Category: Mental Health

Hearing voices is much more common than you might think.

The experience of hearing voices is common and much more variable than previously thought, a new study finds.

Many people who do not have a psychiatric diagnosis hear voices.

It is thought between 5 and 15% of people will experience hearing voices at some point in their lives (scroll down for Rachel’s story).

Researchers asked 153 people about their experiences of hearing voices.

Most of them (81%) said they heard more than one voice, with 70% saying they heard specific characters.

Only around half the people said their voices were purely sounds they heard.

Almost half said they were more thought-like voices or somewhere in between sounds and thoughts.

Two-thirds of people also reported feeling bodily sensations while hearing voices.

These included tingling or hot sensations in the hands or feet.

Dr Nev Jones, one of the study’s authors, said:

“By and large, these voices were not experienced simply as intrusive or unwanted thoughts, but rather, like the auditory voices, as distinct ‘entities’ with their own personalities and content.

This data also suggests that we need to think much more carefully about the distinction between imagined percepts, such as sound, and perception.”

Rachels’ story

Rachel Waddingham is a former psychiatric patient who has successfully rejected the labels, and the medications, to live alongside her voices.

She says:

“I hear about 13 or so voices.

Each of them is different — some have names, they are different ages and sound like different people.

Some of them are very angry and violent, others are scared, and others are mischievous.

Sometimes, I hear a child who is very frightened.

When she is frightened I can sometimes feel pains in my body — burning.

If I can help the voice calm down, by doing some grounding strategies, the burning pains stop.

Since going to a Hearing Voices Group, I have found ways of making sense of and coping with my voices.

I no longer feel terrorised by them even though some of them say some very frightening things.

I now have a family of voices and have a better relationship with them.

I can make a choice about how I respond to them — whether I listen to them, and how I reply.

Some of them are now much more helpful — they can be a window to my feelings, letting me know about a problem that I have in my life that I need to address.

Although in our society, people who hear voices are often seen as ‘mad’ or ‘crazy’, I do think things are changing.

I find that lots of people are interested in voice-hearing.

Many people have told me about experiences they have had — either in their childhood, or as an adult.

It’s as if by talking about voices we are starting to de-stigmatise the experience and opening the door for others to speak openly too.

As long as we believe that voices are signs of pathology and illness, it makes little sense to really explore a person’s lived experience.

Instead we try to suppress or eliminate the voices as far as possible.

Listening to them seems ‘crazy’.

Still, in my experience it can be really useful to be interested in people’s lived experience of voice-hearing.

Every one of us is different, and being curious about my experiences was one of the first steps to dealing with them.

This research is a step forward.

If we want to understand more about voice-hearing, it makes sense to ask a voice-hearer — and be willing to modify our perception of what it means to hear voices based on their answers.

For me, the word ‘voices’ isn’t sufficient.

I use it, but it hides the embodied parts of my experience for which I have few words to describe.

I would like to live in a world where we are curious about one another’s experiences and seek to understand rather than pathologise.

Everyone has a story and the world would be much kinder if we started to listen to it.”

The study is published in the journal Lancet Psychiatry (Woods et al., 2015).

You can read more about Rachel’s story at her website.

Hands over ears image from Shutterstock

How smartphone addiction could be affecting some people’s ability to think.

Smartphone addiction has been linked to lazy thinking by a new psychology study.

Smarter people tend to use the search function on their smartphones less often, the research has found.

Intuitive thinkers, though, who tend to be less intelligent, are more prone to searching for information on smartphones.

Gordon Pennycook, who co-led the study, said:

“They may look up information that they actually know or could easily learn, but are unwilling to make the effort to actually think about it.”

In contrast, analytical thinkers, who are generally more intelligent, search less.

Dr Nathaniel Barr, who co-led the study, said:

“Decades of research has revealed that humans are eager to avoid expending effort when problem-solving and it seems likely that people will increasingly use their smartphones as an extended mind.”

Smartphone addiction

The research asked 660 people about their smartphone addiction.

Their verbal and literacy skills were also assessed, along with their thinking style.

The results showed that people with stronger and more analytical thinking skills used the search function on their smartphones the least.

The study is published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior (Barr et al., 2015).

Mr Pennycook said:

“Our research provides support for an association between heavy smartphone use and lowered intelligence.

Whether smartphones actually decrease intelligence is still an open question that requires future research.”

That said, it may be that a smartphone addiction leaves people with weaker thinking skills.

Dr Barr continued:

“Our reliance on smartphones and other devices will likely only continue to rise.

It’s important to understand how smartphones affect and relate to human psychology before these technologies are so fully ingrained that it’s hard to recall what life was like without them.

We may already be at that point.”

Smartphone user image from Shutterstock

Study reveals how vitamin D benefits mental disorders, as do omega-3 fatty acids.

Serotonin regulation could explain why vitamin D benefits many brain disorders, as do marine omega-3 fatty acids, a new study finds.

Depression, autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder and even schizophrenia have all been linked to low levels of vitamin D and omega-3.

Low levels of serotonin have been found to impair memory, planning, social behaviour and increase impulsiveness and aggression.

Supplementation with these essential nutrients has shown promise in improving some of these conditions.

Until now, though, scientists have been unsure of the mechanism of how omega-3 and vitamin D benefits such a wide range of conditions.

Vitamin D benefits

The new study, published in the FASEB Journal, finds that the link could be how they interact with serotonin, a vital neurotransmitter (Patrick & Ames, 2015).

Dr Rhonda P. Patrick, the study’s first author,

“In this paper we explain how serotonin is a critical modulator of executive function, impulse control, sensory gating, and pro-social behavior.

We link serotonin production and function to vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids, suggesting one way these important micronutrients help the brain function and affect the way we behave.”

Vitamin D is mostly produced in the body when sun strikes the skin, which is why these levels tend to be much lower in the winter.

Along with low levels of vitamin D, many people do not eat enough fish and so have low levels of two critical marine omega-3 fatty acids — Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

Dr Patrick said:

“Vitamin D, which is converted to a steroid hormone that controls about 1,000 genes, many in the brain, is a major deficiency in the US and omega-3 fatty acid deficiencies are very common because people don’t eat enough fish,”

The researchers think that the correct intake of both omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D benefits many brain disorders.

Serotonin image from Shutterstock

Stress’ effect on pain was the exact reverse of what scientists expected.

Scientists have been surprised to find that under psychosocial stress — such as during an exam — people find it more difficult to inhibit pain and feel that pain more intensely.

The results come as a surprise since ‘common knowledge’ suggests that people become more resistant to pain under stress.

In the study, 29 men were given a rigged math test which stressed them out by sometimes telling them their answers were wrong, even when they are right.

Before and afterwards, they were also given a series of different pain tests.

The results, published in the journal Pain, were the exact opposite of what they expected (Geva et al., 2014).

Professor Ruth Defrin, who led the study, explained:

“We were sure we would see an increased ability to modulate pain, because you hear anecdotes about people who are injured during fighting or sports having greater pain modulation.

But we were surprised to find quite the opposite.

While there was no visible effect of acute stress on the subject’s pain threshold or tolerance, pain modulation decreased in a very dramatic way.”

In other words: under stress people could cope with the same amount of pain, but were unable to ‘turn down’ the sensation.

Some people were particularly susceptible to stress, Professor Defrin explained:

“We found that not only does psychosocial stress reduce the ability to modulate pain, the changes were significantly more robust among subjects with stronger reaction to stress (‘high responders’).

The higher the perceived stress, the more dysfunctional the pain modulation capabilities became.

In other words, the type of stress and magnitude of its appraisal determine its interaction with the pain system.

We know from our previous studies and studies of others that chronic stress is far more damaging than acute stress, associated not only with dysfunctional pain modulation capabilities but also with chronic pain and systemic illnesses,”

Professor Defrin continued:

“Modern life exposes individuals to many, recurrent stressful situations.

While there is no way to predict the type of stress we will feel under different circumstances, it is advisable to do everything in our power — adopt relaxation and stress reduction techniques as well as therapy — to reduce the amount of stress in our lives.”

Pain image from Shutterstock

The ironic effect of stress on desire and pleasure.

Although stress causes a huge increase in people’s desire for an indulgence, like chocolate, ironically it does not increase the pleasure obtained, a new study finds.

People under stress, researchers found, made three times as much effort to just smell some chocolate, compared with other chocolate-lovers who weren’t under stress.

Eva Pool, the study’s lead author, said:

“Most of us have experienced stress that increases our craving for rewarding experiences, such as eating a tasty bar of chocolate, and it can make us invest considerable effort in obtaining the object of our desire, such as running to a convenience store in the middle of the night.

But while stress increases our desire to indulge in rewards, it does not necessarily increase the enjoyment we experience.”

The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, had some people hold their hand in ice-water while they were watched and videotaped (Pool et al., 2014).

This served to stress them out in comparison to another group who simply put their hand in lukewarm water.

Both groups, all of whom were chocolate-lovers, were then asked to a squeeze a handgrip for the chance to smell some chocolate.

The group who were under stress squeezed harder on the handgrip, suggesting they wanted the chocolate more than the other group.

However, stress didn’t make people rate the smell of the chocolate any higher.

Dr Tobias Brosch, another of the study’s authors, said:

“Stress plays a critical role in many psychological disorders and is one of the most important factors determining relapses in addiction, gambling and binge eating.

Stress seems to flip a switch in our functioning: If a stressed person encounters an image or a sound associated with a pleasant object, this may drive them to invest an inordinate amount of effort to obtain it.”

Image credit: s-inator

These cells are the key to recovery from a stroke.

A mechanism by which the brain creates new nerve cells to help it recover from a stroke has been discovered.

The research could eventually lead to new therapies for stroke sufferers, as well as Parkinson’s and Huntington’s disease.

Strokes are caused by blood vessels in the brain getting blocked by a clot — this causes nerve cells to die.

The death of vital brain cells can lead to devastating effects on people’s thinking, motor and sensory abilities.

The new study, though, shows exactly how the brain recovers from these insults and might point the way to new treatments.

Researchers in Sweden have found that after a stroke, support cells, known as astrocytes, start to form new nerve cells in the brain (Magnusson et al., 2014).

Astrocytes are the most plentiful type of cell in the human brain and they have a characteristic star-shape (see image above).

The research, published in the journal Science, induced strokes in mice, then used genetic methods to determine that the astrocytes were forming immature nerve cells, which were ultimately maturing.

Professor Zaal Kokaia, one of the study’s authors said:

“This is the first time that astrocytes have been shown to have the capacity to start a process that leads to the generation of new nerve cells after a stroke.”

Olle Lindvall, who co-authored the study, explained how the research might benefit stroke patients, as well as those with Parkinson’s and Huntington’s disease:

“One of the major tasks now is to explore whether astrocytes are also converted to neurons in the human brain following damage or disease.

Interestingly, it is known that in the healthy human brain, new nerve cells are formed in the striatum.

The new data raise the possibility that some of these nerve cells derive from local astrocytes.

If the new mechanism also operates in the human brain and can be potentiated, this could become of clinical importance not only for stroke patients, but also for replacing neurons which have died, thus restoring function in patients with other disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s disease.”

Image credit: Bruno Pascal

Men and women both showed equivalent empathy despite the stereotype.

Seeing another person under stress — even when you’re not involved in the situation — is enough to activate the stress hormone cortisol in your body as well, according to a new study.

In the study, conducted by German psychologists, people who were emotionally closest to each other, demonstrated the highest empathic stress response (Engert et al., 2014).

People even showed a significant empathic stress response when observing strangers under stress over a video link.

In the stress test, participants were given math tests and interviews which made 95% of participants stressed.

Those undergoing the tests were observed by both strangers and partners of those being stressed.

Overall, for 26% of the observers, the stress of the person they were watching was transmitted to them.

The study’s first author, Veronika Engert, was surprised by the findings:

“The fact that we could actually measure this empathic stress in the form of a significant hormone release was astonishing.

There must be a transmission mechanism via which the target’s state can elicit a similar state in the observer down to the level of a hormonal stress response.”

Sometimes the observers watched over a video link, rather than through a two-way mirror.

This made little difference to the transmission of stress to the observer: the average transmission of stress only dropped from 30% to 24%.

Engert pointed out:

“This means that even television programmes depicting the suffering of other people can transmit that stress to viewers.

Stress has enormous contagion potential.”

There was no difference between the empathic stress response of men and women.

This flies in the face of women’s claims in repeated surveys to be more empathic than men.

Image credit: Giulia Bartra

Could psilocybin one day be used as an effective anti-depressant?

Swiss researchers have shown that psilocybin, the bioactive component in ‘magic mushrooms’, influences the emotional centres of the brain, weakening the effect of negative emotions.

The hallucinogen has long been advocated by some as a treatment for various mental disorders, and this new study provides evidence of how it might work.

In the study, 25 healthy participants were given a moderate dose of psilocybin before having their brains scans (Krähenmann et al., 2014).

Inside the scanner, and with the hallucinogen acting on their brains, participants were shown pictures which are designed to elicit an emotional reaction.

The results of this test were compared with scans taken after a placebo was administered.

The study’s lead author, Rainer Krähenmann, said:

“Even a moderate dose of psilocybin weakens the processing of negative stimuli by modifying amygdala activity in the limbic system as well as in other associated brain regions.”

The limbic system is vital to how we process emotions as well as memories. The amygdala is part of the limbic system and has also been shown to be vital in how we process emotions.

In the study, people’s amygdalas were markedly less reactive to negative stimuli after they had taken psilocybin, compared with the placebo-control condition.

Not only that, but psilocybin put people in a much better mood.

This backs up recent evidence about the dual effects of the drug in decreasing negative emotions and increasing positive emotions:

“…support for the notion that psilocybin may have rapid antidepressant characteristics also comes from a recent clinical trial showing that in patients with depression and anxiety, a single dose of psilocybin improved mood and decreased anxiety for several months.” (Krähenmann et al., 2014).

That said, the effects of psilocybin on depression have not yet been clinically tested.

Image credit: Sasata

Over the years, Vincent van Gogh’s mental illness has been classified in 30 different ways by over 150 different physicians, not just those who originally treated him. It is becoming clear that, in the classification of madness, this is far from an isolated example. Amongst the ranks of both psychiatrists and clinical psychologists are those who argue for a radical rethink.

Continue reading “Classifying Madness: Criticisms and Alternatives”