Psychology and Neuroscience

Does cannabis cause anxiety? It depends

Rachel Sauer — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 14:54:20 +0000

Does cannabis cause anxiety? It depends Rachel Sauer Fri, 03/27/2026 - 08:54

Blake Puscher

Research suggests that cannabis may cause anxiety when it is strong enough or taken in large enough quantity to produce an immediate effect

Cannabis is an increasingly common drug, with more than 64 million people reporting use in 2024 in the United States alone, according to Statista—more than double the amount in 2010. Despite this, its effects are not well understood. For example, some people use cannabis for relief from anxiety, but there is also evidence that it can cause or worsen anxiety depending on the individual, how much is taken and other factors.

Determining what effect cannabis has on anxiety requires a better understanding of how it affects the endocannabinoid system. To this end, researchers from С��Change (Center for Health and Neuroscience, Genes and Environment), including Renée Martin-Willett, Carillon Skrzynski, Ethan Taylor and Cinnamon Bidwell, with assistance from Jost Klawitter and Cristina Sempio of the University of Colorado Anschutz, assessed the biochemical changes that occurred when people with anxiety took different cannabis products.

Endocannabinoids

The endocannabinoid system is a biological system that extends throughout the whole body. “It’s not just in our brains,” Martin-Willett says; “it’s also in the peripheral nervous system, which is just a fancy way of saying it’s all over the body.”

Renée Martin-Willett (left) and Carillon Skrzynski (right), along with their С��Change research colleagues, assessed the biochemical changes that occurred when people with anxiety took different cannabis products.

The system uses two receptors: CB1 and CB2. In biology, receptors are chemical structures that contribute to a biological effect when they bind with compatible chemical messengers. Whether a receptor and messenger will be able to bind depends on their structure, similar to a lock and key, except that the structure is chemical. When a messenger binds to a receptor and the receptor uses the signal (by relaying or amplifying it, for example), the messenger is considered an agonist—as opposed to an antagonist, which is like a key that fits in a lock but, instead of opening that lock, prevents the correct key from being inserted.

Unlike keys, which either work or do not, chemical messengers can have effects of different strength. For example, THC (delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the main psychoactive component of cannabis, is only a partial agonist of CB1. According to Martin-Willett, CB1 is mostly concentrated in the brain, whereas CB2 is mostly in the gut. The other main component of cannabis is CBD (cannabidiol), which modulates CB1 and CB2, making the effects they produce when activated by agonists weaker without preventing agonists from binding to the receptors.

These chemicals act on the endocannabinoid system because they have chemical structures like endocannabinoids, which are neurotransmitters that are produced by the human body. The two most-studied endocannabinoids are AEA (N-arachidonoyl ethanolamide) and 2-AG (2-arachidonoylglycerol), and they are the focus of this study for that reason.

“2-AG has a really high concentration, and it’s mostly in the brain,” Martin-Willett explains. “It binds with CB1. Then AEA, which has much lower concentrations, is more in the periphery. It’s implicated in implantation and the hormonal cycle for women and is increasingly being linked to anxiety and other kinds of mood disorders.” AEA is associated with positive feelings, and the receptors it binds with, CB1 and CB2, are thought to play a role in whether people view their environment in a positive or negative way. Therefore, AEA may ameliorate feelings of anxiety.

Although some simple facts about the endocannabinoid system are understood, many details remain unexplained. In particular, there is a question as to the effect of cannabis on the endocannabinoid system. This includes how THC and CBD may affect the concentration of AEA and 2-AG in the body, which has implications for what effect cannabis has on anxiety and other aspects of people’s mental state. “Sometimes I tell people the endocannabinoid system is like the Mariana Trench of biomedicine,” Martin-Willett says, “because it was only really discovered in the mid-‘90s. How did we not know about this entire, full-body system until the ‘90s?”

The study

Because this study was intended to determine the effect of cannabis use on anxiety, the participants all had scores on the GAD-7 (generalized anxiety disorder) screener that indicated at least mild anxiety. The participants were split up into four groups: one-fourth of the participants were in the control group (meaning they did not use any cannabis), one-fourth used THC-dominant products, one-fourth used CBD-dominant products and one-fourth used products that combined THC and CBD in a 1:1 ratio.

Some people use cannabis for relief from anxiety, but there is also evidence that it can cause or worsen anxiety depending on the individual, how much is taken and other factors. (Photo: Unsplash)

The study found that the people in the THC-dominant and 1:1 groups had higher AEA levels than those in the control group when cannabis was taken during an acute administration session (meaning in a single dose that is strong enough to produce an immediate effect as opposed to administration over the course of weeks). These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the effects of THC on AEA are caused by competitive binding between the two chemicals at CB1.

“THC might affect AEA in a couple of different ways,” Martin-Willett explains. “THC will bind to CB1 in a ‘normal’ way at the synapse, but it will also permeate the lipid bilayer of the cell itself. The results from our paper support that first idea that THC is competitively binding with AEA at CB1. It is kind of fighting AEA to bind and winning more often than AEA is.”

The basic idea is that whenever THC binds to a receptor, it takes away an opportunity for AEA to bind, causing fewer receptors to be activated by AEA. Even though THC and AEA are both partial agonists of CB1, it is possible that the effects they create upon binding are different. “One idea,” Martin-Willett continues, “is if more AEA makes you less anxious, and in the moment, THC binds competitively with CB1 and keeps AEA from interacting, maybe that is contributing to the paranoia or anxiety after acute use of THC. That is speculative, though. We do not have good human studies on that yet.”

2-AG levels did not change when administered acutely. This could be because 2-AG has higher concentrations in the human body than AEA, making the consequences of introducing THC less significant in the short term. However, in the THC-dominant group, it increased from baseline after two weeks before decreasing to reach a near-baseline level by week four. While AEA is thought to be associated with positive feelings, the association between 2-AG is mostly unknown.

Catching up with the market

Since the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, cannabis has been classified as a Schedule I drug in the United States, which means that it faces special restrictions on the federal level. That may change soon because of the Department of Health and Human Services’ 2023 recommendation that cannabis be reclassified as a Schedule III drug and because of President Trump’s 2025 executive order on the subject. Despite this, and even in states where cannabis has been legalized, the current classification puts limits on studies like this one.

For example, second author Carillon Skrzynski says, “In a lot of our studies, we are not allowed to tell people how much to use, or what to use in some circumstances. That really puts a damper on any kind of causal conclusion.” Ordinarily, scientists keep all variables that could affect the phenomenon they want to understand constant except for one, called the independent variable, which they vary in a controlled manner. This makes the relationship between the independent variable and the phenomenon clear. If multiple variables change at the same time, it becomes almost impossible to say how much each variable contributes to the phenomenon, or even if they would have an effect individually.

“I think there are two really exciting areas that the field needs to move towards,” Martin-Willett adds. “Number one, we need to account for age. We know that the endocannabinoid system changes a lot when we get older. People talk about reduced tone, which just means you have fewer receptors, but we do not really know what that means—if it has a greater effect or a lower effect. And I think the other piece of it is sex assigned at birth. Like I mentioned, more and more the endocannabinoid system is being viewed like the endocrine system, or like the hormonal system, and these things are intertwined, especially AEA and the reproductive system.”

Martin-Willett and Skrzynski both plan to look into these areas. Additionally, their center, С��Change, has multiple studies running and is actively looking for research participants. That is important not only because the different effects of cannabis are unknown, but because it is already being used on a large scale. “A lot of this is really unregulated right now,” Martin-Willett says, “and I think the market is way ahead of the science. People are already using cannabinoids for anxiety, for sleep, for pain, for other kinds of mood problems, and so they can make their voices heard to the government, that this is someplace they want research money to go.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

Research suggests that cannabis may cause anxiety when it is strong enough or taken in large enough quantity to produce an immediate effect.

Traditional

White

Young musicians tend to keep playing later in life

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 18:38:58 +0000

Young musicians tend to keep playing later in life Rachel Sauer Wed, 03/25/2026 - 12:38

Clint Talbott

But their path is not linear, with many starting, stopping and resuming in adulthood; genetics and home environment play differing roles, С�� Boulder research finds

Those who played a guitar, piano or ukulele as kids are more likely than average to play as an adult—though perhaps not as likely as you might expect.

That’s one finding of a new study led by University of Colorado Boulder researcher Dan Gustavson, which sheds light on how children’s early interactions with music shape—but don’t determine—their musical lives decades later.

The findings, recently published in the journal Developmental Science, draw on nearly 40 years of data from surveys of 1,900 people in The Colorado Adoption/Twin Study of Lifespan Behavioral Development and Cognitive Aging (CATSLife).

С�� Boulder researcher Dan Gustavson led a recently published study that sheds light on how children’s early interactions with music shape—but don’t determine—their musical lives decades later.

Gustavson and his colleagues analyzed measures of “music engagement”—being interested in and skilled at musical instruments—of participants at ages 7, 10, 12 and 16, then compared them with the same individuals’ music-playing habits in their 30s. The result: Early music engagement predicts adult instrument playing, but far less strongly than expected.

Many participants started and stopped music throughout adolescence, and some took up music later in life.

“We found more change than stability,” says Gustavson, assistant research professor at С�� Boulder’s Institute of Behavioral Genetics. “Kids don’t follow a single linear path. A lot of them start, stop and restart music as they grow.”

The study also highlights shifting genetic and environmental influences. In childhood, shared environmental factors—such as family resources, school access and neighborhood programs—played a major role in determining who “engaged” with music. By adolescence, however, genetic influences grew stronger, probably reflecting teens’ increasing autonomy in the activities they pursue.

“Adolescence is a time where you start to get a lot more freedom over your own behavior,” Gustavson says. “Your interests become less influenced by your parents and more by what you’re exploring. People who are just more naturally tuned to figuring out musical instruments are going to find themselves in those environments more.”

Gender differences emerged as well. Girls were somewhat more likely to engage with music in childhood, though boys showed slightly higher heritability for music engagement at younger ages. These differences disappeared by adolescence.

“Girls were more likely to play music than boys . . . but in boys, there was slightly higher heritability in childhood for music engagement. That actually evened out by adolescence,” Gustavson says.

Playing and listening

Perhaps surprisingly, listening to music in adulthood was largely unrelated to playing music in childhood. Playing and listening appear to be distinct traits. “Passive listening is its own thing,” Gustavson notes. “It doesn’t track neatly with who played instruments as kids.”

“Music may be uniquely positioned to support language development, cognitive growth and even resilience against risky behaviors. But kids can’t benefit from it if they don’t have access,” says С�� Boulder researcher Dan Gustavson. (Photo: Dzmitry Shepeleu/Unsplash)

Gustavson is now exploring whether music engagement at key developmental windows—especially around age 12—may help protect teens from later substance use. Preliminary evidence suggests early adolescent music engagement is linked to lower rates of alcohol use and fewer substances tried in late adolescence, five to 10 years later.

He notes that scientists take a developmental perspective on how behaviors can affect health. “You can’t just look at one time point when you want to understand how behaviors relate to important health outcomes. You have to think about the developmental stage. . . . There may be specific windows where things matter a lot more.

“Adolescence is when people start experimenting, and putting yourself in a music environment might be most protective during this time,” he says. Ultimately, Gustavson hopes the research might strengthen arguments for restoring music programs in schools.

“Music may be uniquely positioned to support language development, cognitive growth and even resilience against risky behaviors,” he says. “But kids can’t benefit from it if they don’t have access.”

CATSLife twin studies and other longitudinal twin research help scientists discern the influences of genetics vs. environmental factors by comparing identical twins (who have 100% shared genes) and fraternal twins (with 50% shared genes).

As a student, Gustavson became interested in the power of such studies: “I had friends growing up who were twins, and we always talked about what makes twins similar or different. Taking courses here, I found it really exciting to unpack which aspects of things are explained by genetics and which by the environment.”

Music itself strikes a chord with Gustavson, who plays guitar and drums and was a professional musician for a couple of years before he earned his PhD. “I’ve been really grateful that I’ve been able to integrate this into my research program now.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

But their path is not linear, with many starting, stopping and resuming in adulthood; genetics and home environment play differing roles, С�� Boulder research finds.

Traditional

White

Can concussions cause fear of movement?

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:12:43 +0000

Can concussions cause fear of movement? Rachel Sauer Wed, 03/18/2026 - 11:12

Alexandra Phelps

С�� Boulder neuroscience student Alexander Wiegman’s research finds that a history of concussions doesn’t necessarily lead to later kinesiophobia

Stadium lights stream over the field. It’s Friday night, and over the course of the football game touchdowns have been scored, penalty flags have flown and countless plays have been run. However, on the next play, something goes awry. A player is down on the field and they’re helped to the medical tent. Upon further observation, medics diagnose a concussion.

In sports, injury is always a possibility. A misstep or collision can cause an athlete to need a period of recovery, changing not only their physical health but also their relationship with movement. For Alexander Wiegman, a former football player and an undergraduate University of Colorado Boulder neuroscience student, a similar reality became personal and, later, scientific.

Alexander Wiegman, a former football player and an undergraduate University of Colorado Boulder neuroscience student, studies how concussions can lead to kinesiophobia, a debilitating fear of movement that usually results from an injury or re-injury.

Wiegman’s recently published research in the journal Brain Injury examines how concussions can lead to kinesiophobia, a debilitating fear of movement that usually results from an injury or re-injury.

Individuals who’ve experienced kinesiophobia, a fear of movement due to the possibility of pain, can have decreased physical activity levels, stemming from the fear and hesitancy of activity. Research such as Wiegman’s, which looks into the mental recovery from a concussion, seeks to predict which patients are more likely to develop severe kinesiophobia. Building a broader understanding of the mental effects of concussions can help providers to optimize care and provide recommendations for how individuals can recover from kinesiophobia.

Working with Dr. David Howell, Dr. Julie Wilson and the team of researchers in the Colorado Concussion Research Laboratory (CCRL) at the University of Colorado Anschutz, Wiegman initially predicted that if a patient experienced a lower initial symptom severity as well as a lower number of prior concussions, they would have lower kinesiophobia scores. However, the research findings suggested the opposite.

From the field to the lab

Wiegman played football for as long as he can remember, and like many athletes, he experienced injuries, including concussions. Even after going through his recovery care with the help of a concussion specialist, he was still unsure about moving his body again. This fear inspired him to begin his research.

As an undergraduate, he has had an opportunity to bring his experience with concussion care full circle. Working alongside his co-researchers, Wiegman transformed his initial experience with concussions into a hypothesis. He notes that he was allowed “to take the reins with my project. We began by discussing my experience with concussions because I've been through it. The fear of movement and the fear of getting back to activity is something that I really struggled with.

“I was always a math and science person, and by the time I got to high school, I knew I wanted to study something in that realm. But by the time I got to college, I knew I wanted to go into medicine.”

Understanding the fear of movement

Kinesiophobia is a response that has been documented across many types of injuries, though it's been less studied in people diagnosed with concussions. With numerous injuries, kinesiophobia can contribute to other symptoms even after the injury itself has healed. Understanding kinesiophobia is important because it can affect the severity of initial injuries, including concussions. A patient’s quality of life and recovery times are all aspects that can be impacted.

To better understand this gap in kinesiophobia research with concussions, Wiegman collaborated with CCRL researchers. Participants completed one assessment within 21 days of their injury and another between 30 and 90 days post-concussion.

“It is possible that individuals who have experiences with prior injuries understand the recovery process and have developed resilience against the negative aspects of fear of movement,” says С�� Boulder researcher Alexander Wiegman. (Photo: John Torcasio/Unsplash)

From a clinical perspective, "the first thing you think about is getting someone physically healthy," Wiegman explains, adding that he and his co-researchers examined "the broader idea of mental health after concussions" in an attempt to enhance the care that can be provided after a concussion. Wiegman and his research colleagues looked at the period post-concussion because typically this is when the physical injury has recovered. Focusing on this window of time allowed them to better understand how patients were recovering both physically and mentally from their injury.

What looking under the hood revealed

Contrary to Wiegman’s hypothesis that patients who had a more extensive injury history would exhibit more severe kinesiophobia, these patients actually displayed less-severe kinesiophobia.

However, after analyzing patient data, Wiegman concluded that those who had previously recovered from injuries were less fearful in moving their body again. “It is possible that individuals who have experiences with prior injuries understand the recovery process and have developed resilience against the negative aspects of fear of movement,” he says.

The research found that there was no evidence to suggest that age, sex, or prior concussions were independently associated with kinesiophobia. Wiegman concluded that prior injury and the experience of recovery may be one of the most influential factors in how a patient may or may not develop kinesiophobia.

Looking ahead

As a senior, Wiegman is pursuing a route to medical school. Interning as an athletic trainer with С�� Boulder’s track and football teams, as well as working as a phlebotomist, he’s had hands-on experience with athletes and their injuries. As Wiegman was completing his research and defending his senior thesis, he also studied for and took the MCAT.

Wiegman hopes to learn more about the relationship between kinesiophobia and concussions. “In my mind, I wanted to find some definitiveness, especially with this being intended to be used in a clinical setting; I really wanted to have the answer,” he says. “It was hard to wrap my head around [the fact] that we have data, but we don’t have an answer per se.” He explains that this research is a step in the right direction and hopes to continue on to further research of kinesiophobia and other mental health disparities following concussions.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

С�� Boulder neuroscience student Alexander Wiegman’s research finds that a history of concussions doesn’t necessarily lead to later kinesiophobia.

Traditional

White

Top photo: John Torcasio/Unsplash

Research finds many psychiatric disorders are influenced by five genetic factors

Rachel Sauer — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:24:35 +0000

Research finds many psychiatric disorders are influenced by five genetic factors Rachel Sauer Fri, 03/13/2026 - 15:24

Blake Puscher

Genome-wide association studies identify genetic overlap among disorders, providing evidence that their distinctions may be misleading

One major difference between psychiatric disorders and purely physical diseases is that the former are largely defined by their symptoms. Patient-reported symptoms are also closely associated with physical illnesses, but this is often accompanied by an awareness of underlying, biological causes, which can be confirmed by tests or scans.

However, because the biological causes of psychiatric disorders have not been comprehensively explained, the boundaries between them can be blurry, especially considering that many people diagnosed with one disorder will be diagnosed with others, too.

As a step toward the long-term goal of explaining these causes, a large number of scientists from across the United States and the world conducted a study published in Nature into the genetic associations of 14 disorders. This group includes first author Andrew Grotzinger, a member of both the University of Colorado Boulder Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the С�� Institute for Behavioral Genetics.

С�� Boulder scientist Andrew Grotzinger and his research colleagues studied how certain psychiatric disorders are influenced by genetic factors.

This study involved genome-wide association studies on the different disorders, followed by an analysis of the results for signs of genetic overlap (pleiotropy). The disorders ranged from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to schizophrenia, and included several substance-use disorders. The study found that these disorders were influenced by five genetic factors, each of which was shared by two or more disorders.

Pleiotropy and genetic association

When multiple measurable and observable (phenotypic) traits are influenced by a gene or genetic variant, it is called pleiotropy. One example is the typical form of albinism, where a mutation of a single gene influences skin pigmentation, eye color and hair color by altering the production of melanin. The study uses the term pleiotropic loci, which refers to areas of chromosomes within which genes influencing multiple phenotypic traits can be found. In this case, those traits are different psychiatric disorders.

While evidence of pleiotropy can be seen in how some traits tend to vary together between individuals, like hair and eye color, it can only be proven by a thorough analysis of a large amount of genetic data. In this case, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were done for each psychiatric disorder covered. A GWAS attempts to associate common genetic variants with traits by seeing if people who have the trait of interest also have a given genetic variant more often than would be expected based on chance alone.

For example, if people can have either gene A or gene B at a particular location (locus) in their DNA, a GWAS could determine if that genetic variation was associated with a given trait. If the study found that many people who did not have the trait had gene A and many people who did have the trait had gene B, it would conclude that gene B influenced the trait, even though there might be other factors contributing to it.

However, because there are so many genetic variants, and because scientists do not know which are relevant to begin with, a large number need to be studied. According to Grotzinger, this analysis happens across millions of genetic variants. A massive number of participants, both with and without the trait in question, is also necessary to have this statistical power to reliably study these associations. “What’s unique about this study is, in part, just how many people are involved, how many people we had DNA from,” Grotzinger explains.

That being said, data from some groups was more abundant. Only the European genetic ancestry group had enough data to perform analyses for all 14 psychiatric disorders. According to Grotzinger, analyses need to be performed separately by genetic ancestry group for statistical reasons, not because the genes themselves are very different but because the results may not apply equally to all people. “Initial evidence indicates that it may be more applicable for some disorders than others. So, schizophrenia is very much the same across ancestries, whereas depression is a little bit different,” he says. “The only reason we did European-like ancestry here was availability of data, and the hope would be that the next iteration of this study has greater diversity and representation.”

“Most people who are diagnosed with one psychiatric disorder are going to be diagnosed with multiple, and this has led some to theorize that there are genes that just increase your risk for everything,” says С�� Boulder researcher Andrew Grotzinger. (Illustration: Wikimedia Commons)

Genomic factors

After analyzing the results of the different GWAS, the researchers identified five genomic factors that explained the majority of the genetic variance of the individual disorders. Some of the variance is non-genetic (for example, resulting from different life experiences), but these genetic factors explain on average around two thirds of the common genetic variation caused by people having different genes. The factors were associated with 238 pleiotropic loci.

Factor 1 was most strongly associated with compulsive disorders, factor 2 was associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, factor 3 was tied to neurodevelopmental disorders, factor 4 was connected to internalizing disorders, and factor 5 explained the genetic variance in substance use disorders

“Most people who are diagnosed with one psychiatric disorder are going to be diagnosed with multiple,” Grotzinger explains, “and this has led some to theorize that there are genes that just increase your risk for everything.” But “by and large, genes increase risks for subsets of disorders, and that’s what those factors are indexing.” All five factors showed high genetic correlation; however, there was evidence for even more overlap between the disorders covered by Factor 2 and Factor 4.

Besides genetic overlap within factor groups, the study also found weaker associations between disorders from different factors groups. That is in line with the theory that there are some genes that increase the risk for many psychiatric disorders, Grotzinger says, “and it seems like there are, but those probably map onto really general pathways, like tendency to experience distress. That’s not specific to OCD versus anxiety versus depression.” This overarching factor is called the “p factor” or general psychopathology factor, and is similar in concept to the “g factor” of general intelligence. In this study, the p factor was correlated with all five factors, especially Factor 4 (internalizing disorders).

Relatedly, when researchers analyzed genetic regions instead of the whole genome, they found 101 “hotspots”—regions that demonstrated significant pleiotropy. According to Grotzinger, these genetic regions include a larger group of genes than loci. “You can think of them as operating at a more local level, as opposed to the genome-wide level that examines the average percentage of genetic signal shared across the whole genome,” Grotzinger explains. The most pleiotropic region was on chromosome 11. Genes in this hotspot influence most of the psychiatric disorders, excluding all Factor 1 disorders, opioid- and nicotine-use disorder and autism.

Andrew Grotzinger and his research colleagues identified five genomic factors that explain the majority of the genetic variance of the 14 psychiatric disorders they studied.

Factor 1: most strongly associated with compulsive disorders (anorexia, OCD and Tourette’s), but also anxiety to a lesser extent
Factor 2: associated with both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
Factor 3: tied to autism and ADHD, as well as more loosely to Tourette’s
Factor 4: connected to internalizing disorders such as PTSD, depression and anxiety.
Factor 5: explains the genetic variance in substance-use disorders, specifically for nicotine, alcohol, cannabis and opioids.

Although these analyses close in on some of the genetic causes for psychiatric disorders, this knowledge cannot be used to diagnose or treat those disorders. This is because the disorders are influenced by thousands of genes, and scientists still do not know which specific genes are relevant, just the area of the genome they are in. “This chromosome 11 hotspot is a really interesting data point, but it is not going to help diagnose anyone,” Grotzinger says. “It is one piece of a 10,000-piece puzzle, at the end of the day. It’s baby steps.”

Diagnostic boundaries

“One thing people say is that our DNA does not read our diagnostic manual,” Grotzinger says. “Our DNA seems to confer risk in a way that transcends the boundaries that we describe in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.” In other words, psychiatric disorders are currently defined based on the way that symptoms tend to occur together rather than their biological or genetic causes. Of course, psychiatric disorders have non-genetic causes, but knowing what genes contribute to each disorder would help diagnose and treat them more effectively.

For example, “if you are someone who is diagnosed with multiple disorders,” Grotzinger says, “they may be more biologically similar than they are distinct. I think that increases the optimism for treatment, because you know that you are not dealing with four separate things. I do not think this is sufficient to argue for changing the diagnostic manual,” he continues, “but it is still a very important piece of evidence for considering whether or not to reconceptualize some of these disorders.

Depression and anxiety in particular are an example of disorders that are often diagnosed together, treated using similar methods (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), and appear nearly identical from a genetic perspective, according to Grotzinger. “It begs the question of whether or not we are calling something that is very similar different names. The metaphor I offer with this study is that, if you had a runny nose, a cough, and a sore throat, it would not be appropriate to go to the doctor and get a diagnosis for runny nose disorder, coughing disorder, and sore throat disorder.”

One implication of this, and a potential topic for future research, is that there are subtypes of disorders. While many of the disorders covered by this study overlap with each other, they do not all overlap completely with themselves. What is classified as depression, for example, may have different genetic causes in some cases. “You can have over 10,000 different symptom combinations, all of which meet the criteria for depression,” Grotzinger says. “So one question is, are there subtypes of disorders?” If enough research does support the reclassification of psychiatric disorders, this could involve both merging and splitting current disorders to most accurately reflect the underlying genetic risk factors.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

Genome-wide association studies identify genetic overlap among disorders, providing evidence that their distinctions may be misleading.

Traditional

White

The yellow brick road starts here

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 23:41:11 +0000

The yellow brick road starts here Rachel Sauer Wed, 03/04/2026 - 16:41

Julie Chiron

С�� Boulder's clinical psychology training clinics give children, students and adults a diagnosis, a direction and a path forward

The letter arrived years after their consultation.

A former client of the University of Colorado Boulder’s Attention, Behavior and Learning Evaluation (ABLE) Clinic was doing some spring cleaning and found the assessment he had received from the clinic as a teenager. Enclosed with the test results that diagnosed his dyslexia was a small note of encouragement.

His discovery prompted him to write to the clinic with an update. He was graduating from college, and the note gave him fresh encouragement for the new set of challenges ahead.

Nomita Chhabildas (left), director of the Attention, Behavior, and Learning Clinic; Tina Pittman Wagers (center), director of the Raimy Clinic; and Renée Martin-Willett (right), assistant research professor and acting director of the Psychological Assessment & Testing Hub (С�� PATH).

“Words are powerful to me. They have always been both vexing and lovely,” he wrote. “When coupled with the right moment, words can carry a meaning that is both motivating and moving. Today it was your words, written almost five years ago, that affected me in just such a way.”

For Nomita Chhabildas, who has directed the ABLE Clinic for more than two decades, the former client’s letter captures what the university’s three clinical psychology training clinics are meant to do. They are places where people come to better understand themselves and leave with a path forward.

This year, the clinics are experiencing a moment of renewal.

С�� PATH, the department’s adult psychological assessment clinic formerly known as the Brain Behavior Clinic, reopened after an 18-month closure following the retirement of the long-time former director. The Raimy Clinic, which provides affordable mental health treatment for students, staff, faculty and the community, is under new leadership. And the clinic spaces inside Muenzinger Psychology Building have been refreshed with soft colors, warm lighting, art on the walls and inviting furniture in every room. It feels more like a living room than a waiting room.

“It’s a time when our clinics are being rebuilt,” Chhabildas says. “A really exciting time, both for our students and for the community.”

Three clinics, one mission

The Department of Psychology and Neuroscience operates the three training clinics.

The Raimy Clinic provides psychotherapy for adults, couples and, less frequently, children. С�� PATH offers comprehensive adult psychological assessments for conditions including ADHD, learning disabilities and cognitive changes following concussion or traumatic brain injury. The ABLE Clinic focuses on children and adolescents, with deep expertise in learning differences, ADHD and autism spectrum disorder, now estimated by the CDC to affect 1 in 31 children.

All three clinics serve С�� Boulder students, faculty and staff, as well as community members across the Front Range.

And all three share what Reneé Martin-Willet, assistant research professor and director of С�� PATH, describes as a dual mission. They train the next generation of clinical psychologists while delivering evidence-based care to the community.

“We’re one of the top-ranked clinical psychology programs in the country,” Martin-Willet says. “We have fantastic student clinicians, and everything we do is based on the best, newest science.”

Like a teaching hospital or dental school, the clinicians are doctoral trainees working under close supervision. The model keeps standards high while expanding access. С�� PATH charges about $2,100 for a comprehensive assessment, significantly less than the typical private-practice rate. The ABLE Clinic keeps fees similarly low and offers scholarships for families who otherwise cannot afford testing.

That affordability is not incidental. Research conducted by the ABLE Clinic found that children from the lowest-income families are evaluated for learning disorders at roughly half the rate of their higher-income peers.

Undergraduate student Cece Di Bella (left) and clinical psychology graduate student Mateo Chavez chat in one of the Raimy Center's welcoming spaces.

“We could have increased our fees,” Chhabildas says. “We could have stopped seeing families on scholarships. But we have not done that because we feel like we’re here for the community.”

Bringing research into the room

What distinguishes the clinics, faculty members say, is how closely training is tied to research.

“Our students and faculty are working with world-class clinical researchers who are developing and testing the very evidenced-based treatments we provide,” says Raimy Clinic Director Tina Pittman Wagers.

Pittman Wagers stepped into the Raimy Clinic director role seven months ago after 25 years on the faculty. She’s currently supervising doctoral students in behavioral activation, a gold standard treatment for depression developed in part by Sona Dimidjian, faculty member and director of С�� Boulder’s Crown Institute.

“When clients come to the clinic,” Pittman Wagers says, “they benefit from treatments that have been rigorously tested and are being taught by some of the same people who helped develop them.”

Martin-Willet traces a similar arc in her own career. As a doctoral student at С��, she trained under anxiety researcher Joanna Arch while working on one of Arch’s clinical trials. Later, during her residency at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) approaches she had learned proved essential for patients with brain injuries, amputations and cancer.

“That’s a very direct line,” she says, “from research at С��, to training in the clinic, to application with patients elsewhere, to better care in real-world settings.”

More than a label

Since opening in 2004, the ABLE Clinic has served more than 1,000 children and trained more than 80 doctoral students. Family feedback surveys consistently rate the experience highly. Last year’s average score was 3.86 out of 4.

But Chhabildas is quick to point out that the most important outcome is not the number.

A child assessed for dyslexia, for example, does not leave with a label alone. Families receive detailed recommendations for school accommodations, learning programs, tutoring approaches and strategies tailored to that child’s specific situation and needs. Equally important, the clinicians work to identify strengths such as verbal reasoning, spatial creativity, artistic abilities and social skills that can be cultivated alongside challenges.

One parent wrote to the clinic, “Since J has had her diagnosis from you, she feels empowered in a way she never has. You gave us a yellow brick road to follow.”

That sense of direction, faculty members say, is the real measure of success. For the young man writing from across five years of distance, it was the encouragement, twice over, that arrived exactly when he needed it. For J, it was the direction her family needed to support their child. In this moment of renewal for the clinics, with refreshed spaces, reopened doors and a commitment to keeping care within reach for every family, they remain steadfastly oriented toward helping people better understand themselves and leave with a path forward.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

С�� Boulder's clinical psychology training clinics give children, students and adults a diagnosis, a direction and a path forward.

Traditional

White

Top photo: С�� Boulder's Raimy Center provides items to support children, teens and adults in the therapy process.

Research charts the pathway from thought to emotion

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 22:00:35 +0000

Research charts the pathway from thought to emotion Rachel Sauer Mon, 12/15/2025 - 15:00

Alexandra Phelps

С�� Boulder scientist Roselinde Kaiser and research colleagues seek to understand the connection between executive functioning and mood problems

You’ve just missed your test. Thoughts about how you missed it keep circling around in your head and won’t stop. These thoughts begin to disrupt your everyday life by changing the way you approach tasks. You can’t shake the blame you’re putting on yourself for missing this test, and now your mood has dropped.

This pattern is just one of the pathways that Roselinde Kaiser, a University of Colorado Boulder associate professor of psychology and neuroscience, and research colleagues Quynh Nguyen and Hannah Snyder at Brandeis University tested in research recently published in the journal Anxiety, Stress & Coping.

In this study, led by graduate student Nguyen, researchers aimed to understand the pathway between executive functioning (EF) and mood problems, and found that poor EF creates risk for developing depression and mood problems. EF is an umbrella term that refers to an individual’s ability to pursue goals and adapt to change. The discovery that this pathway is what links EF and mood problems is significant because it creates a foundation for researchers and mental health professionals to develop interventions that can help treat people.

С�� Boulder scientist Roselinde Kaiser and her research colleagues aim to understand the pathway between executive functioning and mood problems.

Nguyen, Kaiser and Snyder’s data show that problems in EF can contribute to mood problems through a chain reaction: problems in EF predict dependent stress, which predicts repetitive negative thinking (RNT) and then lower mood. Dependent stressors are stressors that are generated by, at least partially, an individual’s behaviors. The stress that stems from these dependent stressors leads to RNT, which functions like a “washing machine, where the same negative self-oriented thoughts circle in your mind over and over again,” Kaiser says.

Kaiser, who is the director of the С�� Boulder Center for Healthy Mind and Mood, and who leads the Research on Affective Disorders and Development (RADD) Lab, first became interested in psychology when she was an adolescent and had questions about human suffering. Her research centers around finding ways to support people during periods of suffering, boost individuals’ resilience, foster their recovery or even stop their suffering.

Kaiser, who received a combined PhD in clinical psychology and neuroscience from С�� Boulder in 2013, is drawn to clinical psychology as “a corner of psychology that seems to be poised for the highest impact for the most people,” she says. Through her research she seeks to understand the mechanisms that cause mood problems and that could be potential targets for clinical prevention, especially among younger populations.

“My jam is working with adolescents and young adults, in part because it is this really potent period of risk, and it's also a period in which if we do deliver effective interventions, we can have a lifelong impact.”

Executive functioning and mood problems

Kaiser and her Brandeis colleagues began their recently published research from the previously established connection between EF and mood problems. “We know that EF is associated with mood problems,” Kaiser notes. “We see that within a number of different studies within our research group. How does that happen for individual people?”

EF is an essential part of being able to complete tasks. “College students are a really interesting sub-population because they are navigating a lot of stressors on their own, for the first time. The demands on EF are especially high for college students because they transitioned from—usually—living with adults and caregivers who help them with things like getting them to school on time, homework, laundry, getting their car checked out at the mechanic, grocery shopping, all of the kinds of things that we need to do on the daily, and that we need EF to do all of those things.”

Balancing higher-level academics and more extensive everyday tasks can become even more challenging if EF becomes negatively impacted. “If you look at the age of onset distribution,” she says, “what you’ll see is that more than 50% of the people who experience depression in their lifetime will say it started before the age of 23.”

The researchers’ study took place over a six-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through online surveys every two weeks, their participant pool of 154 Brandeis University undergraduate students logged their answers to questions that focused on the pathways the researchers were looking at. Participants’ ages ranged between 18-23, a span intentionally chosen because Kaiser and her colleagues were interested in understanding neurocognitive mechanisms of risk that are targets for intervention.

“We know that EF is associated with mood problems. We see that within a number of different studies within our research group. How does that happen for individual people?” says С�� Boulder researcher Roselinde Kaiser.

Their research aimed to determine which, if either, of the pathways they designed based on the previously determined connection between EF and mood would provide a structure of how EF leads to mood problems.

In the first pathway, the scientists predicted that executive dysfunction has an indirect effect, or a mediation path, on depression. The concept is that executive dysfunction causes stress generation, which in turn causes RNT. That results in an individual's mood sinking, leading to depression. Kaiser and her colleagues hypothesized that poorer EF would prospectively predict higher RNT levels, and RNT in turn would predict higher depression levels.

In the second model, Kaiser and her colleagues substituted a dependent stressor for perceived uncontrollability of stressors. Perceived uncontrollability means that an individual believes that they lack the ability to change a stressful situation. This pathway looked at proving that if someone struggles with EF, then they have trouble keeping their actions and thoughts directed toward goals. This then causes an individual to feel that they have less control over stressors, in turn causing RNT and their mood to sink. For model two, the researchers hypothesized that poorer EF would predict lower perceived control over stress, and higher levels of RNT would subsequently predict higher depression levels.

“One of the reasons we’re interested in breaking down these pathways is it gives us better insight and more ideas into how we can help people by delivering effective clinical interventions, preventions or preventative programs,” Kaiser explains. “It’s hard to change executive functionability, but we can help buffer people against the dependent stressors by giving them skills and tools so that those types of stressors are less likely to happen.

“From where I sit as a clinical psychologist as well as a neuroscientist, that’s a good reason that we want to understand who is at risk, and how that risk happens.”

Kaiser and her colleagues found through the data they collected that the first pathway was supported but the second was not. There were a number of factors that could have resulted in the second pathway not being supported.

“One totally reasonable explanation is that we were just wrong—that it is not a pathway that is consistently observed among people with EF,” she says. Another possible explanation could be “that the era in which we were measuring these variables—during the COVID pandemic—everyone kind of had heightened uncontrollability in their world. What that might mean is that because everyone was generally feeling like the world was out of control, we weren’t able to pick up on just the people who are more likely to perceive stress as uncontrollable even in the absence of a global pandemic"

She adds that a third reason could be “the timing is just different if you perceive control or not. Maybe … uncontrollable perceptions happen on a slower time scale (their research was measured every two weeks) meaning that it may take longer for perceived uncontrollability to build up and then push your mood around. Or the opposite, it could happen more quickly. (Overall), we don’t know if any of those things could be true, and it certainly merits more exploration.”

“My jam is working with adolescents and young adults, in part because it is this really potent period of risk, and it's also a period in which if we do deliver effective interventions, we can have a lifelong impact.”

Getting mood snapshots

Neuroimaging, neurocognitive testing (computer testing, psychophysical testing, interviewing and self-reporting are all methods that can be used to collect information from participants. However, since Kaiser, Nguyen and Snyder completed their project, there have been wide strides in the development of new data-collection methods. Kaiser and her research groups are now implementing these new methods alongside others to further their research.

“Each of these modalities has pros and cons in terms of what they can tell us about the underlying constructs that we’re interested in measuring,” Kaiser says. “EF, for example, we can measure that through a neurological assessment or a computer-based assessment. I can also tap into that by asking people about their abilities out in the world; but there are key differences in what we’re getting at.”

These different kinds of assessments are that they give complementing information, but do not duplicate what researchers receive from the surveys. “More recent research from my research group and also my collaborators and colleagues indicates that we’re getting two complementary sources of evidence, but it’s not the same evidence. So, the kind of information from computer-based testing or from the brain is not necessarily the same information we get when we ask people.” These two sources of evidence are only weakly related. Since Kaiser and her colleagues completed the project, they have developed a way to collect information without having participants fill out surveys.

“What we’ve been working with are mobile applications that perform something called digital phenotyping, which effectively means using the information your phone is already collecting about you to understand your actions out in the real world and to get little snapshots on your mood and your stress level in daily life,” Kaiser says, adding, “They can see things like numbers of calls, screen time and other factors that allow them to better understand the individuals.”

Now, researching alongside various experts and students on a number of different projects, Kaiser says she hopes to “make these interventions accessible to everyone at the touch of a finger on their smartphone in the real world. We want people to be able to access this information when they need it.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

С�� Boulder scientist Roselinde Kaiser and research colleagues seek to understand the connection between executive functioning and mood problems.

Traditional

White

Hindsight may be 20/20, but people feel more strongly about the future

Rachel Sauer — Fri, 03 Oct 2025 21:57:27 +0000

Hindsight may be 20/20, but people feel more strongly about the future Rachel Sauer Fri, 10/03/2025 - 15:57

Blake Puscher

In reviewing psychological studies, С�� Boulder researcher Leaf Van Boven and colleagues find that people prioritize thinking about the future over the past

Although time travel has typically been the domain of science fiction, whenever you take a moment to remember the past or imagine the future in detail, you are in a sense travelling through time. In psychology, these processes are called retrospection and prospection. Retrospection is thinking about and creating mental representations of the past, while prospection is the same thing but for the future.

Some work in the field of psychology has suggested that retrospection and prospection are functionally interchangeable, but intuitively, they seem to be very different. After reviewing the research in a recently published paper, Leaf Van Boven, a University of Colorado Boulder professor and department chair of psychology and neuroscience, along with research colleagues Eugene Caruso and Sam Maglio, finds that people think about the past and future differently because of several assumptions that people make about the nature of time (referred to as temporal axioms in the paper), and that people prioritize thinking about the future—a conclusion with implications for how psychological research should be conducted going forward.

С�� Boulder researcher Leaf Van Boven, department chair of psychology and neuroscience, finds that people prioritize thinking about the future—a conclusion with implications for how psychological research should be conducted going forward.

Temporal axioms

The assumptions people make about time are called temporal axioms because they relate to time (temporal) and are self-evident (the primary definition of an axiom). There are some philosophies of time that disagree with the axioms; for example, block time theory argues that the past, present and future all exist simultaneously, like different places except separated by time instead of space. However, even if such philosophies are true, the axioms remain valid premises because they describe not only people’s perception of time but also their subjective experiences of the world. The authors propose three temporal axioms—one of direction, one of uncertainty and one of control.

The axiom of direction describes the way all things move through time. Specifically, everything moves only from past to future, with the reverse being—as far as humans know—impossible. For example, if you blow up a balloon with air and then open the end, not only will the air always come out, but it will also be impossible to get the air back in; the balloon can be re-inflated, but it won’t revert it to its original state because it will be filled with different air. In physics, this reality is called entropy, a term for the tendency of all things to progress from states of order to disorder (the collected air disperses) or high energy to low energy (the relatively high pressure inside the balloon is relieved). Entropy defines the direction of time.

The axiom of uncertainty details that as uncertain as people may be about the past, there is at least some information about it, whether in the form of memory or history. Meanwhile, to the extent that the future is known at all, it is because of inference based on information from the past. Therefore, even if people could make predictions with 100% certainty, the uncertainty about the future would be at least as great as the uncertainty about the past, and in reality, it is always greater because people cannot make perfect predictions. “There are always different possibilities for any point in the future,” Van Boven explains, “and there are not different possibilities that actually exist in the past. There were many possibilities, but one of them did happen.”

The axiom of control describes how, because time has direction, the future is more uncertain than the past. This uncertainty creates a sense of control—of being able to choose between different possibilities by acting differently. While there are arguments against people having control over the future, people tend to view the future as more controllable than the past because of its relative uncertainty. Relatedly, according to Van Boven, “people don’t think of themselves as having control over their interpretation of the past, which presents its own set of challenges about how we make sense of what has happened in our lives.”

Prioritizing proception

The way that people think about the future and past is often understood in terms of psychological distance, which is just what it sounds like: how removed a person feels from an event, whether it is in the future or past. “There are many theories of psychological distance,” Van Boven says, “and within social psychology, one of the more prominent theories is Construal Level Theory, which is the idea that when things are in the distant future, they are interpreted on a more abstract level, whereas when they are in the very near future, we tend to think of them more concretely.”

This principle is fairly intuitive. For example, when you are given an assignment, it may not even feel real until the due date rolls around. However, although people think more concretely and feel more strongly about an event three days in the future than one three weeks in the future, they don’t necessarily think and feel the same about an event three days in the future as one three days in the past. In fact, Van Boven and his colleagues found in their review that people do not.

People pay more attention to getting ready for events in the future, and as soon as they pass, that attention quickly fades so they can refocus on what is coming next, says С�� Boulder researcher Leaf Van Boven.

“When things are in the future,” Van Boven says, “our affective system is highly engaged. As soon as things move into the past, the affective system and our emotional reactions subside.

“A classic example would be, if you have an upcoming presentation, your emotional system will get really jacked up as it’s getting close, and then as soon as it has passed, even if it is still objectively close in time, the affective system down-regulates itself. The same is true with attention.” People pay more attention to getting ready for events in the future, and as soon as they pass, that attention quickly fades so they can refocus on what is coming next.

The underestimation of proception

One question the review raises is why the prioritization of proception isn’t an established psychological principle when research in the field often involves people thinking about real or hypothetical events, which are necessarily either in the future or the past.

“That has to do with research methods,” Van Boven says, referring to the example about the upcoming, stressful presentation: The fact that people feel more strongly about the event when it is in the future and then tend to move on shortly after it happens could be easily demonstrated in a laboratory setting, according to Van Boven. “The problem is getting a scientific understanding of what exactly is changing. There are many confounds in that event moving through time.

“When we have an upcoming presentation, we still don’t know exactly what is going to happen in that presentation. We don’t know what the room is going to be like, we don’t know what the audience is going to be like. There’s a possibility that we might bomb, and that would have negative consequences. What we do experimentally is we try to create these situations where everything is exactly the same, and the only thing that differs is whether you’re thinking of it as something that’s in the future or in the past.” This eliminates all of the temporal axioms except for direction; unlike in real life, in the lab there is no difference in uncertainty or control between past and future.

“This is kind of analogous to an active control placebo in medical research,” Van Boven explains. An active control placebo lacks the active ingredient of the actual medicine being tested but has similar non-treatment effects. This is intended to stop people from subconsciously distinguishing between the placebo and the medicine on the basis of the medicine’s expected side effects. “The carefully controlled study gives you a very precise estimate of how big the effect is for the specific medicine you’re interested in,” Van Boven says, “but that’s not how big the effect is that people experience when they take the medicine in real life, because they’re embracing the placebo effect.”

Changing tense

“People who psychologically prioritize the future are happier and healthier than those who prioritize the past."

This review has a major implication for other research, which has to do with the necessity of taking the difference between prospection and retrospection into account, especially during studies that rely on people imagining different scenarios.

“To a large extent, researchers ignore whether things are in the future versus in the past,” Van Boven says. “It’s just that it has not historically been a dimension that people are really concerned about. So, a very common research approach is to use scenario studies.” Scenario studies involve asking people to imagine different situations, then varying those scenarios to see how it affects people’s responses to them. For example, participants could be asked to imagine two people going on a date, then to say how well it went. The scenario would vary slightly between groups of participants—for example, who paid or how the bill was split may be different in each group’s scenario—and the experiment would measure the effect of this difference on how people viewed the situation.

Often in these kinds of experiments there is an implication as to whether the event already happened or is going to happen, even just based on the verb tense used to describe the scenario, and as Van Boven says, “People have been sort of haphazard in terms of whether they present those kinds of scenarios in the future tense versus the past tense. Part of what our review and framework shows is that there may be ways in which we’re understating the effects of different scenarios when we happen to put them in the past (rather) than when we happen to put them in the future. It may be the case that the tense matters a great deal, and it’s something that we haven’t noticed because we haven’t varied that within our experimental context.”

Changing one’s focus between future and past isn’t just important in the context of research, however. “People who psychologically prioritize the future are happier and healthier than those who prioritize the past,” Van Boven says. Broadly, an orientation towards the future has been associated with positive outcomes in several areas, including financial success, health outcomes and life satisfaction. “So,” Van Boven continues, “the axioms and resulting psychological patterns are not merely oddities or biases; they help people successfully navigate through life.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

In reviewing psychological studies, С�� Boulder researcher Leaf Van Boven and colleagues find that people prioritize thinking about the future over the past.

Traditional

White

Why do some thoughts refuse to leave?

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 09 Sep 2025 23:38:52 +0000

Why do some thoughts refuse to leave? Rachel Sauer Tue, 09/09/2025 - 17:38

Cody DeBos

С�� Boulder graduate student researcher Jacob DeRosa delves into the brain’s ability to remove unwanted thoughts

Imagine trying to fall asleep, but your brain won’t cooperate. You tell yourself to let go of the embarrassing conversation from earlier in the day that keeps looping through your head, for example, but you can’t stop thinking about it.

Why are some thoughts so hard to dismiss?

It’s a question University of Colorado Boulder psychology and neuroscience graduate student Jacob DeRosa has been pondering for years. Now, with a newly published study in NeuroImage. Clinical, DeRosa and his co-researchers may be closer than ever to understanding what makes some brains better at letting go of unwanted thoughts—and why other brains tend to get stuck.

Jacob DeRosa, a С�� Boulder psychology and neuroscience graduate student, studies the question of why some thoughts are so hard to dismiss.

“Why is John really good at getting a thought out of his mind and going on with his day and I’m not?” DeRosa says. “This thought just seems to get stuck up in my head, and I’m thinking about it over and over and over again.”

That puzzle—why some people can suppress a thought and move on while others can’t—drove DeRosa to design a study that explores the neuroscience behind thought control.

The findings point to specific brain patterns and networks that may explain why some of us struggle to quiet our internal noise.

A question of control

Before tackling the nuances of thought control, DeRosa wanted to define what it actually means to “control” a thought. He and his team focused on four mental operations that are performed in working memory—the brain’s active thinking space.

The distinct tasks they studied included maintaining a thought, replacing it with a new one, suppressing it entirely or clearing the mind completely.

“What am I doing when someone tells me a phone number? Am I switching it with other information? Am I suppressing it? Or am I clearing my mind completely?” DeRosa asks.

To get to the bottom of it, study participants were asked to view and manipulate words in their working memory while undergoing functional MRI scans. This allowed researchers to observe when different parts of the brain activate and determine whether those patterns vary between people with and without self-reported difficulties in controlling unwanted thoughts.

They found that participants who reported more trouble controlling their thoughts showed less distinct neural activity across the four control operations.

“We’re basically creating a map of the brain,” says DeRosa, “and we’re looking at, well, how organized are these networks when someone is removing information?”

Hoping to better understand which regions play a role in thought removal, the team started looking closer at how they were recruited during different operations.

“What we found is that people who are really good at controlling their thoughts have really distinct color patterns for each operation. People who aren’t have a similar color pattern across the four operations, which tells us there’s not a lot of distinct activity happening,” DeRosa explains.

That lack of distinctness, when the brain isn’t clearly switching between tasks like suppression and replacement, could be why some people struggle to get rid of unwanted thoughts.

“It’s going to take some time to get more organization in your brain and get it working together to remove those thoughts, but it’s definitely possible,” says С�� Boulder researcher Jacob DeRosa. (Photo: Pexels)

“There seems to be more of this blending across the brain in terms of what’s happening when someone is trying to remove a thought. What it tells us is that these individuals aren’t able to precisely implement a certain operation,” he adds.

In other words, your brain might try to use the same mental tool for every task—like using a hammer for every job, when what you really need is a screwdriver.

But perhaps more importantly, DeRosa’s study found that this neural blending didn’t show up when people were at rest. It only emerged when they were actively engaged in trying to remove or control a thought.

DeRosa says the nuance matters.

“It’s not that people’s brains are just disorganized in general. It’s actually when it comes time to remove the information where we see them having a harder time,” he notes.

Bridging brain scans and mental health

Although anyone can have difficulty controlling thoughts, it’s also a common symptom of a range of mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). DeRosa believes that mapping out the brain mechanisms responsible for thought control can help researchers identify objective markers for these disorders and even ways to track how treatments are working.

“What’s nice about this initial study is that it gives us a baseline. Now we can begin to compare between high- and low-internalizing populations and eventually move on to even more specific psychiatric populations like depression, anxiety and PTSD,” he says.

The good news for everyone is that thought control isn’t necessarily a fixed trait.

“Our biggest takeaway is that it’s possible for anyone to practice getting better at thought control. I think beginning to practice these operations when unwanted thoughts come in is helpful for people because they can begin to differentiate what’s working for them,” says DeRosa.

That idea reframes thought control not as a matter of brute force willpower or something in our genetics. Rather, it’s a skill that can be trained and supported, whether through mindfulness, cognitive behavioral techniques, journaling or simply paying attention to what works for you.

For anyone who’s ever felt stuck in a spiral of unwanted thoughts, DeRosa’s research offers a glimpse of both clarity and hope. Of course, he also cautions that improvement doesn’t happen overnight.

“It’s going to take some time to get more organization in your brain and get it working together to remove those thoughts, but it’s definitely possible.”

Researchers Harry Smolker, Hyojeong Kim, Boman Groff, Jarrod Lewis-Peacock and Marie Banich also contributed to this study.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

С�� Boulder graduate student researcher Jacob DeRosa delves into the brain’s ability to remove unwanted thoughts.

Traditional

White

Video games don’t rot your brain—they train it

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 20:06:22 +0000

Video games don’t rot your brain—they train it Rachel Sauer Mon, 08/18/2025 - 14:06

Blake Puscher

С�� Boulder scientists find that playing video games comes with small but significant cognitive benefits

Ever since video games began to gain widespread popularity, some have questioned how playing them consistently affects people, especially mentally. Like with TV, the internet, social media and AI, the tendency has been to assume negative effects. However, a number of studies have suggested that playing video games can help strengthen people’s cognitive abilities.

Despite similar research findings, many of the studies disagree on the size of this effect and to which areas of cognition it applies—perhaps, in part, because of the limitations inherent to their typically cross-sectional approach.

A team of University of Colorado Boulder scientists including Shandell Pahlen, Anqing Zheng, Robin P. Corley, Naomi P. Friedman, Sally J. Wadsworth and Chandra A. Reynolds, all members of С�� Boulder’s team within the CATSLife project, aim to address these uncertainties with a longitudinal study on video games and cognitive health. CATSLife stands for Colorado Adoption/Twin Study of Lifespan behavioral development and cognitive aging.

Chandra Reynolds, a С�� Boulder professor of psychology and neuroscience, and her research colleagues found small, positive cognitive benefits of playing video games.

“We can leverage the twins and siblings’ similarities and differences to understand aspects of behaviors and cognitive abilities,” Reynolds explains, a С�� Boulder professor of psychology and neuroscience, “especially as they relate to how well people maintain their cognitive functioning, not only now, but eventually we hope to continue following them as they transition into midlife.”

Video games and cognitive health

Video games are an accessible way to engage one’s mind for several reasons. Like board games, video games do not require much in the way of physical ability, unlike sports and other such ways to exercise the mind. Additionally, video games are widely popular, with 2.7 billion gamers worldwide as of early 2025, according to Statista.

These traits suggest that video games could be used as a tool to support cognitive health, but this assertion raises some questions: What are the specific abilities that comprise generalized cognitive functioning, and how can scientists determine whether video games serve this purpose?

The study covered three important cognitive domains: processing speed, working memory and spatial reasoning. It included 1,241 individuals from CATSLife between 28 and 49 years old who had taken at least one of these tests. Some of the participants played video games and some did not, so the effects of playing video games were determined based on what video games they played. These games were categorized broadly into Action+, Puzzle+, and Other genres. The plus signs refer to the fact that the categories include genres that are not usually described with the base name, like life simulation games being included in Puzzle+ even though they aren’t puzzle games.

Reverse selection

One argument against prior studies suggesting that video games provide a cognitive benefit is the concept of reverse causation. In this case, reverse causation refers to certain people’s cognitive skills making them more likely to play video games, as opposed to playing video games causing an increase in cognitive skills.

Reverse causation is therefore part of the nature vs. nurture discourse, and as such, the point is not that engaging in an activity can’t improve people’s abilities, but that part of the correlation between activity and ability comes from those who already have above-average abilities choosing to engage in activities that take advantage of them. For example, a hypothetical study that compared Olympic runners with people who never run without accounting for reverse causation would overestimate the physical benefits of running, because a large part of the gap between the two groups is baked in: Most people can’t reach the level of Olympic athletes just by exercising.

This study factored in the participants’ baseline cognitive ability by looking at their adolescent IQ scores. “We’re fortunate that we had a longitudinal design,” Reynolds says, “and that we’ve assessed our participants multiple times over their earlier development into adolescence. Most studies of video games are cross sectional, and they don’t have indices of people’s cognitive performance at earlier ages.”

The researchers also considered several variables associated with performance on specific cognitive tasks. These included age, sex and educational attainment. The first two of these are especially important, because the genre of video games that people play varies within these demographics. Specifically, women and older adults are more likely to play Puzzle+ games, and men and younger people are more likely to play Action+ games.

С�� Boulder researcher Chandra Reynolds and her colleagues found that spatial reasoning benefited most consistently from playing video games. (Photo: Unsplash)

“There are some sociodemographic differences in what kinds of games people are playing,” Reynolds says, “and we wanted to account for that to isolate the differences that might arise from the gameplay itself.”

Increased processing speed

Spatial reasoning benefited most consistently from playing video games, with a significant effect measured in all three tests before and after adjustment for adolescent IQ, although the effect was about half as large after adjustment. There is also evidence that processing speed performance could increase after playing video games, as the results of one test remained significant even after adjustment. Working memory was the only domain that did not show evidence of improvement due to video game play, with non-significant numbers before and after adjustment.

Reynolds says that unimproved working memory results could be a consequence of the test used and the fact that only one test was used for this ability, compared to the three tests used for both processing speed and spatial reasoning.

“We can’t say a whole lot about working memory from one test,” he says. “In the future, we want to extend to other measures that would get more specifically at attention, working memory and other aspects of executive functioning.”

When video game play was broken down by the broad genre of game, there were some negative correlations: people who played Action+ games scored worse on processing speed, and those who played Puzzle+ games scored worse on spatial reasoning. However, these correlations were very small, and only statistically significant for one of the processing speed tests.

These results seem counterintuitive, which makes it particularly interesting to see if they will be replicated in other studies. As to benefits by genre, Action+ games had a particular association with spatial reasoning and Puzzle+ games had a particular association with processing speed.

According to the paper, the results for different tests may have been affected by how similar they are to video games. For example, with respect to spatial reasoning, Action+ gamers scored best on the Block Design test, which involves three-dimensional operations similar to those involved in playing many modern action games. By the same token, gamers may have performed worse on tests that were more divergent from video games due to their familiarity with related but substantially different tasks.

Future assessments

The researchers are currently collecting more data from the CATSLife sample, asking the same questions for further insight into how the observed effects change over the course of five or six years. “If people continue to play games, they’ll likely nominate newer games—it would be interesting to see if there is a long-standing influence or if new game play factors emerge,” Reynolds says.

Some changes could be made to the assessment of people’s gameplay to get more particular results. In the future, Reynolds says, “we would conduct more specific surveys of our participants: asking for more details about the games they play, the systems they use and how they approach gameplay. We asked questions that allowed us to get at the kinds of games they play, but not how they play them, and we’re making some inferences, so we’d want to dig deeper into that.”

“There has been some debate in the literature about the potential benefits or even detriments of video game play,” Reynolds explains, “but I think we found that, in a general sample that isn’t selected for pathological use or other characteristics related to playing video games, we found some salient, small positive effects.”

This brings up an important caveat, which is that even though there could be positive effects of playing video games, it is still possible to experience negative effects by engaging with them in a unhealthy manner. Because the positive effects are small, any negative effects due to playing video games irresponsibly, such as playing them for an excessive amount of time each day, are likely to outweigh the benefits.

“I think it will bear additional replication and future work,” Reynolds says, “but the benefits are quite interesting, and we’d like to see how this plays out with other kinds of activities as well.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

С�� Boulder scientists find that playing video games comes with small but significant cognitive benefits.

Traditional

White

It takes a village of mothers

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:56:42 +0000

It takes a village of mothers Rachel Sauer Wed, 08/13/2025 - 14:56

Sona Dimidjian and Anahi Collado

How mothers supporting mothers can help fill the health care worker shortage gap and other barriers to care

For generations, women have relied on informal networks of friends, family and neighbors to navigate the complexities of birth and motherhood. Today, research is finally catching up to what generations of women have known: Peer support can be a lifeline.

Despite growing evidence, the unique wisdom and strength that arise when mothers help mothers has been surprisingly under‑explored in the scientific literature, but that’s beginning to change. Peer-delivered programs are beginning to bring together long-standing community traditions and structured, evidence-based approaches to support the mental health of new and expectant moms.

We are clinical psychologists at the University of Colorado Boulder Renée Crown Wellness Institute. Our work and research weaves together psychological science and the wisdom of mothers supporting mothers. Our program, Alma, supports women in restoring well-being in ways that are community-rooted, evidence-based and scalable.

Through the Alma program, researchers Sona Dimidjian (left) and Anahi Collado (right) aim to support women in restoring well-being in ways that are community-rooted, evidence-based and scalable.

Pressure on parents

Nearly 50% of parents report feeling overwhelmed by stress on most days. An even larger share, about 65%, experience feelings of loneliness, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These feelings hit mothers especially hard, the report says.

In 2025, mothers in the United States continue to shoulder most of the caregiving of children while also managing work, personal health and household responsibilities. The transition to motherhood is often marked by emotional and psychological strain. In fact, 10% to 20% of women experience depression during pregnancy, the postpartum period or both. Depression is one of the most common complications of childbirth. A similar number of women also face significant anxiety.

In many communities, mental health resources are scarce and stigma around mental health issues persists; therefore, many mothers are left to navigate such challenges alone and in silence. Antidepressants are widely prescribed, but research suggests that many women stop using antidepressants during pregnancy – yet they don’t start therapy or an alternative treatment instead.

Psychotherapy is the most preferred care option among new and expectant mothers, but it is often inaccessible or nonexistent. This is due in part to a workforce shortage of mental health providers.

The shortage has contributed to long wait times, geographic disparities and cultural and language barriers between providers and patients. This is especially true for underserved populations. In fact, more than 75% of depressed mothers do not receive the care they need.

Science of peer support

The science of peer support is part of a larger field exploring community health workers as one way to address the shortage of mental health providers. Peer mentors are trusted individuals from the community who share common experiences or challenges with those they serve. Through specialized training, they are equipped to deliver education, offer mental health support and connect people with needed resources.

A study that analyzed 30 randomized clinical trials involving individuals with serious mental illness found that peer support was associated with significant improvements in clinical outcomes and personal recovery. Researchers have proposed that peer support creates space for learning and healing, especially when peers share lived experience, culture and language.

In 2025, mothers in the United States continue to shoulder most of the caregiving of children while also managing work, personal health and household responsibilities. (Photo: Shutterstock)

As clinical psychologists, we heard from mothers in our work and communities that wanted to help other moms recover from depression, navigate the challenges of motherhood and avoid feeling alone. This insight led us to co-create Alma, a peer-led mental health program based on behavioral activation.

Behavioral activation is a proven method for treating depression based on decades of randomized clinical trials, including in new and expectant mothers. It helps new and expectant mothers reengage in meaningful activities to improve mood and functioning.

The Alma program

Alma is based on the principle that depression must be understood in context and that changing what you do can change how you feel. One strategy we use is to help a mother identify an activity that brings a sense of accomplishment, connection or enjoyment – and then take small steps to schedule that activity. Mothers might also be guided on ways to ask for help and strengthen their support networks. Alma is offered in English and Spanish.

Peer mentors typically meet with moms once a week for six to eight sessions. Sessions can take place in person or virtually, allowing flexibility that honors each family’s needs. Traditionally, peer mentors have been recruited through long-standing relationships with trusted community organizations and word-of-mouth referrals. This approach has helped ensure that mentors are deeply rooted in the communities they serve. Alma peer mentors are compensated for their time, which recognizes the value of their lived expertise, their training and the work involved in providing peer mentoring and support.

“This was the first time I felt like someone understood me, without me having to explain everything,” shared one mother during a post-program interview that all participants complete after finishing Alma.

To date, more than 700 mothers in Colorado have participated in Alma. In one of our studies, we focused on 126 Spanish-speaking Latina mothers who often face significant barriers to care, such as language differences, cost and stigma. For nearly 2 out of 3 mothers, symptoms of depression decreased enough to be considered a true, measurable recovery — not just a small change.

Notably, most of the depression improvement occurred within the first three Alma meetings. We also observed that peer mentors delivered the Alma program consistently and as intended. This suggests the program could be reliably expanded and replicated in other settings with similar positive outcomes.

A second study, conducted through a national survey of Spanish-speaking Latina new and expectant mothers, found that peer-led mental health support was not only perceived as effective, but also highly acceptable and deeply valued. Mothers noted that they were interested in peer-led support because it met them where they were: with language, trust and cultural understanding.

Supporting mothers works

Supporting mothers’ mental health is essential because it directly benefits both mothers and their children. Those improvements foster healthier emotional, cognitive and social development in their children. This interconnected impact highlights why investing in maternal mental health yields lasting benefits for the entire family.

It also makes strong economic sense to address mood and anxiety disorders among new and expectant mothers, which cost an estimated US$32,000 for each mother and child from conception through five years postpartum. More than half of those costs occur within the first year, driven primarily by productivity losses, preterm births and increased maternal health care needs.

Beyond the impact on individual families, the broader economic toll of untreated mood and anxiety disorders among new and expectant mothers is substantial. For example, it’s estimated that $4.7 billion a year are lost to mothers who have to miss work or reduce their job performance because of symptoms like fatigue, anxiety and depression.

Together – as individuals, families, communities and institutions – we can cultivate a world where the challenges of parenting are met with comprehensive support, allowing the joy of parenting to be fully realized. Because no one should have to do this alone.

Sona Dimidjian is director of the Renée Crown Wellness Institute and a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder. Anahi Collado is a С�� Boulder assistant research professor of psychology.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How mothers supporting mothers can help fill the health care worker shortage gap and other barriers to care.

Traditional

White

Psychology and Neuroscience

Does cannabis cause anxiety? It depends

Related Articles

Young musicians tend to keep playing later in life

Related Articles

Can concussions cause fear of movement?

Related Articles

Research finds many psychiatric disorders are influenced by five genetic factors

Related Articles

The yellow brick road starts here

Related Articles

Research charts the pathway from thought to emotion

Related Articles

Hindsight may be 20/20, but people feel more strongly about the future

Related Articles

Why do some thoughts refuse to leave?

Related Articles

Video games don’t rot your brain—they train it

Related Articles

It takes a village of mothers

Related Articles