Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts

MVEA - Clinical Professor - MD, PhD

u/mveaReddit Premium
An Australian clinician academic with an interest in Science, Health, Technology, Space and Futurology, located in MVEA (Melbourne, Victoria, Eastern Australia).
Karma
15,143,022
Cake day
May 24, 2006
Moderator of these communities
r/science

20,348,540 subscribers

r/askscience

16,708,014 subscribers

r/Futurology

13,598,149 subscribers

Trophy Case (71)
12-Year Club

Gilding V

heart of gold

Best Link

2018-12-17

Original Poster3 points · 1 hour ago

The title of the post is a copy and paste from the title and first paragraph of the linked academic press release here:

Neuroimaging study sheds new light on how a dose of THC changes the brain

New neuroimaging research provides new insight into how tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, affects the human brain. The study found that THC increases glutamate concentrations in the striatum, a major brain structure involved in the coordination of body movement, decision-making and the initiation of action.

Journal Reference:

Natasha L. Mason, Eef L. Theunissen, Nadia R.P.W. Hutten, Desmond H.Y. Tse, Stefan W. Toennes, Peter Stiers, Johannes G. Ramaekers,

Cannabis induced increase in striatal glutamate associated with loss of functional corticostriatal connectivity,

European Neuropsychopharmacology, 2018, ISSN 0924-977X,

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.12.003.

Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X18319886

Abstract:

Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug and is known to alter state of consciousness and impair neurocognitive function. However, the mechanisms underlying these effects have yet to be fully elucidated. Rodent studies suggest that Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) activates dopaminergic neurons in the limbic system, subsequently enhancing dopamine, which is implicated in the rewarding effects of cannabis. Additional evidence suggests that THC may act indirectly on dopamine firing by modulating GABA and glutamate release. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the acute influence of two doses of THC on brain kinetics of glutamate, GABA, and dopamine, in relation to behavioral outcomes, by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Twenty occasional cannabis users received acute doses of cannabis (300 µg/kg THC) and placebo, in one of two dose regimes (full dose and divided dose), during two separate testing days. Administration of THC increased striatal glutamate concentrations, and dopamine as indicated by a reduction in functional connectivity (FC) between the nucleus accumbens (NAc) and cortical areas. Alterations in glutamate and FC were dose dependent and evident in the full dose group where THC serum concentrations exceeded 2 ng/ml at T-max. Average glutamate changes correlated strongly with FC alterations. Additionally, THC induced changes in FC correlated with feelings of subjective high and decreased performance on an attention task. Taken together, this suggests that THC elicits subjective and cognitive alterations via increased striatal dopaminergic activity and loss of corticostriatal connectivity, which is associated with an increase in striatal glutamate.

Original Poster2 points · 1 hour ago

The title of the post is a copy and paste from the title and first paragraph of the linked academic press release here:

Neuroimaging study sheds new light on how a dose of THC changes the brain

New neuroimaging research provides new insight into how tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, affects the human brain. The study found that THC increases glutamate concentrations in the striatum, a major brain structure involved in the coordination of body movement, decision-making and the initiation of action.

Journal Reference:

Natasha L. Mason, Eef L. Theunissen, Nadia R.P.W. Hutten, Desmond H.Y. Tse, Stefan W. Toennes, Peter Stiers, Johannes G. Ramaekers,

Cannabis induced increase in striatal glutamate associated with loss of functional corticostriatal connectivity,

European Neuropsychopharmacology, 2018, ISSN 0924-977X,

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.12.003.

Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X18319886

Abstract:

Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug and is known to alter state of consciousness and impair neurocognitive function. However, the mechanisms underlying these effects have yet to be fully elucidated. Rodent studies suggest that Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) activates dopaminergic neurons in the limbic system, subsequently enhancing dopamine, which is implicated in the rewarding effects of cannabis. Additional evidence suggests that THC may act indirectly on dopamine firing by modulating GABA and glutamate release. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the acute influence of two doses of THC on brain kinetics of glutamate, GABA, and dopamine, in relation to behavioral outcomes, by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Twenty occasional cannabis users received acute doses of cannabis (300 µg/kg THC) and placebo, in one of two dose regimes (full dose and divided dose), during two separate testing days. Administration of THC increased striatal glutamate concentrations, and dopamine as indicated by a reduction in functional connectivity (FC) between the nucleus accumbens (NAc) and cortical areas. Alterations in glutamate and FC were dose dependent and evident in the full dose group where THC serum concentrations exceeded 2 ng/ml at T-max. Average glutamate changes correlated strongly with FC alterations. Additionally, THC induced changes in FC correlated with feelings of subjective high and decreased performance on an attention task. Taken together, this suggests that THC elicits subjective and cognitive alterations via increased striatal dopaminergic activity and loss of corticostriatal connectivity, which is associated with an increase in striatal glutamate.

1 point · 5 hours ago

Congrats to all the winners! Thank you all for contributing to the sub and helping this community keep informed and updated!

Original Poster10 points · 13 hours ago

The title of the post is a copy and paste from the subtitle and fourth paragraph of the linked academic press release here:

Online experiment finds that less than 1 in 10 people can tell sponsored content from an article

Her new research, based on an online experiment she conducted, revealed that most people can’t tell native advertising apart from actual news articles. Even though her online survey divulged to participants that they were viewing advertisements, many people—more than 9 out of 10 participants—thought they’d been looking at an article.

Journal Reference:

Michelle A. Amazeen & Bartosz W. Wojdynski (2018)

Reducing Native Advertising Deception: Revisiting the Antecedents and Consequences of Persuasion Knowledge in Digital News Contexts,

Mass Communication and Society,

DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2018.1530792

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15205436.2018.1530792

Abstract

Building on the persuasion knowledge model, this study examines how audience characteristics and native advertising recognition influence the covert persuasion process. Among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (N = 738), we examined digital news readers’ recognition of a sponsored news article as advertising. Although fewer than 1 in 10 readers recognized the article as advertising, recognition was most likely among younger, more educated consumers who engaged with news media for informational purposes. Recognition led to greater counterarguing, and higher levels of informational motivation also led to less favorable evaluations of the content among recognizers. News consumers were most receptive to native advertising in a digital news context when publishers were more transparent about its commercial nature. Beyond theoretical insights into the covert persuasion process, this study offers practical utility to the advertisers, publishers, and policymakers who wish to better understand who is more likely to be confused by this type of advertising so that they can take steps to minimize deception.

Original Poster2 points · 13 hours ago

The title of the post is a copy and paste from the subtitle and fourth paragraph of the linked academic press release here:

Online experiment finds that less than 1 in 10 people can tell sponsored content from an article

Her new research, based on an online experiment she conducted, revealed that most people can’t tell native advertising apart from actual news articles. Even though her online survey divulged to participants that they were viewing advertisements, many people—more than 9 out of 10 participants—thought they’d been looking at an article.

Journal Reference:

Michelle A. Amazeen & Bartosz W. Wojdynski (2018)

Reducing Native Advertising Deception: Revisiting the Antecedents and Consequences of Persuasion Knowledge in Digital News Contexts,

Mass Communication and Society,

DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2018.1530792

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15205436.2018.1530792

Abstract

Building on the persuasion knowledge model, this study examines how audience characteristics and native advertising recognition influence the covert persuasion process. Among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (N = 738), we examined digital news readers’ recognition of a sponsored news article as advertising. Although fewer than 1 in 10 readers recognized the article as advertising, recognition was most likely among younger, more educated consumers who engaged with news media for informational purposes. Recognition led to greater counterarguing, and higher levels of informational motivation also led to less favorable evaluations of the content among recognizers. News consumers were most receptive to native advertising in a digital news context when publishers were more transparent about its commercial nature. Beyond theoretical insights into the covert persuasion process, this study offers practical utility to the advertisers, publishers, and policymakers who wish to better understand who is more likely to be confused by this type of advertising so that they can take steps to minimize deception.

Moderator of r/Futurology, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 15 hours ago · Stickied comment

Thank you for contributing. However, your submission was removed from ?www.tracking.qiaodeo.com/Futurology.

Rule 2 - Submissions must be future focused or about futurology

Refer to the subreddit rules, the transparency wiki, or the domain blacklist for more information

Message the Mods if you feel this was in error