New Scientist reports on a recent imaging study of young men expert in violent video games. The study scanned their brains while playing such a game. The report (I don't know whether the researchers themselves said this, or whether it was the journalist's interpretation) claimed that the findings suggest that their brains react as if they are treating the violence as real.

Other studies have already shown us a number of instances where our imagining of a situation produces similar brain activity to the actual situation; we still know the difference! Moreover, our response to violent situations is not by any means a simple one, and I think it would be foolish to assume there are not significant differences in the brain's response to an imaginary violent situation and a real one.

Interestingly, another imaging study that's been in the news lately has been a study of the female orgasm. I mention this study because it did show a difference in the brain activity of women who were really having an orgasm and women who were faking it. (If you're like me, you're still trying to get over the fact that they found people willing and able to go through this experience while being scanned! Apparently the biggest stumbling block was cold feet; a pair of socks fixed that.)

You could conclude from this that there is something special about orgasm that means pretence is not the same as the real thing, but in fact the point is it all depends on what you're looking for: similarities or differences. Imaging studies are always interesting -- I adore them myself -- but you should always bear in mind that they can't look at everything that's going on in the brain, they have to select what they're interested in.

Those of you who have a deep interest in meditation might like to check out a somewhat technical article on meditation -- especially interesting for its discussion of a study reported last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, regarding the neural activity of meditation students and experienced meditators (Tibetan Buddhist monks with 15 to 40 years of experience). The study showed noticeable differences in the neural activity of novice and experienced meditators, but also, and rather more interestingly, evidence that suggests long-term changes in the brains of such long-term meditators.

The New York Times has an article discussing neuroscientist Michael Gazzinaga's new book on that hot topic: neuroethics. Although "Gazzaniga is less interested in delivering verdicts on bioethical quandries -- should we clone? tinker with our babies' I.Q.? -- than in untangling how we arrive at moral and ethical judgments in the first place." Which is maybe more to the point. All very well pondering on the ethics of "smart pills", but if they're never going to do more than give users a slight advantage, then the ethical quandary is surely not as great. Ditto if, realistically, we're never going to be able to make true "designer babies", because there is, after all, rather more to a person than a bunch of genes. We are what we're made, but genes ain't the only thing making us!

(By the way, you need to register to read the New York Times. If you don't want to do this, let me put in a plug for BugMeNot -- a service that allows you to bypass these pesky registrations!)

Scientific American have an online article about recent research showing we process language and maths in different areas of the brain.

There's another article on how American consumers have more choice than is good for their well-being.

And a rant on a subject dear to my heart -- the quality of school textbooks (in the US). It makes one quite dispirited!

Here's a fascinating study of fish group behavior that may shed light on how we make some of our instinctive decisions when we're part of a crowd.

An intriguing Australian study has been following 1500 seniors for ten years, and concluded that having a close group of friends impacts significantly on longevity -- but having close relationships with your children or other relatives doesn't! Looks like friends provide a type of emotional support that family doesn't.

A new therapy for complicated grief has proved more effective than standard depression therapy. "Complicated grief" is a disorder that may occur in the aftermath of losing a loved one. It's characterized by: persisting more than 6 months after the death; a sense of disbelief regarding the death; anger and bitterness over the death; recurrent pangs of painful emotions, with intense yearning and longing for the deceased; preoccupation with thoughts of the loved one, often including distressing intrusive thoughts related to the death.