The artist's brain: they are both right!

A new neuroscience study surfaced, focused on what makes artists' brains different from non-artists' ones!

The scientists used MRI to find out, put plainly, what areas of the brain got bigger in people who could draw from observation, and in people who went through artistic training, compared to the average.

Their findings?

"Observational drawing ability relates to changes in structures pertaining to fine motor control and procedural memory, and that artistic training in addition is associated with enhancement of structures pertaining to visual imagery."

The changes also seem to be in proportion to artistic skill.

What is noteworthy is that the three structures that visibly develop more gray matter in us artists are in the right hemisphere, the left hemisphere, and the right side of the cerebellum. There is no "artistic side" neatly located in the "creative" right hemisphere, as the pernicious myth propagated by Betty Edwards claims. Instead, unsurprisingly, drawing is a motor skill supported by visualization.


The science journalists, of course, are blowing this a bit out of proportion. I have encountered the claims that it means that artistic talent may be innate. Even the long pop-science article published by BBC states that:

"The research, published in NeuroImage, suggests that an artist's talent could be innate."

The research suggests little of the sort, yet. It is more than equally likely that the changes in the brain are the result of training than preexisting, because some the same areas are enlarged in people who learn fine motor control, like musicians.

The only way it could demonstrate any support for innate talent would be by finding that children who had preexisting enhanced brain areas ended up in art schools. But that kind of study was not done - and children aren't born able to draw, we all have to start from zero. At most, such preexisting enhanced processor would enable you to learn to draw a little faster. But you still have to learn.

Instead, it is now known that the brain is malleable and adaptable. What this enhancement of brain areas means is that with enough exercise, you can learn to draw. With enough exercise, you can learn visual imagination. There is no magic, just hard work.

Here is the BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26925271
Here is the original abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811914002237

Giving retired cells the boot

It turns out that a big part of the condition associated with old age is due to accumulation of the "ballast" cells at the end of their useful life. The immune system does remove them, but not quickly enough, so the longer you live, the more of those you keep. They secrete various chemicals and impede the function of your organs.

Now someone has shown a relatively simple way to get rid of them (in mice), and the results are interesting. Treated mice don't live longer, but their tissues stay younger.

The blogs are buzzing about this piece of research today. The claims, understandably, have gone a bit wild. Here is an article that provides some perspective:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/11/02/extending-healthy-life-by-getting-rid-of-retired-cells

In short, a treatment like this won't make you live longer as many seem to claim, but it will make you stay in better shape longer and let you get more out of your years. Which is a big deal, so all the people who dismiss it as "irrelevant" are missing the point.

I hope this gets out of lab and into human tests soon.