Fast breathing and an elevated heart rate are often linked with rapid decision-making. Under pressure, people may become more cautious in an effort to avoid losses, whether they are making an investment, handling a tense workplace situation, or choosing a meal quickly. Slower breathing and a calmer cardiovascular state, by contrast, may encourage a more positive assessment of potential outcomes and make people more willing to take risks.

How Breathing Connects the Body and Brain

Decision-making has traditionally been viewed as a process centered mainly in the brain. The new research examined a broader possibility: that signals from other parts of the body can change brain activity and influence the choices people make.

The study was led by Prof. Soyoung Q Park in collaboration with researchers from institutions including the Neuroscience Research Center at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, and the German Naval Institute of Maritime Medicine.

“Our decisions are rarely determined solely by external information. Rather, our judgment emerges from the interplay between cognitive processes and our current bodily state. It was previously unknown how the conscious regulation of our body, for example through targeted breathing, could actively control our decision-making process. We wanted to create a physiological shift using a slow breathing pattern to change the quality of our decisions,” explains Soyoung Q Park, head of the Department of Decision Neuroscience and Nutrition at DIfE, summarizing the research question.

Testing Whether Longer Exhales Change Decisions

The researchers studied 41 healthy participants while they made risky choices under carefully controlled breathing conditions. Participants followed visual breathing instructions and either breathed at their normal individual pace or slowed their breathing while extending the exhalation phase (2:8 inhale-exhale ratio).

As the participants completed a series of risk-related decisions, the research team measured several aspects of their physical and neurological responses. Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to track brain activity, while breathing patterns, heart activity, skin conductance, and pupil responses were monitored at the same time.

This combination of measurements allowed the researchers to test whether extending the exhale did more than simply lower heart rate. They also wanted to determine whether the breathing pattern directly changed how the brain processed potential rewards.

Longer Exhalation Shifted Choices Toward Reward

The results showed that extended exhalation slowed heart rate and was associated with riskier choices. Importantly, the change appeared to come from greater attention to possible rewards rather than reduced concern about potential losses. Participants still responded to losses in a similar way.

The researchers also detected stronger activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the precuneus. These brain regions are involved in reward processing and in regulating the timing between heartbeats, a measure known as heart rate variability.

“Our study thus underscores the transformative role of breath-based interventions. The interplay between breathing and cardiac dynamics makes the brain more receptive to rewards,” explains lead author Wenhao Huang, interpreting the results.

What the Findings Could Mean for Breathing Techniques

The work adds to a growing field focused on body-brain communication and supports neurovisceral models, which propose that a person’s physical state can strongly shape cognitive processes.

Park explains: “Breathing techniques have accompanied humanity for millennia across various religions and cultures. With this study, we provide scientific proof that it is a reliable and targeted method capable of controlling our decisions.”

Because controlled breathing is simple, inexpensive, and relatively easy to learn, the researchers say it could have value as a tool for everyday self-regulation. It may also have potential as a supportive, non-pharmacological approach in clinical settings, particularly for conditions such as anxiety disorders or depression, which can involve disrupted autonomic regulation and altered responses to reward.

Could Breathing Influence Eating Behavior?

Future studies will need to determine whether the same effects appear in broader clinical populations, including people with overweight. The researchers are particularly interested in whether breathing techniques could influence food-related decisions, since eating behavior is strongly affected by both reward processing and a person’s physical state.

“Since dietary decisions are strongly influenced by reward assessment and physical state, targeted breath regulation could also play a role in consciously perceiving and more effectively managing eating behavior,” Park summarizes for future research activities.

This study was supported by the Federal Ministry for Research, Technology and Space [Grant 01GP2210C (DecEnt-Project), Grant 01EE2301E for the conceptual development of the German Center for Mental Health; Grant 82DZD03D03 (German Center for Diabetes Research)], the Ministry for Science, Research and Culture of the State of Brandenburg (MWFK). Ignacio Rebollo was supported by the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action (MSCA) BRAINSTOM (grant agreement no. 101028203).

Iceberg calving is a normal part of the life cycle of outlet glaciers, but scientists monitor these events closely for clues about longer-term signs of instability. Petermann is one of Greenland’s largest marine-terminating glaciers and helps control the flow of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet into the ocean. Because of that role, changes in its stability could have implications for sea level rise.

A Giant Ice Island Breaks From Petermann Glacier

The summer 2026 calving was first identified on August 4 by Adam Garbo, a doctoral student in glaciology at the University of Ottawa, using imagery from the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-1 mission. Garbo and an international group of researchers have been relying on remote sensing to monitor Petermann Glacier and follow changes in its floating ice tongue.

According to the team, the large flat-topped iceberg, known as an “ice island,” measured just over 76 square kilometers (29 square miles) when it separated from the glacier. That made it the largest iceberg to break from Petermann since the 2012 event, which produced an ice island covering 130 square kilometers. Earlier major calving events occurred in 2008 (31 square kilometers) and 2010 (just over 250 square kilometers).

Scientists had actually been preparing for an even larger break. Garbo and his colleagues were watching one of several major rifts that appeared likely to eventually cut across the entire ice tongue. Instead, the glacier fractured along a different crack.

“What surprised us was that the calving instead followed a different fracture, producing a smaller ice island than we had originally anticipated,” Garbo said.

As of late August, two large rifts were still present. Researchers expect them to eventually release new ice islands measuring roughly 94 square kilometers and 84 square kilometers, although no one knows exactly when those breaks will occur.

The Iceberg Heads Toward Nares Strait

Glaciologist Mauri Pelto of Nichols College has also been tracking the iceberg using imagery from NASA-USGS Landsat satellites. After separating from the glacier, the berg moved down Petermann Fjord toward Nares Strait at an average speed of about 3 kilometers per day during its first week.

It eventually approached the point where the fjord meets Nares Strait and collided with a small rocky outcrop called Joe Island (Joe Ø). The encounter was captured by the OLI (Operational Land Imager) aboard Landsat 9 on August 23 and August 24. A closer look at the August 24 scene is shown at the top of this article.

Joe Island sits near the entrance to Petermann Fjord, putting it directly in the path of many ice islands leaving the glacier. Such collisions can trigger the beginning of an iceberg’s breakup. One notable example occurred when a 2010 ice island struck Joe Island and split into two pieces.

Pelto noted that icebergs from Petermann are generally thinner and more fragile than those produced by Greenland glaciers such as Jakobshavn and Helheim. They are also much thinner than the enormous icebergs that break away from Antarctica.

A Collision That Failed to Break It Apart

Despite that fragility, the new Petermann ice island remained intact after striking Joe Island.

“We were certainly watching closely as it interacted with Joe Island and were impressed that it survived the interaction without further fragmentation,” Garbo said.

At the time it broke away, the ice island was estimated to be less than 150 meters thick. Winds and surface currents later carried it out of Petermann Fjord, while satellite observations showed it pivoting away from Joe Island and moving southwest through Nares Strait.

Its journey will gradually become more destructive. Tides, winds, ocean currents, and melting will continue weakening the iceberg until it eventually fractures into smaller pieces.

Where Greenland’s Ice Islands Can Go Next

Some thicker icebergs that break from tidewater glaciers without floating ice shelf extensions can scrape along the seabed or become grounded inside a fjord. Ice islands from Petermann may instead travel farther before running aground. Many have eventually become “grounded” near the coasts of Coburg and Baffin islands.

Garbo and his colleagues noted that Petermann ice islands and the fragments they produce can travel long distances through Arctic waters. Along the way, they can create hazards for ships, marine operations, and infrastructure.

At the same time, they play another role in the ocean. As the ice slowly melts, it releases freshwater into surrounding waters, carrying the influence of Greenland’s glaciers far beyond the fjord where the iceberg first broke free.

A new analysis from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment has now uncovered a particularly intriguing event. Researchers recorded a single particle interaction that has proven difficult to explain using known background signals produced by ordinary matter.

The finding is not statistically strong enough to qualify as a discovery. Even so, researchers say it represents the most compelling potential dark matter signal LZ has reported so far.

A Giant Detector Nearly a Mile Underground

LZ is an international project involving 250 scientists and engineers from 39 institutions. The experiment is managed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and operates nearly one mile underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in South Dakota.

At the heart of the detector are 10 tonnes of extremely pure liquid xenon. The instrument was designed primarily to search for WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles, one of the leading candidates proposed to explain dark matter.

The new results were presented during a scientific talk at the 2026 TeV Particle Astrophysics conference in Japan. The paper will also be posted to arXiv and submitted to Physical Review Letters.

“We’re very intrigued to see this event in the data, in the region where we expect dark matter to show up and the competing backgrounds are very low,” said Rick Gaitskell, a professor at Brown University and the spokesperson for LZ. “With only one event, we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. We are not claiming to have seen dark matter. But we have seen something interesting that we want to share with the scientific community for their input.”

Searching a New Part of the Data

The LZ collaboration examines its experimental results in batches. For this latest study, scientists analyzed 220 live days of observations gathered between March 2023 and April 2024.

Researchers had previously searched the same dataset for very faint signatures associated with the simplest forms of WIMP interactions. This time, they expanded the search to include a wider variety of possible WIMP interactions capable of depositing larger amounts of energy inside the detector.

LZ is especially sensitive to events of this kind, while its design also helps scientists reduce the chances of mistaking ordinary particle interactions for dark matter.

“This was a detailed study in a region we hadn’t explored within this dataset, and we spent months of additional effort to understand all the possible causes of background events,” said Sam Eriksen, a senior research associate at the University of Bristol in the U.K. and lead author of the study. “We understand our detector and the backgrounds so well that even a single outstanding event, like the one we found, is important. We expect dark matter events to be extremely rare, so only a handful could mark the first detection of WIMP dark matter.”

What the Mysterious Event Could Mean

If dark matter really did produce the unusual signal, the responsible WIMP would probably have a mass of at least 200 GeV/c2 (gigaelectronvolts). That would make it more than 200 times as massive as a proton.

Such a result would also point toward a particular type of interaction between WIMPs and ordinary matter that goes beyond the simplest models typically considered in dark matter searches.

There is an important reason scientists are remaining cautious. Particle physics generally requires a result to reach “5-sigma” statistical significance before it is considered a discovery. The new LZ finding currently sits at 2.6 sigma.

According to the researchers, that corresponds to roughly a 0.5% chance that the unusual event could be produced by known background sources.

More observations will be crucial. As LZ collects additional data, scientists will be able to see whether the statistical significance of the event increases or whether the apparent signal eventually disappears.

LZ has already assembled the world’s largest dataset for dark matter searches and will continue gathering WIMP data at SURF, giving researchers much stronger statistics in the future.

How LZ Separates Dark Matter From Background Noise

The experiment searches for dark matter by watching for characteristic flashes of light created when particles deposit energy inside the detector.

The challenge is that ordinary matter can also produce particle interactions. LZ therefore uses several layers of protection and analysis to identify these background events and prevent them from being mistaken for dark matter.

Its underground location provides one of the first defenses. Nearly a mile of rock above the experiment blocks much of the cosmic ray radiation arriving from space. A surrounding water tank and additional outer detectors help shield the central detector from background neutrons.

Researchers also use sophisticated computational techniques to distinguish different kinds of particle interactions and reject events that imitate the signatures expected from dark matter.

The unusual event has attracted particular attention because, so far, it has not revealed the kinds of problems scientists normally find when they investigate an outlier more closely.

“Outlier events in the data are not unexpected, but they usually stand out as a background of some kind when you look at them deeper,” said Aaron Manalaysay, a physicist at Berkeley Lab and the chair of LZ’s Institutional Board. “This is the first example in any experiment I’ve worked on of an outlier that appears valid in every way. Of course, we’re still twisting our brains trying to think if there’s a rare background mechanism we could’ve missed, but it’s thrilling to wonder if this could be the first hint of a dark-matter observation.”

For now, one unexplained event is not enough to say that dark matter has finally been detected. But because the signal appeared in a region where dark matter could be expected and has survived extensive scrutiny, researchers believe it deserves close attention as the experiment continues collecting data.

International Support for the Dark Matter Search

LZ is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science user facility.

Additional support comes from the Science & Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom; the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Dark Matter Particle Physics; and the Institute for Basic Science, Korea.

Thirty-nine institutions of higher education and advanced research provided support to LZ. The LZ collaboration also acknowledges the assistance of the Sanford Underground Research Facility.