The neurophysiology of attention
Interesting interview from Wired, with Maggie Jackson, the author of “Distracted.” Ironically I started reading “Distracted” but put it to one side while I immersed myself in some of other books.
Paying attention isn’t a simple act of self-discipline, but a cognitive ability with deep neurobiological roots — and this complex faculty, says Maggie Jackson, is being woefully undermined by how we’re living.
In Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age, Jackson explores the effects of “our high-speed, overloaded, split-focus and even cybercentric society” on attention. It’s not a pretty picture: a never-ending stream of phone calls, e-mails, instant messages, text messages and tweets is part of an institutionalized culture of interruption, and makes it hard to concentrate and think creatively.
Of course, every modern age is troubled by its new technologies. “The telegraph might have done just as much to the psyche [of] Victorians as the Blackberry does to us,” said Jackson. “But at the same time, that doesn’t mean that nothing has changed. The question is, how do we confront our own challenges?”
Wired.com talked to Jackson about attention and its loss.
Wired.com: Is there an actual scientific basis of attention?
Maggie Jackson: In the last 30 or 40 years, scientists have made inroads into understanding its underlying mechanisms and physiology. Attention is now considered an organ system. It has its own circuitry in the brain, and there are specialized networks carrying out its different forms. Each is very specific and can be traced through neuroimaging and even some genetic research.
While there is still debate among attention scientists, most now conclude that there are three types of attention. The first is orienting — the flashlight of your mind. In the case of visual attention, it involves parts of the brain including the parietal lobe, a brain area related to sensory processing. To orient to new stimuli, two parts of the parietal lobe work with brain sections related to frontal eye fields. This is what develops in an infants’ brain, allowing them to focus on something new in their environment.
The second type of attention spans the spectrum of response states, from sleepiness to complete alertness. The third type is executive attention: planning, judgment, resolving conflicting information. The heart of this is the anterior cingulate — an ancient, tiny part of the brain that is now at the heart of our higher-order skills. It’s executive attention that lets us move us beyond our impulsive selves, to plan for the future and understand abstraction.
We are programmed to be interrupted. We get an adrenalin jolt when orienting to new stimuli: Our body actually rewards us for paying attention to the new. So in this very fast-paced world, it’s easy and tempting to always react to the new thing. But when we live in a reactive way, we minimize our capacity to pursue goals.
Wired.com: What does it mean to be distracted?
Jackson: Literally, it means to be pulled away to something secondary. There’s also an a interesting, archaic definition that fell out of favor in the 18th century: being pulled to pieces, being scattered. I think that’s a lovely term.
Our society right now is filled with lovely distractions — we have so much portable escapism and mediated fantasy — but that’s just one issue. The other is interruption — multitasking, the fragmentation of thought and time. We’re living in highly interrupted ways. Studies show that information workers now switch tasks an average of every three minutes throughout the day. Of course that’s what we have to do to live in this complicated world.
Wired.com: How do these interruptions affect us?
Jackson: This degree of interruption is correlated with stress and frustration and lowered creativity. That makes sense. When you’re scattered and diffuse, you’re less creative. When your times of reflection are always punctured, it’s hard to go deeply into problem-solving, into relating, into thinking.
These are the problems of attention in our new world. Gadgets and technologies give us extraordinary opportunities, the potential to connect and to learn. At the same time, we’ve created a culture, and are making choices, that undermine our powers of attention.
Wired.com: Has a direct link been measured between interruptions and neurophysiology?
Jackson: Interruptions are correlated with stress, and a cascade of stress hormones accompany that state of being. Stress, frustration and lowered creativity are pretty toxic. And there are studies showing how the environment shapes brain development in kids.
But I can’t say if attention fragmentation really rewires our brains. When you sit at a desk for six hours multitasking like a maniac, are you actually rewiring parts of your attention networks? That’s difficult to say right now.
Wired.com: Is establishing that link the next scientific step?
Jackson: It’s one priority for future research. Right now, the field of attention science is especially concerned with attention development in children. The networks develop at different paces. Orienting is largely in place by kindergarten. The executive network is largely in place by age 8, but it develops until the mid-20s. Understanding the sweet spots for helping kids develop attention is where the science is at.
Wired.com: So adults are out of luck?
Jackson: We do know that people’s attention networks can be trained, though we’re not sure how long-lasting the gains are. There are exercises and computer games designed to strengthen attention, sometimes by boosting short-term memory.
The only sort training going on now in the office world is meditation-based, and that’s being used more for stress rather than to boost attention, although it does do that. In terms of mainstream research, there’s nothing I’m aware of that’s being done to help the average adult, though there’s tremendous interest in what’s possible.
But there are ways to cut back on the multitasking and interruptions, shaping your own environment and work style so that you better use your attentional networks. If you have a difficult problem or a conundrum to solve, you need to think about where you work best. Right now, people hope they’ll be able to think or create or problem-solve in the midst of a noisy, cluttered environment. Quiet is a starting point.
The other important thing is to discuss interruption as an environmental question and collective social issue. In our country, stillness and reflection are not especially valued in the workplace. The image of success is the frenetic multitasker who doesn’t have time and is constantly interrupted. By striving towards this model of inattention, we’re doing ourselves a tremendous injustice.
Wired.com: The subtitle of your book predicts a “coming dark age.” Do you really believe this?
Jackson: Dark ages are times of forgetting, when the advancements of the past are underutilized. If we forget how to use our powers of deep focus, we’ll depend more on black-and-white thinking, on surface ideas, on surface relationships. That breeds a tremendous potential for tyranny and misunderstanding. The possibility of an attention-deficient future society is very sobering.
2 Responses to “The neurophysiology of attention”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “The neurophysiology of attention,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Feb 09 2009
Thank you very much for share with us this interview. I found it very useful.
Ms. Jackson,
Your interview is ridiculously sensationalized. What you have written here is nothing more than a paranoid and reactionary backlash against technology and modern times using science to legitimize your claims, as if science were truly objective, as if science were even the point here.
It is not realistic to assume that because there are many distractions in today’s society that people cannot pay attention. I am a senior in college, double majoring in two humanities fields, one of which is another language, and I spend most of my days reading and writing, hovering over papers, taking notes on them, thinking about them. I am focused for much of the day. I work on the same project for 5 hours in a row before breaking. I am not the only student for whom this is true. I am not the only *person,* or young person, who can focus.
At the same time, I have grown up with computers. My study breaks involve going to many blogs and other websites. I watch at least one reality TV show a week. There are many people besides me who can both enjoy the distractions — and the great learning experiences — of our postmodern era, and who can pay attention to their work for sustained periods of time.
To act as if *everyone* is going to forget *completely* how to pay attention to *anything,* which is what your writing implies, is lunacy. You’re just trying to scare people, to convince them that something is wrong with them when they’re fine, and *that* is one of the worse parts of postmodern society, one of the main characteristics of TV advertising. So it seems to me that you’re part of the problem, rather than the solution.
Keep in mind that the internet is primarily not about sustained attention, and that’s not a problem. Most people skim articles not because they aren’t capable of doing otherwise, but because the internet lends itself to that. This means they’re actually developing an ability to skim, which is very useful.
Ms. Jackson, you are not addressing a real problem, you are merely cultivating worry and low self-esteem. I think people will read this, and will worry about how well they pay attention, and will feel bad about times they don’t pay attention and about society as a whole because of the way you’ve sensationalized our condition. People may start worrying about how to ‘strengthen their attention’ when they could just choose to focus on something aside from your problematic article, and they would be fine.
This is a travesty.
G