Biological Psychology Links

By RONI CARYN RABIN Older mothers are more likely than younger ones to have a child with autism, and older fathers significantly contribute to the risk of the disorder when their partners are under 30, researchers are reporting. In a study published online on Monday in the journal Autism Research, the researchers analyzed almost five million births in California during the 1990s, and 12,159 cases of autism diagnosed in those children — a sample large enough to examine how the risk of autism was affected when one parent was a specific age and the other was the same age or considerably older or younger. Previous research found that the risk of autism grew with the age of the father. The new study suggested that when the father was over 40 and the mother under 30, the increased risk was especially pronounced — 59 percent greater than for younger men. By contrast, for women 30 and older, the risk of autism rose 13 percent when the father was over 40. Every five-year increase in a mother’s age raised her risk of having a child with autism by 18 percent; a 40-year-old woman’s risk was 50 percent greater than that of a woman who became a mother in her late 20s, and 77 percent higher than that of a woman under 25. But while the number of California women giving birth in their 40s rose sharply in the 1990s, the researchers said that could not account for the sevenfold rise in autism during the decade. Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

by Lindsey Tanner, Associated Press A woman's chance of having a child with autism increase substantially as she ages, but the risk may be less for older dads than previously suggested, a new study analyzing more than 5 million births found. "Although fathers' age can contribute risk, the risk is overwhelmed by maternal age," said University of California at Davis researcher Janie Shelton, the study's lead author. Mothers older than 40 were about 50 percent more likely to have a child with autism than those in their 20s; the risk for fathers older than 40 was 36 percent higher than for men in their 20s. Even at that, the study suggests the risk of a woman over 40 having an autistic child was still less than 4 in 1,000, one expert noted. The new research suggests the father's age appears to make the most difference with young mothers. Among children whose mothers were younger than 25, autism was twice as common when fathers were older than 40 than when dads were in their 20s. autism The findings contrast with recent research that suggested the father's age played a bigger role than the mother's. Researchers and other autism experts said the new study is more convincing, partly because it's larger. Older mothers are known to face increased risks for having children with genetic disorders, and genes are thought to play a role in autism. The study was released Monday in the February issue of the journal Autism Research. © 2010 Discovery Communications, LLC.

By Steve Connor The brains of people who risk everything when gambling may be wired up differently to those of the naturally cautious, according to a study that appears to have discovered a neurological basis for reckless behaviour. The research found that people were far more gullible to high-risk gambling when a small but distinct part of their brain had been damaged as a result of a rare genetic disorder. They showed little of the natural aversion to losing something of value that most people are born with. Tests on two otherwise healthy women who had suffered damage to a part of the brain called the amygdala, which has already been implicated in the arousal of fear and anxiety, revealed that they were far more ready to lose money through risky gambling behaviour compared to healthy individuals with no such brain damage. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep inside the core of the brain and it is sometimes referred to as the "seat of fear" because of its important role in controlling this basic, primal emotion. It is an ancient part of the brain, existing long before the evolutionary development of the outer "higher cortex" which controls more sophisticated emotional states. "A fully functioning amygdala appears to make us more cautious. We already know that the amygdala is involved in processing fear, and it also appears to make us afraid of losing money," said Professor Ralph Adolphs of University College London. ©independent.co.uk

By Alice Park To curb the childhood-obesity epidemic, health experts have long urged parents to make healthy changes to their family's lifestyle — such as eating nutritiously, reducing TV time, exercising and getting a good night's sleep. Individually, these behaviors have been linked to a lower risk of obesity in kids, but researchers at Ohio State University were interested in learning whether their effect might be cumulative — that is, whether families who adopted not just one but two or more of these behaviors could reduce their children's risk of obesity even further. (See how to prevent illness at any age.) Led by epidemiologist Sarah Anderson, researchers analyzed data on 8,550 4-year-olds in a national study and found that, indeed, children who practiced two healthy lifestyle behaviors were slimmer than those who adopted only one behavior, while youngsters who implemented three beneficial habits were the least likely to be overweight. "The more of these routines the children had, the lower was their risk of obesity," Anderson says. "If children had all three routines, their risk of obesity was 40% lower than children who had none of the routines." The three behaviors Anderson studied were eating dinner regularly with the family, limiting the amount of time spent in front of the TV, and getting enough sleep. The children who were least likely to be obese ate dinner with their families six or seven times a week, slept for at least 10.5 hours each night and watched less than two hours of television per day. © 2010 Time Inc.

By Melody Dye At every stage of early development, human babies lag behind infants from other species. A kitten can amble across a room within moments of birth and catch its first mouse within weeks, while its wide-eyed human counterpart takes months to make her first step, and years to learn even simple tasks, such as how to tie a shoelace or skip a rope, let alone prepare a three-course meal. Yet, in the cognitive race, human babies turn out to be much like the tortoise in Aesop’s fable: emerging triumphant after a slow and steady climb to the finish. As adults, we drive fancy sports cars, leap nimbly across football fields and ballet stages, write lengthy dissertations on every conceivable subject, and launch rockets into space. We have a mastery over our selves and our environments that is peculiar to our species. Yet, this victory seems puzzling. In the fable, the tortoise wins the race because the hare takes a nap. But, if anything, human infants nap even more than kittens! And unlike the noble tortoise, babies are helpless, and more to the point, hopeless. They could not learn the basic skills necessary to their independent survival even if they tried. How do human babies manage to turn things around in the end? In a recent article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, Sharon Thompson-Schill, Michael Ramscar and Evangelia Chrysikou make the case that this very helplessness is what allows human babies to advance far beyond other animals. They propose that our delayed cortical development is precisely what enables us to acquire the cultural building blocks, such as language, that make up the foundations of human achievement. Indeed, the trio makes clear that our early vulnerability is an evolutionary “engineering trade-off,” much like the human larynx—which, while it facilitates the intricate productions of human speech, is actually quite a precarious adaptation for anyone trying to swallow safely. In the same way, they suggest, our ability to learn language comes at the price of an extended period of cognitive immaturity. © 2010 Scientific American,

By CLAUDIA DREIFUS At his Princeton laboratory, Samuel Wang is searching for basic information on how the brains of humans and dogs work. Dr. Wang, 42, an associate professor at the university, also spends time popularizing breakthroughs in his specialty — neuroscience. His book, “Welcome to Your Brain,” was named 2009 Young Adult Science Book of the Year by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Next semester, he will offer a first for Princeton: an undergraduate course called “Neuroscience and Everyday Life.” Here is an edited version of a four-hour conversation. Q. YOU’RE ALMOST EVANGELICAL ABOUT YOUR WORK. WHY DID YOU BECOME A NEUROSCIENTIST? A. I was at Caltech in 1985, and I took a class in classical mechanics and another in introductory cell biology. And I remember asking this physics instructor about second order corrections in Lagrangian dynamics. He said, “Oh yes, that’s been thought of,” while spewing out a bunch of equations on the blackboard. I then asked my biology instructor a question about neurotransmission. He kind of smirked at me and said, “Nobody knows the answer to that.” That felt great! It was great to ask a basic question and learn the answer wasn’t known. So neuroscience seemed like the way to go. Q. AND NOW IS MORE KNOWN? A. Much more. In the 1980s, we knew some things about how individual neurons, synapses and the brain — or at least regions of it — worked. Today, we have the means to see how they work as a system, together. What has changed is advances in molecular biology, genetics and also technology. In the 1980s, the best tool for looking at neurocircuitry was to take a piece of removed tissue and look at single neurons. We now can see multiple neurons, and we can actually see how the cells talk to one another. Functional magnetic resonance imaging, F.M.R.I., lets you see what’s happening on the whole brain level. In the last three years, we’ve gotten connectomics, where people are taking a bit of tissue and mapping every connection in it. And there’s optogenetics — I’m doing a lot of that — where you express some fluorescent protein in some tissue that allows us to see individual cells and watch the change. Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

— Only some bats and toothed whales rely on sophisticated echolocation, in which they emit sonar pulses and process returning echoes, to detect and track down small prey. Now, two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level. The discovery represents an unprecedented example of adaptive sequence convergence between two highly divergent groups and suggests that such convergence at the sequence level might be more common than scientists had suspected. "The natural world is full of examples of species that have evolved similar characteristics independently, such as the tusks of elephants and walruses," said Stephen Rossiter of the University of London, an author on one of the studies. "However, it is generally assumed that most of these so-called convergent traits have arisen by different genes or different mutations. Our study shows that a complex trait -- echolocation -- has in fact evolved by identical genetic changes in bats and dolphins." A hearing gene known as prestin in both bats and dolphins (a toothed whale) has picked up many of the same mutations over time, the studies show. As a result, if you draw a phylogenetic tree of bats, whales, and a few other mammals based on similarities in the prestin sequence alone, the echolocating bats and whales come out together rather than with their rightful evolutionary cousins. © 1995-2009 ScienceDaily LLC

By Kay Lazar Roughly 8 percent of Americans ages 50 to 59 had used an illicit drug in the past year, according to a recent survey by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Marijuana was the most commonly used, but close behind was abuse of prescription drugs, such as anti-anxiety medications, painkillers, and sleeping pills. The percentage of pot and pill abusers in this age group grew by more than 50 percent between 2002 and 2008, as more baby boomers hit 50. Now, researchers who conducted the survey worry that high rates of lifetime drug use among boomers, that massive, society-altering generation born between 1946 and 1964, is likely to create health complications for millions of aging Americans and swamp the country’s drug-treatment programs. “We are projecting that by the year 2020, we will probably have enough people in the 50-to-59 age group needing [substance abuse] treatment that we will probably need to double the number of treatment facilities,’’ said Peter Delany, the substance abuse agency’s director of the Office of Applied Studies. Delaney said that illicit drugs may cause greater impairment as users get older. “We do know,’’ he said, “that physiology slows down as you age, so the stuff processed out of your body faster when you were younger won’t be processed out so quickly when you are older.’’ © 2010 NY Times Co

By BENEDICT CAREY The assorted mystics, philosophers, theologians and, most recently, neuroscientists who have burned a candle searching for the essence of consciousness all started with a simple presumption: Consciousness must begin where unconsciousness ends. Theologians have likened this state of pre-awakening to sleep, to darkness, to life underground. Modern scientists study the neural processes of sleep itself, and the transition to waking; they also have analyzed what happens in the brain when people suddenly become consciously aware of an object that was hidden in plain sight. So far, the precise neural correlates of consciousness — the brain circuits critical to “turning on” conscious awareness — have eluded capture. One reason is that consciousness itself takes many forms, from the gauzy half-dream state between the alarm clock’s bleating and sitting up; and lost stretches of waking life, as when a driver pulls into the driveway with no recollection of the half-hour commute home. The deeper that investigators dig, the more hidden chambers they find. Last Wednesday, scientists in England and Belgium reported that five people with severe brain injuries who had been identified as “vegetative,” beyond reach, showed activity on brain imaging that strongly suggested conscious awareness. One of them, a 29-year-old man thought to be “vegetative” for five years, began to answer yes and no questions by alternately showing brain activity when thinking about tennis (lighting motor areas), then about walking in his house (lighting spatial areas). Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

Betting on the Super Bowl, roulette, or even online poker can be thrilling, and with the advent of online gambling, it's easier than ever before. Yet winning and losing can have unexpected effects on the brain that keep people coming back for more, scientists are finding. Gamblers sink an increasing sum of money into their efforts to win. Over the last 20 years legalized betting has grown tremendously; it's now a $100 billion industry. More than 65 percent of Americans gamble, according to Gallup's annual Lifestyle Poll conducted last year, and up to 5 percent of those betters develop an addiction to the activity. "For most individuals, gambling is enjoyable and harmless, but for others, it is as destructive as being addicted to drugs," said Catharine Winstanley, an assistant professor at the University of British Columbia's Department of Psychology. Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here Kyle Siler, a sociology doctoral student at Cornell University who studied 27 million poker hands online, told LiveScience: "Gamblers have to be honest with themselves and realize when to walk away and when a bet is profitable — even under conditions of uncertainty." Siler's study, published recently in the Journal of Gambling Studies, showed that the more hands of poker someone plays, the higher the chances that he'll walk away with smaller profits. "They might win a lot of small battles, but they're losing the war," he said, adding that people become positively reinforced with each win and more vulnerable to a crushing loss. © 2010 LiveScience.com

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor Why are we asking this now? Scientists this week announced that they had succeeded in communicating with a man thought to be in a vegetative state, lacking all awareness, for five years following a road accident. Using a brain scanner they were able to read his thoughts and obtain yes or no answers to questions. They asked him to imagine playing tennis if he wanted to answer yes and to imagine walking through his home if he wanted to say no. By mapping the different parts of the brain activated in each case with the scanner, the scientists were able accurately record his reponses. What does this tell us about the brain? That it may still be functioning, generating thoughts and awareness, even when there is no outward sign of consciousness at all. Previously, the only way of telling if someone had any degree of consciousness was by observing how they responded to visual, auditory, tactile or noxious stimuli. If there was no response they were presumed to be in a vegetative state. In vegetative state patients, the eyes are open and they follow the normal cycle of sleeping and waking but they show no sign of being aware of their surroundings, hovering half way between consciousness and unconsciousness. In this patient, the brain scanner showed he was aware even though he showed no outward sign of being so. ©independent.co.uk

By Tina Hesman Saey Sea slugs make memories with a twist. Screwing a normal nerve cell protein into a distorted shape helps slugs, and possibly people, lock in memories, new research shows. Notably, the shape change also brings a shift in the protein’s behavior, leading it to form clumps. That kind of behavior is the sort seen in prions, the misshapen, infectious proteins that cause mad cow disease, scrapie and other disorders (SN: 7/31/04, p. 67). But the new study, published February 5 in Cell, shows a possible normal function for the shape-shifting, suggesting that twists and clumps don’t necessarily make prions monsters. In one sense, prions are machines of “molecular memory,” says Yury Chernoff, a biologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and editor in chief of the journal Prion. The proteins remember what happened to them — changing shapes — and then transmit that change to other proteins. “But the notion of these machines being used for cellular, and therefore organismal, memory is truly amazing,” he says. If further research shows the process works the same way in humans as it does in sea slugs, prionlike proteins might eventually be used in memory-enhancing treatments, Chernoff says. Prions have a bad reputation due to the most famous of the shape-changing proteins, called prion protein or PrP. When PrP switches from its harmless form, which is normally present in nerve cells, into a prion form, it corrupts other PrP molecules that then assemble themselves into nearly indestructible plaques known as amyloids. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2010

by David Kushner On the quarter-mile walk between his office at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland and the nerve center of his research across campus, Henry Markram gets a brisk reminder of the rapidly narrowing gap between human and machine. At one point he passes a museumlike display filled with the relics of old supercomputers, a memorial to their technological limitations. At the end of his trip he confronts his IBM Blue Gene/P—shiny, black, and sloped on one side like a sports car. That new supercomputer is the centerpiece of the Blue Brain Project, tasked with simulating every aspect of the workings of a living brain. Markram, the 47-year-old founder and codirector of the Brain Mind Institute at the EPFL, is the project’s leader and cheerleader. A South African neuroscientist, he received his doctorate from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and studied as a Fulbright Scholar at the National Institutes of Health. For the past 15 years he and his team have been collecting data on the neocortex, the part of the brain that lets us think, speak, and remember. The plan is to use the data from these studies to create a comprehensive, three-dimensional simulation of a mammalian brain. Such a digital re-creation that matches all the behaviors and structures of a biological brain would provide an unprecedented opportunity to study the fundamental nature of cognition and of disorders such as depression and schizophrenia. Until recently there was no computer powerful enough to take all our knowledge of the brain and apply it to a model. Blue Gene has changed that. It contains four monolithic, refrigerator-size machines, each of which processes data at a peak speed of 56 teraflops (teraflops being one trillion floating-point operations per second).

A small number of extremely overweight people may be missing the same chunk of genetic material, claim UK researchers. The findings, published in the journal Nature, could offer clues to whether obesity can be "inherited" in some cases. Imperial College London scientists found dozens of people - all severely obese - who lacked approximately the same 30 genes. The gene "deletion" could not be found in people of normal weight. While much of the "obesity epidemic" currently affecting most Western countries has been attributed to a move towards high-calorie foods and more sedentary lifestyles, scientists have found evidence that genes may play a significant role in influencing weight gain in some people. The latest study focused on the "morbidly obese", who have a Body Mass Index (BMI) of more than 40, and who are at the highest risk of health problems. There are an estimated 700,000 of these people in the UK. The first clue came by looking at a group of teenagers and adults with learning difficulties, who are known to be at higher risk of obesity, although the reasons for this are not entirely clear. They researchers found 31 people who had nearly identical "deletions" in their genetic code, all of whom had a BMI of over 30, meaning they were obese. Then a wider scan of the genetic makeup of a mixture of more than 16,000 obese and normal weight people revealed 19 more examples of the missing genes. All of the people involved were classed as "morbidly obese", with a BMI of over 40, and at the highest risk of health problems related to their weight. Most of them had been normal weight as toddlers, but then became overweight during later childhood. None of the people studied with normal weight had the missing code. (C)BBC

By OLIVIA JUDSON Among biologists, the Galápagos Islands — an archipelago of volcanic islands that straddle the equator about 600 miles from the coast of mainland Ecuador — are legendary. For when the young Charles Darwin sailed around the world in the 1830s, he visited these islands, and was struck by five things. First, he observed that many of the animals and plants living in the Galápagos are found nowhere else in the world. Examples? Marine iguanas, which swim, eat algae and spend hours basking on the rocks. Darwin, uncharitably, described them as “hideous” and “stupid.” Then there are the giant tortoises (“antediluvian,” said Darwin), the largest of which can weigh as much as 250kg, or 550 pounds. Among the birds, there are flightless cormorants, which have stumpy little wings; and, famously, there are several unique species of finch. Darwin’s second observation was that certain sorts of animals are missing. The islands have no frogs, for example, and until humans came, there were no land-lubbing mammals like rats or cats. Third, he noted that many of the creatures living in the Galápagos resemble, but differ from, those of the nearest continent — South America. Fourth, the inhabitants of one island often differ from those of another. These four observations formed an essential piece of Darwin’s evidence that evolution takes place. Remote volcanic islands can only be reached by certain sorts of life forms — those that can cross hundreds of miles of ocean without perishing. So: birds and bats can fly there. Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

By Greg Miller When a brain injury leaves a person unresponsive and unable to communicate, doctors and nurses must provide care without input from their patient, and families agonize over whether their loved one might still have--or someday recover--a flicker of consciousness. A new study provides hope that technology might open a line of communication with some such patients. Researchers report that a man with a severe brain injury can, by controlling his thoughts, influence scans of his brain activity and thereby answer simple questions. The work builds on a 2006 Science paper by Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge, U.K., and colleagues. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), they tested a young woman diagnosed as being in a vegetative state following a car accident. Although she was unresponsive and apparently unaware of her surroundings, she exhibited distinct patterns of brain activity when asked to imagine herself playing tennis or walking through the rooms of her house. As in healthy volunteers, imagining tennis activated motor planning regions in the woman's brain, whereas picturing her house activated a brain region involved in recognizing familiar scenes. In the new study, published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, Owen and several colleagues used similar methods to examine 53 additional people who were in a vegetative state or in the slightly less severe minimally conscious state, in which patients show occasional flashes of responsiveness. In four of these patients, the researchers found distinct patterns of brain activity during the tennis versus house imagination task, hinting at some level of awareness that could not be detected by observing their behavior, says co-author Steven Laureys, a neurologist at the University of Liège in Belgium. © 2010 American Association for the Advancement of Science

by Ewen Callaway In a new twist on an old illusion, people have been made to feel an "imaginary rabbit" hopping along a stick resting between their fingers. The trick is a variation on a tactile illusion called the cutaneous rabbit in which a series of discrete taps to two areas of skin are perceived as movement between those two areas. For instance, two taps to the elbow followed by a single tap to the wrist will feel as if a "rabbit" is hopping towards the wrist. Makoto Miyazaki, a cognitive neuroscientist at Kochi University of Technology in Japan, was using this decades-old trick to test perception when he realised that the effect seemed to jump from his body onto the object he was holding at the time. To investigate further, Miyazaki used an electrically operated device to administer taps to eight volunteers while they held a 10-centimetre aluminium rod between two fingers. The volunteers were then asked to describe where they felt the taps. The device delivered two taps to the first finger, 800 milliseconds apart, then tapped the second finger 50 or 80 milliseconds later. As with the classical version of the illusion, volunteers did not sense discrete taps to one finger and then the other. Instead, they felt the taps move up or down the stick, depending on the order in which they were delivered. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd

By Katherine Harmon The most common cause of death of U.S. infants before their first birthday is the nebulous complication known as sudden infant death syndrome (or SIDS), according to the Mayo Clinic. The underlying causes of this condition, in which no immediate cause of death is revealed in an autopsy, remain unknown, vexing scientists and parents alike. Recent research has linked abnormal production of the neurotransmitter serotonin to the occurrence, and a new study underscores that link, reporting that infants who have died of SIDS have about a quarter less serotonin in their brainstems than infants who have died suddenly of other causes or those who have been hospitalized for low oxygen levels. The findings were published online February 2 in Journal of the American Medical Association. Babies with this deadly deficit might not show any differences during waking hours, but in sleep, serotonin plays an important role in regulating temperature and breathing. "Our research suggests that sleep unmasks the brain defect," Hannah Kinney, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and a senior researcher on the study, said in a prepared statement. "When the infant is breathing in the face-down position, he or she may not get enough oxygen. An infant with a normal brainstem would turn his or head and wake up in response. But a baby with an intrinsic abnormality is unable to respond to the stressor." © 2010 Scientific American,

By Tim Wogan Have you ever noticed that the first cowboy to draw his gun in a Hollywood Western is invariably the one to get shot? Nobel prize–winning physicist Niels Bohr did, once arranging mock duels to test the validity of this cinematic curiosity. Following Bohr's example, researchers have now confirmed that people move faster if they are reacting to another person's movements than if they are taking the lead themselves. The findings may one day inspire new therapies for patients with brain damage, the team speculates. Bohr was seemingly unhappy with the Tinseltown explanation that the good guy, who never shoots first, always wins. Legend has it that he procured two toy pistols and enlisted the aid of fellow physicist George Gamow. In a series of duels, Bohr never drew first but won every time. The physicist suggested that the brain responded to danger faster than it carried out a deliberate intention. Experimental psychologist Andrew Welchman of the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom recently learned of the duelling conundrum and also wondered whether it might reveal something about the way our brains are wired to respond to danger. "It would be sensible for the brain to have a reactive system that went a bit faster than a system based on decisions or intentions," says Welchman. Welchman's team organized simulated "gunfights" in the laboratory, with pairs of volunteers competing against each other to push three buttons on a computer console in a particular order. The researchers observed that the time interval between when players removed their hands from the first button and when they pressed the final button was on average 9% shorter for the players who reacted to an opponent moving first. However, those who reacted to a first move were more likely to make an error, presssing the buttons in the wrong order. © 2010 American Association for the Advancement of Science.

by Ewen Callaway Talk about a lousy graduation present. Straight-A students are more likely to develop bipolar disorder than their more mediocre peers, at least in Sweden, according to a new study of more than 700,000 former high-school students. Within 15 years of sitting their final high-school exams, aged 15 and 16, at least 280 of the students were diagnosed with bipolar disorder. After taking into account their parents' income and education – factors that are known to affect exam scores – the highest-achieving students were more than three times more likely to suffer from the mental illness than their average peers. Male overachievers, meanwhile, developed the disease 4.4 times more often than their average male classmates. Good grades don't cause bipolar disorder, but creativity and intelligence could be a reflection of common underlying biological traits, says James MacCabe, an epidemiologist at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, who led the study. The stereotype of the brilliant but tortured artist aside, some aspects of manic episodes could reflect increased intelligence, he says. "People who have a biological predisposition to bipolar disorder have advantages, I suppose you could call them, in that they're able to think clearly, think fast and concentrate," MacCabe says. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd

Most Recent Links