Αναλγητικό για τα μωρά το απαλό χάδι

Ευεργετικά είναι τα χάδια για το νεογνό, καθώς συμβάλλουν στην απομάκρυνση του στρες, στο δέσιμο με τον γονιό και στην ανακούφισή τους.

Μπορεί εμπειρικά να το γνωρίζαμε, αλλά τώρα διαθέτουμε και εκείνες τις επιστημονικές αποδείξεις που το επαληθεύουν. Το απαλό χάιδεμα των μωρών, με την ιδανική ταχύτητα των τριών εκατοστών το δευτερόλεπτο, ανακουφίζει τους πόνους τους. Ειδικότερα το απαλό και αργό χάιδεμα ενός μωρού όχι μόνο το ηρεμεί, αλλά μειώνει στον εγκέφαλό του τη δραστηριότητα που σχετίζεται με τον πόνο, όπως τουλάχιστον δείχνει νέα βρετανική επιστημονική έρευνα, σύμφωνα με την οποία η ιδανική ταχύτητα χαϊδέματος, που επιφέρει το μεγαλύτερο παυσίπονο αποτέλεσμα, είναι περίπου τρία εκατοστά το δευτερόλεπτο.

Και φυσικά αυτό δεν είναι πρωτόγνωρο, αλλά η έρευνα ουσιαστικά συνιστά μια επιστημονική επιβεβαίωση αυτού που οι γονείς γνωρίζουν από προσωπική εμπειρία με τα μωρά τους όταν βρίσκονται αντιμέτωποι με αντίξοες καταστάσεις, ιδίως όταν αυτά πρόκειται να υποβληθούν σε κάποια επώδυνη ιατρική εξέταση όπως η λήψη αίματος.

Οι ερευνητές των πανεπιστημίων της Οξφόρδης και του Λίβερπουλ, με επικεφαλής την καθηγήτρια Παιδιατρικής Ρεμπέκα Σλέιτερ, που έκαναν τη σχετική δημοσίευση στο περιοδικό βιολογίας «Current Biology», σύμφωνα με το BBC και τη βρετανική «Ιντιπέντεντ», κατέγραψαν με τη βοήθεια ηλεκτροεγκεφαλογραφήματος την εγκεφαλική δραστηριότητα σε 32 μωρά ενώ τους έκαναν αιμοληψία.

Τα μισά από αυτά, τα οποία τα χάιδευαν με μια μαλακή βούρτσα, εμφάνισαν όπως αποδείχθηκε κατά μέσον όρο 40% λιγότερα νευρωνικά αποτυπώματα πόνου στον εγκέφαλό τους, σε σχέση με τα υπόλοιπα μισά που δεν τα είχαν χαϊδέψει.

«Το άγγιγμα φαίνεται να έχει αναλγητικό αποτέλεσμα, χωρίς μάλιστα, όπως άλλωστε όλοι γνωρίζουμε, να έχει κάποια παρενέργεια», δήλωσε η δρ Σλέιτερ, η οποία είπε ότι «ενστικτωδώς οι γονείς χαϊδεύουν τα μωρά τους με την ιδανική ταχύτητα».

«Αν μπορέσουμε να κατανοήσουμε καλύτερα τις βιολογικές βάσεις τεχνικών όπως είναι το μωρουδιακό μασάζ, θα καταφέρουμε να βελτιώσουμε τις συμβουλές που δίνουμε στους γονείς σχετικά με το πώς μπορούν να παρηγορήσουν τα παιδιά τους», λέει η καθηγήτρια Σλέιτερ.

Δερματικά κύτταρα

Σε αυτήν την ταχύτητα χαϊδέματος ενεργοποιούνται κάποια δερματικά κύτταρα, που έχει αποδειχθεί ότι μειώνουν τον πόνο στους ενηλίκους. Ωστόσο, ήταν άγνωστο αν τα βρέφη εκ γενετής είχαν την ίδια αντίδραση ή αν αυτή αναπτυσσόταν με το πέρασμα του χρόνου.

«Τώρα επαληθεύεται ότι τα ίδια δερματικά κύτταρα ενεργοποιούνται και στα βρέφη και ότι το αργό και μαλακό άγγιγμα μπορεί να επιφέρει αλλαγές στην εγκεφαλική δραστηριότητα των νεογνών», εξηγεί η καθηγήτρια Σλέτερ. «Προηγούμενες μελέτες έδειξαν ότι το άγγιγμα μπορεί να συμβάλει στην ενίσχυση του δεσίματος με τον γονέα, στη μείωση του στρες τόσο για τους γονείς όσο και για το βρέφος, αλλά και μπορεί να περιορίσει σημαντικά τη διάρκεια της νοσηλείας σε νοσοκομείο», δήλωσε η καθηγήτρια Σλέιτερ.

Ομως η έρευνα δεν ολοκληρώθηκε εδώ. Τώρα οι επιστήμονες σκοπεύουν να επαναλάβουν το πείραμα με πρόωρα μωρά, των οποίων τα αισθητήρια όργανα ακόμα αναπτύσσονται.

ΠΗΓΗ:

http://www.kathimerini.gr/1000859/article/ygeia/ygeia-epikairothta/analghtiko-gia-ta-mwra-to-apalo-xadi(accessed 19.12.18)

The Simplest Sign of Attraction

Both sexes unconsciously do the same thing when they meet someone they are attracted to.



Both men and women unconsciously lower their voices when they are attracted to someone, new research finds.

Men, in particular, keep their voices low to indicate their interest.


Surprisingly, women also lower their voices when speaking to the most attractive men.

For the study, 30 speed daters met in a cafe, half men, half women.

The researchers monitored voice pitch and asked everyone who they were attracted to.

The study’s authors explain that men lowered their voice when attracted to a woman:


“…men lowered the minimum pitch of their voices when interacting with women who were overall highly desired by other men.

Men also lowered their mean voice pitch on dates with women they selected as potential mates, particularly those who indicated a mutual preference (matches).

Women also lowered their voice when attracted to a man:



“…although women spoke with a higher and more variable voice pitch toward men they selected as potential mates, women lowered both voice pitch parameters toward men who were most desired by other women and whom they also personally preferred.”

Women, though, were more discerning in their choice: only lowering their voice for the most attractive men.

SOURCE:

https://www.spring.org.uk/2018/12/simplest-sign-attraction.php(accessed 19.12.18)

Self-explanation is a powerful learning technique, according to meta-analysis of 64 studies involving 6000 participants

It is better to ask a student to see if they can explain something to themselves, than for a teacher or book to always explain it to them. That’s according to a new meta-analysis of the findings from 64 prior studies involving nearly 6000 participants that compared learning outcomes from prompted self-explanation compared to instructor explanation, or compared to time spent using other study techniques such as taking notes, summarising, thinking out loud (without the reflection and elaboration involved in self-explanation), or solving more problems.

The authors of the meta-analysis, published recently in Educational Psychology Review, say that self-explanation is a powerful learning strategy because learners “generate inferences about causal connections and conceptual relationships that enhance understanding”. The process of self-explanation also helps the learner realise what they don’t know, “to fill in missing information, monitor understanding, and modify fusions of new information with prior knowledge when discrepancies or deficiencies are detected”.



Past research already established that more effective learners are more inclined to self-explain spontaneously. The meta-analysis confirms that, importantly, prompted self-explanation is also beneficial. Overall, Kiran Bisra and her team at Simon Fraser University found that when students are prompted to self-explain (usually this is in written form, though a few studies involved spoken self-explanation) this improves their learning outcomes with an average effect size of 0.55 (using Hedge’s g), which in a learning context is impressive – “a potentially powerful” intervention in the authors’ words, similar in effectiveness to “mastery learning” and “peer tutoring”.

Self-explanation was more effective than instructor explanation (explanation given by a teacher or teaching materials), but instructor explanation was better than no explanation, which suggests that part of the benefit of self-explanation comes from the content (which could be provided elsewhere) while a second aspect comes from the unique process of generating an explanation oneself (prompting the student to recognise links between the knowledge or skills they’ve learned, and allowing them to identity and address gaps in their understanding).

The researchers checked and the benefits of self-explanation are not due to the technique simply leading to more time being spent in study, though the researchers said more investigations do need to do a better job of controlling for this confound.

The researchers also looked to see if any particular aspects of the practice of self-explanation make a difference to its effectiveness. They found some limited evidence that a multiple-choice format (in which the student chooses a range of explanations from a list) to be the least effective, perhaps because it lacks the self-generated elaboration that is usually involved in more open-ended self-explanation.

On this last point, the researchers suggested that the ideal degree of guidance and prompting (such as whether learners are cued to self-explain specific concepts or left to choose) may depend on their proficiency: as students develop their knowledge and skill, the more freedom to choose what and how they self-explain, the better.

Regarding other factors – such as, the timing of the self-explanation in the learning process; the kind of self-explanation that was elicited (such as justifying an argument or explaining a concept); the nature of the to-be-learned material; the subject matter; and how knowledge was subsequently tested – the researchers found little evidence that any of this made much difference to the benefit of self-explanation. One exception was that it was generally less effective when students were asked to self-explain their own state of knowledge and understanding (a form of so-called “meta-cognitive explanation”), which is logical because this would not involve the student elaborating on and forming connections among the to-be-learned material.

Bisra and her colleagues said that a “major implication” of their findings was that “…beneficial effects of inducing self-explanation seem to be available for most subject areas studied in school, and for both conceptual (declarative) and procedural knowledge.”

The results of this meta-analysis provide an encouraging and straightforward take-away for learners and teachers alike. Just one gripe: I would have liked to see more detailed discussion of the exact kinds of other study technique that self-explanation was compared against, to better identify any unique “ingredients” that make self-explanation apparently so effective. In fairness, Bisra and her colleagues recognise this knowledge gap, concluding: “There is now a need for clearer mapping of the unique cognitive benefits self-explanation may promote, the specific effects of different types of self-explanations and prompts, and how self-explanation might be optimally combined and sequenced with other instructional features such as extended practice, explanation modeling, and inquiry-based learning.”

SOURCE:

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/12/07/meta-analysis-of-64-studies-involving-6000-participants-finds-that-self-explanation-is-a-powerful-learning-technique/(accessed 13.12.18)

“An additional reason to abandon learning styles” – teachers and pupils do not agree on the pupils’ preferred learning style

“Learning styles” – there can be few ideas that have created such a stark disconnect between the experts on the ground and the evidence published in scholarly journals. Endorsed by the overwhelming majority of teachers, yet dismissed by most psychologists and educational neuroscientists as a “neuromyth”, the basis of learning styles is that people learn better when taught via their preferred learning modality, usually (but not always) described as either visual, auditory or kinaesthetic.

Many studies have already uncovered serious problems with the learning styles concept, such as that measures of learning styles are invalid and that students do not in fact learn better via their preferred modality. Now further evidence against learning styles comes from Greece, in one of the first investigations on the topic to involve primary school pupils.

Writing in Frontiers in Education, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou and her colleagues report that teachers and pupils did not agree on the pupils’ preferred learning modality – a significant blow for the learning styles concept since “teachers typically adopt learning styles within a classroom context by relying on their own assessment of students’ learning styles.”



The study was simple enough – nearly 200 fifth- and sixth-grade pupils (average age 11 years) from five schools chose which was their preferred learning style out of visual, auditory or kinaesthetic. They also completed a short IQ test (the Raven’s matrices). Next, their teachers – 19 took part – first provided an open-ended answer to the question “Does teaching that is tailor-made to the students’ learning style reinforce the students’ performance?”, then they were asked to identify each of their pupils’ favoured style (such that each child was rated by one teacher).

All of the participating teachers endorsed the concept of learning styles. However, there was not a statistically significant correlation between the teachers’ judgments of their pupils’ favoured learning style and the pupils’ own declaration of their preference. “We posit that identifying preferred learning style can be a hit-and-miss process, with no agreement between the assessment made by teachers and students,” the researchers said.

There was also no association between the teachers’ judgments of pupils’ learning style and the pupils’ IQ, suggesting the teachers were not using IQ as a proxy for learning style.

A weakness of the study was that the teachers were not asked specifically about the kind of learning styles approach they used or favoured, so it’s possible they were not familiar with the visual, auditory, kinaesthetic breakdown, though this seems unlikely since this so-called VARK model is the most popular.

Papadatou-Pastou and her team concluded that “… if the identification of learning styles … is unreliable, as evidence by the findings of the present study, this should constitute an additional reason why teachers should abandon the use of learning styles in instruction.”

SOURCE:

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/12/12/an-additional-reason-to-abandon-learning-styles-teachers-and-pupils-do-not-agree-on-the-pupils-preferred-learning-style/(accessed 13.12.18)

New findings suggest post-traumatic growth may often be illusory

After a trauma many people have the sense it has changed them for the better, such as granting them a new appreciation for life or improving their relationships. This has given rise to the appealing notion that there is such a thing as “post-traumatic growth”. However, the majority of investigations into this phenomenon have relied on asking people whether they believe they have changed; very few have assessed people prior to a trauma and then re-assessed them afterwards to see if positive changes have actually occurred.

A new study in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships is the first to apply this kind of “prospective design” in the context of relationship breakups in young adults, and – unfortunately for anyone who found comfort and inspiration in the principle of post-traumatic growth – the authors Meghan Owenz and Blaine Fowers say their findings are more consistent with the idea that such growth is mostly illusory, the result of a positive re-appraisal of the breakup and one’s current situation.



The researchers recruited 599 undergrads currently in a romantic relationship and assessed them twice on a range of measures: at the beginning, and near the end of the semester. During that time, 100 of them lived through their relationship breaking up, an experience that, typically for their age group, they found extremely distressing (in fact, on a formal scale they rated their feelings of distress on a par with those reported by survivors of natural disasters and cardiac surgery).

At the start of the semester, all the participants completed a version of the commonly used “post-traumatic growth inventory” that had been slightly reworked to refer to their feelings over the last couple of weeks – such as whether they had experienced a sense of closeness with others over that time or had an appreciation for each day.

Near the end of the semester, all the participants re-took this same revamped version of the growth inventory, thus providing a before and after measure of their general outlook and behaviour. Importantly, the 100 students who’d been through a breakup also took the classic version of the inventory, rating how much they felt they had changed for the better in the same domains (such as closeness to others and life appreciation, among others) but specifically as a result of their relationship trauma.

Comparing early- and late-semester scores on the revamped growth inventory, there was no evidence for positive change, and no evidence that the students who’d been through a break-up showed any more improvement than the students who had not. In contrast, the break-up students did report feeling that the trauma had changed them for the better. Moreover, this perception of growth was higher for students who previously described themselves as more optimistic and who found their breakup more distressing.

Owenz and Fowers believe these findings are consistent with the idea that the perception of growth after trauma is illusory, arising from a (positive) re-appraisal of the situation. Colloquially we might invoke Freud and call this a defence mechanism – looking on the bright side as a way to cope (something that the more optimistic students, and more distressed students, were more inclined to do). More generally, the researchers acknowledge that actualpositive growth may be a reality for some people, but they think it unlikely for most.

Future research might paint a different picture. The current findings pertain to young people in a specific culture going through a specific kind of trauma, and they were tested over a relatively short time frame. For now, though, these authors and others believe the burden is on advocates of the existence of post-traumatic growth to provide more robust evidence for their claims, especially using study designs that do not rely purely on people’s subjective and retrospective reports of change. The current situation – where post-traumatic growth is considered a reality based on limited research – Owenz and Fowers find “…particularly worrisome, given the rapid move from research ‘documenting’ post-traumatic growth to interventions and self-help books designed to promote an approach to trauma that remains questionable.”

SOURCE:

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/11/29/new-findings-suggest-post-traumatic-growth-may-often-be-illusory/(accessed 7.12.18)