Urszula Korman-Hollanek: The term “neuroscience” was first used in the 1960s, over half a century ago. For science, 63 years is a huge leap. How was neurosciences defined then and what is it now?
Professor Aneta Brzezicka: The meaning of this term has undergone a fundamental change and we do not event have to go back in time that far. Only 20 years ago, neuroscience was regarded as the so-called “hard discipline”, which means closed to knowledge emerging from areas such as psychology or philosophy, although each of these disciplines had been knocking on the “neuro door” for a while. Psychologists were becoming increasingly interested in the tools and methods used by neurophysiologists because, among other things, these methods were becoming less invasive, more available and less expensive; for example, the compact EEG equipment, with a smaller number of channels that was sufficient for psychologists to confirm their hypothesis, became available. Neuroscience methodology permeated psychology, which has already found its reflection in the education process. My generation of psychology students was also learing about the brain’s anatomy and functions, but we did not have such an easy access to MRI scanners or EEG equipment. These days, whole generations of psychologists entering the professional world possess the whole background of neuroscientific methods and tools, and can integrate these methods with the psychological approach.
Does it mean that soon we will see a merger of psychology and neuroscience into one multidisciplinary area of research?
Not necessarily, some areas of psychology do not require a neuroscientific approach, and many aspects of research into the workings of the nervous system do not require a psychological perspective. There are also many problems verging on the cusp of psychology and neuroscience that remain unsolved. For example, definitions of some psychological concepts, which we want to research using tools of neuroscience.
What are these concepts?
For example – memory. What actually is memory? And here, we arrive at a philosophical discussion. How do we define memory? How do we measure it and what have we actually measured using, for example, an MRI scanner? And a crucial question – if an MRI result indicates that some structure of the brain is more engaged in the completion of a precisely defined task, then how the results of this scan translate into the understanding of memory functions?
What is your personal perspective? Does neuroscience strengthen you as a psychologist?
I think that an understanding of physiological and neuroanatomical correlates of functions or mental disorders may contribute to the development of an effective strategy, not only pharmacological, but also of psychological interventions. Neurophysiological research on reconsolidation of memory is a great example, to be precise, experiments conducted on rats, which showed that after consuming certain pharmacological substances, the rats eliminated traumatic events from their memories. Later, a similar trial was carried out with people, who received beta blockers, which help to calm down the nervous system. It proved to be very effective in people who suffered from the post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Describing the mechanisms of this process and its causes led to the development of a behavioral therapy.
Is the goal of such therapy to enhance the effects of the pharmacological substance or to eliminate the medication entirely?
The success of this experiment was that the therapy had a similar effect on the brain cells as the chemical substance, but without the medication. First, thanks to the chemical substance, researchers were able to observe what happens in the brain and how the process of reconsolidation of memory looks like, and then they could trigger the desirable reactions without the medication. It had a huge impact on people suffering from PTSD. We have learned how trauma works at neuronal level and we found out that we could turn off negative memories at the emotional level. Therapy based on this approach have proven more effective and faster than previously used intervention strategies.
How does this new therapy, enhanced by neuroscience, looks like exactly?
In a safe space, where they feel understood, persons suffering from PTSD recall their traumatic experiences, simultaneously learning to locate them in a safe place. Therefore, subsequent recollections of trauma are less painful, because they have been grounded in a good space, which makes them less vivid with each ensuing recall. This is how therapy influences the same areas in the brain that had been previously affected by pharmacological substances, which calmed down the nervous system. In other words, a targeted behavioral approach has been developed, and this is the best example of combining neuroscience with psychological practice. Neuronal mechanisms of a given phenomenon enabled the development of an effective therapy.
Research on memory is an important aspect of your work at SWPS University's Institute of Psychology. After all, PTSD, which we have been talking about, is also recorded in memory. What do we know about memory from the perspective of current research and how our knowledge has changed?
From the neuronal point of view, memory has hugely evolved. For example, our knowledge about the particular brain structures involved in creating engrams (ed. memory traces) has changed, although we are still actively researching the mechanisms responsible for storing our memories. Once memory was perceived mainly in the context of the brain structure, for example we knew that there was the hippocampus, which was responsible for storing engrams. Nowadays, no scientist would describe it this way, because we know, that engrams are stored there only initially, and then they are embedded in the cerebral cortex in the process of nerve cell configuration. Therefore, it would be difficult to indicate just one brain structure responsible for memory. We can rather talk about a network of cells located in different areas of the cerebral cortex. In a nutshell, it is a very complex construct, which is still a challenge for scientist.
In that case, let’s limit ourselves only to the practical side of memory. Why some people learn and memorize information faster than others? Do we have any say in that, can we train our memory? Researchers from SWPS University have been researching this aspect of memory.
Yes, we can work on improving information coding and we definitely can train this capability. We researched these processes thanks to several grants from the National Science Centre. Some of these projects focused on researching the effectiveness of cognitive training, using a task that engages a special kind of memory, i.e. the working memory. Regrettably, despite our initial assumptions, it transpired that although the training of the working memory improves memory overall, it does not translate into better functioning of e.g. cognitive processes. We observed better results when we used computer games to train study participants. Just one important comment – we are talking about a healthy brain without any signs of neurodegeneration.
Does it mean that this finding applies only to young people? After all, we all experience neurodegeneration with age.
Indeed, some of these changes appear with age, but I meant neurodegenerative disorders and pathological brain aging; for example, when a buildup of misfolded proteins occurs in the brain or blood cells get damaged, which results in various forms of dementia. All the more so that we can only control some of these changes pharmacologically. On the other hand, persons with the so-called healthy brains could learn skills such as mnemonics, i.e. techniques of memorizing new information quickly. These techniques are really very effective in information coding.
How does the brain undergoing such training react? What happens there?
Thanks to mnemonics, we learn how to “deal” with new material in a away, which allows us to code it in the memory deep enough to remember the information not only when we come across it, for example when we look at a printed sentence. This happens through a series of associations, which are accompanied by the creation of new nerve cell connections. This new information will network with many other pieces of information in the brain, not just with that basic one, which happens in case of traditional perception of information.
Is this network of new connections-associations permanent?
The goal is for certain information to get deeply embedded in memory. But (and we need to remember that) these strategies are not easy. First, you must learn them, and then practice them. Therefore researchers working on the improvement of cognitive processes keep searching for methods that would require less effort. However, there has been no breakthrough in this matter so far. One of the research directions was based on the assumption that we should, first of all, train the working memory because its agility determines agility of many other cognitive processes that impact intelligence level, professional success, bridge-playing skills, and even the effectiveness of psychotherapy in our case. Some researchers focused on training this type of memory in the hope that it will result in better functioning of study participants in the above-noted areas and many others. Unfortunately, such results have not been observed. Training of the working memory did not translate into better performance in completing complex tasks, apart from those that had been practiced.
Should we be training memory throughout our lifespans or is there an age barrier beyond which all training is futile? I know that your NeuroCognitive Research Center carried out research in this area.
Decidedly yes. I am a proponent of active leaning throughout one’s lifespan, and building the so-called cognitive reserve.
What does it mean?
At the neuro level, it means making new nerve connections between neurons, and at the psychological level – developing a larger scope of skills and knowledge, which results not only in a better quality of aging and a slower cognitive decline, but also (and it has been scientifically proven) brains with a larger cognitive reserve regenerate faster in case of a stroke or an injury.
How can we develop a cognitive reserve?
Learning anything new contributes to building such a reserve. It does not have to be advanced mathematics. It is enough to learn a new dance, a new game or enrolling in a photography or video editing course. It is important that the new skill is interesting to the person who is learning it, because it ensures better chances they will persevere in learning.
An American researcher, Rachel Wu, carried out a very interesting experiment. She created an environment for elderly persons with all the characteristics of an environment, such as requirements, stimuli, and activity, meant for young people. She recruited a few determined persons who agreed to totally change their lifestyle for a while. She asked the study participants to enroll in five selected new activities, so the participants began learning new languages, using new digital devices and learning many other skills. After several months of living this lifestyle, it turned out that all cognitive functions in these people (and the scope of research was really very broad) caught up with the level of young people. This study has shown extraordinary plasticity of the human brain. However, an important note, all persons taking part in this study, although advanced in age, were in good shape and were very motivated.
Was the motivation critical?
Rachel Wu emphasized in her paper that one’s motivation to continuous development is a very important factor of good quality of aging. Of course, one’s genetic make-up inherited at birth is not to be underestimated either. Brains of some people will absorb information faster while others will need more time, but all brains have this reserve, a margin that can be used to improve working of the brain.
We have been talking about cognitive training, but we must remember that physical activity is also very important to ensure effective functioning of the brain. A large body of research confirms that a moderate physical activity (not even the super-intensive exercise) results in better performance of cognitive functions. You don’t have to run a marathon. It’s enough to go for a brisk walk. Physical activity stimulates processes conducive to better neuroplasticity.
Professor Jankowiak-Siuda, as a molecular biologist and neuro-psychologist you can better interpret human reactions and emotions through brain mapping. Some of your research concerns neurobiological basis of empathy. Why some people are empathetic while others aren’t? Can one influence it in any way? In short, can one improve or decrease the level of one’s empathy?
Prof. Kamila Jankowiak-Siuda: Apart from the most frequently indicated brain mechanisms responsible for empathy, genetic factors do play a certain role here.
Does it mean that capability for empathy is hereditary?
Heredity of empathy is estimated at approx. 30 percent. This indicates that the environment significantly impacts fluctuations of empathy. Furthermore, the interaction between genes and the environment seems to be even more interesting. For example, in the group of genes co-responsible for empathy (approx. 25 genes, including 37 polymorphisms), we focus on the genes that are closely related to the regulation of gene expression and directly impact the plasticity of the nervous system (to reference what Aneta has said earlier). It can be directly related to the development of empathy not only in early life, but mostly to the influence of the environment aiming to model empathetic behaviors. However, while talking about empathy, we should go beyond affective states (the emotional level) and consider the cognitive aspect, that is taking the perspective of another person, understanding their emotions. Research indicates that both areas can be modelled, which means children’s attitudes are influenced not only by the way their parents resonate emotionally, but also in the way the parents teach the kids to recognize and react to emotions.
Please note, these areas in the brain do not develop at the same pace in young people. While the parts of the brain responsible for emotions develop dynamically, we must wait longer for maturity in other, cognitive aspects, which means, young people are ready for the perspective-taking (i.e. stepping into someone else’s shoes) a bit later. Moreover, for both these paths (the emotional and cognitive) to merge, we usually must wait until the magical 30th birthday, although, obviously, it is just a symbolic threshold.
If heredity is responsible for only 30 percent, it means that there is a lot of room to shape empathy.
I would not underestimate the genetic factors in this matter. For persons without the right innate predispositions, it will be very difficult to feel empathy, even if they find themselves in the sympathetic environment, with the right enhancements. Furthermore, persons with the so-called atypical development, e.g. those on an autism spectrum, will also experience difficulties in being empathetic towards others. The problem will also occur in case of people with psychopathic disorders. Research shows that persons with psychopathic traits are able to feel strong empathy only from their own perspective, in other words only in a scenario where they themselves would be victims. In those cases, they feel upset and display a caring attitude towards themselves. Stepping into someone else’s shoes and looking from their perspective is hindered in those cases, and when such identification, for various reasons, is impossible, there cannot be any empathy, and further on – any compassion. What’s more, hurting others may provide these people with satisfaction leading to the activation of the reward system. Biologically, it may be related to dysfunctional networks engaged in empathetic reactions. Especially, with the salience network, which is named after the functions it fulfills. Thanks to this network, we focus our attention on salient, important, stimuli we receive from the external or internal environment. It is similar with narcissistic individuals, that is people whose strongest focus is themselves. These people, however, will have a problem with redirecting their attention externally, which would allow them to notice someone who needs help. Seeing a suffering person, narcissistic individuals will likely concentrate on their own pain arising from the fact that they see a suffering person.
Would you say that highly sensitive persons, whose reactions to external stimuli are extreme, are on the other side of the spectrum? I know that your Behavioral Neuroscience Lab carried out research in this area.
This situation is not clear-cut. In total, we tested a few hundred people from that group, and I must admit that some of our assumptions simply have not been confirmed. The assumption based on an existing scientific construct was that people who display high sensitivity with respect to processing stimuli will also be highly empathetic. Research does confirm truly strong emotional rezoning and experiencing personal distress while facing suffering of others, however, in the case of mature empathy, which results in caring for people in need and providing help, it works to a lesser degree. MRI tests have shown that the areas of the brain responsible for empathy do not become more active. Only the parts of the brain responsible for experiencing pain are activated. We haven’t observed any extraordinary activity in the salience network, which we had expected when starting the study.
Can this less mature empathy, or excessive experience of pain, be destructive?
The lack of a self-regulation mechanism, plunging into the emotions of others, and immature empathizing (although I wouldn’t like to denigrate the power of empathy itself) may hinder one’s functioning. Besides, persons with this type of personality are more prone to experiencing low mood for the simple fact that they constantly process, on the emotional level, everything that has happened to them, they “rewind” painful images recorded in memory, and carry psychological baggage resulting from this rumination as well as excessive rezonating with others.
Does it affect their brains in other ways? For example, are such people more prone to having poor concentration, problems with memorizing, difficulties in processing information or learning due to the intensity of stimuli they receive?
We must differentiate between highly empathetic people and those highly sensitive. After all these are different constructs. We cannot unequivocally say that Highly Sensitive Persons (HSP) have difficulties with coping in life. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a study, which clearly showed that some highly sensitive people coped with this situation splendidly, if at the same time, they also possessed high psychological flexibility, that is they were consciously present in that life experience and they did not avoid it. Besides, we should remember that we cannot categorize people merely by their high sensitivity trait. This is not the only criterion, because their other traits and psychological mechanisms, characteristic for these people, also come into play.
What is the difference between compassion and empathy?
They are not the same but it is difficult, even for acclaimed researchers, to clearly define how they differ. According to Mark Davis’s theory of empathy, which is supported by a neuroscience empathy model developed by Jean Decety and Claus Lamm, emotional empathy includes two constructs: personal distress and compassionate empathy. When I see someone’s suffering, I also experience distress, I am upset, but if I’ve already experienced various things in life, I know that remaining in distress will not be good for me nor for the other person, so I turn into compassionate empathy. This mechanism also inhibits my own feelings and strong emotional resonating. Researchers claim that compassionate empathy is closer to compassion, because we not only feel the pain of the other person, but we also take action to support the person in need, which in turn may lead to pro-social and aiding behaviors.
Can we learn how to use this emotion inhibition mechanism?
Although, on the one hand, experiencing personal distress is a hereditary predisposition to a large degree, on the other hand, it is the external environment that regulates these emotions, inhibits them, and shows that they can be muted. Generally, compassionate empathy would not be possible if we were not able to separate our own perspective from someone else’s perspective.
How does the ability to empathize change with aging? Does it diminish as we experience various things in life or vice versa?
Our brains age, so the cognitive empathy wanes, which means it becomes harder and harder to take someone else’s perspective.
Does the reaction to stimuli diminish?
The number of stimuli is one thing, but keeping such a large baggage in consciousness and memory is becoming increasingly difficult. This is also an adaptive evolutionary mechanism, which is supposed to protect us.
What does research say about physical experience of pain arising from empathy?
This is very strongly correlated with the emotion inhibiting mechanism. People who are not able to regulate that stream are more prone to emotional contagion, and in extreme cases, it may even lead to pain synesthesia. For example, researchers recorded such strong emotional contagion in some people who witness a heart attack that it may lead to a cardiac arrest in the witness.
As a society, Poles have recently displayed a high level of empathy towards Ukrainian refugees. We have provided aid and support at a time that was not easy for us either, because we have not managed to fully come to terms with psychological and economic effects of the pandemic yet. In your opinion, how was it possible?
Please remember that I research the brain perspective. Sometimes I am even sad that I must reduce concepts as lofty as love to the level of neurotransmitters, describing that love first involves the secretion of phenylethylamine, then dopamine, etc., and suddenly the concept of “love” becomes so unromantic and far removed from any passion.
Love in a test tube?
For sure it is interesting for a certain group of researchers, but for future psychologists, less so. And now going back to the outpour of support for the Ukrainian refugees, if I was to analyze it from the neuroscientific point of view, I would have to say that according to research results, when we help, we give, and when we display compassion, we activate those parts of the brain responsible for the reward network, to be precise the whole reward system. And this is a considerable motivation factor.
Does it mean that pure altruism does not exist?
It is hard to talk about it from the biological perspective, because the reward system is always activated when we help others. The story of helping others, told from this perspective, looks differently, less spectacular, doesn’t it?
So turning things on its head, we could even say that altruism is a form of egocentrism.
From the neuroscientific perspective, it may work this way, but I wouldn’t want, in any way, to diminish the significance of helping, and I would not want to denigrate the humanity in people, because I truly believe in it. Research also shows that there is a fine line between empathy and aggression. If you are under pressure of constantly increasing expectations to give and to share, and your helping potential is nearly exhausted, then compassion may give way to negative emotions. Fear is also a root source of aggression.
To conclude, here is a question that I ask all interlocutors as part of this series. What are the goals of your research centers and what are your research dreams, assuming that there are no funding limitations?
Prof. Kamila Jankowiak-Siuda: My dream is to obtain funds that would allow us to open, within the framework of our Behavioral Neuroscience Laboratory, at least a small neurogenetics lab, where our team could research the impact of genes on the organization of the neuronal network at the development stage or empathetic reactions to pain. I would also like to devote some time to researching brain mechanisms in people suffering from chronic pain, such as migraines or fibromyalgia.
Prof. Aneta Brzezicka: I think we also have a common dream of opening a proper Institute of Neuroscience, with its own building and researchers focusing on certain research areas, who could work on a given project for longer than the three years covered by one grant. Nowadays, regulations preclude continuation of this type of cooperation, for instance in projects finance by grants from the National Science Centre (NCN), so creating a dedicated permanent team is very difficult. Currently, we must look for new researchers-collaborators for every grant, for every project, which is optimal neither for us nor for science. Of course, it is important to bring new people to a research team, but currently we lack mechanisms that would allow us to keep the best and most valuable talents. Therefore, I dream about the conditions that would allow us to work towards research goals at the global level. Decent permanent positions for the best doctoral candidates and the possibility to give them attractive job offers once they defend their dissertations.
Whereas today, having more money, I would like to expand my current research project concerning the correlation between the gut microbiome and better cognitive functions in the elderly, and conduct it on a larger scale.
It has been said that the gut is like the second brain. Is this true?
Studies, including our projects, have shown that what you eat impacts the condition of your microbiome. In other words, your food influences the type of bacteria that dominates your gut, which in turn impacts your brain and cognitive functions.
Does a healthy microbiome positively impact the whole body, including the brain, or does it have a special connection with the brain?
It has been proven that there is a gut-brain axis (GBA), which is indeed responsible for the gut-brain communication. The gut bacteria send signals that are received by the brain and by this, they influence for example our appetite for certain foods. A link between the type of gut bacteria and mood, and even the gut microbiome and depression and anxiety, has also been proven.
How have researchers proven this?
For example, in some studies, the microbiome taken form people suffering from depression was transplanted into animals, and subsequently, depression symptoms were observed in the animals. On the other hand, the microbiome taken from healthy people was transplanted into persons suffering from depression, and after a while, researchers observed a clear improvement of their mood. Researchers also tested the so-called probiotic effects in persons with anxiety disorder, low mood or depression. The patients were given certain probiotics and then tested. Here, unfortunately, the results were inconclusive. Improvement was observed only in some study participants. It seems that it may depend on the type of bacteria provided in the probiotic.
However, there has been a smaller number of studies concerning the impact of the gut microbiome on cognitive functions, and this is an area that particularly interests me. We are now embarking on a project concerning this aspect of gut microbiome. There is preliminary evidence indicating that some gut bacteria may lead to inflammation in the hippocampus area, and the inflammation translates into poorer performance of functions directed by this part of the brain, such as episodic memory or spatial skills. Animal studies went so far as to identify the bacteria, which contributed to the worsening of brain function. The same study has also indicated that there are more of the “bad” bacteria, when the animals are on a high-sugar diet. It is a very interesting research direction, for the fact that results may have nearly immediate impact on health guidelines.
What can we expect in the future with respect to the neurodegenerative diseases?
Recently, promising results concerning Alzheimer’s have been published. For many years researchers have bee searching for ways to remove amyloid deposits (i.e., the proteins which cause worse performance in Alzheimer’s patients) from the brain. The latest research shows that certain chemical substances given to patients in advance, may help to remove the buildup and inhibit the progress of the disease. For the time being, this therapy has been effective only in very early stages of the disease, practically before the symptoms occur, which constitutes a certain drawback. But if you are asking me about the future, I think that we can expect a breakthrough in the early diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases, which I hope, will radically change the interventions and treatment of these conditions.
Thank you for your time.
Urszula Korman-Hollanek
Studies referenced in the interview:
Read more about the projects mentioned in the interview in the following publications::