Default state of the human brain

Discuss

7 Responses to “Default state of the human brain”

  1. Garmt says:

    #6, I can top that. I went to bed with one last night. Unfortunately, her field of study doesn’t apply to “learning through osmosis”, so I’m still as dumb as I ever was, but hey.

    I do second #5′s opinion, though. I felt just like a little schoolkid again just now, pointing out the article to her. She went “Apparently. Indeed-e-o. Pff.” and went back to something far more interesting, which is fixing breakfast. (indeed-e-o is cognitiveneuroscientistsslang, btw).

  2. The Unusual Suspect says:

    “Raichle hypothesized that the network is more active when the brain is at rest and has to dial back its activity to let people concentrate on specific tasks.”

    Much like focusing attention to X is actually the act of ignoring Not-X.

    Great! Another reason to light my mind wander!

  3. FoetusNail says:

    This is where ideas pop from, when they suddenly bubble to the surface. I’ve always known this network as the back burner.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I’m NOT a brain scientist but I have seen one up close. Of course when it comes to brain science I only cite the emminent Dr. Anonymous’ articles in my own exposition (published in classified sections of many local newspapers and Craiglist ‘Missed Connections’).

    FYI: Here is another fine review on Default Networks by Mezmer et al.

    A Default mode of the brain function of Britney Spears
    (Lagado University, Laputa, KS)

  5. gtllama says:

    So if the default mode network provides your sense of self, and activity there decreases when you are focused on a task, that means they have objectively measured the subjective experience of “losing yourself” in something interesting. Far out, man.

  6. sonipitts says:

    Probably also explains some of the benefits of meditation and sitting zazen. Lots of network-friendly time.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I’m a brain scientist, and I should point out that “hotly debated” is an understatement for describing what much of the field thinks about this network. While it seems to be accepted that its existence is not a statistical anomaly, ascribing function to it is still an long way off. So suggesting it is representing functions such as “mental time travel” etc. as Raichle has is extremely premature. (For starters, the links between any behavior and this network are only correlational, so *no causality* can be concluded.) The brain is complicated and making such claims for some observed deactivations (something which we also don’t understand, btw) is naive from people who are supposed to be smart. I would instead argue that this is a “novel” topic for an over-hyped field (fMRI of the human brain).

Leave a Reply