If you spotted an anaconda poised to strike, the signal to pay attention would originate in a different part of your brain than if you gazed at an anaconda in the zoo, neuroscientists at MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory report in the March 30 issue of Science.

The work, which could have implications for treating attention deficit disorder (ADD), is the first concrete evidence that two radically different brain regions-the prefrontal cortex and the parietal cortex-play different roles in these different modes of attention.

What’s more, when you focus your attention, the electrical activity in these two brain areas synchronizes and oscillates at different frequencies. “It’s as if the brain is using two different stops on the FM radio dial for different types of attention,” said study co-author Earl K. Miller, Picower Professor of Neuroscience. Brain signals related to the knowledge we have acquired about the world are called top-down. Signals related to incoming sensory information are called bottom-up.

“Loud, flashy things like fire alarms automatically grab our attention,” Miller said. “By contrast, we choose to pay attention to certain things we think are important. We found two different modes of brain operation related to each, and they seem to originate in different parts of the brain. Further, the automatic (or bottom-up) versus willful (top-down) modes of attention seem to rely on two different frequency channels in the brain, suggesting that the brain might communicate in different frequency bands for different types of signals.”

ADD involves being overly sensitive to the automatic attention-grabbers and less able to willfully sustain attention. “Our work suggests that we should target different parts of the brain to try to fix different types of attention deficits,” Miller said.

“The downside of most psychiatic drugs is they are too broad,” he continued. “It’s like hitting the problem with a sledgehammer; you get the benefits but also many unintended consequences. Our work suggests that we may one day be able to figure out what is the exact problem with each individual and specifically target those shortcomings. And that is the ultimate goal in psychiatric intervention.”

To address the fact that neural activity from the prefrontal and parietal cortices had never been directly compared, Miller and co-author Timothy J. Buschman, an MIT graduate student in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, conducted a series of experiments in which monkeys were engaged in different kinds of tasks. The researchers looked at activity in two areas of their brains simultaneously-the prefrontal cortex, also called the brain’s executive because it is in charge of voluntary behavior, and the parietal cortex, which integrates sensory information coming from various parts of the body.

The monkeys had to pick out rectangles of certain colors and orientations on a video screen. Some of the rectangles popped out at them like the anaconda in the forest; others they had to search for.

The results support the idea that when something pops out at us, sensory cortical areas like the parietal cortex directs our eyes toward the stimulus. When we purposefully look for something, the prefrontal cortex is doing the driving.

“Taken together, these data suggest two modes of operation: When a stimulus pops out, a bottom-up, fast target selection occurs first in the posterior visual cortex; while in search mode, a top-down, longer latency target selection is reflected first in the prefrontal cortex,” Miller said. “To our knowledge, these are the first direct demonstrations that these areas may have different contributions to these different modes of attention.”

This work is supported by the the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and an NSF CELEST Science of Learning Center.

It has recently been reported that University of Kentucky psychologists Suzanne Segerstrom and Lise Solberg Nes have discovered a relationship between exercising self regulation and heart rate variability (HRV).

HRV appears to be linked to self regulation as HRV was considerably higher when people were working to resist temptation (eating carrots rather than cookies and chocolate) than when they were not, suggesting that HRV was mirroring the self regulation taking place. Moreover, the people who had higher levels of HRV by nature, regardless of giving into temptation, were likely to endure longer at a difficult task, such as solving an anagram.

An Idea - Did You Know that HRV is strongly correlated to cardiac related death. How so? The less HRV one exhibits, the greater the chances of death by heart failure. So, if exercising self regulation builds HRV, then perhaps one can help oneself live longer by doing just that! Resist temptation.

If you decide to find references on HRV please comment with links. Of course if anyone out there is thinking critically, your ideas and suggestions are appreciated.

Research indicates that while clearly understanding the risks, people persist in bad habits and risky behavior. Dr. Cindy Jardine, professor of rural sociology at the University of Alberta, recently reported these findings at the RiskCom 2006 Conference in Sweden.

“When asked to rate the danger of various types of risks including lifestyle habits, subjects clearly understood what types of behavior are the riskiest, but simply knowing isn’t enough to motivate them to change.” Prof. Jardine speculates why there might be such a disconnect between knowledge and behavior.

“For instance, stress is bad for us, yet we wear it as a badge of honor. It is seen as a socially desirable thing to be overworking. We don’t seem to have the same respect for people who work a 40-hour week. As well, we don’t like to hear about what we shouldn’t be doing, so we rationalize our bad habits. We all have a bit of recalcitrant child in us.”

Prof. Jardine admits that until the psychology behind risky behaviour is really understood, people won’t give up their vices, no matter how much they know.

Of course, there must be a better explanation. Let’s consider for a moment why it is that people persist in such behaviors? I find that people tend to engage in the types of activities mentioned because each affords a measure of pleasure. The smoker takes a drag. The workaholic enjoys the pleasure associated with achievement. These feelings are immediately present, as opposed to an imagined feeling associated with a distant future event or situation.

Jardine claims that while stress is bad, people carry it as a sign of honor. One must also consider that while presenting long term risks stress indicates excitatory processes. Perhaps the workaholic is leveraging innate physiological responses to environmental stimuli to continue pursuing an objective (or goal), the attainment of which brings with it feelings of achievement.

While Jardine identifies the aforementioned risky behaviors as “bad,” one ought to consider how such behavior may in fact provide benefits across multiple emotional and/or motivational dimensions. At the time one adopts such behaviors and for years thereafter, such immediate benefits may well outweigh the perceived risks in an imagined and distant future.

Source Material:University of Alberta.

Looks like the team at Automattic has transmitted ‘cease and desist’ emails to web sites having ‘wordpress’ in the domain name. How do I know this? It was the first story on my WP dashboard this morning! Seems as though Lorelle on WP felt compelled to speak on behalf of the WP developers. She cited a story at Blogging Pro that quotes from a cease and desist email apparently sent from someone at Automattic, Inc. The email was first quoted on Andy Wibbel’s blog and it reads:

Before we consider some potential implications of the email, I’d first like to ask whether or not Lorelle VanFossen was authorized by Automattic to publish her latest blog entry at Lorelle on WordPress. In it she writes:

She isn’t listed as an employee of Automattic, so how can she make such a pronouncement? Is she an authorized agent for Automattic?

Why do I ask? Read on!

To answer that question, we first require some background information. A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.

The trademarks and servicemarks that Automattic is pursuing are posted at The US Patent & Trademark Office website, which provides the following:

Automattic, Inc., has filed two trademark applications on “Wordpress” in association with “[D]ownloadable software program for use in design and managing content on a website.” One application covers the word, “wordpress” and the other application covers the stylized “W” in the circle with the underlined word “wordpress” positioned next to it.

Automattic, Inc., has filed two service mark applications on “Wordpress” in association with “[S]oftware solutions, namely providing use of on-line non-downloadable software for use in enabling Internet publishing.” One application covers the word, “wordpress” and the other application covers the stylized “W” in the circle with the underlined word “wordpress” positioned next to it.

Ok, now that we’ve got an idea of the marks that they claim to own, let’s take a look at what Automattic might have to show if they plan on enforcing their claimed rights to these marks.

Infringement depends upon whether two marks are sufficiently alike so as to cause consumer confusion as to their source or origin? More specifically, infringement depends upon whether a substantial number of ordinarily prudent purchasers are likely to be misled or confused as to the source of the different products or services. Actual confusion is not necessary, just a substantial likelihood of confusion.

Have you figured out why Lorelle’s blog entry is important to Automattic yet??

Lorelle has the blog name “Lorelle on WordPress.” Additionally, her blog resides at Lorelle.WordPress.com. If she was authorized by Automattic (Note: if the guys at Automattic decide what appears on the dashboard, then it seems there was implicit authorization), then Automattic itself relied on the “WordPress” in her blog’s name and in her domain name to help make their argument that ordinarily prudent consumers will take it as an “official” pronouncement!

Get it? includes “WordPress” and those with a blog name that includes it. As far as I can tell, Lorelle VanFossen is not affiliated with Automattic in a representative capacity and as such, her blog entry is a ruse.

What I find confusing has nothing to do with the trademarks. What’s confusing is whether Lorelle was in fact authorized, or supervised by Automattic? Of course, it’s simply a theory. So I’ll simply ask….

Check back to see if we’ve gotten a response from Lorelle!