Featured Post from University of Florida

The health challenges astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams face after 9 months in space

Jan 5, 2026

4 min

Rachael Seidler
CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove


On June 5, 2024, astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams embarked on a brief mission to the International Space Station. But equipment failures turned what was supposed to be an eight-day trip into a grueling 9 month spaceflight.


This week, Wilmore and Williams finally returned to Earth. While their safe return is cause for celebration, the journey doesn’t end when astronauts touch down on Earth. They now face the significant task of recovering from the physical and psychological toll of long-duration spaceflight.


As part of the University of Florida’s ongoing research into astronaut health, Rachael Seidler, Ph.D., a leading expert in spaceflight-associated health changes, is studying the long-term effects of space travel on astronauts’ brains and bodies. Seidler’s research focuses on understanding how the central nervous system and brain structure adapt to the challenges of space travel, as well as how these changes affect performance, balance, and mobility once astronauts return to Earth.


“While the physical and psychological challenges astronauts face after returning from long-duration space missions are well-documented, the research we do at UF is helping us understand the intricacies of their recovery process,” said Seidler, deputy director of the Astraeus Space Institute at UF. “By following astronauts like Butch and Suni before, during, and after their missions, we can track how the human body responds to the extreme conditions of space.”


Behavioral and Brain Changes Post-Flight

Seidler’s research tracks astronauts’ physical and neurological recovery by observing them both during their missions and after they return.


"One of the most immediate challenges astronauts face when they return to Earth is mobility and balance. These issues often recover more quickly compared to others, but it takes time for astronauts to readjust to gravity,” Seidler said. "The balance, mobility, and walking difficulties astronauts experience during the first weeks back are typically resolved in a short period, but brain function and structure require longer recovery periods."


Seidler’s research indicates that astronauts’ brains exhibit compensation when they return to Earth following spaceflight. This compensation occurs through the recruitment of additional neural pathways in order to return to their preflight performance levels. However, the recovery of brain function is a gradual process. "This brain functional compensation is typically no longer observed within one to six months post-flight," Seidler said.


However, not all changes are reversible. "Brain structural changes, particularly related to fluid shifts in space, show little to no recovery even after six months to a year," Seidler said. Two significant structural changes include the brain physically sitting higher in the skull and the expansion of the brain’s ventricles — fluid-filled cavities in the brain — which can increase in volume by 25% or more. These changes are thought to result from the fluid shifts caused by microgravity, and they present long-term health considerations for astronauts.



Long-Term Health Effects: Understanding the Impact

As Wilmore and Williams embark on their recovery journey, the long-term impact of these changes becomes a critical focus for researchers like Seidler. "The long-term health impacts are crucial to understand because they could affect how astronauts recover and perform in their daily lives post-mission," she said.


Seidler’s team at UF is conducting a new study in which they are tracking astronauts for up to five years post-flight to better understand these long-term effects. "We’ve had astronauts in space for up to a year, and we know how to manage their physical health during those missions," Seidler said. "But the effects of space on the brain and body extend beyond the mission, and our work helps inform strategies to manage recovery."


Collaborating with NASA and Studying Spaceflight-Associated Neuro-Ocular Syndrome

Seidler's work is also part of a broader collaboration with NASA and other scientists to assess astronaut long-term health. The project is particularly focused on Spaceflight-Associated Neuro-Ocular Syndrome, which affects up to 70% of astronauts. This condition involves structural changes to the eye and optic nerve, leading to vision problems that may impact astronauts’ function.


"Neuropsychological assessments can help to measure astronauts’ brain health, while studies of the ocular system help identify potential vision issues that may arise during and after long-duration space missions," she said.


Simulating Space Conditions on Earth

In addition to studying astronauts on Earth and in space, Seidler’s team conducts experiments to simulate the effects of spaceflight on human physiology. The UF lab runs experiments in head-down tilt bed rest studies, which keep participants lying down for weeks to months at a time to simulate the lack of gravity. "This type of study helps us understand how fluid shifts in the body during space travel affect mobility, balance, and brain structure," Seidler explained. "In addition, other publications have reported that astronauts describe that vestibular galvanic stimulation feels similar to what they experience when they first arrive in space and when they return to Earth. We have equipment to induce these effects in the lab."


Looking Toward the Future

As space missions continue to grow longer and more complex, UF’s research is more important than ever. "We’re studying these issues now to ensure that future astronauts are prepared for the physical and cognitive challenges that await them in deep space," Seidler said.

Connect with:
Rachael Seidler

Rachael Seidler

Professor

Rachael Seidler researches the neural control of movement in health and disease, with a specific focus on motor learning.

SpaceParkinson'sCognitive AgeingNeuroscience and the BrainNeuroplasticity
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Florida

Study finds most cancer patients exposed to misinformation; UF researchers pilot 'information prescription' featured image

3 min

Study finds most cancer patients exposed to misinformation; UF researchers pilot 'information prescription'

Ninety-three percent of patients with a new cancer diagnosis were exposed to at least one type of misinformation about cancer treatments, a UF Health Cancer Center study has found. Most patients encountered the misinformation — defined as unproven or disproven cancer treatments and myths or misconceptions — even when they weren’t looking for it. The findings have major implications for cancer treatment decision-making. Specifically, doctors should assume the patient has seen or heard misinformation. “Clinicians should assume when their patients are coming to them for a treatment discussion that they have been exposed to different types of information about cancer treatment, whether or not they went online and looked it up themselves,” said senior author Carma Bylund, Ph.D., a professor and associate chair of education in the UF Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics. “One way or another, people are being exposed to a lot of misinformation.” Working with oncologists, Bylund and study first author Naomi Parker, Ph.D., an assistant scientist in the UF Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, are piloting an “information prescription” to steer patients to sources of evidence-based information like the American Cancer Society. The study paves the way for other similar strategies. Most notably, the study found the most common way patients were exposed to misinformation was second hand. “Your algorithms pick up on your diagnosis, your friends and family pick up on it, and then you’re on Facebook and you become exposed to this media,” Parker said. “You’re not necessarily seeking out if vitamin C may be a cure for cancer, but you start being fed that content.” And no, vitamin C does not cure cancer. Health misinformation can prevent people from getting treatment that has evidence behind it, negatively affect relationships between patients and physicians, and increase the risk of death, research has shown. People with cancer are particularly vulnerable to misinformation because of the anxiety and fear that comes with a serious diagnosis, not to mention the overwhelming amount of new information they have to suddenly absorb. While past research has studied misinformation by going directly to the source — for instance, studying what percentage of content on a platform like TikTok is nonsense — little research has looked at its prevalence or how it affects people. The team first developed a way to identify the percentage of cancer patients exposed to misinformation. UF researchers collaborated with Skyler Johnson, M.D., at Huntsman Cancer Institute, an internationally known researcher in the field. The survey questions were based on five categories of unproven or disproven cancer treatments — vitamins and minerals, herbs and supplements, special diets, mind-body interventions and miscellaneous treatments — and treatment misconceptions. The myths and misconceptions were adapted from National Cancer Institute materials and included statements like “Will eating sugar make my cancer worse?” The team surveyed 110 UF Health patients diagnosed with prostate, breast, colorectal or lung cancer within the past six months, a time when patients typically make initial treatment decisions. Most had heard of a potential cancer treatment beyond the standard of care, and most reported they had heard of at least one myth or misconception. The most common sources were close friends or family and websites, distant friends/associates or relatives, social media and news media. The findings mark a shift in misinformation research, with major implications for the doctor-patient relationship, said Bylund, a member of the Cancer Control and Population Sciences research program at the UF Health Cancer Center. “I still think media and the internet are the source and why misinformation can spread so rapidly, but it might come to a cancer patient interpersonally, from family or friends,” she said. Most patients rarely discussed the potential cancer treatments they had heard about with an oncologist, the study also found. Next, the researchers plan to survey a wider pool of patients, then study the outcomes of interventions designed to decrease misinformation exposure, like the information prescription.

New AI tool matches students with high-impact internships featured image

2 min

New AI tool matches students with high-impact internships

Finding the right internship can be an important step for students, but it’s not always clear which opportunities will lead to the strongest growth. To help solve that problem, University of Florida researchers have developed an AI-powered tool that helps students identify internships most likely to accelerate their technical and professional development. Unlike traditional recommendation engines, Pro-CaRE not only predicts which opportunities will lead to stronger outcomes, it also explains why each suggestion is a good fit. In testing data collected from the students, Pro-CaRE’s predictions proved highly accurate, accounting for more than 72% of the differences in learning gains among participants. While the pilot is being tested in engineering, the tool could be adopted for other disciplines. “Internships are one of the most critical parts of an engineering education, but students often struggle to know which experiences will actually help them grow,” said Jinnie Shin, assistant professor of research and evaluation methodology in the UF College of Education. “What makes Pro-CaRE unique is that it doesn’t just offer a list of options. It provides personalized recommendations backed by data and it tells students clearly why an opportunity is a good match for them.” Pro-CaRE creates matches by analyzing each student’s coursework, major, background and self-reported interest, confidence and self-efficacy in engineering skills. It then compares that profile with a carefully chosen set of similar peers to refine suggestions. The result is more precise guidance that adapts to students at different stages of their degree programs. “Students shouldn’t have to guess or hope that an internship will be worthwhile,” Shin said. “With Pro-CaRE, they can approach opportunities knowing they’re backed by evidence, whether the role is onsite, hybrid or remote and whether it’s at a startup or a Fortune 500 company.” The system is designed to work across a wide range of companies and contexts, giving students flexibility while ensuring their choices align with their personal and professional goals. Each recommendation comes with a clear “why this?” explanation, so students can make confident decisions and discuss options more effectively with advisors. Pro-CaRE was developed by a cross-disciplinary UF team combining expertise in education and engineering. Alongside Shin, the project’s co-principal investigators include Kent Crippen in the College of Education and Bruce Carroll in the Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering. The team is exploring external funding opportunities to expand the usage and test the efficacy on a larger scale. “Ultimately, our goal is to empower students to invest their time in experiences that will have the greatest impact,” Shin said. “Pro-CaRE bridges the gap between what students hope to gain and what internships can truly deliver.”

Using AI tools empowers and burdens users in online Q&A communities featured image

2 min

Using AI tools empowers and burdens users in online Q&A communities

Whether you’ve searched for cooking tips on Reddit, troubleshooted tech problems on community forums or asked questions on platforms like Quora, you’ve benefited from online help communities. These digital spaces rely on people across the world to contribute their knowledge for free, and have become an essential tool for solving problems and learning new skills. New research reveals that generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT are creating a double-edge effect on users in these communities, simultaneously making them more helpful while potentially overwhelming them to the point of decreasing their responses. “On the positive side, AI helps users learn to write more organized and readable answers, leading to a noticeable increase in the number of responses,” explained Liangfei Qiu, Ph.D., study coauthor and PricewaterhouseCoopers Professor at the University of Florida Warrington College of Business. “However, when users rely too heavily on AI, the mental effort required to process and refine AI outputs can actually reduce participation. In other words, AI both empowers and burdens contributors: it enables more engagement and better readability, but too much reliance can slow people down.” The study examined Stack Overflow, one of the world’s largest question-and-answer coding platforms for computer programmers, to investigate the impact of generative AI on both the quality and quantity of user contributions. Qiu and his coauthor Guohou Shan of Northeastern University’s D’Amore-McKim School of Business measured the impact of AI on users’ number of answers generated per day, answer length and readability. Specifically, they found that users who used AI tools to generate their responses contributed almost 17% more answers per day compared to those who didn’t use AI. The answers generated with AI were both shorter by about 23% and easier to read. However, when people relied too heavily on AI tools, their participation decreased. Qiu and Shan noted that the additional cognitive burden associated with heavier AI usage negatively affected the impact on a user’s answer quality. For online help communities grappling with AI policies, this research provides valuable insight into how these policies can be updated in the current AI environment. While some communities, like Stack Overflow, have banned AI tools, this research suggests that a more nuanced approach could be a better solution. Instead of banning AI entirely, the researchers suggest striking a balance between allowing AI usage while promoting responsible and moderated use. This approach, they argue, would enable users to benefit from efficiency and learning opportunities, while not compromising quality content and user cognition. “For platform leaders, the takeaway is clear: AI can boost participation if thoughtfully integrated, but its cognitive demands must be managed to sustain long-term user contributions,” Qiu said.

View all posts
Powered by