The Mom Brain

Recently, I read an opinion titled When I Became A Mother, Feminism Let Me Down. The gist of it was that some feminists, while empowering women and girls to be anything they want to be and to do anything a man or a boy does, they fail in uplifting the motherhood aspect of a woman’s life, should she choose to become a mother. In other words, even (or especially, in some cases) feminists look down on the women who chose to switch from a paid job and professional career to an unpaid stay-at-home mom career, as if being a mother is somehow beneath what a woman can be and can achieve. As if raising the next generation of humans to be rational, informed, well-behaved social actors instead of ignorant brutal egomaniacs is a trifling matter, not to be compared with the responsibilities and struggles of a CEO position.

Patriarchy notwithstanding, a woman can do anything a man can. And more. The ‘more’ refers to, naturally, motherhood. Evidently, fatherhood is also a thing. But the changes that happen in a mother’s brain and body during pregnancy, breastfeeding, and postpartum periods are significantly more profound than whatever happens to the most loving and caring and involved father.

Kim (2016) bundled some of these changes in a nice review, showing how these drastic and dramatic alterations actually have an adaptive function, preparing the mother for parenting. Equally important, some of the brain plasticity is permanent. The body might spring back into shape if the mother is young or puts into it a devilishly large amount of effort, but some brain changes are there to stay. Not all, though.

One of the most pervasive findings in motherhood studies is that hormones whose production is increased during pregnancy and postpartum, like oxytocin and dopamine, sensitize the fear circuit in the brain. During the second trimester of pregnancy and particularly during the third, expectant mothers start to be hypervigilent and hypersensitive to threats and to angry faces. A higher anxiety state is characterized, among other things, by preferentially scanning for threats and other bad stuff. Threats mean anything from the improbable tiger to the 1 in a million chance for the baby to be dropped by grandma to the slightly warmer forehead or the weirdly colored poopy diaper. The sensitization of the fear circuit, out of which the amygdala is an essential part, is adaptive because it makes the mother more likely to not miss or ignore her baby’s cry, thus attending to his or her needs. Also, attention to potential threats is conducive to a better protection of the helpless infant from real dangers. This hypersensitivity usually lasts 6 to 12 months after childbirth, but it can last lifetime in females already predisposed to anxiety or exposed to more stressful events than average.

Many new mothers worry if they will be able to love their child as they don’t feel this all-consuming love other women rave about pre- or during pregnancy. Rest assured ladies, nature has your back. And your baby’s. Because as soon as you give birth, dopamine and oxytocin flood the body and the brain and in so doing they modify the reward motivational circuit, making new mothers literally obsessed with their newborn. The method of giving birth is inconsequential, as no differences in attachment have been noted (this is from a different study). Do not mess with mother’s love! It’s hardwired.

Another change happens to the brain structures underlying social information processing, like the insula or fusiform gyrus, making mothers more adept at self-motoring, reflection, and empathy. Which is a rapid transformation, without which a mother may be less accurate in understanding the needs, mental state, and social cues of the very undeveloped ball of snot and barf that is the human infant (I said that affectionately, I promise).

In order to deal with all these internal changes and the external pressures of being a new mom the brain has to put up some coping mechanisms. (Did you know, non-parents, that for the first months of their newborn lives, the mothers who breastfeed must do so at least every 4 hours? Can you imagine how berserk with sleep deprivation you would be after 4 months without a single night of full sleep but only catnaps?). Some would be surprised to find out – not mothers, though, I’m sure – that “new mothers exhibit enhanced neural activation in the emotion regulation circuit including the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial and lateral prefrontal cortex” (p. 50). Which means that new moms are actually better at controlling their emotions, particularly at regulating negative emotional reactions. Shocking, eh?

140 mom brain1 - Copy

Finally, it appears that very few parts of the brain are spared from this overhaul as the entire brain of the mother is first reduced in size and then it grows back, reorganized. Yeah, isn’t that weird? During pregnancy the brain shrinks, being at its lowest during childbirth and then starts to grow again, reaching its pre-pregnancy size 6 months after childbirth! And when it’s back, it’s different. The brain parts heavily involved in parenting, like the amygdala involved in the anxiety, the insula and superior temporal gyrus involved in social information processing and the anterior cingulate gyrus involved in emotional regulation, all these show increased gray matter volume. And many other brain structures that I didn’t list. One brain structure is rarely involved only in one thing so the question is (well, one of them) what else is changed about the mothers, in addition to their increased ability to parent?

I need to add a note here: the changes that Kim (2016) talks about are averaged. That means some women get changed more, some less. There is variability in plasticity, which should be a pleonasm. There is also variability in the human population, as any mother attending a school parents’ night-out can attest. Some mothers are paranoid with fear and overprotective, others are more laissez faire when it comes to eating from the floor.

But SOME changes do occur in all mothers’ brains and bodies. For example, all new mothers exhibit a heightened attention to threats and subsequent raised levels of anxiety. But when does heightened attention to threats become debilitating anxiety? Thanks to more understanding and tolerance about these changes, more and more women feel more comfortable reporting negative feelings after childbirth so that now we know that postpartum depression, which happens to 60 – 80% of mothers, is a serious matter. A serious matter that needs serious attention from both professionals and the immediate social circle of the mother, both for her sake as well as her infant’s. Don’t get me wrong, we – both males and females – still have a long way ahead of us to scientifically understand and to socially accept the mother brain, but these studies are a great start. They acknowledge what all mothers know: that they are different after childbirth than the way they were before. Now we have to figure out how are they different and what can we do to make everyone’s lives better.

Kim (2016) is an OK review, a real easy read, I recommend it to the non-specialists wholeheartedly; you just have to skip the name of the brain parts and the rest is pretty clear. It is also a very short review, which will help with reader fatigue. The caveat of that is that it doesn’t include a whole lotta studies, nor does it go in detail on the implications of what the handful cited have found, but you’ll get the gist of it. There is a vastly more thorough literature if one would include animal studies that the author, curiously, did not include. I know that a mouse is not a chimp is not a human, but all three of us are mammals, and social mammals at that. Surely, there is enough biological overlap so extrapolations are warranted, even if partially. Nevertheless, it’s a good start for those who want to know a bit about the changes motherhood does to the brain, behavior, thoughts, and feelings.

Corroborated with what I already know about the neuroscience of maternity, my favourite takeaway is this: new moms are not crazy. They can’t help most of these changes. It’s biology, you see. So go easy on new moms. Moms, also go easy on yourselves and know that, whether they want to share or not, the other moms probably go through the same stuff. You’re not alone. And if that overactive threat circuit gives you problems, i.e. you feel overwhelmed, it’s OK to ask for help. And if you don’t get it, ask for it again and again until you do. That takes courage, that’s empowerment.

P. S. The paper doesn’t look like it’s peer-reviewed. Yes, I know the peer-reviewing publication system is flawed, I’ve been on the receiving end of it myself, but it’s been drilled into my skull that it’s important, flawed as it is, so I thought to mention it.

REFERENCE: Kim, P. (Sept. 2016). Human Maternal Brain Plasticity: Adaptation to Parenting, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, (153): 47–58. PMCID: PMC5667351, doi: 10.1002/cad.20168. ARTICLE | FREE FULLTEXT PDF

By Neuronicus, 28 September 2018

Naked Man orchid (Orchis Italica)

My first break after the morning chores was spent lucratively on social media. I say lucratively because I found this gem in my Twitter feed:

132 twitter asap - Copy

Who says social media is bad for you? Besides me and many other professionals, that is.

Naturally, as any 6 year old would, I felt intrigued by the orchid’s appearance and wanted to know more about it because pareidolia is strong with this one. To my surprise, a quick PubMed search revealed 15 serious publications about the genes of this plant (oh, silly me, I shouldn’t be surprised). Most of these papers are authored by Italian researchers, obviously. Not because of what you think, dirty mind, but (probably) because the orchid is widespread in Italy, as the species name indicates. All of these papers dealt with the genetics and the transcriptome of the plant. Since I have already covered the transcriptome of tomato in the previous post I thought to let these papers be and give you, my reader, a breather from the world of heavy trascriptomics.

Instead, the self-evident name of the plant and its visually striking flower got me wondering if it was used as a cure for impotence or some other ailments of the male reproductive organs as part of the doctrine of signatures wave. Let me explain. Back in the 1500s, a guy called Theophrastus von Hohenheim, a.k.a. Paracelsus posited that plants that look like an organ are good for treating diseases of that organ. This led to the practice called doctrine of signatures, meaning the healers went gallivanting in the fields in search of various plants that resemble or ‘have a signature of’ some part of human anatomy, pluck it, ground it, and give it to the suffering patients. Needless to say – or perhaps not needless, given the increase in pseudoscience bull lately – this assumption is not only false, but also dangerous. Sure, eating walnuts to help your brain manage stress because walnuts look like brains may not make you less stressed but will not harm you either. Giving birthwort to expectant mothers on the other hand may very well end up with orphaned kids.

Sure enough, it looks like even before Paracelsus, the Naked Man orchid’s root was ground up and eaten as aphrodisiac or as erectile dysfunction cure in the entire Mediterranean basin, from Spain to Turkey, from Sicily to North Africa, which is the habitat of this plant. Luckily for the gentlemen in the Middle Ages, Orchis italica’s roots appear to be edible, or at least not toxic in the amounts ingested. I wish I could give you some original source for this information but I couldn’t find any that I could trust or in a language I could read.

For what is worth, it appears that although the species has been described by everybody with an intact fusiform gyrus (part of the brain responsible with, among other things, seeing faces where there aren’t), it was drawn formally by the famous botanist Heinrich Gustav Reichenbach in 1851. Alas, the internet is devoid of the exact volume where this momentous depiction took place, so I – and presumably you – were robbed of the pleasure of seeing how the plant was painted by someone with the most keen observational botanical eye. Reichenbach has drawn thousands upon thousands of plants in minute detail. So, even if I couldn’t find his plate for Orchis italica, I’ll leave you with some of his other works (excerpts from Vols 3, 21, 23 of Icon. Fl. Germ. Helv., see REFERENCE).

icones florae germanicae et helveticae 1837, vol 3_Page_059 - Copy

icones florae germanicae et helveticae 1837, vol 3_Page_193 - Copy.jpg

icones florae germanicae et helveticae 1837, vol 3_Page_169 - Copy.jpg

icones florae germanicae et helveticae 1867, vol 21_Page_501 - Copy.jpg

icones florae germanicae et helveticae 1898, vol 23 umbilicus pendulinus_Page_161 - Copy.jpg

REFERENCE: Reichenbach, H. G. Ludwig (Heinrich Gottlieb Ludwig) & Reichenbach, H. G. (Heinrich Gustav) (1834-1912. [v. 1, 1850]). Icones florae Germanicae et Helveticae, simul Pedemontanae, Tirolensis, Istriacae, Dalmaticae, Austriacae, Hungaricae, Transylvanicae, Moravicae, Borussicae, Holsaticae, Belgicae, Hollandicae, ergo Mediae Europae. Iconographia et supplementum ad opera Willdenowii [et al.] .. 25 Volumes, Published by Leipzig and Gera: Friedrich Hofmeister, Ambrose Abel and Friedrich de Zezschwitz. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.6353. Most of the 24 volumes scanned courtesy of  The New York Botanical Garden, LuEsther T. Mertz Library

By Neuronicus, 12 March 2018