1-Minute Phone Breaks Please! Can Boost Classroom Performance, Finds Study

 

As concerns over children’s screen addiction grow, a new study suggests that allowing students brief phone breaks in the classroom can actually improve their performance and reduce overall phone use, researchers reported on Wednesday.

A team of U.S. researchers conducted a semester-long experiment, revealing that college students who were given just one-minute phone breaks during class used their phones less and scored higher on tests.

“We found that technology breaks can help curb phone use in college classrooms,” said Professor Ryan Redner from Southern Illinois University, lead author of the study published in Frontiers in Education. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the effect of technology breaks in a college setting.”

The study showed that test scores were consistently higher—above 80 percent—when students were given one-minute breaks. The researchers believe this suggests students were less distracted during lectures, leading to better performance.

In today’s classrooms, where phones are typically banned due to their distracting nature, students report using them up to 10 times a day for non-academic purposes. However, the study tested the impact of one, two, or four-minute breaks during lectures over the course of a full term.

During these breaks, students were not permitted to use their phones but were encouraged to ask questions. These breaks occurred 15 minutes into the lecture. The researchers found that one-minute breaks were the most effective in reducing phone use.

“When the breaks lasted just one minute, students used their phones less overall,” said Redner. “It may be that one minute is enough to quickly check messages without getting sucked into longer conversations, which could reduce distractions during the rest of the lecture.”

The findings suggest that structured phone breaks may help manage device use, ultimately improving students’ focus and academic outcomes.

Genetic Mutation in Kids? Blame it on Old Father’s sperms

A study by Rockefeller University scientists has nailed down reasons why older male fruit flies are more likely to pass mutations onto their offspring, with implications for a similar impact in humans with inherited diseases.

Since male reproductive system acts as the pivotal point for new genes, new mutations are inherited from fathers than from mothers, said the study though it did not clarify why younger fathers do not pass on more mutations to their off springs.

Though the trend has been observed for long, the reason remained a mystery. Now, the new study published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution explored mutations that occur during the production of sperm from germline cells, known as spermatogenesis.

RNA sequencing data from fruit fly testes showing the marked difference between older sperm-related cells (teal, at left) and younger ones / Laboratory of Evolutionary Genetics and Genomics

The scientists found that mutations are common in the testes of both young and old fruit flies, but more abundant in older flies compared to the younger fruit flies during spermatogenesis since the body’s genomic repair mechanisms remain active in them but fail to fix it in the testes of older flies.

“We were trying to test whether the older germline is less efficient at mutation repair, or whether the older germline just starts out more mutated,” says first author Evan Witt, a former graduate student in the lab. “Our results indicate that it’s actually both. At every stage of spermatogenesis, there are more mutations per RNA molecule in older flies than in younger flies.”

Self-care vital among the young

Genomes keep themselves busy using repair mechanisms and when it comes to testes, they work overtime as testes have the highest rate of gene expression of any organ. Moreover, genes that are highly expressed in spermatogenesis tend to have fewer mutations than those that are not. This sounds counterintuitive, but it makes sense: One theory to explain why the testes express so many genes holds that it might be a sort of genomic surveillance mechanism — a way to reveal, and then weed out, problematic mutations.

But when it comes to older sperm, the researchers found, the weed-whacker apparently sputters out. Previous research suggests that a faulty transcription-coupled repair mechanism, which only fixes transcribed genes, could be to blame.

Inherited or new mutations?

To get these results, scientists in the Laboratory of Evolutionary Genetics and Genomics did single-cell sequencing on the RNA from the testes of about 300 fruit flies, roughly half of them young (48 hours old) and half old (25 days old), advancing a line of inquiry they began in 2019.

In order to understand whether the mutations they detected were somatic, or inherited from the flies’ parents, or de novo—arising in the individual fly’s germline—they then sequenced the genome of each fly.

They were able to document that each mutation was a true original. “We can directly say this mutation was not present in the DNA of that same fly in its somatic cells,” says Witt. “We know that it’s a de novo mutation.”

This unconventional approach—inferring genomic mutations from single-cell RNA sequencing and then comparing them to the genomic data—allowed the researchers to match mutations to the cell type in which they occurred. “It’s a good way to compare mutational load between cell types, because you can follow them throughout spermatogenesis,” Witt says.

The human connection

The next step is to expand the analysis to more age groups of flies and test whether or not this transcription repair mechanism can occur—and if it does, identify the pathways responsible, Witt says. “What genes,” he wonders, “are really driving the difference between old and young flies in terms of mutation repair?”

Because fruit flies have a high reproductive rate, investigating their mutation patterns can offer new insights into the effect of new mutations in human health and evolution, says Zhao.

Witt adds, “It’s largely unknown whether a more mutated male germline is more or less fertile than a less mutated one. There’s not been very much research on it except for at a population level. And if people inherit more mutations from aging fathers, that increases the odds of de novo genetic disorders or certain types of cancers.”

Even one small drink of alcohol linked to risk of atrial fibrillation

A study of nearly 108,000 people has found that people who regularly drink a modest amount of alcohol are at increased risk of atrial fibrillation, or a condition where the heart beats in an abnormal rhythm.The study, published in the European Heart Journal [1], found that, compared to drinking no alcohol at all, just one alcoholic drink a day was linked to a 16% increased risk of atrial fibrillation over an average (median) follow-up time of nearly 14 years.

This means that while four teetotallers in 100 might develop atrial fibrillation over the period of the study, five per 100 might develop the condition if they consumed alcohol starting with slightly more than an alcoholic drink a week and more than 75% of them consumed up to one drink a day [2]. The researchers categorised one alcoholic drink as containing 12 g of ethanol, which is the equivalent of a small (120 ml) glass of wine, a small beer (330 ml) or 40 ml of spirits.

IMAGE: GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT, CREDIT: EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL

 

It is well known that people who drink a lot of alcohol regularly are at increased risk of developing heart failure, and heart failure can increase the incidence of atrial fibrillation. Several studies have shown a slightly higher risk of heart problems for people who never drink alcohol; they often show that this risk reduces for people who drink a modest amount, and then rises sharply the more alcohol is consumed, creating a ‘J’ shape on graphs. Until now, it has not been clear whether this was also the case for atrial fibrillation.

However, in the current study led by Professor Renate Schnabel, a consultant cardiologist at the University Heart and Vascular Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), researchers found that although low doses of alcohol were associated with a reduced risk of heart failure compared to teetotallers, a similar ‘J’ shape reduction in risk was not seen for atrial fibrillation. This suggests that the increased risk of atrial fibrillation among people drinking small amounts of alcohol was not triggered by heart failure.

Heart failure

The researchers analysed information on 107,845 people taking part in five community-based studies in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Italy. The participants underwent medical examinations at the time they joined the studies between 1982 and 2010 and provided information on their medical histories, lifestyles, employment and education levels. A total of 100,092 participants did not have atrial fibrillation when they enrolled and their median age was nearly 48 years (range 24-97 years).

During the median follow-up period of nearly 14 years, 5,854 people developed atrial fibrillation. The associations between alcohol consumption and the risk of atrial fibrillation were similar for all types of alcoholic drinks and for men and women.

In addition to the 16% increased risk of atrial fibrillation compared to teetotallers seen in people who consumed only one alcoholic drink a day, the researchers found that the risk increased with increasing alcohol intake; up to two drinks a day was associated with a 28% increased risk and this went up to 47% for those who consumed more than four.

The exact mechanisms by which modest amounts of alcohol could trigger atrial fibrillation are not known. Studies have shown that heavy drinking over a short period of time can trigger ‘holiday heart syndrome’ in some people, and in some atrial fibrillation patients, small amounts of alcohol can trigger arrhythmia episodes.

###

Infants know what we like best, WashU study finds

Behind the chubby cheeks and bright eyes of babies as young as 8 months lies the smoothly whirring mind of a social statistician, logging our every move and making odds on what a person is most likely to do next, suggests new research in the journal Infancy.

“Even before they can talk, babies are keeping close track of what’s going on in front of them and looking for patterns of activity that may suggest preferences,” said study co-author Lori Markson, associate professor of psychological & brain sciences and director of the Cognition & Development Lab at Washington University in St. Louis. “Make the same choice three or four times in a row, and babies as young as 8 months come to view that consistent behavior as a preference.”

The findings demonstrated that infants look for consistent patterns of behavior and make judgements about people’s preferences based on simple probabilities calculated from observed events and actions.

Co-led by Yuyan Luo, an associate professor of psychological sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia, the study may shed light on how infants and young children learn about people’s preferences for a certain kind of food, toy or activity. It might also explain why kids always seem to want the toy that someone else is playing with.

“Consistency seems to be an important factor for infants in helping them sort out what’s happening in the world around them,” Markson said. “Our findings suggest that, if a person does something different even a single time, it undoes the notion of someone having a clear preference and changes an infant’s expectations for that individual’s behavior. In other words, if you break the routine, all bets are off in terms of what they expect from you.”

The findings confirmed that infants as young as 8 months are already developing the ability to see the world through someone else’s eyes, to sense what another person may or may not know, think or believe about a situation.

Because babies can’t tell us what they’re thinking, researchers had previously speculated that the ability to see life from someone else’s perspective did not develop until about 4 years of age. But more recent research over the past decade gets around this spoken-language barrier by relying on a proven premise — that babies spend much more time looking at events they consider to be new and unusual.

In this study, Markson and Luo conducted a series of experiments to track how infant “looking times” changed when an actor made an unexpected choice between one of two stuffed-animal toys displayed before the infant on a small puppet stage.

They corroborated these findings using a similar experiment that tracked whether infants, when asked to give a toy to the actor, would reach more often for the toy consistently chosen by the actor in previous trials, thus implying that the infant understood the actor’s preference.

The experiments were conducted on a sample of 60 healthy, full-term infants with an even split of males and females ranging in age from 7 to 9 months and an average age of 8 1/2 months.

Seated on a parent’s lap, the infants watched as a young woman reached out and grabbed one of two stuffed animals on the stage, either a white-and-brown dog or a yellow duck with orange beak and a purple bonnet.

During the “familiarization” phase of these experiments, the toy selection process was repeated four times under three separate conditions.

In the “consistent” condition, a woman in a blue or black shirt picked up the yellow duck four times in a row. In the “inconsistent” condition, the same woman picked up the duck three times and the dog once. And, in the “two actor” condition, the woman in the blue shirt selected the duck three times, while another woman in a white shirt selected the dog once.

After each four-trial familiarization phase, the researcher observed the babies’ reactions as the women reappeared on the stage and made a fifth selection, either going back to the previously targeted duck or making a new selection of the dog.

Two trained observers watched the babies’ reactions through concealed peepholes and independently coded the babies’ “looking time” responses based on seconds spent watching each toy-selection event. Video cameras captured both the babies’ reactions and the toy-selection process so that response time coding could be further analyzed and confirmed.

Findings confirmed that the babies spent about 50 percent more time looking at selections that represented a break from consistent patterns made in the familiarization trials.

“Infants who saw someone make the same choice three or four times in a row showed clear signs of being surprised when that person did not follow the same pattern in the future,” Markson said. “They obviously paid more attention to actions that did not fit their assumptions about what toys the women appeared to prefer most.”

In a second phase of the study, researchers reaffirmed their findings using a variation on the experiment in which the women who had chosen the stuffed animals during the trial phase asked the infant to choose between two toys by saying: “Can you give it to me? Can you give me the toy?”

In this variation, the infants also seemed to have made assumptions about the women’s toy preferences, reaching for the stuffed animal that had been consistently chosen by the woman during the trial phase.

“Our study is the first one to show how inconsistent choices affect infants’ understanding about others’ preferences,” Markson said. “Based on these findings, we hope to further explore how ratios of consistent/inconsistent choices matter to infants and eventually compare infants’ understanding to adults’ knowledge about others’ choices.”

No Life Possible Due to UV Radiation on Mars, Finds New Study

When NASA scientists declared that finding alien organism on Mars surface is a possibility soon, they were not sure about the perchlorate effect.

Now that new research has found that the bacteria exposed to UV-activated perchlorate were killed within minutes, may change their perception about the possibility of life in the form of any organism, forget about the bacteria.

Perchlorate found in the Martian soil in 2008 can lower the freezing point of water substantially keeping it stable for several hours each summer day.

But the latest research by Jennifer Wadsworth and Charles Cockell from the University of Edinburgh, found that perchlorate gets activated by ultraviolet (UV) light, similar to the conditions which exist on the Martian surface, thus killing any form of living organism immediately.

When the researchers killed Bacillus subtilis, a form of bacteria with perchlorate at same concentration found on the Martian surface, within 30 seconds. Those which are exposed to non-UV radiation but only perchlorate were found to remain viable for at least an hour. Since bacteria died instantly when exposed to perchlorate and UV radiation, the support system for any life organism on Mars is ruled out, they argue.

“The mere presence of liquid water seeps, thought to be good locations to search for life, does not imply environments fit for life,” said researchers. The study was published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports.

Unless we find conditions which are not exposed to perchlorate and UV radiation, we cannot find alien life on Mars, concluded researchers dashing off any hope of NASA or other astro-physicists who had hoped to find one soon.

It remains to be seen whether SpaceX founder Elon Musk will change the schedule to send the first batch of enthusiasts to Mars next decade.