SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Attention and Memory

by Steven Novella, Apr 18 2011

By now most readers have likely seen the famous basketball-passing video. But if you have not, check it out here before reading further. It’s a fun test, but will be spoiled by the discussion here.

The phenomenon demonstrated by the video is called inattentional blindness (I have also seen attentional blindness and inattention blindness). It reflects the fact that we have a finite capacity to process information. We cannot attend to all the sensory information coming from our environment at the same time, let alone do that and attend to other cognitive tasks as well, like solving a math problem. So, moment to moment, we apply our finite capacity selectively to one or a few tasks. The more tasks we try to do simultaneously (multitasking) the fewer cognitive resources can be applied to each task, and performance suffers.

Most people cannot effectively multitask, even if they think they can. Only about 2.5% of people can genuinely multitask – perform two demanding cognitive tasks simultaneously without both suffering. For most people, multitasking comes at a price. We can divide our attention, but not without a decrease in performance. Many states now have laws reflecting this research – prohibiting talking on cell phones while driving.

What the famous gorilla video demonstrates is that attention itself is a task that suffers from from multitasking. We can focus all of our attention on one thing, or spread our attention out to monitor our environment, or do a little of both. You have a budget of attention, and you can spend it as you please at any moment, but you cannot increase your budget.

What the gorilla video research (and other research) also shows is that everyone does not have the same budget. Some people have more attention to spread around. Neuroscientists are not content simply documenting the finite attention and cognitive budgets of our brains – they also want to figure out what specific brain functions determine our attentional budget.

That is the focus of new research by psychologists Janelle Seegmiller, Jason Watson, and David Strayer. They reproduced the gorilla video experiment, but also tested the hypothesis that the ability to see the gorilla is linked to working memory capacity.

Working memory is the immediate information that you can hold and manipulate. When you do a math problem in your head, you are using working memory. It is distinguished from long term memory which can be stored for years to be retrieved, but cannot be manipulated – unless it is recalled into working memory.

The researchers identified students who had not seen the gorilla video. They then tested their working memory capacity with a standard test, which also involved distraction. They presented them with 75 math problems, each with a letter after the problem. They had to solve the problem and remember the letter sequences. To make sure they were doing the math problems, the researchers only counted those subjects who scored 80% or more on the math problems.

Then they made the students watch the gorilla video. Similar to prior research, 42% of the students did not notice the gorilla. Then they analyzed the data according to performance on the working memory task. They found that 67% of those who score highly in working memory noticed the gorilla, while only 36% of those with low working memory scores did.

The authors conclude from this that working memory capacity is tied to attention. This makes sense in that working memory can be a resource that contributes to the budget of attention. The more working memory capacity someone has, the more attention they have to spread around to various tasks. Or perhaps the better they are at switching their attention – working memory may contribute to attentional “flexibility.”

Of course, this is just one study and the results are primarily correlational, so we need to be cautious in applying the results. It is highly plausible that other aspects of cognitive capacity may have contributed to increased function in both memory and attention in these subjects. Perhaps those who were simply more awake and alert at the time of testing did better on both tasks.

This is a challenge faced by all neuroscientists, even to clinicians like myself. We often interrogate brain function by having subjects perform specific tasks. We can design those tasks to emphasize certain basic brain functions, and to isolate them as much as possible – but we can never perfectly isolate one specific function. This is because all tasks require multiple brain functions working together to produce a final result. That is how our brains are organized.

For example, in performing the memory task in this experiment subjects were also using their language function, and their visual ability, while they were filtering distractions, focusing their attention and using their working memory.

This means that researchers will have to examine this question from multiple angles. They will have to isolate the variables that are truly contributing to attentional flexibility. This study is a big clue, but is not the final answer.

Meanwhile, I find it interesting, whatever the underlying cause, that some people are significantly better at directing their attention than others. I wonder if this is an ability that is changing over time. Will poor multitasking ability be selected against because poor multi-taskers who try to talk on their phones while driving have a higher chance of being killed in a car accident?

I also wondered if the higher working memory and higher attentional flexibility in some subjects represents a pure neurological advantage – superior hardwiring, or does it reflect a zero-sum game, meaning that they have decreased capacity elsewhere? Are attentionally flexible people less able to think deeply without distraction? I can make either answer make sense, so I don’t think there is an obvious answer. And both answers may be correct – they are not mutually exclusive.

If we go back to the budget analogy and apply it to the entire brain – some people clearly have a larger budget of cognitive ability than others, but also there are different abilities on which their finite budget can be allocated. So you can increase one ability by increasing your brain’s overall budget, or by taking resources from other abilities.

And we have to add to this that cognitive abilities do not exist in isolation – so improving one ability may have cross-over benefits to other abilities.

In the end this new research is an interesting piece to a massively complex puzzle, but a picture is slowly emerging.

GD Star Rating
a WordPress rating system
Attention and Memory, 4.8 out of 5 based on 9 ratings

Recommended Reading

13 Responses to “Attention and Memory”

  1. gski says:

    How did the counting passes scores compare, for those that saw the gorilla vs. those that did not?

  2. oldebabe says:

    To follow on from 1. gski above, it seems to me that the test proposed that viewers count passes, so attention would have to have been primarily directed to that end. Maybe it wasn’t `poor’ attention at all, maybe just the opposite, i. e. attention was directed by the instructions given, and passes were counted in spite of the `gorilla’s deceptive (by test takers) introduction.

    Maybe this isn’t the best example, Dr. Novella, of the extent of anyone’s ability to multi-task?

  3. The researchers tried to control for that by only counting people who were 80% correct regarding the ball counting. So anyone not paying attention enough to count the passes was eliminated.

  4. Robo Sapien says:

    Here’s a fun experiment…

    Count how many times Steven Novella said the word “budget” in this article. The correct answer is 10, but did you notice the money missing from your wallet?

  5. Bill Minuke says:

    I would speculate that multitasking is a skill that can be practiced and improved upon. Not in a generalized way, i.e. practice any multitasking activity and all such activities are improved, but rather improve in the tasks that you’re practicing and moderate to slight improvements will occur in some side activities. This is demonstrable in many learning activities. Take learning piano, for example. For those of us no where near prodigy level, learning to move our fingers independently and then playing with two hands and then looking at notes, decoding the mapping between the note on the paper and it’s placement on the keyboard, while moving the peddle and doing it all to a consistent beat, is a challenging multitasking activity. Practice over years improves all of these skills such that proficient pianists can play, read the music, sound great and have some reserve cognitive abilities to talk to the audience, look around the room, etc. I’m confident that having learned a skill such as playing piano, a pianist can perform other activities requiring multitasking provided that they are similar skills, though probably to a lesser extend than playing.

    PS You may shoot me down for this but I wouldn’t have mentioned the laws forbiding talking on cell phones while driving. As these laws haven’t improved highway safety they are an example of legislatures passing laws without doing the science. Anyway I found that tidbit distracting, in an otherwise interesting article.

    • tmac57 says:

      Who mentioned the laws forbidding talking on cell phones? Steve was talking about the potential for killing yourself while performing a well documented distracting activity (using a cell phone while driving).

      • tmac57 says:

        Nevermind, I just saw the “laws” reference. That’s what I get for having inattentional blindness ;)
        Maybe why the laws are not very effective,is because most of them require using a hands free device,which doesn’t really address the problem of diverting your cognitive attention away from the task of driving.

      • Robo Sapien says:

        What they really need to outlaw is singing in the car. It becomes vastly more difficult to pay attention to the road when you’ve got that lovin feelin…

        oooooh that lovin feelin

  6. MadADDer says:

    I like the analogy of attention budget. As a person who suffers from ADHD(inattentive subtype), I can certainly relate to that idea. In my own experience, I am very often required to divert what little of my own budget from one place to another quickly in an effort to “multitask.” I have long known that the word “multitask” should always be in air quotes, and I almost invariably say it that way. ;) I would be very interested to know if and how this type of research could benefit me and those like me.

    You made reference to “Working Memory” and, having studied Computer Science, I couldn’t help but draw a parallel to RAM (active memory) in a computer. In a multitasking OS, the more RAM you have installed in the machine, the better that machine performs, other things being equal.

    Is this a valid parallel? And if so, do you think it would be possible to increase one’s “attention budget?” I know that there are types of training, cognitive therapy and other things like exercise that can help increase memory, but does that correlate to an increase of attention budget? Can this be a way to “cure” ADD?

    • Ed Graham says:

      First thing I thought of: I need another 4 gigs of RAM.

    • suedomsa says:

      in your analogy you will also need to consider processor speed and long term storage capacity such as a hard or flash drive. with more ram you can “juggle” more information simultaneously, the speed at which is dependent on the processor. also to take advantage of what is learned via these real time juggling acts, relies on long term storage that can later be retrieved when the short term (RAM) storage is flowed out.

  7. Chris says:

    I just finished a book that goes into this subject, in the context of magicians exploiting our limits to attention: Sleights of Mind.

  8. qwert says:

    Seems to me that this research should have some implications for how witness testimonies are handled in a court of law. I would probably be quite adamant in claiming that no gorilla walked across that stage.