volitional continuum
Might as well add this relevant article to the fray.
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/kuhnen/htm/neuroeconreadinggroup/nyas_07.pdf
Resisting the Power of Temptations
The Right Prefrontal Cortex and Self-Control
DARIA KNOCHa,b,c AND ERNST FEHRa,c
aInstitute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich,
Bl¨umlisalpstrasse, Zurich, Switzerland
bDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
cCollegium Helveticum, Schmelzbergstrasse, Zurich, Switzerland
ABSTRACT: Imagine you are overweight and you spot your favorite pastry in the storefront of a bakery. How do you manage to resist this temptation? Or to give other examples, how do you manage to restrain yourself from overspending or succumbing to sexual temptations? The present article summarizes two recent studies stressing the fundamental importance of inhibition in the process of decision making. Based on the results of these studies, we dare to claim that the capacity to resist temptation depends on the activity level of the right prefrontal cortex (PFC).
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/kuhnen/htm/neuroeconreadinggroup/nyas_07.pdf
Resisting the Power of Temptations
The Right Prefrontal Cortex and Self-Control
DARIA KNOCHa,b,c AND ERNST FEHRa,c
aInstitute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich,
Bl¨umlisalpstrasse, Zurich, Switzerland
bDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
cCollegium Helveticum, Schmelzbergstrasse, Zurich, Switzerland
ABSTRACT: Imagine you are overweight and you spot your favorite pastry in the storefront of a bakery. How do you manage to resist this temptation? Or to give other examples, how do you manage to restrain yourself from overspending or succumbing to sexual temptations? The present article summarizes two recent studies stressing the fundamental importance of inhibition in the process of decision making. Based on the results of these studies, we dare to claim that the capacity to resist temptation depends on the activity level of the right prefrontal cortex (PFC).
argumzio | 2 years ago
Reply
volitional continuum
J Neurosci. 2009 Mar 11;29(10):3059-66.
Neural suppression of irrelevant information underlies optimal working memory performance.
Zanto TP, Gazzaley A.
Department of Neurology and Physiology, Keck Center for Integrative Neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco, California, 94158, USA.
Our ability to focus attention on task-relevant information and ignore distractions is reflected by differential enhancement and suppression of neural activity in sensory cortex (i.e., top-down modulation). Such selective, goal-directed modulation of activity may be intimately related to memory, such that the focus of attention biases the likelihood of successfully maintaining relevant information by limiting interference from irrelevant stimuli. Despite recent studies elucidating the mechanistic overlap between attention and memory, the relationship between top-down modulation of visual processing during working memory (WM) encoding, and subsequent recognition performance has not yet been established. Here, we provide neurophysiological evidence in healthy, young adults that top-down modulation of early visual processing (< 200 ms from stimulus onset) is intimately related to subsequent WM performance, such that the likelihood of successfully remembering relevant information is associated with limiting interference from irrelevant stimuli. The consequences of a failure to ignore distractors on recognition performance was replicated for two types of feature-based memory, motion direction and color. Moreover, attention to irrelevant stimuli was reflected neurally during the WM maintenance period as an increased memory load. These results suggest that neural enhancement of relevant information is not the primary determinant of high-level performance, but rather optimal WM performance is dependent on effectively filtering irrelevant information through neural suppression to prevent overloading a limited memory capacity.
do we all have the same amount of "free will"?
Neural suppression of irrelevant information underlies optimal working memory performance.
Zanto TP, Gazzaley A.
Department of Neurology and Physiology, Keck Center for Integrative Neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco, California, 94158, USA.
Our ability to focus attention on task-relevant information and ignore distractions is reflected by differential enhancement and suppression of neural activity in sensory cortex (i.e., top-down modulation). Such selective, goal-directed modulation of activity may be intimately related to memory, such that the focus of attention biases the likelihood of successfully maintaining relevant information by limiting interference from irrelevant stimuli. Despite recent studies elucidating the mechanistic overlap between attention and memory, the relationship between top-down modulation of visual processing during working memory (WM) encoding, and subsequent recognition performance has not yet been established. Here, we provide neurophysiological evidence in healthy, young adults that top-down modulation of early visual processing (< 200 ms from stimulus onset) is intimately related to subsequent WM performance, such that the likelihood of successfully remembering relevant information is associated with limiting interference from irrelevant stimuli. The consequences of a failure to ignore distractors on recognition performance was replicated for two types of feature-based memory, motion direction and color. Moreover, attention to irrelevant stimuli was reflected neurally during the WM maintenance period as an increased memory load. These results suggest that neural enhancement of relevant information is not the primary determinant of high-level performance, but rather optimal WM performance is dependent on effectively filtering irrelevant information through neural suppression to prevent overloading a limited memory capacity.
do we all have the same amount of "free will"?
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
I'll throw these two in here:
----
Practice- Related Improvement in Working Memory is Modulated by Changes in Processing External Interference
Working memory (WM) performance is impaired by the presence of external interference. Accordingly, more efficient processing of intervening stimuli with practice may lead to enhanced WM performance. To explore the role of practice on the impact that interference has on WM performance, we studied young adults with electroencephalography (EEG) recordings as they performed three motion direction, delayed-recognition tasks. One task was presented without interference, while two tasks introduced different types of interference during the interval of memory maintenance: distractors and interruptors. Distractors were to be ignored, while interruptors demanded attention based on task instructions for a perceptual discrimination. We show that WM performance was disrupted by both types of interference, but interference-induced disruption abated across a single experimental session through rapid learning. WM accuracy and response time improved in a manner that was correlated with changes in early neural measures of interference processing in visual cortex (i.e. P1 suppression and N1 enhancement). These results suggest practice-related changes in processing interference exert a positive influence on WM performance, highlighting the importance of filtering irrelevant information and the dynamic interactions that exist between neural processes of perception, attention and WM during learning.
---
and...
---
Overcoming Perceptual Features in Logical Reasoning: A Parametric Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study
Participants experience difficulty detecting that an item depicting an H-in-a-square confirms the logical rule, “If there is not a T then there is not a circle.” Indeed, there is a perceptual conflict between the items mentioned in the rule (T and circle) and in the test item (H and square). Much evidence supports the claim that correct responding depends on detecting and resolving such conflicts. One aim of this study is to find more precise neurological evidence in support of this claim by using a parametric event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) paradigm. We scanned 20 participants while they were required to judge whether or not a conditional rule was verified (or falsified) by a corresponding target item. We found that the right middorsolateral prefrontal cortex (mid-DLPFC) was specifically engaged, together with the medial frontal (anterior cingulate and presupplementary motor area [pre-SMA]) and parietal cortices, when mismatching was present. Activity in these regions was also linearly correlated with the level of mismatch between the rule and the test item. Furthermore, a psychophysiological interaction analysis revealed that activation of the mid-DLPFC, which increases as mismatching does, was accompanied by a decrease in functional integration with the bilateral primary visual cortex and an increase in functional integration with the right parietal cortex. This indicates a need to break away from perceptual cues in order to select an appropriate logical response. These findings strongly indicate that the regions involved in inhibitory control (including the right mid-DLPFC and the medial frontal cortex) are engaged when participants have to overcome perceptual mismatches in order to provide a logical response. These findings are also consistent with neuroimaging studies investigating the belief bias, where prior beliefs similarly interfere with logical reasoning.
---
----
Practice- Related Improvement in Working Memory is Modulated by Changes in Processing External Interference
Working memory (WM) performance is impaired by the presence of external interference. Accordingly, more efficient processing of intervening stimuli with practice may lead to enhanced WM performance. To explore the role of practice on the impact that interference has on WM performance, we studied young adults with electroencephalography (EEG) recordings as they performed three motion direction, delayed-recognition tasks. One task was presented without interference, while two tasks introduced different types of interference during the interval of memory maintenance: distractors and interruptors. Distractors were to be ignored, while interruptors demanded attention based on task instructions for a perceptual discrimination. We show that WM performance was disrupted by both types of interference, but interference-induced disruption abated across a single experimental session through rapid learning. WM accuracy and response time improved in a manner that was correlated with changes in early neural measures of interference processing in visual cortex (i.e. P1 suppression and N1 enhancement). These results suggest practice-related changes in processing interference exert a positive influence on WM performance, highlighting the importance of filtering irrelevant information and the dynamic interactions that exist between neural processes of perception, attention and WM during learning.
---
and...
---
Overcoming Perceptual Features in Logical Reasoning: A Parametric Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study
Participants experience difficulty detecting that an item depicting an H-in-a-square confirms the logical rule, “If there is not a T then there is not a circle.” Indeed, there is a perceptual conflict between the items mentioned in the rule (T and circle) and in the test item (H and square). Much evidence supports the claim that correct responding depends on detecting and resolving such conflicts. One aim of this study is to find more precise neurological evidence in support of this claim by using a parametric event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) paradigm. We scanned 20 participants while they were required to judge whether or not a conditional rule was verified (or falsified) by a corresponding target item. We found that the right middorsolateral prefrontal cortex (mid-DLPFC) was specifically engaged, together with the medial frontal (anterior cingulate and presupplementary motor area [pre-SMA]) and parietal cortices, when mismatching was present. Activity in these regions was also linearly correlated with the level of mismatch between the rule and the test item. Furthermore, a psychophysiological interaction analysis revealed that activation of the mid-DLPFC, which increases as mismatching does, was accompanied by a decrease in functional integration with the bilateral primary visual cortex and an increase in functional integration with the right parietal cortex. This indicates a need to break away from perceptual cues in order to select an appropriate logical response. These findings strongly indicate that the regions involved in inhibitory control (including the right mid-DLPFC and the medial frontal cortex) are engaged when participants have to overcome perceptual mismatches in order to provide a logical response. These findings are also consistent with neuroimaging studies investigating the belief bias, where prior beliefs similarly interfere with logical reasoning.
---
cyberiad | 2 years ago
Reply
? | 2 years ago
Reply
once, i heard that the most important skill of all was the ability to concentrate.
difficult to disagree with that contention.
second paper makes sense, since "superior parietal cortex is critical for manipulation of information in working memory" (title of a paper) so disengagement from the occipital lobes is consistent with the effects of greater mismatch processing.
now the right-dlpfc, she's a tricky one... this brain region is gaining my curiosity.
it is apparently activated for pitch n-back but not for verbal n-back, whereas left-dlpfc is used for both
keepin' on unravelin'
cool papers.
difficult to disagree with that contention.
second paper makes sense, since "superior parietal cortex is critical for manipulation of information in working memory" (title of a paper) so disengagement from the occipital lobes is consistent with the effects of greater mismatch processing.
now the right-dlpfc, she's a tricky one... this brain region is gaining my curiosity.
it is apparently activated for pitch n-back but not for verbal n-back, whereas left-dlpfc is used for both
keepin' on unravelin'
cool papers.
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
cyberiad | 2 years ago
Reply
hah, i said that, i search, i find this... just kickin' stuff
Journal of Vision, Where's Waldo? How the brain earns to categorize and discover desired objects in a cluttered scene
"The current work clarifies how the mechanisms that lead to learning of spatially-invariant categories in What stream cortical areas, such as anterior inferotemporal cortex, can link to representations of their positions in Where stream cortical areas, such as posterior parietal cortex. Thus, when an invariant object category is activated top-down by a cognitive plan, it can selectively activate the locations of sought-after object exemplars in a cluttered scene and shift spatial attention to rapidly identify them. This proposal shows how the Where’s Waldo problem exploits the brain’s solution of how to overcome the complementary deficiencies of What and Where stream processes by using inter-stream interactions that allow both invariant object recognition and spatially selective attention and action to occur."
http://www.journalofvision.org/9/8/173/
Journal of Vision, Where's Waldo? How the brain earns to categorize and discover desired objects in a cluttered scene
"The current work clarifies how the mechanisms that lead to learning of spatially-invariant categories in What stream cortical areas, such as anterior inferotemporal cortex, can link to representations of their positions in Where stream cortical areas, such as posterior parietal cortex. Thus, when an invariant object category is activated top-down by a cognitive plan, it can selectively activate the locations of sought-after object exemplars in a cluttered scene and shift spatial attention to rapidly identify them. This proposal shows how the Where’s Waldo problem exploits the brain’s solution of how to overcome the complementary deficiencies of What and Where stream processes by using inter-stream interactions that allow both invariant object recognition and spatially selective attention and action to occur."
http://www.journalofvision.org/9/8/173/
cyberiad | 2 years ago
Reply
i just read a fascinating comment on the luminosity boards!
"I feel different just after 3 sessions. It’s like this game is adjusting the 'rabbit ears' on my head forcing the static off the screen. Does anyone else feel this way? This is weird."
...entropy and information are negatives of one another
"I feel different just after 3 sessions. It’s like this game is adjusting the 'rabbit ears' on my head forcing the static off the screen. Does anyone else feel this way? This is weird."
...entropy and information are negatives of one another
cyberiad | 2 years ago
Reply
You seem to neglect that we biological entities are opposed to entropy (otherwise we'd be dead). This is why final causation is still prevalent within biology, whereas it finds no quarter in other fields of science (which only accept efficient causation). On the other hand, if information is purely physical, then it will find manifestation in whatever manner that is available to it. Problematically, thermodynamics shows that entropy exists backwards AND forwards in time. So where is the "information"? Nowhere. We've made it ourselves through the peculiar mechanism of final causation. DNB training simply hones this neurobiological mechanism by exposure to a concentrated system of simulated embedded information within a chaotic flow of non-information.
It's not that they're negatives, rather it's that we make them out to be negatives.
;-)
It's not that they're negatives, rather it's that we make them out to be negatives.
;-)
? | 2 years ago
Reply
"a concentrated system of simulated embedded information within a chaotic flow of non-information"
where's waldo, of course. :-P
where's waldo, of course. :-P
cyberiad | 2 years ago
Reply
No. It's more like "that isn't Waldo, but I'll call him that anyway...". And there never will be an actual Waldo for us to find.
:-D
:-D
? | 2 years ago
Reply
"free will" 's legitimacy is irrelevant here; not the point
all must live and act as if it exists, period.
what are the differences between executive functions and "free will"; does a human continuum of one imply a human continuum of the other?
in a venn diagram of executive functioning and "free will", how much overlap?
0%? 50%? 100?
all must live and act as if it exists, period.
what are the differences between executive functions and "free will"; does a human continuum of one imply a human continuum of the other?
in a venn diagram of executive functioning and "free will", how much overlap?
0%? 50%? 100?
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
The idea of free will is not necessary for action to occur. That is only your supposition, and it is groundless at that; hence its legitimacy is not the point, but rather the very point of its supposition is. This is my point.
A pathetic waste of time....
Summary: "free will" dubious (as even you concur) and thus meaningless (scientifically); executive functioning, entropic buffer effects, etc. useful and potentially meaningful relative to top-down modulation of sensory data in WMC; square one holds; metaphysics ignored
You might need free will to act, but I do not.
A pathetic waste of time....
Summary: "free will" dubious (as even you concur) and thus meaningless (scientifically); executive functioning, entropic buffer effects, etc. useful and potentially meaningful relative to top-down modulation of sensory data in WMC; square one holds; metaphysics ignored
You might need free will to act, but I do not.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
By mere words you suppose I embrace it. This is the error which you seem incapable of avoiding, let alone understanding.
Apparently, you have nothing to contribute in sensible answer to the unscientific nature of "free will". I expected better, and that is the only error I have here committed.
Good bye.
Apparently, you have nothing to contribute in sensible answer to the unscientific nature of "free will". I expected better, and that is the only error I have here committed.
Good bye.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
Free will is hardly vindicated by this. The interactive capacity of a neurologically directed biological system to me would seem to be much more significant than any philosophically puerile conception of "volitional" capacity which has so far been thoroughly debased by scientific enquiry. But it seems so few are comfortable relinquishing their sweetly cherished "free will" simply out of psychological cowardice...
? | 3 years ago
Reply
Exercise caution. Analytic types will preen themselves at the first opportunity should you raise a finger against their beloved ideals and beliefs. Philosophical reflection at the cognitive café will not go over well, and someone will be thrown out, it is not unlikely. Science enjoys lording over all endeavours, forgetting its initial birth took place at the hands of a quite different field, especially in times such as these. You may have picked the least opportune moment to contend with the idea of volition here. After all, isn't it simple enough to suppose choice without any means to prove its existence? Trust me, I for one well understand your objection. Nominalism goes in hand in glove with many scientific pursuits--just words.
argumzio | 3 years ago
Reply
cevapcici | 3 years ago
Reply
And I find it funny that you ignore my statement by immediately presenting such a laughable counter against me.
A moment illustrates this from one to the next; I fade out of existence constantly. What I was a moment ago is not what I am now. Do you see that?
A moment illustrates this from one to the next; I fade out of existence constantly. What I was a moment ago is not what I am now. Do you see that?
? | 3 years ago
Reply
No. Even "you" and "I" are lies. But language conceals this lie as a truth.
What can I say? Too bad these lies prove useful. Much could be cleared up by recognizing them for what they are.
What can I say? Too bad these lies prove useful. Much could be cleared up by recognizing them for what they are.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
"free will is hardly vindicated by this"
ummm... ok?
its in quotes (acknowledging inherent ambiguity)
if WMC is chiefly constrained by sensory interference, and people have different susceptibilities to this type of distraction, then it should follow that people are differentially able to "choose" what to pay attention to
hence the continuum...
ummm... ok?
its in quotes (acknowledging inherent ambiguity)
if WMC is chiefly constrained by sensory interference, and people have different susceptibilities to this type of distraction, then it should follow that people are differentially able to "choose" what to pay attention to
hence the continuum...
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
If you acknowledge "inherent ambiguity", then why insist on using these scary terms? Your argumentative stance (it cannot help but be one) is in direct contradiction to what you say about this ambiguity, because you apparently insist on its actuality.
In my thinking, if sensory interference can be modulated by top-down processing, which itself becomes relevant in WMC as this study shows, then it becomes particularly important to explain what exactly this top-down processing involves in regards to its function within the human mimetic structure (brain) rather than to resort to what is a befogging metaphysical stipulation that cannot be discussed in a scientific manner (as argumzio similarly points out). Noting that individuals with higher IQs have much faster and stronger feedback connections, it alone follows that individuals with more sophisticated feedback connections will likely harbour more efficient means of processing selective amounts of information without being hampered by a welter of crude data that only distracts. I do not mean to appear vitriolic (if I do), but you seem to suppose that there is a clear connection between this selectivity, which could in reality be a completely spontaneous outcome of a more sophisticated and efficient mimetic structure (the particulars of which need further probing), and some strange willfulness that is at work, guiding the selective process in a trans-meta-cognitive mode (perhaps?). That much said, is this even useful as a postulation, according to which we could suppose we are able to judge one person as being more suited to complex environments? Save for this ambiguous volitional concept, I would answer yes, for it seems to be remarkably well in telling us who exactly is endowed with the appropriate neural equipment to contend with complicated information. You see, I understand your notion of a continuum, which is extremely interesting, but I do not think you serve this idea well by bringing in an unnecessary idea about "choice".
As an "entropic buffer", I find you were well on your way to a good idea.
Pardon my previous haste and inattention to sufficient clarity.
And, argumzio, yes, you are quite correct to point out the connection to the philosophical enterprise (--you seem familiar with the common rut as far as the analytic mode goes). In many ways science has been dogged by problems simply due to the fact that it pays little heed to philosophic rigour and critical analysis of concepts; the opposite usually takes place. May it be otherwise some day.
In my thinking, if sensory interference can be modulated by top-down processing, which itself becomes relevant in WMC as this study shows, then it becomes particularly important to explain what exactly this top-down processing involves in regards to its function within the human mimetic structure (brain) rather than to resort to what is a befogging metaphysical stipulation that cannot be discussed in a scientific manner (as argumzio similarly points out). Noting that individuals with higher IQs have much faster and stronger feedback connections, it alone follows that individuals with more sophisticated feedback connections will likely harbour more efficient means of processing selective amounts of information without being hampered by a welter of crude data that only distracts. I do not mean to appear vitriolic (if I do), but you seem to suppose that there is a clear connection between this selectivity, which could in reality be a completely spontaneous outcome of a more sophisticated and efficient mimetic structure (the particulars of which need further probing), and some strange willfulness that is at work, guiding the selective process in a trans-meta-cognitive mode (perhaps?). That much said, is this even useful as a postulation, according to which we could suppose we are able to judge one person as being more suited to complex environments? Save for this ambiguous volitional concept, I would answer yes, for it seems to be remarkably well in telling us who exactly is endowed with the appropriate neural equipment to contend with complicated information. You see, I understand your notion of a continuum, which is extremely interesting, but I do not think you serve this idea well by bringing in an unnecessary idea about "choice".
As an "entropic buffer", I find you were well on your way to a good idea.
Pardon my previous haste and inattention to sufficient clarity.
And, argumzio, yes, you are quite correct to point out the connection to the philosophical enterprise (--you seem familiar with the common rut as far as the analytic mode goes). In many ways science has been dogged by problems simply due to the fact that it pays little heed to philosophic rigour and critical analysis of concepts; the opposite usually takes place. May it be otherwise some day.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
Familiar philosophical debates don't need to be re-invoked every time a particular concept is assumed for the sake of argument...
? | 3 years ago
Reply
Was your toe smashed? Don't harry others with meaningless dismissals. Familiarity is hardly a criterion by which to nullify intelligent and informative discourse.
Pah.
Pah.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
Well, I personally think it was not out of hand to bring up the philosophical contention here. To assume scientific pursuit happens without such insight is willful blindness or ignorance of ignorance. Anyway, it is usually taken for granted in these contexts that "decision-making" and other such occurrences are conceived as taking place in the frontal lobes--somewhat side-stepping the issue of free will in a rather sly way--though this isn't without its own problems. Even this decision-making can be hampered by extraordinary events in other areas in human brains, undercutting the supposed decisive potential of the frontal cortices. Obviously the whole human being is important, and the world beyond it, but science makes very slow, incremental progress and cannot answer to this key point with much clarity (though this depends on where one looks). To an extent, I suppose it isn't such a bad thing to use obviously fallacious ideas simply out of utility in driving a point. (But those not familiar with the whole issue will undoubtedly take them literally, so again I think it wasn't a bad decision (yes!) for the above to bring the matter here in explicit terms.)
Surely we can do away with bickering and at least peacefully bask in the enlargement of human intelligence?
Thanks for the article, medicalstudent, even if you slightly regret sharing it at this time. Hopefully a few will tone it down a notch. Life goes on. :-)
Surely we can do away with bickering and at least peacefully bask in the enlargement of human intelligence?
Thanks for the article, medicalstudent, even if you slightly regret sharing it at this time. Hopefully a few will tone it down a notch. Life goes on. :-)
argumzio | 3 years ago
Reply
