5 ms·

When people see, the brain's algebra area lights up.

by rvense 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
neolefty 10y ago
Maybe that explains why I can't see (I bump into things) when I'm doing algebra or other complex logical thinking.
- omginternets 10y ago
  I suspect that's rather a case of inattentional blindness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
  - jakub_h 10y ago
    I call it "the reverse case of ZX-80".
omginternets 10y ago
I get your point but it's absurd to call V1 - V3 an "algebra area". We actually do have a thing called "primary visual cortex" and mental calculations are known to exploit a number of existing functional areas (visual word-form area, primary visual cortex, etc).
- Teever 10y ago
  I don't think that the name many humans have agreeds to call an area of the brain is an objectively true label for it. I mean it's not like there's an owners manual for the human brain.
  - rublev 10y ago
    Yes, we're working on writing it and will let you know.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    The point is that it's pretty clearly a visual area above all else. The pathway from the eye to V1 is possibly the most extensively studied functional neuroanatomical pathway in the brain. It's also well-established that it takes input from other regions and that this adjusts visual percepts. The idea that mathematical operations recruit visual areas is unsurprising and predicted by every theory of numerical cognition there is. That's why this is interesting. I'm sorry, but what you're claiming is patently absurd (and, I suspect, purely contrarian).
    - cloverich 10y ago
      This is perhaps a poor backup claim because I can't give a relevant citation, but back when I was in Neuroscience / neuroanatomy in medical school, I remember feeling deeply impressed at the level to which we do understand the visual processing system in the brain. Its far more comprehensive than simple imaging studies -- we know where the wires go, how the photons are transduced and turned into patterns of neurons firing, etc. There's of course plenty to learn but our depth of understanding in regards to human vision is impressive.
Practicality 10y ago
Except that the article says sighted people do not have an increase in that area when doing algebra. I tend to agree with the premise of the article, which is brain areas can be reapportioned for different tasks.
- rorykoehler 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure that I engage the visual part of my brain in those moments when I truly understand algebra. It's very beautifully overwhelming and understanding such complex mathematics through visualisation brings about one of the few moments where I get naturally high through cognitive tasks. I wouldn't consider myself a very visual person otherwise.
  - JadeNB 10y ago
    > I'm pretty sure that I engage the visual part of my brain in those moments when I truly understand algebra. With no offence meant to your self knowledge, and with the understanding that you were probably not one of those tested and that our (meaning their, I guess) understanding of the workings of the brain is imperfect, I think that the point of brain imaging software is in large part so that we don't have to rely on "I'm pretty sure", and indeed can have confidence even in unintuitive conclusions.
    - throwaway7767 10y ago
      > With no offence meant to your self knowledge, and with the understanding that you were probably not one of those tested and that our (meaning their, I guess) understanding of the workings of the brain is imperfect, I think that the point of brain imaging software is in large part so that we don't have to rely on "I'm pretty sure", and indeed can have confidence even in unintuitive conclusions. Self-knowledge is not a good way to divine the functioning of the brain. However, one could say fMRI is not a good way either, at the very least studies based solely on fMRI data should be taken with a boatload of salt. See for example: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.full http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.full > Functional MRI (fMRI) is 25 years old, yet surprisingly its most common statistical methods have not been validated using real data. Here, we used resting-state fMRI data from 499 healthy controls to conduct 3 million task group analyses. Using this null data with different experimental designs, we estimate the incidence of significant results. In theory, we should find 5% false positives (for a significance threshold of 5%), but instead we found that the most common software packages for fMRI analysis (SPM, FSL, AFNI) can result in false-positive rates of up to 70%. These results question the validity of a number of fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of weakly significant neuroimaging results.

When people see, the brain's algebra area lights up.

by rvense 10y ago

When people see, the brain's algebra area lights up.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

neolefty 10y ago

Maybe that explains why I can't see (I bump into things) when I'm doing algebra or other complex logical thinking.

omginternets 10y ago
I suspect that's rather a case of inattentional blindness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
- jakub_h 10y ago
  I call it "the reverse case of ZX-80".

omginternets 10y ago

I get your point but it's absurd to call V1 - V3 an "algebra area". We actually do have a thing called "primary visual cortex" and mental calculations are known to exploit a number of existing functional areas (visual word-form area, primary visual cortex, etc).

Teever 10y ago
I don't think that the name many humans have agreeds to call an area of the brain is an objectively true label for it. I mean it's not like there's an owners manual for the human brain.
- rublev 10y ago
  Yes, we're working on writing it and will let you know.
- omginternets 10y ago
  The point is that it's pretty clearly a visual area above all else. The pathway from the eye to V1 is possibly the most extensively studied functional neuroanatomical pathway in the brain. It's also well-established that it takes input from other regions and that this adjusts visual percepts. The idea that mathematical operations recruit visual areas is unsurprising and predicted by every theory of numerical cognition there is. That's why this is interesting. I'm sorry, but what you're claiming is patently absurd (and, I suspect, purely contrarian).
  - cloverich 10y ago
    This is perhaps a poor backup claim because I can't give a relevant citation, but back when I was in Neuroscience / neuroanatomy in medical school, I remember feeling deeply impressed at the level to which we do understand the visual processing system in the brain. Its far more comprehensive than simple imaging studies -- we know where the wires go, how the photons are transduced and turned into patterns of neurons firing, etc. There's of course plenty to learn but our depth of understanding in regards to human vision is impressive.

Practicality 10y ago

Except that the article says sighted people do not have an increase in that area when doing algebra. I tend to agree with the premise of the article, which is brain areas can be reapportioned for different tasks.

rorykoehler 10y ago
I'm pretty sure that I engage the visual part of my brain in those moments when I truly understand algebra. It's very beautifully overwhelming and understanding such complex mathematics through visualisation brings about one of the few moments where I get naturally high through cognitive tasks. I wouldn't consider myself a very visual person otherwise.
- JadeNB 10y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that I engage the visual part of my brain in those moments when I truly understand algebra. With no offence meant to your self knowledge, and with the understanding that you were probably not one of those tested and that our (meaning their, I guess) understanding of the workings of the brain is imperfect, I think that the point of brain imaging software is in large part so that we don't have to rely on "I'm pretty sure", and indeed can have confidence even in unintuitive conclusions.
  - throwaway7767 10y ago
    > With no offence meant to your self knowledge, and with the understanding that you were probably not one of those tested and that our (meaning their, I guess) understanding of the workings of the brain is imperfect, I think that the point of brain imaging software is in large part so that we don't have to rely on "I'm pretty sure", and indeed can have confidence even in unintuitive conclusions. Self-knowledge is not a good way to divine the functioning of the brain. However, one could say fMRI is not a good way either, at the very least studies based solely on fMRI data should be taken with a boatload of salt. See for example: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.full http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.full > Functional MRI (fMRI) is 25 years old, yet surprisingly its most common statistical methods have not been validated using real data. Here, we used resting-state fMRI data from 499 healthy controls to conduct 3 million task group analyses. Using this null data with different experimental designs, we estimate the incidence of significant results. In theory, we should find 5% false positives (for a significance threshold of 5%), but instead we found that the most common software packages for fMRI analysis (SPM, FSL, AFNI) can result in false-positive rates of up to 70%. These results question the validity of a number of fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of weakly significant neuroimaging results.