Can fake news help you remember real facts better?
A 2020 study published in the journal of Psychological Science explores the idea that fake news can actually help you remember real facts better.
22 October, 2020
Credit: Rawpixel.com on Shutterstock
- In 2019, researchers at Stanford Engineering analyzed the spread of fake news as if it were a strain of Ebola. They adapted a model for understanding diseases that can infect a person more than once to better understand how fake news spreads and gains traction.
- A new study published in 2020 explores the idea that fake news can actually help you remember real facts better.
- "These findings demonstrate one situation in which misinformation reminders can diminish the negative effects of fake-news exposure in the short term," researchers on the project explained.
<p>Fake news spreads like a virus. In 2019, <a href="https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">researchers at Stanford Engineering</a> analyzed the spread of fake news as if it were a strain of Ebola. The researchers adapted a model for understanding diseases that can infect a person more than once to better understand how fake news spreads and gains traction.</p><p>Researchers studied how many people are "susceptible" to the disease (or in this case, how many people are likely to believe a certain piece of fake news). The researchers also looked at how many people are exposed to fake news, how they are actually "infected" (believing the story), and how many people are likely to then spread that "infection" (misinformation) on to others. </p><p>Much like a virus, this study concluded that over time, being exposed to multiple strains of fake news can wear down a person's resistance and make them increasingly susceptible to believing it. The more times a person is exposed to the same fake news, especially if it is coming from an influential source, the more likely they are to become persuaded, no matter the likelihood of such news being true.</p><p>"The so-called 'power-law' of social media, a well-documented pattern in social networks, hold that messages replicate most rapidly if they are targeted at relatively small numbers of influential people with large followings," the <a href="https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus" target="_blank">researchers explained in the Stanford study</a>.</p><ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
Previous studies on misinformation have already paved the way to a better understanding
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU1NzQ4NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNjE2Mjg1Nn0.hs_xHktN1KXUDVoWpHIVBI2sMJy6aRK6tvBVFkqmYjk/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C800%2C0%2C800&height=700" id="8873f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="246bb1920c0f40ccb15e123914de1ab1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fake news concept of misinformation and fake news in the media" />How does misinformation spread?
Credit: Visual Generation on Shutterstock
<p><strong>What is the "continued-influence" effect?</strong></p><p>A challenge in using corrections effectively is that repeating the misinformation can have negative consequences. Research on this effect (referred to as "continued-influence") has shown that information presented as factual that is later deemed false can still contaminate memory and reasoning. The persistence of the continued-influence effect has led researchers to generally recommend avoiding repeating misinformation. </p><p>"Repetition increases familiarity and believability of misinformation," <a href="https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the study explains</a>.</p><p><strong>What is the "familiarity-backfire" effect?</strong></p><p>Studies of this effect have shown that increasing misinformation familiarity through extra exposure to it leads to misattributions of fluency when the context of said information cannot be recalled. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620952797#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A 2017 study</a> examined this effect in myth correction. Subjects rated beliefs in facts and myths of unclear veracity. Then, the facts were affirmed and myths corrected and subjects again made belief ratings. The results suggested a role for familiarity but the myth beliefs remained below pre-manipulation levels. </p>New research into fake news has uncovered something interesting about misinformation
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ddeac998508e09fb9d1b4691d6c20d28"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bJ5qUx1WOsg?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>A 2020 study published in the journal of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620952797" target="_blank">Psychological Science</a> explores the idea that fake news can actually help you remember real facts better.</p><p>Fake news exposure can cause misinformation to be mistakenly remembered and believed. In two experiments, the team (led by Christopher N. Wahlheim) examined whether reminders of misinformation could do the opposite: improve memory for and beliefs in corrections to that fake news. </p><p>The study had subjects reading factual statements and then separate misinformation statements taken from news websites. Then, the subjects read statements that corrected the misinformation. Some misinformation reminders appeared before some corrections but not all. Then, subjects were asked to recall facts, indicate their belief in those recalls, and indicate whether they remembered the corrections and misinformation. </p><p>The results of the study showed that reminders increased recall and belief accuracy. These benefits were greater both when misinformation was recalled and when the subjects remembered that corrections had occurred. </p><p>Researchers on the project <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620952797" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explained</a>: "These findings demonstrate one situation in which misinformation reminders can diminish the negative effects of fake-news exposure in the short term."</p><p><strong>The conclusion: fake-news misinformation that was corrected by fact-checked information can improve both memory and belief accuracy in real information.</strong></p><p>"We examined the effects of providing misinformation reminders before fake-news corrections on memory and belief accuracy. Our study included everyday fake-news misinformation that was corrected by fact-check-verified statements. Building on research using fictional, yet naturalistic, event narratives to show that reminders can counteract misinformation reliance in memory reports," <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620952797" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the researchers</a> explained.</p><p>"It suggests that there may be benefits to learning how someone was being misleading. This knowledge may inform strategies that people use to counteract high exposure to misinformation spread for political gain," <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-10/afps-rtf101620.php" target="_blank">Wahlheim said</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Millennials reconsidering finances and future under COVID-19
A new survey found that 27 percent of millennials are saving more money due to the pandemic, but most can't stay within their budgets.
20 October, 2020
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p class=""><br></p>
<p>It can be tempting to look at the economic history of the last two decades and derive a certain lesson. That lesson being: The millennial generation is screwed. The Washington Post even tagged millennials as the "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/27/millennial-recession-covid/" target="_blank">unluckiest generation in history</a>."</p><p>It's understandable why the punditocracy would think this. Born between 1981 and 1996, millennials exited school and entered work right into the Great Recession. The recession forced many millennials to postpone financial milestones such as marriage, buying a home, retirement savings, or even reliable employment. That global setback quietly became a generational one. While the baby boomers and GenXers recovered their lost wealth relatively quickly, <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/millennial-income?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">millennials couldn't</a> and became the first generation with a standard of living lower than their parents'.</p><p>A decade later, millennials face the pandemic shutdown. Although we can't say with certainty how the pandemic will affect us in the long-term, early <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/17/how-millennials-have-been-impacted-by-pandemic-unemployment.html#:~:text=At%20the%20height%20of%20the,for%20unemployment%20insurance%20since%20March.&text=Data%20from%20the%20Bureau%20of,facing%20longer%2Dstretches%20of%20joblessness" target="_blank">forecasts suggest millennials will again take the brunt</a>. <a href="https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/04/21/about-half-of-lower-income-americans-report-household-job-or-wage-loss-due-to-covid-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pew Research Center</a> data, for example, suggest that about a third of millennial-aged homes have had someone in the household lose a job, while Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data forecast millennials suffering <a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/08/18/the-recession-is-creating-another-generation-gap/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">longer stretches of joblessness</a>.</p><p>"Millennials are in a fundamentally different economic place than previous generations," Reid Cramer, director of the Millennials Initiative at New America, wrote in "<a href="https://www.newamerica.org/millennials/reports/emerging-millennial-wealth-gap/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap</a>. "Relatively flat but volatile incomes, low savings and asset holdings, and higher consumer and student debt have weakened their finances. The Millennial balance sheet is in poor shape."</p>
Taking control of bad luck
<p>According to <a href="https://themanifest.com/accounting/budgeting-money-tips-for-millennials" target="_blank">a recent survey by The Manifest</a>, a business news website, millennials agree with Cramer. The study found that, of millennials surveyed, their largest expenses were housing (66 percent), educational expenses (9 percent), and health insurance (6 percent). In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, millennials are using the remaining 19 percent of their paychecks to budget and increase their savings.</p><p>About a third of millennials said they are saving more money in response to the pandemic and creating new budgets for themselves. In fact, of all generations surveyed, millennials felt the most comfortable creating personal budgets. They were also willing to think critically and adjust budgets to match financial changes, both signs that this highly-educated generation is willing to learn and adapt.</p><p>Millennials still have a rough road ahead, though. According to the survey, about half of millennials make less than $50,000 a year. That puts them into the upper-lower or lower-middle <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20national%20middle,(incomes%20in%202018%20dollars)." target="_blank">income class</a>, depending on where in the country they live. That matches <a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/time-use-of-millennials-and-nonmillennials.htm#:~:text=Among%20full%2Dtime%20wage%20and,with%2031%20percent%20of%20nonmillennials." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">BLS data</a>, which shows millennials earning less than older non-millennials. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/beyond-bls/the-kids-are-alright-millennials-and-the-economy.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The BLS also notes</a> that while millennials have less debt than GenXers, most of that is student loan debt rather than mortgages.</p><p>And despite their budgetary plans, only 11 percent of millennials surveyed were able to stay within budget, while uncertainty still looms in the future job market.<em></em></p><p>With all this said, there are caveats to The Manifest survey. It hosted a relatively small sample size, only surveying 502 Americans. Of those, millennials made up 22 percent of respondents. They weren't even the largest cohort in the study. That was the baby boomers at 32 percent. </p><p>This makes the survey more suggestive than indicative. But the suggestion is that millennials, to borrow a phrase from writer Vicki Robin, are ready to reinterpret their relationship with finances.</p>A push for financial freedom
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a463513bfbe5a2b7d5bcc59f8be265a7"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J-B-b393epk?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>While budgeting and financial savvy have always been important, the millennial generation will need to be far more critical of their relationship with the economy. What <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tDthUWsVM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Robin calls the old roadmap</a>—the idea that "growth is good, more is better, game over"—is unlikely to support millennials as it did past generations. They'll need a new roadmap, charting both a new macro (the relationship between our economic and ecological footprints, for example) and micro (our individual relationships with money).</p><p>Because the macro is a whole other article, we'll stick with the micro here:</p><p><strong>1) Track and cut your spending</strong></p><p>The first step to financial freedom is to track your spending and cut unnecessary purchases. For Robin, these are often the things, services, and subscriptions that we buy out of habit, but we no longer consider whether they add value to our lives.</p><p>A pernicious modern example is the subscription economy. We subscribe to services for food, clothes, television, exercise, self-help, video games, bric-a-brac, computer programs, and on and on. These services quickly fade into the financial background as just another bill we pay. </p><p>But if we watch Netflix nine times out of ten, why pay for Hulu and Disney+ and HBO Max and CBS All access? Instead, every month or so, we should scrutinize our subscriptions to ask whether they still add value to our lives. If they don't, unsubscribe.</p><p><strong>2) Kill your debt</strong></p><p>Debt doesn't just take away money we could save elsewhere; it's also a self-replicating devourer of wealth. Your debt interest rates are almost certainly higher than your investment returns, especially on credit cards. Because of this, no matter your saving rituals, you're likely bleeding wealth the longer you remain in debt.</p><p>Instead, focus on removing debt from your life. Again, credit card debt especially. The good news is that most companies have hardship programs to help debtors. You can call them to see if they can lower your interest rates or provide other helpful services.</p><p>"Financial accommodations are generally readily available right now," Amy Thomann, the head of consumer credit education at TransUnion, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/at-home/manage-finances-save-money-millennials-coronavirus.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told the New York Times</a><u>.</u> "Lenders, just like consumers, understand the hardships that are going on in the economy."</p><p><strong>3) Have an emergency fund</strong></p><p>Of course, you'll need some savings when the unexpected happens. Say—I don't know—a worldwide pandemic? Experts like Robin and Thomann recommend people have three to six months' worth of expenses on reserve. These should be in liquid assets so you can access them easily and quickly.</p><p>Of course, that's not always feasible, but you should save what you can. </p><p><strong>4) Find social outlets that don't cost</strong></p><p>The economic shutdown has offered one financial boon: It has revealed ways we can enjoy each other's company with overspending. We can host movies remotely with our friends. Play video games online. Enjoy physical-distance strolls through the park. And a host of other creative connections. After the pandemic, the occasional bar hop or Friday dinner out can still be a guilty pleasure. But unlike sitcom characters, we shouldn't be spending our social lives on the set of our favorite coffee shops or local watering holes.</p><p><strong>5) Reconsider your relationship with money</strong></p><p>Robin pushes her readers to be financially free. That is, to understand that there's an economy, people have a relationship with it, but it shouldn't become an obsession that runs their lives. As <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDaBjc4QyWU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">she told <em>Big Think</em></a>: "It's like there are so many presumptions that drive us into wage [slavery], and it doesn't matter whether you are at the low end or the high end. If you are engaged in that sort of anxious process of 'more, more, more,' you are not free."</p><p>The millennial generation has certainly been dealt a bum hand, but it's perhaps defeatist, and more than a little premature, to label them the unluckiest generation. Perhaps after being led astray by the old roadmap, they will be the generation to reconsider their relationship with money—not as an end itself but a means to a healthier and more beneficial life. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
How confident are you in making decisions?
New research pinpoints the neurons responsible for your choices.
15 October, 2020
Credit: Victoriano Izquierdo on Unsplash
- Researchers at the University Hospital Bonn linked confidence in decision-making to neurons in the medial temporal lobe.
- Learned memories appear to instill confidence in many of the decisions you make.
- The team believes identifying these individual neurons opens up new areas of research moving forward.
<p><br></p>
<p>Earlier this week, we <a href="https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/split-decision-making-process" target="_self">discussed the role</a> the cerebellum plays in split-second decision-making. Researchers at the University of Colorado discovered that this brain region, which has previously been implicated in the coordination of voluntary movements as well as motor functions like balance, posture, and coordination, also plays an important role in quick thinking.</p><p>The brain is complex. While certain regions are responsible for particular actions, it's a network rather than a series of standalone segments that coordinate on occasion. Researchers at the University Hospital Bonn have now added another piece to the cognitive jigsaw of decision-making: a network of 830 nerve cells in the medial temporal lobe (MTL). </p><p>Their <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(20)31352-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS096098222031352X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue" target="_blank">study</a>, published in the journal, Current Biology, looked at confidence levels when deciding between choices. During the course of a normal day, there are some decisions that we're super confident in, sometimes to the point where it appears to be the only course of action. Other decisions are no so clear-cut. </p><p>The team wanted to identify the neural regions responsible for this confidence interval. They showed a group of a dozen men and women photos of different snacks, such as a bag of potato chips and a chocolate bar. They asked each volunteer to indicate what snack they'd rather eat. Confidence was measured by how far they moved the slider over their chosen snack. </p><p>This study didn't just involve two snacks, mind you. In total, each participant looked at 190 pairs. While they were busy sliding, the researchers recorded activity in the temporal lobe. Alexander Unruh-Pinheiro, in the Department of Epileptology, <a href="https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/230-2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explains</a> what they saw. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We discovered that the frequency of the electrical pulses in some neurons, in other words their 'firing rate', changed with increasing decision confidence. For instance, some fired more frequently, the more confident the respective test person was in their decision."</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0a8108d98cee567d7f7d41ce9befe5fd"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wyoU0y8UG1k?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>The team claims this is the first time decision confidence has been measured in such a manner. Professor Florian Mormann notes that these neurons also play a role in memory formation and retention. He speculates that these processes are linked: you file confidence during memory consolidation, which then influences similar future decisions. </p><p>While the investigation of individual neurons in living humans is often considered ethically dubious—similar research was previously conducted on primates—the 12 participants in this study all suffered from severe epilepsy. Since this disease originates in the same brain region, the team was able to safely pinpoint the exact location of the MTL. </p><p>In the study discussed earlier this week, the cerebellum is close to the brainstem, where quick decisions can mean the difference between life and death. This research in Bonn focused on the amygdala, the brain's threat-detection mechanism, and the hippocampi, the seat of memory consolidation. Piecing these studies together makes for a compelling narrative, detailing a neurological basis for learned memories and decision-making processes.</p><p>Mormann says his team was surprised by the results. Evidence that subjective value to alternatives—in this case, chocolate instead of chips—is reflected in individual neurons opens up new areas of research moving forward.</p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>. His new book is</em> "<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KRVMP2M?pf_rd_r=MDJW43337675SZ0X00FH&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy</a>."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
How we make moral decisions
In some situations, asking "what if everyone did that?" is a common strategy for judging whether an action is right or wrong.
14 October, 2020
Photo by Chinh Le Duc on Unsplash
Imagine that one day you're riding the train and decide to hop the turnstile to avoid paying the fare.
<p> It probably won't have a big impact on the financial well-being of your local transportation system. But now ask yourself, "What if everyone did that?" The outcome is much different — the system would likely go bankrupt and no one would be able to ride the train anymore.</p><p>Moral philosophers have long believed this type of reasoning, known as universalization, is the best way to make moral decisions. But do ordinary people spontaneously use this kind of moral judgment in their everyday lives?</p><p>In a study of several hundred people, MIT and Harvard University researchers have confirmed that people do use this strategy in particular situations called "threshold problems." These are social dilemmas in which harm can occur if everyone, or a large number of people, performs a certain action. The authors devised a mathematical model that quantitatively predicts the judgments they are likely to make. They also showed, for the first time, that children as young as 4 years old can use this type of reasoning to judge right and wrong.</p><p>"This mechanism seems to be a way that we spontaneously can figure out what are the kinds of actions that I can do that are sustainable in my community," says Sydney Levine, a postdoc at MIT and Harvard and the lead author of the study.</p><p>Other authors of the study are Max Kleiman-Weiner, a postdoc at MIT and Harvard; Laura Schulz, an MIT professor of cognitive science; Joshua Tenenbaum, a professor of computational cognitive science at MIT and a member of MIT's Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines and Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL); and Fiery Cushman, an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard. The paper is appearing this week in the <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em>.</p>
<h3>Judging morality</h3><p>The concept of universalization has been included in philosophical theories since at least the 1700s. Universalization is one of several strategies that philosophers believe people use to make moral judgments, along with outcome-based reasoning and rule-based reasoning. However, there have been few psychological studies of universalization, and many questions remain regarding how often this strategy is used, and under what circumstances.</p><p>To explore those questions, the MIT/Harvard team asked participants in their study to evaluate the morality of actions taken in situations where harm could occur if too many people perform the action. In one hypothetical scenario, John, a fisherman, is trying to decide whether to start using a new, more efficient fishing hook that will allow him to catch more fish. However, if every fisherman in his village decided to use the new hook, there would soon be no fish left in the lake.</p><p>The researchers found that many subjects did use universalization to evaluate John's actions, and that their judgments depended on a variety of factors, including the number of people who were interested in using the new hook and the number of people using it that would trigger a harmful outcome.</p><p>To tease out the impact of those factors, the researchers created several versions of the scenario. In one, no one else in the village was interested in using the new hook, and in that scenario, most participants deemed it acceptable for John to use it. However, if others in the village were interested but chose not to use it, then John's decision to use it was judged to be morally wrong.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that they could use their data to create a mathematical model that explains how people take different factors into account, such as the number of people who want to do the action and the number of people doing it that would cause harm. The model accurately predicts how people's judgments change when these factors change.</p><p>In their last set of studies, the researchers created scenarios that they used to test judgments made by children between the ages of 4 and 11. One story featured a child who wanted to take a rock from a path in a park for his rock collection. Children were asked to judge if that was OK, under two different circumstances: In one, only one child wanted a rock, and in the other, many other children also wanted to take rocks for their collections.</p><p>The researchers found that most of the children deemed it wrong to take a rock if everyone wanted to, but permissible if there was only one child who wanted to do it. However, the children were not able to specifically explain why they had made those judgments.</p><p>"What's interesting about this is we discovered that if you set up this carefully controlled contrast, the kids seem to be using this computation, even though they can't articulate it," Levine says. "They can't introspect on their cognition and know what they're doing and why, but they seem to be deploying the mechanism anyway."</p><p>In future studies, the researchers hope to explore how and when the ability to use this type of reasoning develops in children.</p>
<h3>Collective action</h3><p>In the real world, there are many instances where universalization could be a good strategy for making decisions, but it's not necessary because rules are already in place governing those situations.</p><p>"There are a lot of collective action problems in our world that can be solved with universalization, but they're already solved with governmental regulation," Levine says. "We don't rely on people to have to do that kind of reasoning, we just make it illegal to ride the bus without paying."</p><p>However, universalization can still be useful in situations that arise suddenly, before any government regulations or guidelines have been put in place. For example, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, before many local governments began requiring masks in public places, people contemplating wearing masks might have asked themselves what would happen if everyone decided not to wear one.</p><p>The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don't seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change. One possible explanation is that people don't have enough information about the potential harm that can result from certain actions, Levine says.</p><p>The research was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines.</p><p><span></span>Reprinted with permission of <a href="http://news.mit.edu/" target="_blank">MIT News</a>. Read the <a href="https://news.mit.edu/2020/moral-decisions-universalization-1002" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
How does your brain make split second decisions?
Researchers explore the "complex web of connections" in your brain that allows you to make split second decisions.
13 October, 2020
Credit: encierro on Adobe Stock
- Researchers at the University of Colorado discovered the cerebellum's role in split-second decision making.
- While it was previously thought that the cerebellum was in charge of these decisions, it's been uncovered that it is more like a "complex web of connections" through the brain that goes into how you make choices.
- If the decision is made within 100 milliseconds (of being presented with the choice), the change of mind will succeed in altering the original course of action.
<p>You are driving down the highway listening to music and thinking about a beach vacation in Hawaii when you realize your exit is sooner than you thought. Do you quickly change lanes to try to make your turn or do you keep going and take the next exit? </p><p>This is a split decision. <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200831165704.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus</a> wanted to explore how the brain makes these quick "go---no go" decisions. Previous research on this same topic is discussed in <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320308#Stop-signal-task" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">this article of Medical News Today</a>.</p><p>"We wanted to know how this kind of decision making takes place," said the study's senior author Diego Restrepo, Ph.D., professor of cell and developmental biology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.</p><ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0a8108d98cee567d7f7d41ce9befe5fd"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wyoU0y8UG1k?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>While it was previously thought that the cerebellum was in charge of these decisions, it's been uncovered that it is more like a "complex web of connections" through the brain that goes into how you make a quick decision or choice.</p><p>Susan Courtney, a professor of psychological and brain sciences, <a href="https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(17)31063-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627317310632%3Fshowall%3Dtrue" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">found in her 2017 study</a> that these quick decisions involve extremely fast coordination between an area of the premotor cortex and two areas in the prefrontal cortex.</p><p>Restrepo's team looked at the cerebellum's molecular layer interneurons (MLIs). In a Pavlovian twist, mice were rewarded with sugary water after smelling a "rewarded odorant." When an "unrewarded odorant" was released into the air, they were taught to avoid licking the spout. If they took a lick, they were sent to mouse timeout. After a few rounds, the mice learned the trick: lick to this smell, scurry away at that smell. Then Restrepo messed with their brains by throwing in chemogenetic agents that threw off their olfactory sense.</p><p>The cerebellum, or "little brain," sits just above the brainstem. Traditionally, it is responsible for the coordination of voluntary movements as well as motor functions like balance, posture, and coordination. It has also been linked to emotional control, such as in our fear and pleasure responses, and is associated with non-motor conditions such as autism spectrum disorders.</p><p>Research on cerebellum damage results in a variety of issues, including difficulty with balancing, errors in the force and speed of movement, gait impairment, and even decreased muscle tone. As the cerebellum changes with age, it's especially important to exercise in order to keep that region functioning optimally for as long as possible.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDUxODEwOS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzIyOTA5M30.zs1j6KNLNjiLVnmUz1SE2TzBFQ9keAqvLpSWQU67JyQ/img.png?width=980" id="a6c9b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f264c533599e44ca15b6d07cbabb64f8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Photo: StunningArt / Shutterstock
<p>This understanding of the cerebellum's role in decision-making is new. Because the mice became less confident in their choices after the release of those agents, it appears the cerebellum is partly responsible for quick decision-making responses.</p><p>Restrepo notes that the cerebellum is responsible for a lot of learning—perhaps unsurprisingly, given its proximity to the spinal cord and its influence on motor patterns. Split-second decisions are an old evolutionary necessity and would have started evolving quite early on. As he <a href="https://news.cuanschutz.edu/news-stories/cu-anschutz-researchers-shed-light-on-split-second-decision-making" target="_blank">says</a>,</p><p>"We found an entire subset of brain cells that change after learning. It sheds further light on how the cerebellum functions and the complex web of connections that go into quick decision making."</p><p><strong>How long does it take to make a split decision and have good results?</strong></p><p>The researchers in Susan Courtney's study highlighted that timing is everything when it comes to these quick decisions. If the decision to change is made within 100 milliseconds (of being presented with the choice), the change of mind will succeed in altering the original course of action. However, if it takes at least (or more than) 200 milliseconds, the chances of the change succeeding are significantly less.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
