AD by using ultrasound-based gamma entrainment, a technique that involves syncing up a persons (or an animals) brain waves above 30 Hz (called gamma waves) with an external oscillation of a given frequency. The process happens naturally by exposing a subject to a repetitive stimulus, such as sound, light, or mechanical vibrations.

Previous studies on mice have shown that gamma entrainment could fight off the formation of -amyloid plaques and tau protein accumulationsa standard hallmark of the onset of AD. In this recent paper, which was published in Translational Neurodegeneration, the GIST team demonstrated that it is possible to realize gamma entrainment by applying ultrasound pulses at 40 Hz, i.e., in the gamma frequency band, into the brain of an AD-model mice.

One of the main benefits of this approach lies in the way it is administered. Associate Professor Jae Gwan Kim, who led the study alongside Assistant Professor Tae Kim, explains: Compared with other gamma entrainment methods that rely on sounds or flickering lights, ultrasound can reach the brain non-invasively without disturbing our sensory system. This makes ultrasound-based approaches more comfortable for the patients.

As their experiments showed, mice exposed to ultrasound pulses for two hours daily for two weeks had reduced -amyloid plaque concentration and tau protein levels in their brain. Furthermore, electroencephalographic analyses of these mice also revealed functional improvements, suggesting that brain connectivity also benefits from this treatment. Moreover, the procedure did not cause any type of microbleeding (brain hemorrhages), indicating that it was not mechanically harmful to brain tissue.

Overall, the promising results of this study could pave the way to innovative, non-invasive therapeutic strategies for AD without side effects, as well as help treat other conditions besides AD. Dr. Tae Kim remarked: While our approach can significantly improve the quality of life of patients by slowing the progression of AD, it could also offer a new solution to other neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's disease.

Let us hope future studies will cement ultrasound-based gamma entrainment as an effective treatment option, and provide a much-needed relief to AD patients and their families.

Reference

Title of original paper: Effects of transcranial ultrasound stimulation pulsed at 40 Hz on A plaques and brain rhythms in 5FAD mice

Journal: Translational Neurodegeneration

DOI:https://doi.org//10.1186/s40035-021-00274-x

About the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST)

The Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST) was founded in 1993 by the Korean government as a research-oriented graduate school to help ensure Korea's continued economic growth and prosperity by developing advanced science and technology with an emphasis on collaboration with the international community. Since that time, GIST has pioneered a highly regarded undergraduate science curriculum in 2010 that has become a model for other science universities in Korea. To learn more about GIST and its exciting opportunities for researchers and students alike, please visit: http://www.gist.ac.kr/.

About the authors

Jae Gwan Kim is an Associate Professor of the Department of Biomedical Science and Engineering at GIST in Korea. His group develops methods to diagnose and treat Alzheimer's disease using functional near-infrared spectroscopy and transcranial ultrasound stimulation.

Tae Kim is an Assistant Professor of the Department of Biomedical Science and Engineering at GIST in Korea. He is a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who focuses on bridging clinical psychiatry and basic neuroscience in regards to sleep physiology and its disorders, mental disorders, and dementia. One of his main research topics covers the neurobiological mechanisms of gamma oscillations and their clinical implications.

Translational Neurodegeneration

Experimental study

Animals

Effects of transcranial ultrasound stimulation pulsed at 40 Hz on A plaques and brain rhythms in 5FAD mice

7-Dec-2021

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Read the original post:
Researchers from the GIST propose ultrasound stimulation as an effective therapy for Alzheimer's disease in new study - EurekAlert

Reasearchers find key hormone influences social behavior from areas outside the brain – Newswise

By: Mark Blackwell Thomas | Published: January 10, 2022 | 8:54 am |

Newswise Oxytocins role in regulating and influencing social behavior is well known. Numerous ongoing clinical trials are focusing on the levels of the hormone in the brain but now a Florida State University research team has found evidence that oxytocin receptors outside of the brain may play an important role in shaping social behavior.

Elizabeth Hammock, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience, and her team, including graduate student Manal Tabbaa and undergraduate student Ashley Moses, observed the behavior of mice lacking oxytocin receptors in cells outside of the brain. They found that receptors outside of the brain in other areas of the body could be keys to how oxytocin shapes interactions between animals.

Their study was published in the journal PLOS ONE.

This study shows there is a population of cells outside of the brain that have oxytocin receptors and when that population of cells is missing those receptors, it impacts social behavior, Hammock said. A key takeaway is that to understand oxytocins role in social behavior we need to look at the whole organism. We cant assume the brain is doing all the work.

Hammock said her team removed gene coding for the oxytocin receptor from some cells during pre-natal development.

We left the developing brain alone and instead, specifically removed oxytocin receptors from a population of cells outside of the brain, she said. We let the mice grow to adulthood and then we tested these genetically altered mice and typical mice on some standard social behavior tests routinely used for lab mice.

Hammock said the genetically altered mice in the study exhibited reduced social interest, and males were quicker to show aggression compared to mice that were not genetically altered.

Hammock noted that there are already a number of drugs aimed at regulating oxytocin levels in the brain, with additional clinical trials underway pursuing the same goal. The results of this study suggest scientists may need to broaden their scope.

There are a number of clinical trials attempting to use oxytocin to modulate human behavior and there are research efforts to improve drug delivery to get oxytocin to the brain, she said. Our data suggest we might not need to target the brain if it can regulate behavior through more drug-accessible sites outside of the brain.

She added: We still need to determine if the lack of oxytocin receptors in those specific cells outside of the brain alters the development of the mice causing changes to their adult behavior. If so, it makes drug treatment in adulthood after development more challenging. Also, our study is in mice, not humans, which is important to remember. We have more work to do.

Hammock added: We focus on the brain so much and rightfully so but the brain is an integrated part of a larger system.

For more information, visit https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260199.

Read this article:
Reasearchers find key hormone influences social behavior from areas outside the brain - Newswise

U-M economic expert, others find views on politics, science have driven public response to pandemic – University of Michigan News

FACULTY Q&A

Political persuasion and trust in science have weighed heavily on mask use and compliance with shelter-in-place policies in the U.S. during the pandemic, according to studies co-authored by a University of Michigan doctoral student in economics.

David Van Dijcke

David Van Dijcke and his co-authors found higher support of former President Donald Trump led to lower levels of mask wearing and greater skepticism in science spurred less physical distancing among people and populations.

Van Dijcke, whose work with University of Chicago scholar Austin Wright has been published in the Journal of Public Economics and Nature Human Behaviour, says their collaborations have been a classic pandemic partnership: The pair met by Zoom discussing each others work and proceeded to collaborate on four papers before meeting in person.

A conversation with Van Dijcke follows.

Do you see these studies as complementary? Does the second pick up where the first leaves off, or fill out the picture?

Yes, they are complementary in the sense that they study different drivers of noncompliance with public health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic in the states: Our Nature Human Behavior paper establishes that science skepticism affected whether people adhered to the stay-at-home orders issued in the first few months of the pandemic, while our Journal of Public Economics paper documents how partisanship was the most important predictor of mask wearing in July 2020.

There are several other studies with complementary findings, for example, showing that partisanship also played a role in compliance with stay-at-home-orders.

Do you see any contradictions between them? I know this is a bit of apples and oranges: focusing on science skepticism and shelter-in-place policies vs. partisanship and mask mandates. But I wonder how important is this distinction?

Thats an important question. We put a lot of effort into making sure that the mechanisms we studyscience skepticism and partisanshipwere indeed the real drivers of this noncompliance, and not proxies for some other underlying causes. In particular, there is a strong correlation between both mechanisms: Republican-leaning voters tend to be more skeptical of scientific authorities and expertise, and so one could easily think that the noncompliance with these public health mandates we study is driven completely by either one or the other.

For that reason, in both studies, we allow for the possibility that there are these other factors also influencing noncompliance: science skepticism, partisanship, education, income. In our Journal of Public Economics paper, we even allow for the number of bowling organizations to affect mask wearing. Nonetheless, we consistently find that science skepticism and partisanship played an important, independent role.

When it comes to comparing mask-wearing to shelter-in-place policies, our findings suggest they are in some sense two different aspects of the same phenomenon: compliance with public health policies. For example, in our Nature paper, we also document a strong positive correlation between science skepticism and mask-wearing, although data limitations didnt allow us to study that further.

As I mentioned, there is also a body of recent research looking at the role partisanship played in the efficacy of the shelter-in-place policies. An important distinction between both policies, however, is that shelter-in-place policies incur substantial economic and societal costs to achieve reduction of viral spread, while mask-wearing essentially does not incur any costs, even as a rapidly expanding body of scientific work has demonstrated that it can be very effective in slowing the virus down.

In that light, it is somewhat surprising that we found such an important role for partisanship in mask-wearing: There appears to be no material reason to strongly oppose it, beyond signaling that you belong to a certain political tribe. It is true that at the start of the pandemic, there was some uncertainty around face masks, with some scientists worrying about self-infection and the World Health Organization recommending against their general use. That initial ambiguity may have opened the way for the subsequent politicization that we document, though that is mostly speculation.

For many, these studies will confirm what they thought to be true but backed by rigorous research. What was your reaction to the findings? What surprised or jumped out at you, if anything?

When we set out with this research, we had some preconceptions about what we would find and, indeed, our results largely confirmed those preconceptionsthey arent surprising in that sense. For example, for our Journal of Public Economics paper, we set out with the hypothesis that partisanship did indeed play a role in mask-wearing.

We did not expect to find, however, that partisanship is a more important predictor of mask-wearing than any other factor we could find data on. That really struck us. It also immediately informs policy: Fix the politicization of mask-wearing and you will start seeing a whole lot more masks around.

I think thats where the contribution of this kind of research really lies: to provide solid empirical evidence for the drivers of politico-economic issues, and to put precise magnitudes on the importance of these drivers. Its easy to say, based on anecdotes, X has been an extremely big issue during the pandemic.

Our work puts nuance on the following statements: How big of an issue is it? Is it really an issue, or is it masking some other underlying problem? How can policy mitigate the detrimental effects of X? That is something for which you need good data, good statistics and careful research.

You and your co-author, Austin Wright, also published a working paper last year that found Americans who attended the Jan. 6, 2021, rally-turned-riot around and within the U.S. Capitol were more likely to have traveled there from Trump-voting islands and areas with chapters of the far-right, extremist Proud Boys organization. There is a rich vein of research here. What attracts you to it and where do you see it going?

We had two main objectives with that piece of research. First, we wanted to show how one can use mobile device data to move the study of protests and collective action forward. So far, researchers have mostly relied on surveys and social media to look at who participates in collective action and why.

While those can be useful sources of information, they are often incomplete and biased. Not everyone who participates in protests, riots or the like is willing to tell statisticians about it, or posts on social media about it. With mobile device data, however, you can paint a more representative picture, and we show how researchers can do that using anonymized, aggregated mobile device data that respects individuals privacy.

Second, we then applied these methods we developed to study what we consider to be a historical moment in contemporary American politics: the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. By linking the device data with anonymized and aggregated Census data, we were able to look at what types of neighborhoods the devices were coming from. This allowed us to map out the political geography of this culmination of partisan division, to try and find out what made people attend this event.

As you mentioned, one of our main results is that we found that people who lived in Trump-voting areas that were surrounded by more Clinton-voting areas were more likely to have attended the rally and subsequent insurrection. Though there is a body of work in sociology on the effects of negative intergroup contact, this type of geographic political segregation has really not been studied before, and so our focus going forward is on trying to understand it better, especially how it may lead one to attend protests aimed at contesting free and fair election results.

Taking it all together, what are the key takeaways or recommendations for society and public policy? How do you frame it all together?

The main takeaway for public policy and American society, in my opinion, is that there is an urgent need for the safeguarding and development of mechanisms that are immune to disagreement and division. For public health policy, for example, we provide several examples from the literature on science communication, which has found that actively preempting science skepticism and misinformation in the communication and implementation of public policy can help facilitate compliance with such policy by citizens.

In that case, it is really crucial to know what type of division and disagreement may undermine policy so it can be addressed from the get-go and is not allowed to fester. In the case of the storming of the Capitol and the upholding of the election result, democratic institutions have, to some extent, held up, but I think it is clear that there is a lot of work to do in further immunizing them to future attacks.

Original post:
U-M economic expert, others find views on politics, science have driven public response to pandemic - University of Michigan News

Will this COVID-19 wave lead to herd immunity? Are you less likely to get sick again if you had omicron? Why this ‘milder’ variant is a double-edged…

I think were all going to get it. Its just a matter of time.

How many times have you heard a friend or family member say that in the last few weeks? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has relaxed its isolation guidelines. Is it any wonder that some people appear to be letting their guard down, and dining out in crowded restaurants as a highly contagious variant blazes its way through schools, social venues and households?

So what if you have tested positive for omicron, the highly transmissible variant of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. Now, what? Can you go about your business in the knowledge that you have the COVID-19 antibodies and youre less likely to test positive for the coronavirus again anytime soon? Should you be as afraid of omicron as, say, delta?

Epidemiologists are weighing the significance of the latest omicron wave, and wondering how if at all it could change the course of the pandemic. Theyre breathing a sigh of relief that the omicron variant appears to be less severe, but beyond that the world is once again playing Russian Roulette with a virus that is finding new ways to survive.

Thank God omicron is a less severe illness.

Have you heard of omicron parties where people get together with others who are infected with omicron in order to get the milder infection? asks Dr. Gregory Poland, who studies the immunogenetics of vaccine response at the Mayo Clinic. Were experiencing what were experiencing because of virus behavior and human behavior. Human behavior is the only thing we can control, and weve ceded that.

Aaron Glatt, chair of the Department of Medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, is more optimistic. We are seeing many, many more people getting infected, but thank God omicron is a less severe illness. Were seeing less hospitalizations, less ICU admissions, less intubations and less death. Thats as a proportion of new cases, which has reached a daily average of 678,271, up 271% over two weeks.

Omicron may be proving less severe than delta, but its rapid infection rate is still creating a high number of very sick Americans. The high rate of contagion has also led to a 16% increase in deaths over the last two weeks to a daily average of 1,559 fatalities. The hospitalization rate has risen 83% over the last two weeks to reach a daily average of 132,086, per to the New York Times daily tracker.

While children still have the lowest rate of hospitalization of any group, pediatric hospitalizations are at the highest rate compared to any prior point in the pandemic, Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, said. Sadly, we are seeing the rates of hospitalizations increasing for children zero to four, children who are not yet currently eligible for COVID 19 vaccination.

Public-health advisers obviously advise against throwing caution to the wind, and going out and mixing socially with other people indoors with no masks and little social distancing and not only because of the impact people taking time off work would have on the economy. Ideally, the less potential for omicron to spread, the less likely there will be for new strains to pop up, Glatt told MarketWatch.

Among the latest variants discovered was IHU in France, which is thought to have come from Cameroon. It has not been marked as a variant of interest, variant of concern or variant of consequence by the World Health Organization. But it is a portentous sign that the world is a far from the end of the pandemic. We long ago gave up the opportunity to eradicate this, Poland told MarketWatch.

First, some potential good news. Research led by Alex Sigal, a researcher at the Africa Health Research Institute and associate professor at University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, found that omicron infection enhances neutralizing immunity against the Delta variant. The study was a small project with just over a dozen patients. It was published last month, and has not yet been peer-reviewed.

We long ago gave up the opportunity to eradicate this.

The increase in delta variant neutralization in those infected with omicron may result in a reduced ability of delta to re-infect them, the research suggested. Along with emerging data indicating that omicron, at this time in the pandemic, is less pathogenic than delta, such an outcome may have positive implications in terms of decreasing the COVID-19 burden of severe disease.

If omicron does prove to be less pathogenic, then this may show that the course of the pandemic has shifted, Sigal said in a statement. Omicron will take over, at least for now, and we may have less disruption of our lives. However, thats a big if and perhaps an even bigger maybe, infectious disease doctors contend. It does not preclude more variants finding their way across the world.

Now, the bad news. The spread of the virus opens up the possibility of more variants, and in this viral game of whack-a-mole the next one may be worse than the last. It has more of a chance of doing so in the unvaccinated, the immunocompromised, the elderly and other vulnerable populations. Given its transmissibility, we have been very fortunate that omicron wasnt more deadly.

Paul Sax, clinical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Womens Hospital, wrote on Twitter TWTR that vaccination helped enormously: It boggles the mind to contemplate what would have happened if omicron had encountered a completely immunologically naive population, and efficiently replicated in the lung like other variants.

The omicron wave could provide a wall of immunity for the more vulnerable people. It certainly has the potential to infect many people and that could be a positive thing, at least they have immunity against COVID-19 or the omicron strain, Glatt said. That could theoretically bring us closer to herd immunity, and get around those who are not vaccinated.

Thats only a theory, and a tough one to prove at that. Herd immunity the idea that once a high proportion of a population has contracted or been vaccinated against a disease, the likelihood of others in the population being infected is drastically reduced remains tantalizingly out of reach even with 62% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated.

Heres one take on increasing a societys immunity, if not reaching herd immunity: Takeshi Arashiro, an infectious disease researcher at Japans National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Tokyo, and his fellow researchers, published a study that has not yet been peer-reviewed suggesting that countries that saw infections from other variants may have been spared the worst of the omicron wave in 2022.

Its not clear how long you are protected from getting sick again.

Theres a catch. A key tenet of achieving herd-immunity is the separation of those at a lower risk of dying from the higher-risk group people over 70 and with pre-existing conditions. As the lower-risk group contracts the virus, immunity spreads in the so-called herd, lowering the risk for those in the higher-risk group. The real world is notoriously unpredictable, and not a neat laboratory setting.

Ultimately, asymptomatic spreading is another Achilles heel and complicates any herd-immunity strategy where infected people are kept separate from the more vulnerable. The latter group, in reality, cannot remain house bound and without contact with anyone who is not considered vulnerable for months possibly years or however long it takes to reach the critical herd-immunity level.

And it would take 70% of the population or over 200 million people to recover from the virus, according to the Mayo Clinic. This number of infections could lead to serious complications and millions of deaths, especially among older people and those who have existing health conditions, the Mayo Clinic wrote. The health care system could quickly become overwhelmed.

As WHO points out, nor does herd immunity by infection account for the possibility of reinfection with the omicron or delta variants and, as mentioned, the emergence of new, unknown variants. Its not clear how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have antibodies, you could get COVID-19 again, the Mayo Clinic says.

Read next: COVID-19 vs. the flu. If you test negative on an antigen test, dont assume its a common cold or influenza. Heres why

Go here to read the rest:
Will this COVID-19 wave lead to herd immunity? Are you less likely to get sick again if you had omicron? Why this 'milder' variant is a double-edged...

Perceptive Automata Named One of the Best Companies to Work for the Third Consecutive Year – Woburn Daily Times

BOSTON, Jan. 10, 2022 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- Perceptive Automata, the leading provider of technology that allows AI-powered autonomous systems to understand human behavior, has been named one of the 100 Best Places to Work, 50 Best Small Places to Work, and 50 Companies with Best Benefits in 2022 by Built In Boston.

"Our employees are the reason that Perceptive Automata is an incredible place to work," said Bruce Reading, CEO of Perceptive Automata. "We work hard to build a workplace that offers great benefits, career growth, and an inclusive company culture. With the excitement of a startup and the stability of a market leader, we try to combine the best of both worlds. But a successful workplace is all about people, so these recognitions are a testament to our employees."

Perceptive Automata's culture is built on creating a comfortable work environment with a strong sense of family and community. Our community-oriented culture and our employees' wellbeing are enhanced by flexible remote working options, paid lunches, company-funded at-home workstations, and activities like game nights, charity events, and remote dinner parties. Everyone also has the opportunity to participate in supplementary training courses, academic conferences, and industry workshops funded by the company. Additionally, Perceptive Automata hosts a quarterly Innovation Week, which allows employees to team up and brainstorm new ways to improve our company, product, and industry for awards and prizes.

Built In Boston is part of the Built In network, which is the largest online community of technology companies and startups - serving millions of professionals nationally. Each year, Built In evaluates companies and determines winners based on how they measure against industry data related to employees' requirements and expectations of their employers, as well as a company's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and its culture.

About Perceptive Automata

Perceptive Automata is creating best-in-class artificial intelligence technology that gives machines, such as self-driving vehicles, the ability to understand the human state of mind. The company combines behavioral science techniques with machine learning to give autonomous systems the capability to anticipate and react to human behavior like people do, enabling autonomous vehicles to navigate safely and smoothly around pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. This is essential for autonomous vehicles to seamlessly roll out in human-dominated road environments and to deliver a smooth ride experience for passengers of autonomous mobility services. For more information about Perceptive Automata, visit http://www.perceptiveautomata.com.

Media Contact

Anthony Cote, Perceptive Automata, +1 (401) 529-0147, anthony@perceptiveautomata.com

SOURCE Perceptive Automata

Here is the original post:
Perceptive Automata Named One of the Best Companies to Work for the Third Consecutive Year - Woburn Daily Times

Global evidence on the selfish rich inequality hypothesis – pnas.org

Significance

Peoples beliefs about why the rich are richer than the poor have the potential to affect both policy attitudes and economic development. We provide global evidence showing that where the fortunes of the rich are perceived to be the result of selfish behavior, inequality is viewed as unfair, and there is stronger support for income redistribution. However, we also observe that belief in selfish rich inequality is highly polarized in many countries and thus a source of political disagreement that might be detrimental to economic development. We find systematic country differences in the extent to which people believe that selfishness is a source of inequality, which sheds light on international differences in public morality, civic virtues, and redistributive policies.

We report on a study of whether people believe that the rich are richer than the poor because they have been more selfish in life, using data from more than 26,000 individuals in 60 countries. The findings show a strong belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis at the global level; in the majority of countries, the mode is to strongly agree with it. However, we also identify important between- and within-country variation. We find that the belief in selfish rich inequality is much stronger in countries with extensive corruption and weak institutions and less strong among people who are higher in the income distribution in their society. Finally, we show that the belief in selfish rich inequality is predictive of peoples policy views on inequality and redistribution: It is significantly positively associated with agreeing that inequality in their country is unfair, and it is significantly positively associated with agreeing that the government should aim to reduce inequality. These relationships are highly significant both across and within countries and robust to including country-level or individual-level controls and using Lasso-selected regressors. Thus, the data provide compelling evidence of people believing that the rich are richer because they have been more selfish in life and perceiving selfish behavior as creating unfair inequality and justifying equalizing policies.

The idea of the selfish rich has a long history in science, politics, and religion (1). Adam Smith argued that the natural selfishness and rapacity of the rich benefits society (2). Others have argued that the selfish rich cause inequality and unfairness, by pulling the ladder of opportunity away from ordinary people (3, 4).

A growing literature has studied empirically whether the rich are more selfish than the poor, both in behavior and in underlying preferences. The evidence is mixed: Some studies report more selfishness among the rich (57), others that the rich are not different from the rest of society or even less selfish (811). Previous work has also provided diverse evidence on the causal effect of being rich on selfishness. It has been shown that making people feel richer or think about money causes them to behave more selfishly (6, 12), but at the same time, there is some experimental evidence suggesting that becoming rich makes you behave less selfishly (1315). The causal link from selfishness to being rich may appear more straightforward. Selfish people are likely more willing to exploit both legal and illegal opportunities to become rich, including, as shown in a laboratory experimental study, to work harder to earn more money (16). Finally, there is recent evidence suggesting that selfish behavior among the rich is contagious and increases selfish behavior among the poor (17).

The present study focuses on peoples beliefs about the rich, rather than the actual behavior of the rich. These beliefs are likely to shape inequality acceptance and support for redistribution in society. Evidence from a US sample (students and nonstudents) suggests that perceptions of the rich matter for policy preferences: People who view the rich as selfish are more likely to support taxation of the rich (18). There is also global evidence from 38 countries (students and nonstudents) on whether people have conflicting stereotypes of the rich, focusing on the personality dimensions warmth (friendly, sincere) and competence (capable, skilled) (19). This evidence suggests that people view the rich as cold and competent and shows that there is more ambivalence in how people view others in countries with an intermediate level of conflict or high inequality. It has been shown that there is a close association between a cold personality and selfishness (20), and, thus, the existing global evidence is suggestive of people considering the rich as more selfish than the poor (SI Appendix).

We advance the literature in two ways. First, we focus on peoples belief about differences in selfishness as a source of inequality in society. The empirical and experimental literature on the source of inequality has mainly focused on investigating peoples views on the role of luck versus effort in determining income inequality, while the role of selfish behavior has been, in comparison, highly overlooked (2125). We study whether people believe that selfish behavior among the rich is a source of inequality, which we refer to as the selfish rich inequality hypothesis.

Selfish Rich Inequality Hypothesis. The rich are richer than the poor because they have been more selfish in life than the poor.

Second, we provide large-scale global data from 60 countries (nationally representative samples) that allow for both between- and within-country analysis of peoples belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis.

There may be systematic between-country variation in support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis because countries are likely to differ in the opportunity for and reward from selfish behavior. In particular, it has been argued that nonproductive grabbing behavior may be particularly profitable in countries with poor institutions, where outcomes are more down to personal factors and networks, due to a weak rule of law, malfunctioning bureaucracy, and corruption (26). In contrast, good institutions may attract selfish individuals into productive activities that are beneficial for society. Hence, people in countries with poor institutions may be more likely to believe that the rich have become rich because they have been involved in selfish grabbing activities, while people in countries with good institutions may be more likely to believe that the rich have become rich through activities that have benefited society.

There may also be important within-country variation in the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis, since people differ in their experiences and information about the rich, or they may have self-serving beliefs (27, 28). For example, the rich may be less in agreement with the selfish rich inequality hypothesis than the poor because they have more information compared to the poor about the reasons for why they are rich. It may also be favorable for the rich to preserve a positive view of themselves and inequality in society and beneficial for the nonrich to picture the rich in a negative way. Finally, self-selection may affect the association between income rank and the belief in selfish rich inequality, since some people may decide not to pursue wealth because they believe that they have to engage in selfish behavior to become rich.

We further consider the relationship between peoples belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis and their acceptance of inequality. Are people who believe in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis more likely to consider inequality in their country to be unfair and be more in support of redistribution? The answers to these questions are not straightforward and likely depend on whether selfish behavior of the rich is seen as taking opportunities away from others or as promoting the interests of society.

The study shows strong support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis at the global level, but also substantial between- and within-country variation. Belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is related both to the circumstances in the country, particularly the corruption level, and to peoples position in the income distribution. These beliefs strongly predict peoples inequality acceptance and support for redistribution. Hence, peoples views on the selfish rich inequality hypothesis may play an important role in shaping how societies across the world address inequality.

We report on a large-scale global study of peoples belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis, using a sample of more than 26,000 individuals in 60 countries. It was implemented as part of the Fairness-Across-the-World module in the 2018 Gallup World Poll. The national samples are probability-based and nationally representative of the resident population aged 15 and older (see SI Appendix, Table S1).

The key question in the present study is whether the respondent agrees with the following statement: In [name of country of the respondent], one of the main reasons for the rich being richer than the poor is that the rich have been more selfish in life than the poor. This question was asked of a random subsample of 40% of the 65,856 respondents who took part in the 2018 Gallup World Poll in these 60 countries. The data were collected on a discrete 5-point ordinal scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree and assigned numerical values from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the analysis, we also use questions on whether they think the rich are richer than the poor because they have been more involved in illegal activities, whether they think inequality in their society is unfair, whether they support redistribution, a set of individual background variables, and a set of country background variables. A further description of the study, the data sources, and the empirical specifications is provided in SI Appendix. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of Gallup and NHH Norwegian School of Economics.

In Fig. 1, we provide an overview of peoples belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis. We observe strong support for this hypothesis at the global level. As shown in Fig. 1A, the majority of respondents agree with the selfish rich inequality hypothesis (52.0%); the mode in the pooled sample is to strongly agree (34.5%). However, we also note that there is a large minority who disagree with such a view of inequality in society. Fig. 1B provides a global map that gives an overview of the level of support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis across the world. The strongest support for the hypothesis is found in South America, southern Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia, while there is less support in North America, northern Europe, and Australia. In Fig. 1C, we report a ranking of the countries based on the extent to which the average response in the country is in agreement with the selfish rich inequality hypothesis; SI Appendix, Fig. S2 provides the histograms of responses by country. We find that 49 countries have an average response in agreement with the selfish rich inequality hypothesis, while only 11 countries have an average response against it. In fact, in 39 countries, the mode is to strongly agree with the selfish rich inequality hypothesis, while in only 7 countries is the mode to strongly disagree with it. The hypothesis has the most support in India and Pakistan, with about 60% of the respondents strongly agreeing with it, and the least support in the United States and Canada, with the majority disagreeing with it. These descriptive statistics are summarized in our first main result:

Belief in selfish rich inequality around the world. Note: The figure provides an overview of support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis. Respondents answered the belief in selfish rich inequality question on a discrete 5-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). A shows the distribution of belief in selfish rich inequality in the pooled global sample; B shows how the level of agreement varies by country (countries not in our sample are shown in gray); and C shows the estimated, population-weighted, average belief in selfish rich inequality and its SE for each country.

There is strong support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis at the global level, but also significant variation in the level of support across countries.

We now turn to an analysis of the between-country variation in the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis. In Fig. 2A, we report regression coefficients from country-level regressions of the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis on a corruption indicator for the country (see also SI Appendix, Table S2). We observe a highly significant positive relationship: The support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is increasing with the level of corruption in the country (=0.238,t58=6.05, P < 0.001). This relationship holds when we control for other country characteristics, including gross national income, income inequality, mean years of schooling, and mean age. Separately, each of these other country characteristics is significantly associated with the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis, but only corruption remains significant in a joint regression (=0.158,t51=2.32, P = 0.024). In SI Appendix, Table S3, we show that the relationship between belief in selfish rich inequality and corruption is robust to alternative measures of corruption and to including a measure of national conflict, the Global Peace Index, or a broad measure of a countrys development, the Human Development Index, in the analysis.

Between-country variation in beliefs. Note: A shows coefficients from a regression of country-level average belief in selfish rich inequality on country indices of corruption (58, 59); (log) gross national income per capita (GNI) (59); income inequality (Gini) from the World Income Distribution (60); average age (from the Gallup World Poll 2018 data); and average years of schooling (61). All explanatory variables have been standardized to unit variance. Estimates are reported for both separate bivariate and a joint specification (with all variables included). See SI Appendix, Table S2 for the complete specifications. B shows the country-level relationship between belief in selfish rich inequality (SRI) and belief in the role of crime (which is coded the same way as belief in selfish rich inequality). C shows the country-level distribution of the share of those who believe in selfish rich inequality that also believe in illegal activity being an important cause of inequality. D shows the country-level relationship between belief in the role of crime and belief in economic mobility (Can people in this country get ahead by working hard, or not?, yes/no).

We further investigate how the belief in selfish rich inequality in a country relates to other governance indicators. We find that the relationship between belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis and institutional quality is robust to considering institutional quality in terms of government effectiveness, political stability, regulatory quality, rule of law, voice, and accountability (SI Appendix, Table S4; in all cases, P < 0.001). However, in a regression including jointly the corruption indicator and all the other governance indicators, we observe that only the corruption indicator is significant (=0.418,t53=2.65, P = 0.011). The corruption indicator also explains more of the cross-country variation in the support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis than a governance index based on the first principal component of all the indicators. Finally, we consider how the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis relates to measures of organized crime and the size of the shadow economy in the country (SI Appendix, Table S5). We find that the belief in selfish rich inequality is positively associated with the size of the shadow economy (=0.197,t57=4.57, P < 0.001) and organized crime (=0.104,t57=2.15, P = 0.036). However, also in this analysis, we find that only the corruption indicator is significant in a joint regression (=0.264,t55=3.55, P < 0.001).

The fact that the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is strongly associated with corruption is suggestive of the respondents partly considering rich people to be sufficiently selfish to violate laws for personal gain (29). In Fig. 2B, we provide evidence corroborating this interpretation. We show at the country level how the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is associated with the view that the rich are richer than the poor because they have been more involved in crime. We observe that there is a strong positive association between these two beliefs: Agreement with the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is much greater in countries where people believe that rich people have been more involved in crime than poor people (=0.548,t56=10.88, P < 0.001). In Fig. 2C, we show the country-level distribution of the share of those who believe in selfish rich inequality that also believe in illegal activities being an important cause of economic inequality (for further details, see SI Appendix, Fig. S3A). We observe that in 50 countries, the majority of those who believe in selfish rich inequality also believe that the rich are richer than the poor because they have been involved in illegal activities. Hence, the evidence suggests that the between-country variation in the support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is partly driven by variation in corruption and institutional quality across countries.

Support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is stronger in countries with more corruption and weaker institutions.

This result suggests that in countries with more corruption and weaker institutions, it is a common view that the existing inequality reflects selfish behavior that has been destructive for society. In Fig. 2D, we show that there is a significant negative relationship between the belief in the rich being richer because they have been involved in crime and the extent to which people believe that there is economic mobility in society (=0.063,t56=2.03, P = 0.047). Hence, it appears that many consider the selfish behavior of the rich to have reduced the opportunities for most people. However, it should be noted that a substantial minority of people who believe in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis do not share this view. In 14 countries, primarily advanced economies with strong institutions, we find that more than 30% of those who believe in selfish rich inequality do not believe that the rich are richer because they have been involved in criminal activity (SI Appendix, Figs. S3B and S4B).

We find substantial within-country variation in support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis. In Fig. 3A, we provide a global map of how polarized countries are in their view of the rich (see also SI Appendix, Fig. S5). In almost all countries, we find substantial polarization, with a large share of the respondents agreeing with the selfish rich inequality hypothesis and another large share of respondents disagreeing with it. In 21 countries, the two most frequent responses are to strongly disagree or to strongly agree with the selfish rich inequality hypothesis, and only in Croatia, Czechia, and Japan is the mode to be neutral.

Within-country variation in beliefs. Note: A shows a map of the polarization in belief in selfish rich inequality. Polarization is measured as the SD of reported support within each country relative to the maximum SD possible (scaled zero to one). B reports estimated coefficients from regressing belief in selfish rich inequality on individual characteristics of the respondent: income rank of the household within country (using the square root equivalence scale and scaled from lowest: zero, to highest: one); an indicator for the respondent having high education relative to the national distribution of reported education; an indicator for the respondent being male; and age. High education and gender (male) are coded binary zero/one, while age is standardized to unit variance. Estimates are reported both for separate bivariate specifications and a joint specification (with all variables included, including some nonreported controls; see SI Appendix, Table S4 for the complete specifications). All specifications with country-specific intercepts. Estimates are population-weighted, with weights scaled such that each country has equal weight. Sandwich SEs account for primary sampling unit clustering and weighting.

We further investigate how the belief in selfish rich inequality relates to the respondents income rank in their country. In Fig. 3B, we report regression coefficients from regressions of the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis on the respondents rank in the income distribution with country fixed effects (see also SI Appendix, Table S6). We find that the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is negatively associated with the respondents rank in the income distribution in their country (=0.319,z=7.67, P < 0.001). This relationship is highly significant also when including other background characteristics in a joint regression (=0.236,z=5.25, P < 0.001). We further observe that the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is negatively associated with education level (=0.234,z=9.00, P < 0.001) and positively associated with being male (=0.063, z = 2.73, P = 0.006) and older (=0.079, z = 6.16, P < 0.001). In SI Appendix, Fig. S6, we report the estimated regression coefficient for income rank separately for each country. We find a negative relationship between the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis and income rank in the majority of the countries, with the strongest association being in the United States. Only in a few countries do we find a positive relationship.

There is less support for the selfish rich inequality hypothesis among richer and more educated people and more support among males and older people.

Finally, we consider the relationship between the selfish rich inequality hypothesis and peoples views on inequality and unfairness in society, both within and between countries. In the upper part of Table 1, we show that the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is significantly positively associated with agreeing that inequality in their country is unfair (=0.620,t58=5.00, P < 0.001) and in the lower part of Table 1 that it is significantly positively associated with agreeing that the government should aim to reduce inequality (=0.482,t58=5.02, P < 0.001). These relationships are highly significant both across and within countries and robust to including country-level or individual-level controls and using Lasso-selected regressors (in all cases, P < 0.001). In SI Appendix, Fig. S7, we report the regression coefficients for the individual-level analysis separately for each country. We observe a highly significant positive relationship between belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis and attitudes on inequality for almost all the countries in the study, with the associations being particularly strong in the United States. Thus, the data provide strong evidence of selfishness among the rich being perceived as creating unfair inequality and justifying equalizing policies.

Unfairness and inequality

People who believe in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis are more likely to consider inequality as unfair and to support that the government should aim to reduce inequality in their country.

The present study reports from a global dataset on peoples beliefs about the extent to which selfishness among the rich has caused inequality. It shows substantial support among people for the hypothesis that the rich are richer than the poor because they have been more selfish in life. We find that peoples belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is related both to societal circumstancesin particular, the corruption level in their countryand to their income rank in the country. Finally, we show that the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is predictive of peoples views on whether inequality in society is unfair and whether the government should aim to reduce inequality.

These findings contribute to a number of literatures. They highlight how peoples perception of the rich may affect the political economy of redistribution and economic development (3037). If the fortunes of the rich are perceived to be the result of selfish behavior, then our evidence suggests that there will be substantial support for redistribution. However, we observe that the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is highly polarized in many countries and thus likely to be a source of political disagreements. In this respect, it is interesting to observe that the United States is one of the most polarized countries in our study and the country in which the belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis is most predictive of peoples attitudes toward inequality. Disagreement on the selfish rich inequality hypothesis among Americans may thus be a contributing factor to the present challenging political situation in the United States. More broadly, these beliefs may affect economic development by shaping the trust people have in the rich and in companies and other institutions often headed by people perceived to be among the rich.

This study further contributes to the important literature in psychology and economics on motivated beliefs, which has shown that people engage in self-enhancing attributions (27, 3844). There is considerable evidence suggesting that people are predictably biased in how they gather and process information to preserve a self-image of being moral and not self-interested (43, 4552). The present study provides evidence consistent with such a self-serving bias in beliefs, even though we cannot rule out that the observed association between income rank and the belief in selfish rich inequality may be driven by the rich and the poor having access to different information. Finally, the paper speaks to the large literature in moral psychology and behavioral economics studying the role of nonselfish motivation in explaining human behavior (23, 45, 5355). We provide large-scale evidence showing that people across the world believe there to be heterogeneity in the extent to which individuals behave nonselfishly.

An interesting question is how the belief in selfish rich inequality relates to the actual selfishness of the rich. To shed some light on this relationship, we use self-reported data from the 2018 Gallup World Poll on whether people last month donated money to a charity. In most countries, we find that the rich are more likely to have donated money than the poor, which is not surprising, given that the rich have more money than the poor. However, in SI Appendix, Fig. S8, we show that there is a negative relationship between the belief in selfish rich inequality and the extent to which donating money correlates with the income rank in society (=0.055,t57=2.52, P = 0.014). Hence, the data suggest that the rich are less willing to donate money in countries where people believe there to be selection of selfish people into becoming rich.

Peoples beliefs in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis shed light on how we think society works and may shape the kind of life we want to live. These beliefs may also play a fundamental role in determining public morality and civic virtues (56) and therefore represent an essential ingredient in our understanding of human behavior and the organization of society.

The study was based on telephone interviews in countries where telephone coverage at the time of the survey represented at least 80% of the population (15 countries) and face-to-face interviews in the other countries (45 countries). Verbal consent to participate was given to Gallup interviewers.

Weights were generated to correct for household size; these were combined with poststratification weights constructed such that the survey can reproduce official population level statistics on demographics and socioeconomic characteristics. SI Appendix, Fig. S1 illustrates the effect of the resulting population weights. We rescaled the population weights by country such that all countries got equal weight both in the individual-level analysis and in the cross-country analysis.

The regression estimates reported for the between-country analysis were calculated with ordinary least squares. The regression estimates reported for the within-country analysis were calculated applying survey weights and with SE corrections for cluster sampling. For details, see SI Appendix, section H.

Some study data are available: There are no restrictions on the data used in this paper that were collected as part of the Fairness-Across-the-World module; these outcomes are publicly released with a core set of individual background variables. Survey and external macro data have been deposited in the Harvard Dataverse, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZEGFIT (57). The remaining set of background variables will be made available upon request; other Gallup World Poll variables are subject to licensing from Gallup.

The project was supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence Scheme, FAIR Project 262675 and Research Grants 236995 and 250415, and administered by FAIRThe Choice Lab. The experiment is registered in the Registry for Randomized Controlled Trials operated by the American Economic Association.

View post:
Global evidence on the selfish rich inequality hypothesis - pnas.org

Here’s How Researchers Trained Lab Rats To Drive Tiny Cars – Snopes.com

To learn more about how environmental factors influence the cognitive abilities of humans, researchers have trained rodents to drive tiny cars.

It may sound far out, but rats have similar pathways and chemicals in their brains as do people, and these often serve as a starting point to learn more about how the human brain works. And one such video that has circulated the internet for the last several years shows that just like people do, lab rats can be taught how to drive tiny cars.

The video itself is not necessarily new. Research conducted by psychologist from the University of Richmond in 2019, then published in January 2020 in the peer-reviewed journal Behavioural Brain Research, first described the astute rats. At the time of its publication, media outlets likeNPR, BBC and New Scientist shared the video and the findings that it embodied.

The driving rats resurfaced again in early January 2022 when the video was shared to the Reddit thread r/todayilearned. As of this writing, the video had since been removed but had received 2,700 upvotes beforehand.

The area of research focus is known as experience-based neuroplasticity, or how a persons environment and interactions with the world around them can shape the brain and its neural networks.

We love to study these animals, and were always amazed at what they can do in the lab with their behavior, their cognitive flexibility, and their emotional resilience. The rodent behavior and their brains help us learn more about human behavior and brains, explained study author Kelly Lambert, professor of behavioral neuroscience, in a news release at the time.

Lab rats used in the study live a somewhat bourgeoise life for a rodent. They have larger cages, more animals to interact with, and plenty of stimulus to create an enriched environment closer to those where they may naturally live. Studies show that these animals are more motivated and train more efficiently than those found in traditional laboratory settings.

Training is a big part of their life, and we know even with humans that training can change the brain in really interesting ways. Just learning to juggle can increase the density or the area of certain areas of our brains cortex, said Lambert.

Cue the rodent operated vehicle (ROV). Rats were taught to drive their pint-sized vehicles in a forward direction, as well as steer in more complex navigational pattern. When compared to other rats, those housed in enriched environments demonstrated more robust learning in their performance and a heightened interest even after the trials ended.

The ROV was made up from a modified ELEGOO EL-KIT-012UNO Project Smart Robot Car Kit V 3.0 (you can buy one here) designed so that the rad could move the car by touching or grabbing a bar. Movement could be stopped simply by releasing contact. stop movement by releasing contact. The rats were trained to touch the bars and move the car with the incentive of tiny pieces of Fruit Loops cereal, which were eventually placed at the end of the driving range. As training progressed, the distance to the tiny marshmallow treats increased with the longest distance travelled by a rat being 110 centimeters after about a month of training.

This research study found that rats housed in a complex, enriched environment (i.e., environment with interesting objects to interact with) learned the driving task, but rats housed in standard laboratory cages had problems learning the task (i.e., they failed their driving test). That means the complex environment led to more behavioral flexibility and neuroplasticity, said Lambert.

Following the study, researchers analyzed rat poop and found ratios of dehydroepiandrosterone and corticosterone, two types of stress hormones, that suggested driving training created a sort of emotional resilience in rats that lived both enriched and normal housing.

Though rats driving cars are adorable, the scientists note that their findings could inform future strategies for addressing mental health and helping to understand various illnesses. Neuroplasticity and the ability to learn new skills could have indications for anxiety, depression, emotional resilience and cognitive ability. This type of training can change a brain and learning to juggle multiple tasks can increase areas prone to certain conditions.

It appears the study above was just the beginning. In 2021, the team unveiled the Rat Car II which featured new equipment with less than 1,000 horse power, advance control for tiny rat hands, and once again motivation in the form of fruit loops.

Curious about how Snopes writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? Weve collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing.

Sources

Amazon.Com: KEYESTUDIO Smart Car Robot,4WD Programmable DIY Starter Kit for Arduino for Uno R3 Electronics Programming Project/STEM Educational/Science Coding Robot Toys for Kids Teens Adults,12+: Toys & Games. https://www.amazon.com/KEYESTUDIO-Bluetooth-Controller-Ultrasonic-Programming/dp/B08276N3D9/ref=asc_df_B08276N3D9/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=507731305156&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2989603916883922511&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9021356&hvtargid=pla-1045715635134&psc=1. Accessed 7 Jan. 2022.

Scientists Have Trained Rats to Drive Tiny Cars to Collect Food. New Scientist, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2220721-scientists-have-trained-rats-to-drive-tiny-cars-to-collect-food/. Accessed 7 Jan. 2022.

Crawford, L. E., et al. Enriched Environment Exposure Accelerates Rodent Driving Skills. Behavioural Brain Research, vol. 378, Jan. 2020, p. 112309. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112309.

Kelly Lambert Media Kits Expert Guides Newsroom University of Richmond. News, https://news.richmond.edu/experts/media-kits/lambert.html. Accessed 7 Jan. 2022.

Scientists Taught Rats How To Drive Tiny Cars. NPR, 23 Oct. 2019. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/10/23/772557752/scientists-taught-rats-how-to-drive-tiny-cars.

Neuroplasticity: How to Rewire Your Brain. BBC Reel, https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p098v92g/neuroplasticity-how-to-rewire-your-brain. Accessed 7 Jan. 2022.

Newman, Amy E. M., et al. Dehydroepiandrosterone and Corticosterone Are Regulated by Season and Acute Stress in a Wild Songbird: Jugular Versus Brachial Plasma. Endocrinology, vol. 149, no. 5, May 2008, pp. 253745. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2007-1363.

Richmond, University of. Driving On: Latest on Driving Rats Research Project. 2021. Vimeo, https://vimeo.com/519057874.

substantial-freud. TIL Rats Can Learn to Drive, and Seem to Enjoy It. R/Todayilearned, 5 Jan. 2022, http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/rwv0tm/til_rats_can_learn_to_drive_and_seem_to_enjoy_it/.

See original here:
Here's How Researchers Trained Lab Rats To Drive Tiny Cars - Snopes.com

What Does ‘Adulting’ Mean? – The Atlantic

Sign up for Calebs newsletter here.

English words constantly evolve, not only in terms of what they mean, but how they mean. They transform their parts of speech all the time without so much as a changed syllable. The adjective green came to mean the part of the golf course that can be described by this adjective. The prepositions up and down came to mean the experiences in life that feel like the spatial relationships that these prepositions describelifes ups and downs. We transform proper names willy-nilly into adjectives, such as when we see a dress our friend Jessica would love and describe it as so Jessica. But the most fascinating method of linguistic conversion is to verbifyan autological (self-describing) word denoting the transformation of a noun into a verb. Such a process recently occurred with the noun adult, which became to adult, or, more commonly, adulting.

Verbification happens all the time. Soon after the website Google allowed us to search web pages for specific keywords and phrases, we verbed that act into Googling. We tend to verb animal names to mean human behavior that evokes that animal, such as parrot, grouse, and monkey (or horse) around. Verbs as common as to access began as nouns (we once said to gain access). We could probably understand almost any noun as a verb, given the right context: The flight attendant Pepsied my cup or I playlisted all your song recommendations or Can anyone peace the world? Calvin said it best (to Hobbes, of course) in a 1994 Bill Watterson comic strip: Verbing weirds language.

But what allows some nouns to become widely verbed? To me, commonly verbed nouns typically seem to contain an action within thema specific Deed linked closely enough to the Thing for the conversion to be intuitive and useful. You can only do one thing on the website Google; we all know what a parrot is famous for doing all the time; having access is inextricable from the activity of accessing. Meanwhile, Pepsi, playlists, and peace have a multitude of associated activities and therefore must rely heavily on context if were going to verb them. To turn a Thing into an Action, you need the Thing to be bound up in an associated Action to begin with, so the meaning of the new verb unfurls naturally from the old noun.

So what action unfurls naturally from the noun adult? Adulting means more than just reaching biological maturity or becoming fully grown. To adult is to engage in the responsibilities of modern adulthood. Filing taxes, cooking a meal, buying renters insuranceMillennials coming of age use the verb to describe engaging in the mundane tasks of mature life with characteristic self-effacing irony. The so-called snowflake generation, for whom stages of development, such as starting a family or owning a home, have commonly been delayed, engages in the normal day-to-day activities of adulthood with a smirking, surreal surprise. Adult became adulting as a generation entered that period feeling somewhat unprepared, wanting to express that maturity means not only reaching a certain point in your life, but also attending to the concomitant tasks. Hence our Thursday-level clue: Doing grown-up tasks, in Millennial slang.

View post:
What Does 'Adulting' Mean? - The Atlantic

46000 people and counting: How COVID has impacted the study of human behavior – Genetic Literacy Project

The GLP Needs Your Help

It is easier than ever for advocacy groups to spread disinformation on pressing science issues, such as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. No, vaccines are not harmful. Yes, the use of biotechnology, GMOs or gene editing to develop antigens for treatments including vaccines are part of the solution. To inform the public about whats really going on, we present the facts and challenge those who don't. We cant do this work without your help. Please support us a donation of as little as $10 a month helps support our vital myth-busting efforts.

Visit link:
46000 people and counting: How COVID has impacted the study of human behavior - Genetic Literacy Project