Human Brain Can Only Process So Much Information At Once
April Flowers
1-Nov-2012

Even the most intelligent, complex brains can be taken by a swindler’s story, a 
new study from Case Western Reserve University shows, even stories that prove 
false upon a second look.
The new study, published online in the journal NeuroImage, reveals that when 
the brain fires up the network of neurons that allows a person to empathize, 
the network used for analysis is suppressed. Our ability to appreciate the 
human cost of our action is repressed when the analytic network is engaged.
Our brains cycle between the social and analytical networks at rest, when 
presented with a task, however healthy adults engage the appropriate neural 
pathway. We have built-in neural constraints on our ability to be both 
empathetic and analytic at the same time, the study shows.
The findings of this new study suggest that established theories about two 
competing networks within the brain need to be revised. It also provides 
insights into how a healthy mind works versus a mentally ill or developmentally 
disabled brain.
“This is the cognitive structure we’ve evolved,” said Anthony Jack, an 
assistant professor of cognitive science at Case Western Reserve. “Empathetic 
and analytic thinking are, at least to some extent, mutually exclusive in the 
brain.”
Previous studies revealed two large-scale brain networks are in tension in the 
brain: the default mode network and the task positive network. Other 
researchers have suggested that different mechanisms drive this tension. For 
example, one theory says that we have one network for engaging in goal directed 
tasks, positing that our second network allows the mind to wander.
Jack and his colleagues show that adults presented with social or analytical 
external stimuli problems consistently engaged the appropriate neural pathway 
to solve the problem. The other pathway was repressed. They used functional 
magnetic resonance imaging to record the see-sawing brain activity.
The question which inspired the study was a philosophical query. Jack said, 
“The most persistent question in the philosophy of mind is the problem of 
consciousness. Why can we describe the workings of a brain, but that doesn’t 
tell us what it’s like to be that person?”
“The disconnect between experiential understanding and scientific understanding 
is known as the explanatory gap,” Jack said. “In 2006, the philosopher Philip 
Robbins [professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri] and I got 
together and we came up with a pretty crazy, bold hypothesis: that the 
explanatory gap is driven by our neural structure. I was genuinely surprised to 
see how powerfully these findings fit that theory.”
The same neural phenomenon drives the explanatory gap as when we look at a 
visual illusion such as the duck-rabbit, the study suggests. When you look at 
the drawing, you can see the duck facing one way or the rabbit facing the 
other, but not both at once.
“That is called perceptual rivalry, and it occurs because of neural inhibition 
between the two representations,” Jack said. “What we see in this study is 
similar, but much more wide-scale. We see neural inhibition between the entire 
brain network we use to socially, emotionally, and morally engage with others, 
and the entire network we use for scientific, mathematical and logical 
reasoning.”
“This shows scientific accounts really do leave something out – the human 
touch. A major challenge for the science of the mind is how we can better 
translate between the cold and distant mechanical descriptions that 
neuroscience produces, and the emotionally engaged intuitive understanding 
which allows us to relate to one another as people.”
Forty-five healthy college students were recruited, and each was asked to take 
five 10-minute turns inside a magnetic resonance imager. During these sessions, 
the researchers presented them with 20 written and 20 video problems that 
required them to think about how others might feel. They were also presented 
with an equal number of written and video problems that required physics to 
solve.
Each video required the students to provide an answer to a yes-no question 
within 7 seconds. The sessions in the imager included twenty 27-second rest 
periods, and variable delays of 1,3,or 5 seconds. During each rest period, the 
students would look at a red cross on the screen in front of them and relax.
The MRI images revealed that social problems deactivated the brain regions 
associated with analysis and activated the social network, which held true 
regardless of the media the question was presented in. The physics questions, 
on the other hand, deactivated the brain regions associated with empathizing 
and activated the analytical network.
“When subjects are lying in a scanner with nothing to do, which we call the 
resting state, they naturally cycle between the two networks,” Jack said. “This 
tells us that it’s the structure of the adult brain that is driving this, that 
it’s a physiological constraint on cognition.”
The results of this study will have bearing on neuropsychiatric disorders from 
anxiety and depression to ADHD and schizophrenia, which are all characterized 
by social dysfunction of some sort.
“Treatment needs to target a balance between these two networks. At present 
most rehabilitation, and more broadly most educational efforts of any sort, 
focus on tuning up the analytic network. Yet, we found more cortex dedicated to 
the social network.”
The findings most clearly impact the study of developmental disabilities such 
as autism and Williams syndrome. People with autism usually have poor social 
skills, but a strong ability to solve visuospatial problems, such as mentally 
manipulating two and three-dimensional figures.  Williams syndrome sufferers 
are warm and friendly, but perform very poorly on visuospatial tests.Jack warns 
that even healthy people can come to rely too heavily on one network or the 
other.
“You want the CEO of a company to be highly analytical in order to run a 
company efficiently, otherwise it will go out of business,” he said. “But, you 
can lose your moral compass if you get stuck in an analytic way of thinking.”
“You’ll never get by without both networks,” Jack continued. “You don’t want to 
favor one, but cycle efficiently between them, and employ the right network at 
the right time.”
Further research is needed to test the theory, and the group is currently 
investigating whether brains will shift from the social to the analytical when 
shown people depicted in dehumanizing ways – such as an animal or object.  They 
are also studying how disgust and social stereotyping confound our moral 
compass by activating the analytical network.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112722935/brain-empathy-analytical-thinking-103112/
                                                                                
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Mental Health Advocacy (News 'N Views) India" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/MhaNewsViewsIndia?hl=en
-------------
Affiliated Groups :  MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY INDIA
[email protected]
Discussions on mental health law / policy / plan monitoring / human rights etc 
[email protected]
India-specific news and views related to mental health
[email protected]
Information and support to carers of people with mental health issues
[email protected]
Mutual support and sharing of experiential knowledge, skills and social 
learning amongst peers

Reply via email to