Pregnancy alters woman's brain 'for at least two years'
bbc.com
bbc.com
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/health/pregnancy-brain-cha... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475802/ [3] https://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/327.abstract
In the original study I found it very interesting that the authors drew parallels between the "maturation" of a new mother's brain (grey matter reductions) and the brains of adolescents undergoing pregnancy. If this study replicates, I would love to see followup studies exploring measures of narcissism, time management, executive functioning and facial recognition over time in women shortly before, during and after pregnancy (and perhaps even two years afterwards). These are all areas in which adolescents experience significant variations in functioning when compared to the general population, and there could be a lot of fertile ground here.
One other thought that strikes me is how the grey matter alterations could potentially impact teenage mothers. If the mother's brain has not left adolescence by the time she experiences pregnancy, it would be interesting to see how the grey matter alterations differ, considering the authors' comparison.
Full disclosure : I've had about 8hr sleep in 3 days,two sick kids...
This however makes me think how much of the woman change is due to the life style change which is mandatory in given situation for majority of mothers and how much is programmed.
I'm not sure what you mean. Babies necessitate a change of lifestyle if only because they demand to be fed in the middle of the night.
So the findings seem to be unique to mothers.
Hormones are really interesting!
[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.22670/abstra... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11393496
My wife thinks I'm a monster.
But that just sounds like being grouchy through lack of sleep, and perhaps not actual structural changes to your brain.
"The researchers found "substantial" reductions in the volume of grey matter in the brains of first-time mothers. The grey matter changes occurred in areas of the brain involved in social interactions used for attributing thoughts and feelings to other people - known as "theory-of-mind" tasks. The researchers thought this would give new mothers an advantage in various ways - help them recognise the needs of their child, be more aware of potential social threats and become more attached to their baby."
The author says that the reduction would make mom's MORE aware of social threats.
What am I missing?
- "they're looking at my baby because she's cute"
- "they're looking at my baby because they want to kill him"
- "they're looking at my baby to feign interest in my life"
- "they're probably a threat"
- "they're probably not a threat"It sounds a little too simplistic, doesn't it?
Soldiers who make quick judgement calls are better than ones who don't; but they're trained to have their judgement properly calibrated with the task at hand.
It is disingenuous to call these alterations "improvements" and any attempt at extrapolating the results to real-world improvements in e.g. perceiving threats in strangers is complete speculation. There simply isn't any material in the research to justify labeling these changes as positive or negative.
The authors do give a few good-faith remarks about how these changes could improve e.g. facial recognition (for a certain subset of defined metrics to satisfy "improve", of course), but there isn't actually evidence to support this. It's conjecture based on what we know of the brain.
What we can reasonably say based on this research is that women experience grey matter reductions after pregnancy that may have an impact on their executive and social functioning skills (if we extrapolate from the specific areas impacted in the brain). Obviously, this depends upon the statistical rigor involved in the study's interpretation as well, but I'm not going to comment on that.
As a meta point, this study is another disappointing demonstration of the way in which the media frames legitimate studies and primes scientific discourse. It is excellent research that stands on its own, and a great contribution to neuroscience at that. There is no need to color the results with speculation, which is cleverly couched between actual results in an optimal context. My partner brought this study up with me at dinner last night, as it had already started making the rounds. Naturally, when I asked her for concrete examples of these "improvements" and how they were supported by the study, she couldn't offer any, and was annoyed by my questioning. Not only did the articles do an intellectual disservice to her (and others!) by priming her expectations with illegitimate results, they encouraged a "pre-chewed" version of the study that would not hold up to real challenge or inquiry. I subscribe to Nature (and many of its subjournals), and I absolutely refuse to read scientific literature from secondary sources if I can find the study. But this isn't a reasonable expectation for everyone; in a world where most people aren't going to click through to read a 4 - 20 page study, this sort of coverage diminishes the general public's appreciation of scientific results at best, and encourages dangerous interpretations of legitimate data at worst.
________________________
1. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nn.445...
The study[1] looked at what changed in the women's brains, the regions in which it changed, and then tested to see which areas 'lit up' when viewing a picture of their own child vs. other children. In addition measurements were taken over time to see how permanent the changes were.
The reasons for change and the actual/quantitative impact of the changes would have to come from another study. While what the "researchers thought" is interesting, it's not supported by any evidence, i.e. no measurements were taken to see if any of the suggested improvements were present.
[1] http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.44...
areas of the brain involved in social interactions used for attributing thoughts and feelings to other people - known as "theory-of-mind" tasks
...was that I noticed she wouldn't differentiate between whether something had actually happened or not. For example, she could get quite angry at someone for something they didn't do, just thinking they "might" do it.
Then again, maybe this personality aspect had been there all along and I had never noticed until the additional stress of having a new baby.
EDIT: Please don't downvote me for answering a question.
That said, what is the purpose of offering your anecdotal experience if you acknowledge that it is an n=1 datapoint? I understand that it's in good faith to acknowledge that your personal experience doesn't offer any statistical rigor to an interpretation of the foregoing article, but in my opinion your comment primes other readers in the discussion to subconsciously accept certain interpretations that aren't justified by the research. The main takeaway of your comment is "For what it's worth, I have an anecdote confirming an interpretation of the data that is not presented in the original study", and while you follow it up with the anecdote-acknowledgement, the "damage is done" so to speak. You've already opened Pandora's Box with regards to your subtle confirmation of the unsubstantiated interpretation.
In my experience it takes conscious effort not to allow anecdotes to impact interpretation of data, and while I don't think you're doing it purposefully, I believe it's counterproductive to the parent comment's point to offer an anecdote to the discussion while simultaneously acknowledging that the anecdote does not in any way prove the interpretation.
Stated another way - if this were an article about computer science instead of neuroscience, would you expect the overall discussion to be stronger, the same or weaker compared to this discussion in terms of rigor? Furthermore, would you think that rigor was warranted on this forum (these aren't rhetorical questions, I'm curious)? I understand that disciplines like neuroscience allow us to relate with the science a bit (it's tempting to retroactively interpret our experiences with novel research!) but comments offering anecdotes, even with those expressly accounted for, allow biases to be couched in between legitimate data. I certainly think the grandparent comment would be challenged similarly if this was a psychological study with the current concerns about replication.
I'm not sure I understand your question...the grandparent of my comment noted an aspect of the article, someone replied to that casting doubt, and I replied (that fwiw) I had observed similar behavior.
Historically one couldn't draw conclusions without an exhaustive study, does that now also apply to anecdotes on forums? I've read hundreds of anecdotes on HN so far this morning, are all of those inappropriate?
In a word, yes.
I'd push back on the word "inappropriate" specifically though. Whether they are inappropriate is a matter of context; in the context of a discussion about a study published in Nature Neuroscience, an anecdote that supports a causal relationship between the research and unsubstantiated interpretations of the data is inappropriate, in my opinion.
I think the disconnect here is a difference of approach - I am approaching this discussion as one of analysis, while there are other commenters approaching this as a friendly conversation. There's no right or wrong there, but I feel compelled to point out that the latter approach is how biased data frequently becomes parroted without real support in the original research.
In your original comment, you mentioned that your wife exhibited a significant personality change that appears to match the article. You also point out that you realize this is an anecdote. However, there is research[1][2] that demonstrates people will begin to internalize what they continually read, regardless of whether or not they know it is not true. In a discussion about a loaded topic such as pregnancy, where people are commiserating with each other or exchanging anecdotes, my claim is that it is not merely enough to acknowledge that the anecdote doesn't represent datum. Rather, that will not do anything to prevent the anecdote from having a positive impact on the audience's impression of the research (positive here used in the dialectic sense).
Of course, I'll admit I'm a stickler for this. Whether or not this is a point worth making in subsequent threads is up to the HN upvote/downvote roll :)
________________________
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418
2. http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/xge0...
The uniquely human behavior that takes place in discussions on topics such this is often as interesting as the original article itself.
What is the purpose of using large-n datapoints anymore when the primary motivation of "research" is becoming less about finding meaningful information and more about getting published (in for-profit, paywalled "journals") so you can get more grant money for your institution?
Haven't you seen the articles in the last year or about little scientific research is even reproducible anymore ? You can just repeat your experiment until you get the results you want to see.
My kids are now teenagers, and I feel sharper than ever, but those baby years were a blur.
The study just said that, in small areas of the brain, gray matter was reduced, and they theorized that this specialization helped a new mother recognize her infant and its needs. Nothing to do with math and physics.
This article suggests a physical reason why that is so, as well.
My wife, herself, recognise she became more centered around the baby, less forgiving and more selfish. Also less patience.
But hey I'm not complaining, I love our little man. Nature is wonderful.
Is this a pre-emptive warning to fellow commentators?
There's nothing sexist about studying the differences between male and female and learning about the biological/physiological strength and weaknesses of each. But there's little scientific justification in extrapolating that to unrelated conclusions.
Edit: Not to mention the fact that we know very little about the brain compared to literally any other internal organ, so attempting to draw conclusions about behavior or sociology based on changes in the brain in some women during pregnancy is probably a fool's errand.
Nature or nurture.
The average age of the participants also seems high to me, but a brief search for an average age for having a first child put this study cohort only slightly over that - surprising to me at least.
Baby blues and postnatal depression are common, even among people who've been through fertility treatment. Indeed, those people may find it harder to seek help because of the assumptions that they must be happy after all that struggle.
(Also, about 1 in 10 men have postnatal depression.)
Incomplete control group. They should have included first time adoptive mothers and women who gave their baby up for adoption.
Also extremely small sample size.
EDIT: It would have also been very relevant to include a sample of lesbian parents of the same child where one parent gave birth and one didn't.
A bit of a tangent, but it's something reading this prompted me to rant about.
The reason a miscarriage can cause depression while an abortion usually does not is because the former is against a women's will and the other her choice. I find that quite obvious to be honest.
Kind of like how with other types of depression the sufferer can intellectually understand why there is no reason to feel the way they do - but they still do.
Also, according to the CDC, two thirds of abortions happen within the first two months of pregnancy, and 92 percent within 13 weeks. When we think of devastating/traumatic miscarriages, those are generally later. Many women miscarry without even knowing it.
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the "average" number of weeks at which women miscarry is somewhat lower than the "average" number of weeks at which women voluntarily abort a pregnancy, although there is a long tail to the left at which spontaneous miscarriages/stillbirths happen, causing higher rates of depression and/or hormonal complications. Also, there's the non-negligible effect of actually wanting a baby, vs. not wanting to carry a child -- it can have a profound effect on how your body reacts.
There is a side of the argument that doesn't give this impression at all.
such bad reporting. i digress. btw, small sample size too -- only 25 women?
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
And they compared these women's brains with those of 19 first-time
fathers, 17 men without children and 20 women who had never given birth. Pregnancy alters woman's brain
Pregnancy reduces grey matter in specific parts of a woman's brain
Whoa. That's uncivil and a borderline personal attack, which isn't allowed on HN. Please assume good faith when commenting here.
I should've said, "The article [clarifies] that," or asked a question.