Tracking paths through the web

Clive Thompson worries that he loses the paths that get him to information on the web and, in so doing, loses 'cognitive value'. Personally, I'm not sure how much value is lost in a string of un-processed links. Usually there's a way back to things you've skimmed. On the other hand I like the idea of tracking (with their agreement) other people's paths, with their agreement, as in reading.am.

[via Cory Doctorow]

Technology and children's brains

Much cited review in Neuron, by Bavelier, Green and Dye, on the impact of technology use on brain development. Reminding us that 'technology' encompasses many things, from watching Teletubbies to playing action video games, the review reveals that whilst there are both positive and negative impacts of technology use, these aren't always predictable, and not always sustained. Technology Review highlights some key findings, my favourite being that 'educational' technology games rarely deliver the brain enhancement they claim. The Baby Enstein series (which always seemed to me to be such an insult to neonatal brains) gets a particular bashing.

Technology and brains: Pinker's riposte

As you would expect from Steven Pinker, pithy and elegantly written.

[via Not Exactly Rocket Science]

Brain training - doesn't

The outcomes of the large-scale study, carried out as a collaboration between the BBC and MRC CBU were published today. Brain training exercises make you good at brain training exercises. But the skills don't transfer. There's continuing research, though, to see whether the exercises have an impact on brain degeneration in older people.

Digital Nation

PBS's much heralded Digital Nation showed yesterday. I'm not sure it tells us anything new but it includes some excellent interviews (Sherry Terkel, and a discussion of IBM's use of Second Life for large scale meetings). Also a chilling clip on the impact of remote warfare, 'Taking out the Taliban; Home for Dinner.'

Archival problems for digital data

Wall Street Journal raises the problem of keeping track of scientists' digital data. Not only are the data sets scientists use growing exponentially but also scientific communication is distributed across channels (email, YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, IM etc.). These distributed trails of idea development present a very different scenario for archivists compared, say, to the collatable notebooks and correspondence of 19th century scientists. The British Library now has its first curator of eManuscripts, Jeremy Leighton John, who points out that not only are electronic trails harder to trace than traditional media, it's also hard to demonstrate their authenticity.

A further issue, not raised in the WSJ article, is ownership of digital content that sits across channels provided by commercial operators. Richard Stallman has taken a strong line on entrusting your data to the cloud; echoed, recently, by John Naughton.

The description of digitally distributed lives reminded me of the rather plaintive article by David Ulin in the LA Times on the lost art of reading (i.e. immersing yourself in a book, without the distraction of email and other demands). Although I sympathise, I thought Ulin's complaint a sign of his times, as much as of the times. I like Howard Rheingold's recommendation for dealing with those other distractions: treat them as a flow which you can allow to wash over you, without having to respond to everything that's out there. Of course it seems that some people are better at that than others: Not Exactly Rocket Science reports data from Eyal Ophir at Stanford showing that heavy multi-media users are less able to filter out distractions than lighter users. Ophir doesn't comment on which he thinks comes first, the different styles of 'cognitive control', or the styles in media use. But he is open to the possibility that there may be advantages in the distractability that multi-media users display (NERS teases, 'Cough, Susan Greenfield, Cough.').

Psychology in Human Computer Interaction

Very lucid back-to-basics lecture on the study of psychology in HCI, by the admirable David Kieras (lecture given at CHI 2008).

In the first few minutes he clarifies the difference between the psychology of HCI and human factors/usability '...a lot of these people (psychologists in HCI) don't care very much about solving practical problems.' For me this doesn't make the endeavour any less interesting.

[Via PsychCentral]

Are computers changing humanity?

Grand question, hand-waving answers in a review article in Computer World but it covers the bases, from privacy, through social isolation and narcissism, impact on language and formality, to superficial thinking and impact on the brain (brain imaging, again), with lots of commentary by computer industry ethnographers.

De-bunking neuromarketing

Mindhacks has picked up a review in the Washington Post of Martin Lindstrom's popular book on neuromarketing, Buy-ology. Both the WP review and Mindhacks point out that, interesting as mapping the brain's responses to certain stimuli may be (including finding, apparently, that iconic brands such as Harley Davidson elicit similar patterns of neural activity to religious imagery), neuromarketing has limited explanatory power for brand presentation or development. Both suggest it might be more interesting to study why some marketing professionals are so susceptible to neuromarketing. Mindhacks cites two studies showing that bogus or irrelevant images of brain scans increase the credibility of scientific articles to non-scientists. So I guess there lies the explanation.

De-bunking psychology myths

It was good to read that American child psychologists have lodged an official complaint against claims for 'brain-development' videos made by companies such as Baby Einstein (owned by Disney and available in the UK from Mothercare), Brainy Baby and Baby Genius. These are targeted at under-2s. Apparently 49% of American parents surveyed in a study by Kaiser Family Foundation believed they were important in their children's education (possibly wishful thinking, since they provide an easy pacifier for busy parents). (Just as video games don't cause ADHD, so videos can hardly create geniuses.)

Another candidate for de-bunking might be the Brain Gym craze which is sweeping state schools as a training package for teachers. It claims to stimulate learning through a series of, mainly, hand-eye coordination tasks with some pretty dubious psychology behind them. There's also a lot of nonsense about drinking water and holding it in your mouth so it can be absorbed directly by the brain. Bad Science has done a pretty good assassination job on them but it seems to have had only limited impact and schools continue to pay out for the company to run teacher training days.

Tracking and mapping

Upbeat article in USA Today on how aggregated location data from cell phones could be used inform solutions to urban congestion problems. Also examples of how phones could receive location-based information to help in everyday tasks such as
- finding parking spaces (or avoid full car parks)
- hailing taxis
- finding new meeting location, when meeting venue is changed at last minute.

On a more emotive note Christian Nold has created aggregated mappings of people's galvanic skin response (GSR) in different locations (GSR is an easily measurable indicator of people's emotional arousal, but doesn't explain the nature of the arousal). Some maps are easier to interpret than others, like the peak in emotional arousal at a busy road junction in Greenwich. (Via Mindhacks)

New technology and the brain

Big title for a big topic which Baronness Susan Greenfield discussed in a question (in the House of Lords last Thursday) on changes in information access and education. Jackie Ashley gives the speech a sympathetic review in Monday's Guardian.

I have no doubt that our thinking is shaped by the tools we use (we also choose the tools that suit our thought processes). And it may be that (as easyMoney seems to think) technology shapes our social behaviours too (in the same way there's some choice in there too). So, yes, we need to think about how to get the best out of the technologies available to us (computers, cars, phones, medical technologies etc.).

But I do worry about suggestions (both in Greenfield's speech and Ashley's review) of a causal link between computer use and attention deficit and hyperactivity, no matter how tentatively phrased. Mindhacks points to studies that suggest, at best, ambiguity in the link between computers and ADHD-style symptoms.

It might be worth looking back at Sherry Turkle's 1980's study of MIT computing nerds, The Second Self. Rather than suggest that computers shaped their users' behaviour Turkle showed how computers gave space for behaviours that were already there (obsessive and asocial, and, incidentally, highly focused) to develop.