Internet Use Can Be Good For the Brain 114
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."
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!
Hmm... (Score:1)
I think that's what the internet using group is doing... and that is why a lot more activity was detected.
Test subject: Must not get caught browsing for porn... must do it in a casual way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
well, it sure makes my brain bigger!
Re: (Score:2)
Brain and brain, what is brain?
Re: (Score:2)
It makes you psychic? SWEET!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Highly interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
This is typical poor reporting of a scientific study. From the evidence provided in the article, it's possible to provide several explanations of the observed results. Most obviously that younger people use more brain activity than older people when using a search engine. However, they have leapt to the conclusion that the key factor is whether or not the individuals are "internet savvy".
Surely it would have been possible to obtain people from all walks of life with differnt levels of internet experience. There's plenty of older folk who have used Google!
This is either irony of such a high level that it went straight over my head, or typical Slashdot non-reading-of-article + bad summary.
According to the article, "His team studied 24 normal volunteers between the ages of 55 and 76. Half were experienced at searching the Internet and the other half had no Web experience. Otherwise, the groups were similar in age, gender and education."
Compare this to what the /. summary says:
"The test had two groups, young people who used the Internet, and older people who ha
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
Re: (Score:2)
No. They're old.
This really has little to do with internet use and everything to do with the age of the participants.
I don't doubt that, if they were to take two sample groups in the mid-20s range from, say, an Amish or Hutterite colony and downtown Manhattan, the results would be almost identical.
The topic on this /. post is very misleading.
Biologically, the human brain 'naturally' decays over time. It's going to happen. Yes, you can slow it down, but most people don't try to - they don't even think about
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)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Paul Graham has a good article on avoiding distractions.
Try developing on a machine with no net connection, for a start.
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:1)
My ex-coworker did just this. He developed on a floor where there was no Internet connection.
Personally, I think that having the Net there is very valuable. You can get lots of help from the Net, including manuals, tutorials, code and even answers to error and log messages you paste into Google. I love having the Net available, because it makes my work easier.
If you have a problem w/the Net, you might try what I did. I decided not to surf any stuff at work that's not related to work, when I changed jobs
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. :/
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
My browser is set to open Slashdot, LJ, tumbler, and NYTimes on login. Man, if I didn't have the web, my job would cause my brain to turn to dust. I need the extra input.
Re: (Score:1)
Once I try to "look something up on the internet" I get distracted and forget what I was doing
Lay off the doobie
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's just age.
Re:i dunno (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here, I used to be able to concen OH HEY LOOK LOLCAT!
Thanks for reminding me, haven't had a fix for a few days.
I think it is like yawning.
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]...
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
Re: (Score:2)
I put book shelves in the bathrooms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I block as much extraneous content as possible: ads, any irritating non-ad images on sites I frequent, all javascript by default, and so forth, and have been doing so for several years (actual length of time depends on availability of some of the technologies, e.g. the NoScript fx plugin).
It began much longer ago than the "several years" I mentioned, but during that time my attention span has continued diminishing at an accelerating pace, and is currently paralyzingly low. It makes software development imp
Re: (Score:2)
Mine too. I used to
Oooh, lolcats.
Re: (Score:1)
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"
Re: (Score:1)
Your extreme level of geniosity causes me true amazification.
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: (Score:1)
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.
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: Experts & Novices (Score:2)
We may be relating different concepts.
I was aiming after the "expert can actively engage in his activity while the novice simply stares in dismay without processing anything". In other words, drawn very roughly from personal experience, the novice sufficiently out of depth is so stonewalled that essentially no useful thought on the subject occurs at all. I actually keep a couple of books in my library for exactly this reason, with the theme of monitoring my meta-emotions.
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
Re: (Score:2)
TFA:
His team studied 24 normal volunteers between the ages of 55 and 76. Half were experienced at searching the Internet and the other half had no Web experience. Otherwise, the groups were similar in age, gender and education.
TFS is completely wrong. It isn't a comparison of young/old, it's a comparison of experienced vs inexperienced subjects all of whom are middle aged or elderly.
Funny, I didn't read all the summary I went right to the article and I missed how wrong the summary is.
On the other hand... (Score:1)
...this study shows that an older person uses less brute-force brainpower than a younger person to perform the same task.
walking proof (Score:1, Interesting)
I would say thats accurate i suffered a sub arachnoid hematoma which is a major brain hemmorhage. During my long recovery my family purchased a computer. i have been the i.t. support i had an iq of 120 before anuerysm now its 126. I credit my rise from babbling moron to internet savvy on the range of tasks that i have to keeping up with being computer admin for the family.also one of the joys of my days is coming here to \. and trying to understand the complex world of internet technology and of course the
Re: (Score:1)
one of the joys of my days is coming here ... and trying to understand the complex world of internet technology and of course the high browed humor here. Which at times takes a rhodes scholar to understand.
The technology or the humor? The humor is simple: just put yourself in the mindset of 14-year-old boy with a fixation on science, technology, and, of course, unattainable women. Once you understand that, people will stop saying things like "you must be new here", which was, honestly, what I was originally going to say. ;)
Flash games (Score:4, Funny)
not suprising (Score:1)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It's more than that though, it's really more of a puzzle that combines high level matching, value decisions, risk management and all kinds of skills.
Running through a search is like choosing between 50 people and taking the best few.
Skimming and speed reading are also crucial skills.
YouTube Comments (Score:2, Funny)
Choose you own adventure (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
lolwut (Score:2)
lol u tk him 2da bar|?
Re: (Score:2)
CAN HAS STDIO?
I HAS A beerz
GIMMEH beerz
IM IN YR LOOP
NERFZ beerz!!1
IZ beerz SMALR THAN 1? GTFO. KTHX
KTHX
KTHXBYE
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.
Internet may be good but beware Memes (Score:1)
One round of Badgers or banana phone of Dancing Hamsters and all that good to your brain is undone.
The internet meme is something that breaks your brain and soon you become addicted to it and will cling to it like a person in the country clings to religion and guns.
Japanese are smart (Score:2)
I'm not positive, but I think it was designed to help elderly people retain their mental acuity.
This result means nothing (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to thank you for such an excellent and informative post.
I partially disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
Let me give you an example. My daily read list keeps expanding: 2 local newspapers, CNN.com, wired.com, slashdot.com, fr
Article is misquoted (Score:1, Interesting)
Wow they just discovered Marshall McLuhan (Score:1)
Yes this was common media knowledge in Canada since the late 60s.
It has to do with hot and cool media. Cool media cause total involvement where as hot media are more focused and have a more fixed point of view. Cool media engage your brain to fill in the gaps. One is not better than the other they are just different. Hot has intensity and repeatability. Cool is more human and promotes total awareness.
http://cultofjim.com/scripture/understanding_media/ [cultofjim.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan [wikipedia.org]
Wait until t
Re: (Score:2)
Summary conflicts with TFA (Score:2, Informative)
His team studied 24 normal volunteers between the ages of 55 and 76. Half were experienced at searching the Internet and the other half had no Web experience. Otherwise, the groups were similar in age, gender and education.
So what's this in the summary:
The test had two groups, young people who used the Internet, and older people who had never been online.
Also since when does studying only 24 people (12 variable and 12 control), constitute 'research'. It looks like they might be onto something worth researching, but haven't IMHO done enough research yet to be releasing findings.
Search engines are only for young people (Score:2)
Just like e-mail is only for old people
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/30/0034259&tid=215&tid=95&tid=1 [slashdot.org]
but not so good for... (Score:1)
older generation always curses new media (Score:2)
Correlation is not causation (Score:1)
That extra brain activity = annoyance, anger, fear (Score:1)
All the extra brain activity is due to all the crpa you run into on a simple google search: annoyance , anger, fear, doubt, wonder, excitement, sexual, etc.
Annoyance that you didn't find what you wanted.
Anger that what you did find was an advertisement.
Fear that you won't find what you need even if you search for an hour.
Doubt that if you find something it could be a lie.
Wonder that what you found might be true!
Excitement, because you might not have to work late if google just gave you the answer to your se
post is flawed (Score:1)
searchlores.org to LEARN google, it IS complex! (Score:1)