Time magazine, which has stopped somewhere just short of flatly endorsing unfounded concepts such as facilitated communication, seems not to be buying the vaccine-autism argument. In an article about vaccinations that currently appears on the front page of Time’s Web site, reporter Laura Blue recites the litany of benefits that vaccines have provided and then asks why people resist using them.
Continue reading ‘Time’s changing?’
Monthly Archive for November, 2007
Today is the official launch of the Consortium to Prevent School Violence (CPSV). The consortium will provide many resources including fact sheets, research summaries, training resources, and more.
The Consortium to Prevent School Violence (CPSV) seeks to promote the effective implementation of school violence prevention practices that are:
Based in high-quality scientific research
Proven to prevent and reduce school violence
Following the school shootings of Fall 2006, a group of 20 researchers and practitioners in the field of school violence prevention collaborated on the creation of a position statement on the school shootings. In the process, it became apparent that an alliance of researchers and practitioners in school violence prevention to further the common goal of reducing school violence would be highly valuable.
The Consortium is primarily a volunteer effort.
Visit CPSV on the Web. Snag a copy of CPSV press release about the launch.
Sphere: Related ContentMirror neurons, which have been connected to deficits seen in Autism (see here and here), might be artificially stimulated, thus promoting function that is more similar to that seen in individuals who do not have Autism. Recently on NPR’S Morning Edition John Hamilton described two presentations at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, in San Diego that bear on this possibility.
In one study, Lindsay Oberman and her colleagues examined the mu rhythms of individuals with and without Autism while they watched videos of hands performing actions (Mu rhythms are a human brain-wave pattern; they are suppressed when the brain is performing, seeing or imagining actions, and they are correlated with the activity of the mirror neuron system.) Mr. Hamilton reported that Oberman and others are examining use of transcranial magnetic stimulation to excite mirror neurons.
In the second study, Jaime Pineda and colleagues described how they are using a video game in which children move a car by bio-feedback. The researchers are deriving the bio-feedback from frequencies that require use of mirron neurons. They report post-hoc change in the function of mirror neuron areas of the children’s brains and even have anecdotal report from parents about improvements in the children’s behavior.
Here’s the abstract for the report by Professor Oberman and colleagues:
Title: Mirror neuron activity modulated by actor familiarity in children with autism spectrum disorders: an eeg study
2007 Neuroscience Meeting Planner. San Diego, CA: Society for Neuroscience, 2007. Online.
Authors: *L. M. OBERMAN(1), V. S. RAMACHANDRAN(1,2), J. A. PINEDA(3);
(1:Psychology, UCSD, Lajolla, CA; 2:Neurosciences, 3:Cognitive Sci., UCSD, La Jolla, CA)In an early description of the mu rhythm, Gastaut and Bert (1954) noted that it was blocked or suppressed when an individual identified himself with an active person on the screen, suggesting that it may be modulated by the degree to which the individual can relate to the observed action. Additionally, multiple recent studies suggest that the mirror neurons system (MNS) is impaired in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), which may affect their ability to relate to others. The current study investigated in ASD and neurotypical children the degree to which the MNS is sensitive to two manipulations aimed at varying the degree to which the observer is able to identify with the action on the screen: social versus nonsocial actions, and the familiarity of the individual performing the action. Data were collected while participants viewed six 80 second videos: (1) Bouncing Ball: baseline, (2) Non-interacting: three individuals tossed a ball up in the air to themselves, (3) Social Action: three individuals tossed a ball to each other and occasionally off the screen toward the viewer, (4) Stranger: an unfamiliar hand performing a grasping action, (5) Familiar: the child’s guardian or sibling’s hand performing the same action, (6) Own: the participant’s own hand performing the same action.
Mu suppression was not sensitive to social action as compared to nonsocial action. Neurotypical children showed suppression to both stimuli, whereas children with ASD showed no suppression during either condition. Mu suppression did, however, appear to be sensitive to familiarity of the individual performing the action. Both neurotypical participants and those with ASD showed greater suppression to familiar individuals compared to the stranger. This finding suggests that the MNS may respond to observed actions in individuals with ASD under specific conditions.
Link to Mr. Hamilton’s story where you can rehear it. You can also read the Society for Neuroscience press release about these and other studies of mirror nuerons in Autism. Also, take a tour of the Cognitive Neuroscience Lab of University of California San Diego, where these professors describe their research.
Sphere: Related ContentLiz Ditz, who often writes about Learning Disabilities and, therefore, has developed a good nose for bologna, posts entries once in a while about Autism. She has a keeper in After McCarthy: Autism quackery on the rise. There’s a reference to Leelo’s mother and, for those of you who know about Liz’s site already, here’s a link to take the direct jump to “the adventures of leelo and his potty-mouthed mom.”
Sphere: Related Content“Are we too quick to medicate children?” Melissa Healy asks this question in the headline of an article in the Los Angeles Times. She also weaves the related question—”Are we able to discriminate between normal and atypical behavior?”—into her article.
These are generally sensible questions. They reflect issues of real concern in the scientific community. But, when the headline asks whether we presrcibe medications too quickly, one can guess the answer pretty readily. Unless I’m way off base, would many readers expect the answer to be “no?”
Indeed, the article is nearly chockfull of critical concern about diagnoses, labeling, and treatment. Ms. Healy cites research results (without revealing some of the sources) and quotes at least a half dozen experts. Some of these experts would probably be consider advocates by some of the other experts.
As is de rigeur in contemporary journalism, Ms. Healy leads (and closes) with a case example. She tells the story of a 38-year-old mother who takes her 11-year-old daughter to a psychiatrist, because the girl’s “behavior and performance in school were exemplary, but an ill-tempered outburst had gotten the preteen kicked out of a Girl Scout troop she had joined at age 5. The girl was confused and heartbroken over her ejection.”
Katie’s maternal instincts tell her she must protect her child. But from what, she asks — a disease that threatens health, happiness and future? A bogus label applied to an admittedly challenging kid? Or drugs with potentially harmful and little-studied side effects?
And protect her exactly how — by resisting or by medicating?
In general, this is not a dispassionate examination of the question under which Ms. Healy’s article appears. I say this not because I disagree with her slant, but because the treatment is sensational and poorly informed. Had she gone more deeply into the topic, she would have learned about effective behavioral treatments that provide viable alternatives to medicaiton for many child behavior problems. Instead, she stuck with the hidden-mysteries view of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders of children.
Link to Ms. Healy’s article.
Sphere: Related Content
Latest Comments
RSS