Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have provided a bit more information in the continuing discussion of brain differences between men and women. Books like MEN ARE FROM MARS- WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS or THE FEMALE BRAIN have long detailed behavioral differences, but the biological basis for these behaviors has been elusive.
This study of 32 men and women shows that under moderate stress, “Men responded with increased blood flow to the right prefrontal cortex, responsible for “fight or flight.” Women had increased blood flow to the limbic system, which is also associated with a more nurturing and friendly response.”
The research also showed that the changes to the blood flow in women’s brains lasted much longer than men. Perhaps this gives a biological cause for the observation that women tend to remember emotional episodes for much longer than men?
While interesting, what does this have to do with technology design and use? Given the using technology is inherently stressful for some people, especially when confronted with a problem, one place to apply this information in is the customer service arena. Based on this, men are more likely to engage in solving the problem in a “fight” mode (i.e., problem solving) and will have worked the problem much more extensively before calling technical support. Women on the other hand are likely to be emotionally engaged in their problem with their computers and will need a customer service representative that is alert and empathetic to the emotional implications of having to face this somewhat stressful situation. In this case it is possible that solving the problem wiill need to be secondary to establishing an empathetic (not sympathetic!) connection before moving on to the actual problem. Maybe the company will loose a little in efficiency, but remember that women are more likely to remember the experience, bad or good, for longer.
Today’s educational marketplace is full of products and theories and methodologies that claim to be “brain based”. This overused term is much like “Green” in the environmental movement. It can mean almost anything. Consumers have been taught to believe that if we say something is brain based, then it works in harmony with the brain and therefore produces better results than something that is not brain based. (Don’t we use the brain in everything we do?)
Studies by MCCabe and Castel (2008) and Weisberg, Keil et al (2008) show that an image of a brain or the mention of irrelevant neuroscientific jargon boosts sales and can sway reader judgement. The old… “if I can’t understand it, it must be true” type of consumer thinking.
Sylvan and Christodoulou (2010) suggest a new system of categorizing this nebulous “Brain Based” phenomemon to provide clarity and meaningfulness.
Brain Supported: Products that have used neuroimaging (PET scans etc) to demonstrate the impact of the product or method on brain structure or functions along with behavioral improvement.
Brain Derived: Products or methods that are taken from neuroscience theories. Start with the theory and create the product based on that specific theory.
Brain Driven: Products that manipulate brain activity to change behavior. An example is biofeedback where a machine monitoring brain waves gives you visual feedback on your mental state in order to improve performance.
Brain Inspired: Products or methods directly inspired by general brain principles, which in truth are most often more traditional behavioral or cognitive science. This is something like using the principle that a small anxiety increses attention and performance, but a lot of anxiety degrades performance.
In short – using a more authentic classification system like this could help consumers discern what, if any, real roots the product or method has in current neuroscience.
Just got back from a very interesting conference in Chicago. As an educator interested in neurobiology, a conference on “Design” may seem like an unusual place for a presentation on implication of brain research on architecture, graphic design, art, or engineering, but what if what we think we see, isn’t what we really see? What if our memories are really emotional composites and not accurate recordings of what happened? How do we design something for a fluid state of perception. Anyway, if your interested, you can see the presentation under the “Presentations” link. Love to hear what you think?
What the heck is FMRI?
What do you mean “the Brain knows before we know”?
Listen to the following Podcast from Scientific American and find out.
Daphne Bavelier and her team at the University of Rochester have been doing research looking at the effect of video gaming on something called visual attention. This is not the same as what we normally call “attention” which is really something we control and do on purpose. Visual attention is the brains ability to focus on an object or event withing the visual field. It seems that gamers can “see” something new in their visual field more quickly than non-gamers. It also appears that they can also pay simultaneous attention to more objects (gamers = 5, non-gamers = 3). Gamers I talked to said that they could easily keep track of more complex visual environments now than they could back when they started.
Now if we add the idea of cognitive exhaustion; that brains become more efficient in their use of energy (glucose) as it gets better at doing something, then it stands to reason that as gamers get better at “seeing” more objects or events in on the screen, that they do so more effortlessly, leaving more cognitive resources to other cerebral processes like motor reflex.
Scientists have for some time, been looking at neurons in the brain that they call Mirror Neurons.
It appears that simply put, these neurons learn from vicarious experience (watching, hearing) and not by doing. Now in all honesty, scientists have sufficient evidence that these neurons work this way in primates, but are not quite sure that they work this way in humans. However, there is a good bit of solid research going on that seems to confirm this theory.
If we follow this logic, then one of the ways in which we can trigger creative thinking is by watching creativity at work. The problem is, of course, that we can only watch the output of creativity, and not what the brain is actually doing up there in that maze of neurons. But, since we can learn to dance quicker and better by watching dancers, we can also become more creative by watching the output of creative people.
Creativity happens in all sorts of ways. Sometimes watching other people, sometimes working with others, and sometimes just off by ourselves. It is clear that we don’t need others to be creative, some of our most creative people need to be by themselves to create. Think about the recluse J.D. Salinger who just passed away. But it seems clear that if you need to jump start creativity, fire up those mirror neurons by surrounding yourself with creative people.
The January issue of Developmental Psychology published a study that confirms other observations. That kids who have healthy relationships use Social Media: Facebook or MySpace as extensions of their positive and appropriate friendships. The study also notes that kids who are less well adjusted amy use the Social Media in more agressive and innapropriate ways. The study also shows that kids who are generally well adjusted tend to use the Social Media sites more often than their less well adjusted peers.
The complete article can be purchased here.
Over the last six years, there have been a number of studies where they place an individual in an fMRI and having them play a video game while measuring a variety of measures of cognitive activity. One that intrigues me happened a number of years ago at the University of Southern California, where subjects played a game called “Tactical Ops”. Normally, subjects stuck inside a pounding MRI machine can handle only a max of 20 minutes before a break. In this case, an hour later the players were still going strong.
The actual results of tracking the blood flow and measuring the dopamine levels is not nearly as important as what this says about attention and the power of intermittent reinforcement.
On a larger level, most studies have concluded that while there are definitely down-sides to digital game addiction, playing certain games can truly improve pattern recognition, systems thinking, patience, and peripheral vision.
Rick’s Recommended Games: