The ability to keep the brain fit by speaking more than one language could be one of the best ways to stop brain ageing, according to new research by boffins in the UK and Russia.

The research comes at a time where advances in medical technology mean people can live longer than ever, but the consequences of that mean the brain can not always keep pace with the physical health of the body.

The number of cases of dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases is growing as the population ages, and there is increasing research into how this process can be tackled.

Researchers from HSE University, Moscow, and Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, have found that bilingualism can slow down and mitigate the course of age-related changes in the human brain. The study was published in Frontiers in Psychology.

The impact of age on the human brain includes the fact that overall information-processing speed decreases, short-term and episodic memory deteriorate, and control over language skills, executive, and visuospatial functions decline.

This process is called ‘cognitive ageing’. At the neuronal level, it manifests itself through anatomical changes in the grey and white matter in specific brain regions.

However, the speed at which ageing occurs varies and depends on a person’s cognitive reserve – which is the brain’s ability to cope with the effects of age-related brain damage and maintain optimal performance.

This reserve is built up over the course of a person’s life, as the brain strengthens neural networks in response to various external stimuli.

The more complex the neural networks are, the greater a person’s cognitive reserve is and the milder any age-related changes will be.

It is already proven that cognitive reserve is influenced by physical exercise, nutrition, career, leisure habits, level of education, socio-economic status, and several other factors.

The team of scientists that investigated the effect of bilingualism on older people’s brain functioning and how it relates to other aspects of cognitive reserve conducted an experiment with 63 adults aged 60 or above.

The participants were healthy and had no history of psychiatric or neurodegenerative impairments. The participation requirements for the study included at least partial knowledge of a second language (‘bilingualism’ in this case referring to the ability to speak two languages, no matter how fluently).

Before the experiment, all of the participants took a questionnaire that investigated their cognitive reserve (including questions about the participants’ marital status, level of education, profession, social relationships, sports activities, etc.)

The participants also had to indicate how long they had known a second language, how often and where they used it, and how fluent they were in this language.

The participants were presented with a ‘flanker task’, which is traditionally used to measure inhibitory executive control.

In the task, participants were shown a row of five arrows, with the central ‘target’ arrow the key stimulus.

The arrows to either side of the central arrow (the ‘flankers’) could point in the same direction as the key stimulus (congruent), the opposite direction (incongruent), or they could be replaced by other objects (such as squares).

The participants were asked to indicate the direction of the central target, and to do so as quickly as possible.

In an incongruent situation (when the target and side arrows point in different directions), it is usually more difficult for a person to concentrate and give the correct answer.

However, bilingualism showed a facilitatory effect on the task. The longer people had studied a second language and the more fluent they were, the better they performed in the experiment.

It is worth noting that the level of subjects’ language skills played a greater role than the length of time they had been learning a second language.

The researchers explained this result by noting that bilingual speakers constantly face similar conflicts in daily life, in which they must make choices and switch between two linguistic systems.

Federico Gallo, Junior Research Fellow at the HSE University Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, said: “Unlike other factors that shape cognitive reserve, bilingualism is unique in that it is constantly present in our lives. We can take up and give up physical exercise, go on one diet or another, or change jobs, but language remains with us all the time.

“We communicate, watch movies, and read books, and the language centres are constantly working in our mind. We witnessed an interesting phenomenon in this experiment: with a high level of language proficiency, the correlation between successful conflict resolution and other components of cognitive reserve disappeared. This suggests that bilingualism’s benefits on cognitive reserve might be stronger than those of other known factors.”

Proficiency in two or more languages improves brain functioning in healthy people, and it is also a defence against neurodegenerative disorders, such as dementia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, or strokes.

In another article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Federico Gallo and his colleagues provided an overview of the latest research on bilingualism and ageing.

The data suggest that active bilinguals are diagnosed with neurodegenerative diseases five to seven years later than monolinguals.

Scientists believe that bilingualism improves not only the executive functioning of the brain, but also episodic, working and semantic memory, and even increases overall fluid intelligence.

Federico Gallo added: “There are no really effective drugs available today to prevent or slow down brain ageing. It takes enormous financial resources to develop pharmaceutical treatments. Therefore, finding and researching alternative, non-drug ways to slow down cognitive ageing should become a priority in science. In the long term, we plan to study how the benefits of bilingualism on ageing may vary with different language pairs.”

The average female Gen Xer hasn’t worn her natural hair color since 2019, new research suggests.

A poll of 2,000 women ages 42-57 revealed that half (49%) have spent between two to six years dying their hair a different color than what they were born with.

In fact, one in three (32%) said they aren’t even sure what their natural color is anymore.

Another one-third (32%) of respondents in relationships aren’t sure that their partner knows their real hair color, either.

Conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Better Natured, the survey also found that 46% are confident that nobody knows they dye their hair.

Given the average respondent has sported about five different hair colors in her lifetime, it’s no surprise that two-thirds started coloring their hair before the age of 30.

Even so, 58% agreed that they dyed their hair more when they were younger than they do now.

One-third of women surveyed would even consider an unconventional color, with purple (41%), pink (38%) and blue (35%) ranking the highest.

Six in 10 respondents have noticed more young people sporting unique hair colors than older adults, and another almost six in 10 (58%) admitted to changing their own hair more when they were younger, too.

Conventional or not, 74% are more likely to keep a hair color if they get complimented on it. Similarly, 71% admitted that a hair change boosts their confidence.

When looking for a change, Gen-X women are more likely to trust their hairdresser than anyone else (40%). However, they don’t trust their friends any more than they trust opinions on social media, at 26% vs. 25% respectively.

“We’re not surprised that a new hair color can help boost women’s confidence — dyeing your hair is an easy way to change your style and express yourself,” said Jennifer Lauroesch, Director of Marketing for Better Natured. “Whether at home or in a salon, we’ve seen women become more knowledgeable about ingredients in their hair color over recent years. Because of this, we understand the importance of transparency when it comes to ingredients.

Four in 10 respondents have used dye to cover their gray hairs or maintain their natural color.

But not all, per one respondent. “[My] gray is coming in very nicely,” she wrote. “I might add color for fun but it has nothing to do with gray. I’d want a color to ADD to my current colors, not cover them.”

Four in 10 (43%) even started embracing their grays more during the pandemic.

The pandemic also changed where people dye their hair. Sixty-one percent also said they are more likely to do so at home now than they were prior to the onset of the pandemic, with 40% saying an at-home dye job if their usual.

Even so, 28% usually visit a salon.

Regardless of color or location, two in 10 (21%) would consider a new hair color as a way to embrace their age.

“Whether women are keeping their natural color — gray or otherwise — or switching it up with a bold color, it’s important to love your hair and love your hair color,” said Lauroesch. “There can be an element of anxiety in dyeing your hair, especially when it’s a new color, which is why virtual try on tools like ours can be so important. We wanted to take the guesswork of how a hair color shade would look on you, before you even made a purchase.”

WHY DO WOMEN CHOOSE NEW HAIR COLORS?

• To keep themselves looking young – 28%
• To express themselves – 28%
• Boredom – 21%
• It was recommended by a spouse or partner – 21%
• To embrace their age – 21%
• Their hairdresser suggested it – 20%

The person most likely to be a total “a*shole” is middle-aged and male, according to a new study.

The team from the University of Georgia asked almost 400 people to think of the “biggest a*shole” in their lives to assess the traits that people associate with the term.

The results published in “Collabra: Psychology” suggests that the “biggest a*sholes” in many people’s lives had different roles, and included romantic partners, coworkers, bosses, family members, and friends, but that what most of them had in common was that they were largely all middle-aged men.

Interestingly, they also concluded that the profile for target “a*sholes” was similar to expert profiles of psychopathic, antisocial, and narcissistic personality disorders.

But the researchers were keen to point out that the similarities do not necessarily mean the a*shole in one’s life has a personality disorder per se.

After identifying the “biggest a*shole” in their lives, participants were asked to describe how close they were to that person, what kind of relationship they have with that person and the extent to which the term fit them. The respondents were then asked to describe the top three behaviors that made that person an “a*shole.”

For each of those behaviors, participants rated agreement with follow-up questions: “Do you think that person knows their behavior bothers people? Do you think that person cares that their behavior bothers people? And do you think that person could change their behavior if they really wanted to?”

Most of the participants believed the jerks in their lives were aware that their behavior bothered people but just did not care enough to change.

Brinkley Sharpe, the lead author of the study and a doctoral student in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, said: “People didn’t really have very much trouble figuring out who the ‘biggest a*shole’ in their life was.

“On average, participants didn’t think that they were very close to these individuals, which makes sense because these people are being described as having pretty aversive behaviors.”

But about one out of three of the “biggest a*sholes” were people currently in participants’ lives, including co-workers, friends and even current romantic partners.

Sharpe added: “It’s interesting to me that the behaviors people were keying in on sort of run the gamut.

“When we talk about personality, the a*shole was described as somebody who is not agreeable and is angry.

“When we talk about behaviors, the a*shole was not necessarily being antagonistic toward people, but they just didn’t really care about what others were thinking or how they were perceived by others.”

These people often appeared to struggle with regulating their anger, were irresponsible and held bigoted views.

Responses ranged from seemingly trivial complaints, things like ‘this person put household decorations away incorrectly’, to more severe criticism.

Sharpe said: “Some of the responses were pretty violent.

“We had a couple where the individual had done something that was frankly criminal.”

Others were more a sign of the times, with participants complaining that the person had not been wearing a face mask during the coronavirus pandemic or had voted for Donald Trump.

He continued: “There’s clearly a lot of variation in how people use this word I think the implication of the study is that insults matter. We do mean certain things by using them or we associate them with certain characteristics.”

The study was co-authored by Courtland Hyatt, a recent doctoral graduate from the UGA clinical psychology program, now a postdoctoral fellow at VA Puget Sound; Donald Lynam, professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University; and Joshua Miller, professor of psychology and chair of the clinical program at UGA.