Slashdot Log In
Internet Use Can Be Good For the Brain
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Oct 16, 2008 06:57 AM
from the wasting-time-not-your-brain dept.
from the wasting-time-not-your-brain dept.
ddelmonte writes "This Washington Post article examines a test conducted at UCLA.
The test had two groups, young people who used the Internet, and older people who had never been online. Both groups were asked to do Internet searches and book reading tasks while their brain activity was monitored.
'We found that in reading the book task, the visual cortex — the part of the brain that controls reading and language — was activated,' Small said.
'In doing the Internet search task, there was much greater activity, but only in the Internet-savvy group.'
He said it appears that people who are familiar with the Internet can engage in a much deeper level of brain activity.
'There is something about Internet searching where we can gauge it to a level that we find challenging,' Small said.
In the aging brain, atrophy and reduced cell activity can take a toll on cognitive function. Activities that keep the brain engaged can preserve brain health and thinking ability.
Small thinks learning to do Internet searches may be one of those activities."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Highly interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Looking at porn is good for the brain! (Score:5, Funny)
. . . when they announce that next week, we're all set!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
well, it sure makes my brain bigger!
Re: (Score:2)
It makes you psychic? SWEET!
Re:Highly interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Replying to you since I was late in reading this... that said, it does have something to do with what you're saying....
They compared old people to young people. That adds in another variable that TFS conveniently glosses over. It's entirely possible that the reduced brain activity is due to the age of the subjects and has absolutely nothing to do with Internet use. If they want to be able to conclude as TFS and TFA imply, then they need to compare people in the same age group. Or better yet, find people in
i dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
i found my attention span has gone to dogs since the advent of the internet and each year it gets worse
Re:i dunno (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:i dunno (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why I try, as much as possible, to get API and language reference documentation in a format for offline viewing other than HTML -- if I'm looking up the parameters of, say, a GtkSpinBox callback or the methods of a PyGTK gtk.Assistant object, and I look in a web browser I'm always tempted to load a new tab to someplace like Slashdot. :/
Parent
Ob: Me Too! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have in the past managed this feat by not replying to anything in my slashdot replies folder in Outlook, and purposely not browsing to /. before lunchtime.. I definitely have noticed an increase in productivity on those days.
The annoying thing is that occasionally slashdot can provide a work related article or comment that justifies reading.
Even more annoying is when I try to be 'good' by checking /. before going into work rather than at work and decide to post a comment, which can sometimes turn into a b
Re:Ob: Me Too! (Score:4, Insightful)
The test had two groups, young people who used the Internet, and older people who had never been online.
But not really because of age. Even older people use the web extensively these days, hell my grand parents use it, doesn't mean it makes you smarter. Maybe people who aren't online just are dumber then web users? much like how someone who subscribes to a literary magazine would probably be smarter then someone who doesn't read.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to use the Internet heavily for reference when I'm developing (trying to use a function but can't quite remember its return values? Hop onto Google!) so that would hinder me more than help.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's just age.
Re:i dunno (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Same here. I start looking for a solution, or just merely checking emails, suddenly I find myself two hours down the line staring at some super model boobs while trying to download a bit torrent of some 60s band. We're not alone - Obligatory [xkcd.com]
Re:i dunno (Score:5, Interesting)
You're not the only one [theatlantic.com]...
Parent
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Best. Article. Evar.
I also used to read a lot, and didn't consider that the internet might make me less able to read novels as well as just sucking up all the time that I used to spend reading or doing other things which I considered more productive.
These days I find myself shying away from activities that I know I'd want to spend more than a couple of hours on to get the most out of them (reading, or even playing certain computer games). I had thought it was just me poorly organising my time - which of cou
SWEET JEEBUS! (Score:2, Funny)
Steve Hawking ain't got nothing on me; I must be a genius!
(You have to appreciate me calling myself a genius in the same sentence that has the word "ain't", and a double negative.)
Re:SWEET JEEBUS! (Score:4, Funny)
Steve Hawking ain't got nothing on me; I must be a genius!
(You have to appreciate me calling myself a genius in the same sentence that has the word "ain't", and a double negative.)
And a misspelling of "Stephen Hawking"
Parent
Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the non-internet savvy people know that in order to get the most out of the internet, you can't treat it like a book?
Damn, that's what I've been doing wrong? I thought something was amiss when I got to the chapter on goatse, I was like "WTF?"
Hai (Score:2)
hay i bin usin ze intarnuts all my life!
It shows!
Seriously, if i could draw a graph of _my_ internet usage vs IQ, there'd be a strong correlation between lowering of IQ as the internet usage increased.
Google has destroyed my memory and interest in trivia and other 'small' interesting things in life.
When someone mentions something, instead of asking them more about it, all i think is "how fast can i get on the internet to google this stuff up? "
I have even lost appetite for non-intellectual stuff. My patie
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are using the Internet wrong. It is a tool for research, discovery, and much more. It should stimulate your desire to learn and exercise your ability to sort through the noise to find useful information. Crafting an Internet search on Google, for example, is far more than knowing a few terms. And that will continue to become more important as the noise outpaces the signal.
Unless you are using it as a surrogate for a real life, in which case it probably will dim your bulb. OTOH, perhaps that just
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? LMAO ROFL LOL!
Hold the phone! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean that young brains, when confronted with a familiar, engaging audio-visual medium stimulated more of the brain than when they tested elderly subjects who had essentially no concept of the depth of information that was available in that medium.
I am shocked with this discovery. Shocked, I tell you. We should spend much more on this research - maybe with animals - to determine the extent of this effect. Do you suppose these guys produce a newsletter?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good sir, I detect a hint of sarcasm in your typing.
They are teaching monkeys how to play video games. Surfing slashdot cannot be far behind.
Re:Hold the ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can I borrow your paragraph for a minute?
You mean that trained older auto-tech brains, when confronted with an familiar, engaging mechanical car engine stimulated more of the brain than when they tested young subjects who had essentially no concept of the depth of information that was available in that vehicle.
You mean that trained older doctor brains, when confronted with an familiar, engaging biochemical patient stimulated more of the brain than when they tested young subjects who had essentially no concept of the depth of information that was available in a person's anatomy.
I am shocked with this discovery. Shocked, I tell you. We should spend much more on this research - maybe with animals - to determine the extent of this effect. Do you suppose these guys produce a newsletter?
Sounds like a flawed study to me.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of surprising actually.
I believe the convention has it that for a particular task, expert brains have less activity than novice brains.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003270 [plosone.org]
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1576979 [jstor.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA says nothing about younger people. The test subjects were aged 55 to 76.
The noted result was that older people who do a lot of searches show more brain activity when doing searches than other older people who don't do a lot of searches.
So you can hypothesize from that result that doing searches might slow age-related loss of brain function.
Correlation blah blah causation, but at the same time correlation doesn't not imply causation either. Plus, it makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a long time /. reader, I naturally didn't RTFA, but unless the summary misquoted:
The test had two groups, young people who used the Internet, and older people who had never been online.
In doing the Internet search task, there was much greater activity, but only in the Internet-savvy group. (my emphasis)
Looks like only young brains, or young brains who understood the medium, got the extra stimulation. It seems they've got one equation and two variables. By this study, all they've shown is a correlation
Flash games (Score:4, Funny)
no more (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously though. Of course someone who is younger and has used the internet before is going to be more interested at sitting in front of a computer, therefore increased brain stimulation. Do the same thing with a old guy that likes to play chess and a young guy that only likes to play flash based dress up doll games and see if the opposite doesn't happen.
Prooof That The Internet Makes You Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's because Internet users needed to use more of their brains, having less to go around. But then I use the Internet too, so what do I know?
It's too late for grandma (Score:2)
picking it up now will do her no good. Her brain has already become as pruny as the prunes she eats.
Me, I'm a gamer and will be until my last breath. Gaming is a high-level activity and will keep me sharp.
Most likely situation (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm exercising my visual cortex!" *fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap*
Well, duh, the internet = n Libraries of Congress (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
False Conclusion (Score:3, Interesting)
There are so many missing controls and unaccounted variables in this study that it makes my brain hurt.
Older people by nature may not engage in as deep level of thought in any activity.
Also, the younger people are probably problem solving by attempting to construct the most accurate search terms that returns the best results for what they want.
This is the same as learning to problem solve in any activity - including those outside of the internet.
qwerty (Score:4, Insightful)
When you're doing an internet search you have to actually give input. You have give google something to search for.
When you're reading a book or a given article you don't have to think about where to find the information, it will (or won't) be contained in the material directly in front of you. There's nothing to think about as far as looking information up. Just read whats there.
Also I wonder if some of the difference in brain activity due to age is part of the actual typing. If you sit someone down who can type 60 words a minute in front of google, they are going to used a much different and well used part of their brain to type than someone who has to stare at the keyboard and hunt and peck.
Personally I kind of enjoy that I can type fairly quickly, I even like the feel of utilizing the skill. I believe most of the internet savvy generation can type pretty well, but I think a fair amount of our parents generation are still at hunt and peck.
YouTube Comments (Score:2, Funny)
Brain adapts (Score:3, Insightful)
So basicaly the brain adapts itself to what it is doing. If you use it, no matter how trivial will 'train' the brain. Who would have thought?
Now what you need to do is if the good that is being done is better then doing it in an alternative way. e.g. instead of searching for something online, getting the knowledge on how to do research with books or in any other way.
Or perhaps even walking to the library and looking thing up there gives you better blood circulation that is more important then what surfing does.
I am sure that then it doesn't look that good anymore.
Better then TV (Score:5, Insightful)
How about older internet-savvy people? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like they're mixing up too many variables in this pot.
lolwut (Score:2)
lol u tk him 2da bar|?
Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
The summery above says that the internet savvy test subjects were younger than those who have never used it before, however, the article linked clearly mentions that all subjects were aged 55-76, and that "the groups were similar in age, gender and education."
Also, the test only included 24 subjects, which is not very much to base a theory on. A larger study showing similar results would be more reliable.
Japanese are smart (Score:2)
I'm not positive, but I think it was designed to help elderly people retain their mental acuity.
The Wrong Map, The Wrong Territory (Score:3, Informative)
"We found that in reading the book task, the visual cortex -- the part of the brain that controls reading and language -- was activated," Small said."
The visual cortex, which is the occipital cortex, at the back of the head, processes vision from the very basic perception through combining perceptual elements into a whole visual picture. It puts together the images of the letters into words and words into phrases (visual "chunks" per George Miller). It does not "read".
Scanning the phrases/chunks requires the superior frontal lobes (Brodmann area 8), which control eye movement. The scanned material is fed to Wernicke's area (Brodmann 22, the posterior section of the superior temporal gyrus, encircling the auditory cortex, on the Sylvian fissure), drawing on the parietal association cortices which in turn are receiving the visual material from the occipital primary and secondary visual systems. making sense of it requires use of Broca's area (Brodmann 44 and 45; the opercular and triangular sections of the inferior frontal gyrus of the frontal lobe), which produces spoken words by controlling the necesssary motor functions, and interestingly controls comprehension in reading. This is why reading causes subvocalization (movement of speech creating anatomy despite reading silently).
TFA saw "activity" in the visual area. If they didn't see it in all the above, they weren't seeing reading. This is what happens when people who don't fully comprehend either the target or the technology point the technology at the target. Small is a geriatric psychologist. He's not a neural anatomy and physiology specialist. Most importantly, just as with the vast majority of people reporting fMRI results, he doesn't grasp what he's measuring.
MRI measures relative levels of oxyhemoglobin and carboxyhemoglobin. fMRI measures it during different tasks (ie. reading vs. not reading). It is fairly well supported that the more difference between them, the more oxygen is being used and so the more the brain is working in that area. This is not necessarily the case, as more oxygenation without subsequent metabolism as well as the inverse, can cause identical results. In any case, the implied metabolism probably represents neurons working. 85% of the brain is excitatory and operates constantly, although changing some with demand. 15% of the brain is inhibitory, and carves out the important stuff from the vast array of what's taken in. fMRI is only measuring implied neural metabolism. It cannot possibly differentiate between excitatory and inhibitory activity, and in fact measures both without being able to tell them apart.
He saw that cells in the visual cortex were using more blood looking at stuff in people who look at stuff more. That's all he can say. Everything else is pure conjecture. And if he didn't see the other areas activating at the same time, he damn sure can't say he was seeing reading happening.