Study maps how brain recognise extensively varied faces at one go

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.

The Lockdown is not a cure but a critical strategy to prevent the geographical spread of COVID-19.

While pandemics at this level involves actual life threatening situations for individual's or significant others in one's immediate circle, it envisages a marked disruption in routine life. Even after the pandemic has been contained and will come to pass; it's aftermath will leave a trailblazer which demands planning and implementation of a post pandemic reconstruction of society with potentially traumatic experiences varying in intensity, multiplicity and duration.

Degree of Trauma

It would do well for each one of us to realise that the pandemic is "potentially traumatic", since not everyone will experience COVID -19 as a traumatic event in their lives. Yet, there will be those who may develop post pandemic stress reactions, depression and related dysfunction and pathological reactions while still other exhibit healthy reactions to the same set of circumstances.

"Psychological reactions to the pandemic can be distilled into four distinct prototypical patterns, namely, Resilience, Recovery, Chronic and Delayed patterns which may vary in intensity, multiplicity, and duration. Resilient individual have an ability to bounce back from adversity and experience modest or little disruption in normal functioning and are able to maintain a relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological functioning even after enduring the pandemic. Recovery pattern is characterised by relatively rapid reduction in symptoms and return to normal functioning whereas chronic pattern is characterised by symptoms and dysfunction of a long duration," says Pune-based military psychologist Lt Col Dr Samir Rawat.

Challenges at the Individual and Community Levels

From a psychological perspective, post pandemic reconstruction would entail catering to the problems, concerns and needs of those adversely impacted by the COVID -19 with stress symptoms typically characterised by individual's experiencing an overwhelming trauma of the pandemic (for example, recurring nightmares/ breaking into a cold sweat, flashback of stressful events, increasing irritability, low frustration tolerance or emotional numbing).

It could also manifest in depressive symptoms which may result in lack of interest or diminished pleasure in activities and things which you earlier liked to do, feelings of worthlessness or even survivor guilt in case of a loss of a loved one due to COVID-19, fleeting thoughts of death and suicidal ideation. Physical symptoms, on the other hand could be a decrease in appetite, weight and sleep problems, inability to focus and lack of concentration.

Undoubtedly, the pandemic will cause a financial loss of varying magnitude to many, especially the marginalised and economically disadvantaged strata of daily wage earners; it will also lead to loss of jobs (already beginning to show), homelessness, occupational difficulties and new challenges in interpersonal relations at work and on the home front, besides physical health problems and psychological barriers with new norms of accepted social behaviour (social distancing, handshakes, an obsession for cleanliness to name a few).

Emotional battles

Many factors may influence whether individuals come out stronger and more resilient or surrender to the pandemic. Emotion Regulation is one such long term critical factor that can play an important role in contributing to varying degrees of adaptation with negative or positive outcomes. While we know that primary emotions are fear, anger, disgust, joy, anticipation, acceptance, sadness and surprise, other basic emotions include wonder, love, desire, joy, hatred, sadness, attachment, disgust, rage and even expectancy .

To be able to regulate these emotions and avoid negativity , especially on social media platforms is likely to increase efforts in emotion regulation which involves initiating, increasing or maintaining an emotional response.

This means by regulating or on the other hand by stopping, decreasing or avoiding an emotional response, that is, by down-regulating, depending on the individual's objectives and goals or his /her ability to regulate emotions in the valued and given direction.

"One of the best ways to regulate emotions is through cognitive restructuring wherein we change the way we think; after all it is not the event but the interpretation of the event which is perceived as stressful and finding meaning promotes resilience and reduces risk and vulnerability to stress," advises Dr Rawat.

Adding, "Clearly, we need to have a psychological plan to prevent, mitigate and minimise negative outcomes by post pandemic reconstruction of society at an individual and community level all over the country; this has to be integrated by all leaders across verticals in diverse domains."

Toronto, Feb 4: People who text while walking face a higher risk of an accident than those listening to music or talking on the phone, a study has found.

The study, published in the journal Injury Prevention, found that smartphone texting is linked to compromised pedestrian safety, with higher rates of 'near misses', and failure to look left and right before crossing a road.

Researchers from the University of Calgary in Canada call for a more thorough approach to exploring the impact of distracted pedestrian behaviours on crash risk.

Worldwide, around 270,000 pedestrians die every year, accounting for around a fifth of all road traffic deaths, according to the researchers.

'Pedestrian distraction' has become a recognised safety issue as more and more people use their smartphones or hand held devices while walking on the pavement and crossing roads, they said.

The researchers looked for published evidence to gauge the potential impact on road safety of hand-held or hands-free device activities.

This included talking on the phone, text messaging, browsing and listening to music.

From among 33 relevant studies, they pooled the data from 14 -- involving 872 people -- and systematically reviewed the data from another eight.

The analysis showed that listening to music wasn't associated with any heightened risk of potentially harmful pedestrian behaviours.

Talking on the phone was associated with a small increase in the time taken to start crossing the road, and slightly more missed opportunities to cross the road safely.

The researchers found that text messaging emerged as the potentially most harmful behaviour.

It was associated with significantly lower rates of looking left and right before or while crossing the road, and with moderately increased rates of collisions, and close calls with other pedestrians or vehicles, they said.

Texting also affected the time taken to cross a road, and missed opportunities to cross safely, but to a lesser extent, according to the researchers.

The review of the eight observational studies revealed that the percentage of pedestrians who were distracted ranged from 12 to 45 per cent, they said.

It also found behaviours were influenced by several factors, including gender, time of day, solo or group crossing, and walking speed.

The researchers acknowledge "a variety of study quality issues" which limit the generalisability of the findings.

"Given the ubiquity of smartphones, social media, apps, digital video and streaming music, which has infiltrated most aspects of daily life, distracted walking and street cross will be a road safety issue for the foreseeable future," the researchers noted.

"And as signage and public awareness campaigns don't seem to alter pedestrian behaviour, establishing the relationship between distracted walking behaviour and crash risk is an essential research need," they said.