<![CDATA[B-RAD LAB - Happenings]]>

<![CDATA[B-RAD LAB - Happenings]]>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 05:38:52 -0400Weebly<![CDATA[Balancing support & dependence in artificial intelligence (AI) use]]>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 04:00:00 GMThttps://www.b-radlab.com/happenings/balancing-support-dependence-in-artificial-intelligence-ai-useAuthors: Wae Man Chan, Madeleine Noller, & Liv Mace

In this week’s lab meeting, we discussed the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) as a widely used tool in both academic and everyday settings. The rise has prompted ongoing discussions about AI’s benefits and potential risks. While AI is often framed as a technological advancement that boosts efficiency and productivity, its psychological and developmental implications, particularly for neurodiverse individuals, are still being explored.

The discussion began with Craig Fedreighi’s TED Talk, which emphasizes the growing integration of AI into everyday life, including the potential to shape how we think, work, and interact. Building on this idea, our lab discussion focused on both the opportunities and concerns surrounding AI use, especially for neurodiverse individuals such as those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
One key takeaway is the positive role AI can play as a form of cognitive “scaffolding”. For individuals who struggle with executive functioning, AI can help organize thoughts, break down complex tasks, and manage overwhelming workloads. In this way, it can help serve as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for cognitive effort.

Nonetheless, our discussion also covered several concerns about how AI interacts with users. Unlike human mentors or peers, AI does not inherently challenge or disagree, which can reinforce existing thought patterns. This may be particularly problematic for individuals who struggle with decision making, as AI can provide quick solutions rather than encouraging engagement with more challenging tasks. As discussed in the lab, this “quick fix” dynamic may limit opportunities for deeper learning and cognitive growth, raising concerns about long-term reliance and reduced problem solving skills.

Another significant theme that we discussed was the importance of framing AI as a tool that must be used intentionally. Some had compared AI use to other forms of support, such as organizational systems, which assist with functioning but do not replace personal responsibility or goal setting. While AI can help manage tasks and provide structure, it cannot determine an individual’s priorities. Therefore, this led to the general idea that individuals should not rely on AI to tell them how much they can handle or how to structure their lives but to instead use it as a tool among other support systems.

Lastly, our discussion emphasized the importance of AI media literacy, particularly among children and adolescents who are growing up with this technology. Without proper guidance, younger users may struggle to develop a strong sense of self and intrinsic motivation. As a result, we highlighted the importance of parental controls, school-based education on AI, and human mentorship. Although AI can offer valuable support, especially for neurodiverse populations, encouraging critical thinking and prioritizing human connection remain essential for healthy cognitive and social development.

]]><![CDATA[why is autism often missed in women & girls?]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 04:00:00 GMThttps://www.b-radlab.com/happenings/why-is-autism-often-missed-in-women-girlsAuthors: Madeleine Noller, Jess Snyder, & Liv Mace

During this week’s lab meeting, the B-RAD lab discussed the TED Talk, “Why Autism is Often Missed in Women and Girls” by Kate Kahlem, which draws on her personal experiences with autism. This conversation focused on how gender biases in research and society influence the way autism is recognized and diagnosed. More specifically, our discussion highlighted three key themes: the late diagnosis of autism in women, the role of masking, and the broader implications for research and clinical practice.

A key takeaway from both the TED Talk and our discussion was that autism is often diagnosed later in girls due to differences in how it presents. Historically, autism research has focused primarily on boys, which has contributed to a significant gap in recognizing how autistic traits present in girls. Kahle emphasizes that many autistic girls do not display the “classic” behaviors typically associated with autism, which can delay diagnosis.

We mentioned that some of these behaviors can include perfectionism or hyper-fixation in one's interests. As a result, many girls go undiagnosed during critical developmental periods which can impact their access to support. The lack of diagnosis is connected to the concept of masking, which helps to explain why these traits often go unnoticed.

Masking was one of the most important concepts explored in both the TED Talk and our lab discussion. Kahle describes masking as the process of copying social behaviors to fit into neurotypical expectations. While masking can help individuals navigate social situations, it often comes at a significant cost. Masking requires constant effort and can contribute to anxiety, depression, and a loss of personal identity over time. Our group expanded on this by discussing how prolonged masking, specifically during adolescence, can create additional barriers to self-understanding and mental well-being. These challenges highlight the need to better recognize and address masking in both research and clinical settings.

We also discussed how societal expectations play a role in missed diagnoses. Kahle explains that girls are often socialized to be more emotionally aware and compliant, which can make autistic traits less noticeable. Because girls are expected to “fit in,” they tend to develop stronger masking behaviors than boys, leading clinicians to overlook or misinterpret their symptoms. This reinforces the idea that misdiagnoses are not only biological but are also shaped by cultural norms and biases. Additionally, the underrepresentation of women in autism research contributes to systemic gaps in diagnosis and care. Addressing these gaps requires a shift away from male-centered models toward a more inclusive understanding of neurodiversity.

Another takeaway from Kahle’s talk is the impact of diagnosis on self-understanding. Kahle shares that receiving her diagnosis as a teenager helped her make sense of her experiences and provided a new path for accessing appropriate support. Rather than viewing autism as something that needs to be “fixed,” she reframes it as a different way the brain can function. This perspective aligns with our group’s discussion of shifting towards neurodiversity-focused approaches that emphasize accommodations and strengths rather than focusing on the deficits.

This connects directly to the broader implications for neuroscience research and clinical practice. The continued underrepresentation of women in autism research contributes to systemic gaps in diagnosis and care. Addressing these disparities requires not only earlier recognition of symptoms in girls, but a difference in how autism is conceptualized. Expanding research to reflect a wider range of experiences is essential for building a more accurate and inclusive understanding of neurodiversity.

Overall, our discussion reinforced the importance of inclusion in neuroscience. By recognizing biases in both research and society, we can move toward more accurate diagnoses, better support systems, and a more inclusive understanding of how different brains function.

]]><![CDATA[Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy in PTSD]]>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 14:54:45 GMThttps://www.b-radlab.com/happenings/psychedelic-assisted-therapy-in-ptsdAuthors: Jess Snyder & Cailee Nelson

During this week’s lab meeting, the B-RAD Lab engaged in a thoughtful discussion on emerging research in neuroscience. More specifically, we talked about a study that explored the use of psychedelic drugs to treat participants with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. To guide our discussion, we read a recent article by Jane Palmer that described the use of psychedelic drugs in controlled therapeutic settings to treat PTSD. The article outlined the potential benefits as well as the concerns surrounding this approach. A benefit was that the study found psychedelic therapy to be more effective on participants who did not respond to traditional therapies as well. A potential concern was that more research needs to be done for this study to get effective results. The article also explained how the mechanisms by which psychedelics may alter the neural circuits responsible for the fear response associated with PTSD. Using this study as a guide, we discussed how this article may contribute to our understanding of inclusivity more broadly.

First, we talked about whether the specific use of psychedelic-assisted therapy for individuals with PTSD makes treatment more inclusive or more restrictive. If this treatment were to become legalized in the United States, it would likely remain highly regulated and only be administered in supervised clinical settings with extensive safety protocols. We referenced back to a previous lab discussion topic on stigma, thinking about how this treatment structure challenges the societal stigma around psychedelics and their recreational use. The stigma behind psychedelic drugs and their use is that they are frowned upon due to misconceptions on safety and addictiveness which stems back to the War on Drugs era. We also referenced a documentary called How to Change Your Mind which featured an episode highlighting the use of MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy, for psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. This is another piece of media that challenges drug-related stigma. Ultimately, we agreed as a group that if a treatment meaningfully alleviates suffering and restores a person’s sense of self, it warrants serious consideration for medical use. Psychedelic-assisted therapy aims to address root causes of trauma rather than managing symptoms, which may offer advantages over traditional pharmacological approaches. In this sense, it could expand treatment possibilities for individuals who have not responded to traditional treatments.

At the same time, our discussion emphasized that even if psychedelic treatment is beneficial, it is not always accessible to everyone. We found that even though psychedelic drugs are not expensive, psychedelic-assisted therapy definitely is. With a treatment plan that requires trained clinicians, preparation, regulation, and lots of time, costs can be upward of $11,000 per course of treatment. With this, we realized that psychedelic-assisted therapy may not be inclusive of individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. We acknowledged that many individuals with PTSD come from marginalized communities that already face systemic barriers to accessing mental health care. In these cases, psychedelic-assisted therapy could reinforce health disparities if access is limited to individuals with higher socioeconomic status. Ultimately, we recognized that a treatment can be both inclusive by expanding possibilities in the medical field while also being exclusive and inaccessible to others.

Importantly, this conversation led to a reflection on our own research practices here at the B-RAD Lab. All of our studies operate within the boundaries that are defined by study-specific research questions and participant criteria. For example, some of our studies may exclude participants who cannot meet certain communication requirements as the research is specifically focused on understanding how individuals communicate. Additionally, some of our studies may exclude participants who are not in a specific age range as a lot of our research currently focuses on adolescents. These boundaries are often study-specific rather than lab-specific and are designed to answer a precise research question. At the same time, we discussed the importance of actively working towards greater inclusivity. One recent way we have done this is by dedicating part of our lab meeting to reworking our diversity and inclusion statement to ensure it aligns with our current practices and our continued commitment to fostering an inclusive and respectful research environment. Psychedelic-assisted therapy, like much of neuroscience research, illustrates that inclusion is not a static achievement but an ongoing process. As a lab, we acknowledge that we are responsible for continuously examining where our work expands access and where it may unintentionally create barriers.

]]><![CDATA[Stigma, Science, and the search for belonging]]>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMThttps://www.b-radlab.com/happenings/stigma-science-and-the-search-for-belongingAuthors: Cailee M. Nelson & Sophie Cramer-Benjamin

This week, the B-RAD lab talked about stigma—how it can lead to ostracism (ignoring or excluding of an individual) and how it shows up in neuroscience research. To guide our discussion, we watched a short video explaining what stigma is and how it develops both in society and within individuals. We especially appreciated how the video broke down social stigma into stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination, and showed how these forces can push people out of social groups. The video also highlighted self-stigma, which happens when people internalize negative beliefs about themselves, often leading to less social participation and reinforcing the cycle of stigma.

First, we talked about how stigma has shaped neuroscience itself. For a long time, neuroscience research was used to rank brains and promote ideas about “superiority”, helping justify and reinforce white supremacy. Neuroscience, as we see it, should be framed as a tool for understanding differences in how brains are wired and how those differences may inform us on how to promote well-being. Stigma also contributes to misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and misunderstandings of psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions. These issues are especially evident in the autistic community, where autistic girls are often underdiagnosed due to stereotypes about both autism and how girls are expected to behave in society.

Next, we explored how stigma is closely connected to social exclusion, using a model from Reinhard and colleagues (2020) to ground the conversation. This model describes a “vicious cycle” of ostracism, in which psychiatric symptoms increase the likelihood of being excluded, and exclusion in turn reinforces those symptoms. A major point of discussion was the need to better understand how individual factors might influence or interrupt this cycle. These factors include neurobiological differences, social environments, and sensitivity to rejection. While some level of ostracism is a common human experience, people who are stigmatized often face it more frequently and more intensely. This highlights the importance of identifying ways to support individuals through resources, adaptive coping strategies, and resilience-building efforts.

Finally, we turned to the question of where intervention efforts should be focused—on individuals, environments, or both. Many of us agreed that effective change likely requires a combination of approaches. Individual-level interventions can help build coping skills and resilience, while environmental interventions can focus on school- or community-based programs that prevent ostracism, offer support groups, and provide resources to reduce its impact. We also reflected on what this means for our own lab’s work. Beyond producing research findings, we want to create meaningful deliverables for the community, such as accessible resources that explain how differences in brain responses relate to well-being and how both individuals and communities can take action to support social connection and minimize impacts of stigma.

]]><![CDATA[tricky conversations: Navigating Challenging Topics in People-Facing Research to Protect Participants and Researchers]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:49:13 GMThttps://www.b-radlab.com/happenings/tricky-conversations-navigating-challenging-topics-in-people-facing-research-to-protect-participants-and-researchersAuthors: Jackson McFadden & Liv Mace

This week, the B-RAD lab discussed the importance of protecting both research participants and research staff from emotionally distressing subject matter during active data collection and analysis. To what extent should we aim to structure such work to protect the very people most vulnerable to adverse outcomes? To what extent should we as professionals be prepared to engage in difficult conversations and heavy subject matter?

A 2025 article by Kennedy et al., proposed the idea that emotionally safe research begins at the development stage. The GENDER-Q Youth is a participant-response outcome measure (PROM) that investigates gender diverse youth and adolescents’ experiences regarding receiving gender affirming care. Given the potentially sensitive nature of these topics, the research team took considerable care to construct their interviews to bilaterally protect both participants and their sensitivities and the research team and their own. Examples of such considerations follow: “Does the [research] team require any training or resources to recognize and manage potential emotional safety concerns?”, “What are the potential threats to participants/research team’s privacy and safety during the recruitment process?”, “Are interviews being scheduled when the participant and team would have access to further necessary support?” Lastly, the team inquired about the potential for troubling emotional events regarding data analysis and potential qualitative coding of sensitive topics.

While thought-provoking, the B-RAD team offered interesting points both in support and in dissent of the perspective shared by the article's authors. Researchers always possess the ability to be more mindful of the construction of tasks and procedures in such a way as to encourage healthy boundaries and support chains. On the other hand, it was argued that it is unrealistic to expect professionals in mental health adjacent fields to entirely “flowchart away” the very real difficult conversations and emotions that can arise when discussing sensitive topics or even not-so-sensitive topics. It is important to recall that all participants’ lives are rich and colorful and sometimes those colors can be dark. As people-facing researchers, there is an understanding that we should expect that some interactions will not be so positive. Even in the face of someone having a hard day, we should be prepared to hear those worries, sympathize, and move forward in a supportive manner. Another point made by the B-RAD lab is that protocol can certainly help in times of escalated emotion or threats to safety. It was noted that the GENDER-Q PROM framework was specifically designed for the context of virtual interviews, which may pose distinct difficulties to in-person interactions. There certainly exists a possibility that team members may face difficult encounters, discrimination, or even participant health crises. In this case, research teams should exercise caution that staff, administrators, and research assistants have received ample training on how, who, and when to report an incident with a participant.

As it appears, the responsibility of the research team is many-fold: to protect data, lab staff, and certainly research participants.  Ultimately, protections against emotionally distressing subjects may not always be eliminating chances for such topics to present themselves, but fostering an environment where honest answers are met with warm but professional concern if necessary, and researchers are appropriately equipped to understand when it is time to be the supporting force, and when it is time to seek support.

References:
Kennedy, S.L., Jack, S.M., Johnson, N. et al. Prioritizing Participant and Research Team Emotional Safety During Data Generation and Analysis in Qualitative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Research: Development of a Framework Informed by the GENDER-Q Youth Study. Patient 18, 597–608 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00756-4

]]>