| 1. |
- Boen, Rune, et al.
(author)
-
Beyond the global brain differences : intraindividual variability differences in 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 bp1-bp2 deletion carriers
- 2024
-
In: Biological Psychiatry. - 0006-3223 .- 1873-2402. ; 95:2, s. 147-160
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Carriers of the 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants exhibit regional and global brain differences compared with noncarriers. However, interpreting regional differences is challenging if a global difference drives the regional brain differences. Intraindividual variability measures can be used to test for regional differences beyond global differences in brain structure.Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging data were used to obtain regional brain values for 1q21.1 distal deletion (n = 30) and duplication (n = 27) and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletion (n = 170) and duplication (n = 243) carriers and matched noncarriers (n = 2350). Regional intra-deviation scores, i.e., the standardized difference between an individual's regional difference and global difference, were used to test for regional differences that diverge from the global difference.Results: For the 1q21.1 distal deletion carriers, cortical surface area for regions in the medial visual cortex, posterior cingulate, and temporal pole differed less and regions in the prefrontal and superior temporal cortex differed more than the global difference in cortical surface area. For the 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletion carriers, cortical thickness in regions in the medial visual cortex, auditory cortex, and temporal pole differed less and the prefrontal and somatosensory cortex differed more than the global difference in cortical thickness.Conclusions: We find evidence for regional effects beyond differences in global brain measures in 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants. The results provide new insight into brain profiling of the 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants, with the potential to increase understanding of the mechanisms involved in altered neurodevelopment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rabinowicz, Wlodek, et al.
(author)
-
Value Taxonomy
- 2015
-
In: Handbook of Value/Perspectives from Economics, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology and Sociology. - 9780198716600 ; , s. 23-42
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The paper presents main conceptual distinctions underlying much of modern philosophical thinking about value. The introductory Section 1 is followed in Section 2 by an outline of the contrast between non-relational value (impersonal good, or good, period) and relational value (good for someone, or—more generally—good for some entity). In Section 3, the focus is on the distinction between final and non-final value as well as on different kinds of final value. In Section 4, we consider value relations, such as being better/worse/equally good/on a par. Recent discussions suggest that we might need to considerably extend traditional taxonomies of value relations.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Vlasceanu, Madalina, et al.
(author)
-
Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries
- 2024
-
In: Science Advances. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 2375-2548. ; 10:6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.
|
|
