People who play drums regularly for years differ from unmusical people in their brain structure and function. The results of a study by researchers from Bochum suggest that they have fewer, but thicker fibers in the main connecting tract between the brain hemispheres(半球). In addition, their motor brain areas are organized more efficiently. This is the conclusion drawn by a research team headed by Dr. Lara. It was published in the journal Brain and Behavior, online on 4 December 2019.

The researchers were interested in drummers because their movement control far surpasses that of untrained people. "Most people can only perform fine motor tasks with one hand and have problems playing different rhythms with both hands at the same time," explains Lara, "Drummers can do things that are impossible for untrained people."

The team intended to gain new insights into the organization of complex motor processes in the brain by identifying the changes in the brain caused by this training. The researchers tested 20 professional drummers who have played their instrument for an average of 17 years and currently practice for more than ten hours per week. They examined them using various MRI imaging techniques that provide insights into the structure and function of the brain. They then compared the data with measurements of 24 unmusical control subjects. Both groups had to play drums to test their abilities and were then examined in the MRI scanner.

Drummers presented clear differences in the front part of the corpus callosum(胼胝体)responsible for motor planning. The data indicated that the drummers had fewer but thicker fibers in this important connecting tract. This allows musicians to exchange information between the hemispheres more quickly than the controls.

Although drummers might be good at motor coordination, they are less active in motor tasks than that of control subjects. This phenomenon indicates that a more efficient brain organization in the areas leads to less activation in professionals.

A new study, out of Japan's Fukuoka University and presented at the American Academy of Neurology's72nd Annual Meeting in April,2020, is so interesting. The researchers found that playing ping pong may lead to significant improvements in Parkinson's symptoms.

“Ping pong, which is also called table tennis, is a form of aerobic (有氧的) exercise that has been shown in the general population to improve hand-eye coordination , sharpen reflexes, and stimulate the brain," said study author Ken-ichi Inoue, M.D., of Fukuoka University. “We wanted to examine if people with Parkinson 's disease would see similar benefits that may in turn reduce some of their symptoms. "

The study included 12 people (an average age of 73) with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease, who had been diagnosed with Parkinson's for seven years on average. The participants were tested at the beginning of the study to assess the type and degree of symptoms they had. They then had a ping pong session once a week. The sessions included stretching exercises and specific ping pong exercises led by experienced table tennis players from the department of Sports Science of Fukuoka University.

The symptoms were then assessed again at three months and six months (at the end of the study), and during that period participants experienced significant improvements in speech, handwriting, getting dressed, getting out of bed and walking. For example, it took participants an average of more than two attempts to get out of bed at the beginning of the study compared to an average of one attempt at the end of the study. They also had significant improvements in facial expression, posture, rigidity (僵硬), slowness of movement and hand trembles.

“While this study is small, the results are encouraging because they show ping pong, a relatively inexpensive form of therapy, may improve some symptoms of Parkinson's disease,” said Inoue. “A much larger study is now being planned to confirm these findings.”

My university has now topped the U.S. News & World Report rankings for 11 years running. Given Princeton’s success, you might think I would be a fan of the list. Not so. Don’t get me wrong. I am proud of Princeton’s teaching, research and commitment to service. I like seeing our quality recognized. Rankings, however, are a misleading way to assess universities. Different schools have distinct strengths, structures and missions. The idea of picking one as “best”, as though educational programs competed like athletic teams, is strange.

However, the U.S. News rankings attract great attention and a huge customer base. Applicants and their families rely on the rankings and feel pressure to get into highly regarded institutions. As a result, many schools make intense efforts to move up in the rankings. This competition produces damaging consequences. For example, some universities avoid doing difficult but valuable things—such as admitting talented lower-income students who can succeed at university if given appropriate support.

Still, students and families need comparative information to choose universities. If rankings mislead, what is the alternative? For generations, buyers have turned to Consumer Reports for advice about almost everything except university education. When Consumer Reports evaluates a product, it assesses multiple factors so that potential buyers can make their own choice wisely. Similarly, university applicants need information about some basic variables. Graduation rates are crucial. A university that does not graduate its students is like a car with a bad maintenance (维修) record. It costs money without getting you anywhere. What applicants need is not the average graduation rate, but the rate for students with backgrounds like their own. For example, some places successfully graduate their wealthy students but do less well for lower-income students. Applicants should also see some measure of post-graduation outcomes.

Here is a partial list of other factors that matter: cost of tuition (学费) and fees; high-quality teachers actively engaged in undergraduate instruction; and a learning culture composed of diverse students who study hard and educate one another. Judged by these criteria, many schools could be “Consumer Reports Best Buys”. Applicants should be excited to get into any of them; they should pick the one they find most appealing; and they should not waste time worrying about which is “the best”.

It would be great to have a Consumer Reports for universities. I hope that some national publication will have the courage to produce an annual, user-friendly Consumer Reports-style analysis of higher education institutions, even if it is not as attractive as a football-style set of rankings. In the meantime, those of us who understand the imperfection in the rankings must call them out—even when, indeed especially when, we finish at the top.