Is attention subject to control of perception?

[From Bruce Nevin (11.13.2004 12:15 EST)]
Paying attention is a learnable skill.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/11/13/playing_their_way_to_improved_concentration/
“[P]ractice can teach a child what it feels like – and looks like
– to pay attention.”
Some perceptions are being brought under control here. What
perceptions?
It could be a perception of “concentrating”. It could be
perceptions of various body states that accompany paying attention. If
the former, the learned skill is completely transferrable to different
contexts. If the latter, the portability of the skill depends upon how
context-dependent the perceptions are.
Basic practices of meditation also have this purpose, and this effect.
The context of meditation practice typically is controlled – quiet,
sitting still, eliminating distractions. Yet the ability to focus
attention appears to be transferred to uncontrolled contexts replete with
distraction. This suggests that the skills that are learned and
strengthened in meditation practice involve control of a perception of
“concentrating” or of perceptions accompanying concentration
that are not context-dependent.
They do say
http://www.playattention.com/general-questions/#gen9
that transfer depends on assistance from the coach and the parents. Another commercial product: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40475,00.html
This is based on research by Joel Lubar at the University of Tennessee http://psychology.utk.edu/people/lubar.html and Col. Louis Csoka for the US Army. Lubar’s work dates from the early 1970s, and has been published in 25 journal articles and book chapters and in the book Behavioral Approaches to Neurology, Academic Press, 1981. He compiled a list of peer-reviewed publications on this at http://www.drakeinstitute.com/home.phtml/add/2002-07-08-185122/.

EEG measures depend upon “resonance” or synchronization of many neural systems within regions of the cortex.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9341967&dopt=Abstract
“… resonant loops between neocortical columns of cells known as local, regional, and global resonances. These resonances determine the specific EEG frequencies and are often activated by groups of cells in the thalamus known as pacemakers. There are complex excitatory and inhibitory interactions within the cortex and between the cortex and the thalamus that allow these loops to operate and provide the basis for learning. Neurofeedback is a technique for modifying these resonant loops, and hence, modifying the neurophysiological and neurological basis for learning and for the management of a number of neurologically based disorders.”

Bill has disparaged this as equivalent to picking up RF emanations from the backplane of a computer. (Actually, spies have done exactly this. When I worked at BBN, I was told that trucks filled with equipment belonging to the USSR would very commonly “break down” on the highway near certain buildings in Langley, VA, and it would take a long time to get them back on the road again. Are there analogous attempts to factor simpler signals out of EEG records?)

But what is this resonance? Why should neural signals in many neurons become synchronized? How does this relate to the control of individual neural signals in control loops? Shouldn’t synchronization or resonance interfere with control?

According to a presentation on an Army website about Csoka’s stuff, www.internationalmta.org/2003/2003PowerPointFiles/A12-Cowan.ppt, their equipment detects the “brainwaves” from the “Executive Attention Network”. There is an inverse relation between alpha EEG signal and focus or concentration. In Barry Sterman’s EEG studies of Air Force pilots in B2 simulators, as they focussed on a particular aviation task, the alpha brainwave decreased. The more difficult the task, the greater the alpha suppression.

There was an alpha burst as focus ended, and then suppression as the next task began. This interspersed “microbreak” rest period is considered essential. “[T]here is evidence that this kind of cycling between concentration and the microbreak is a basic way in which the brain functions. For example, there are studies that show that when we read, there is a brief idling rhythm in the visual cortex when we come to the end of a line and move on to the next.” http://peakachievement.com/articles/Article%20-%20NasaAirForce/ARTICLE-air_force_and_nasa_research.[htm

](http://peakachievement.com/articles/Article%20-%20NasaAirForce/ARTICLE-air_force_and_nasa_research.htm)"[T]hese idling rhythms decrease right after a person is presented with a target to respond to, and then increase again when they finish processing their response to the stimulus. In the back of the brain, this idling rhythm was an 8-12 Hz. (alpha) burst that increased as they became more familiar with the task. As he looked at sites that were further forward in the brain, he saw that there was also an idling rhythm at 5 to 7 Hz" or theta.

Elsewhere (http://peakachievement.com/articles/Article%20-%20NasaAirForce/ARTICLE-air_force_and_nasa_research.htm) instead of “alpha brainwaves” they refer to “idling rhythms in the parietal lobe”.

But is it alpha or theta that is reduced during concentration?

“[A]s I and others concentrated, the voltage output decreased across the board, at all frequencies.” http://peakachievement.com/articles/Article%20-%20NasaAirForce/ARTICLE-air_force_and_nasa_research.htm “Dr. Sterman had actually noticed the same thing, from about 5 to 15 Hz—all the frequencies that he measured—at virtually all the brainwave recording sites he tried. Technically, this is called “event related desynchronization”. In the frontal lobe, this suppression is followed by the return of the theta (5-7 Hz.) idling rhythm in about half a second, particularly after we see a target, rather than an unimportant control stimulus. When people learn to suppress the idling rhythms, their attention problems clear up.”

Here is what I think is the key insight out of this that they’re missing. It sounds like the synchronization or resonance that is measured as “brain waves” correlates with distraction, and that good control (corresponding with concentration) takes individual neurons out of resonance, weakening the net effect of a “brain wave”.

They make a distinction between concentration and alertness. The following is from the PPT presentation cited above:

Concentration: The degree of Single-pointed focus on a perception, thought, or image.
– Zooming in.
– Can be relaxed, very alert, or in-between.
– The “Zone”.

Alertness/Arousal: More intense stimulation, “on the edge”, excitement.
– Summoning resources to respond.
– Related to stimulation of the Reticular Activating System by many studies.
– Enhances emotion.
– Quick “burnout” if not conserved.

This seems to me to be an important distinction. In our discussions, we have not clearly made this distinction. We have talked of attention in relation to readiness for action (arousal) and as correlated with (perhaps caused or directed by) error. This is at odds with the experience of meditators. It may say more about distraction than about concentration of attention.

In sum, it appears to me that when you’re not concentrating on something, neurons within each region of the brain synchronize with one another. When you are concentrating on a task, individual neurons track sensory input and intention (reference input), and such signals differ from one neuron to another, taking them out of the resonance of synchronization with other neurons. The noise in the brain of neurons at play diminishes when you focus on a task. “Suppression” of “brainwaves” is a side effect, but by making it something that you can effect consciously, with “biofeedback” from the sensors in this helmet or visor, you do whatever it takes to diminish the side effect. The result is concentrating better.

    /Bruce Nevin

From Bruce Nevin (11.13.2004 12:15 EST)

Bruce, I don’t get permission to open the PPfile. Do I do anything wrong.

www.internationalmta.org/2003/2003PowerPointFiles/A12-Cowan.ppt

I will stydy your mail some more. But I think biofeedback and psychofeedback is quite related. And if I am right, I find psychofeedback more interesting. Is it possible that biofeedback is part of control at lower levels and that psychofeedback is part of control both on higher and lower levels?

Bjorn

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.14,21:40 EST)]

From David Goldstein (2004.11.14.2239 EDT)

What do you mean by “psychofeedback?”

First time I learned about “psychofeedback” was in the eighties. Paul G Thomas: Psychofeedback. Practical Psychocybernetics. He was a Norbert Wiener fan and PGT showed me the way to Rosenblueth, Wiener ad Bigelow’s essay “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology”. It was this essay that in 1997 made me searching on the net till I found something like Teleology. And I found CSG.

PGT used the concept psychofeedback and he defined it as a method to control human organism using earlier experiences and feedback present experiences of experiences. Today it is better to use just feedback.

First time I heard about Biofeedback it was in the seventies I red about the Russians who made a bioelectric hand (a prosthesis). The user with an amputated arm wished to open the hand and he opened it.

I think it is exciting to use imagination and then turn over to real time perception when I will establish new references. I know Rick and Bill don’t find this interesting, but I still do. Here it is nice to use the concept Psychofeedback. But maybe feedback is OK.

Can you describe how you by Biofeedback can change properties of heart activity. The way I do it is by Psychofeedback (or feedback).

Bjorn

[From Bruce Nevin (11.18.2004 13:20 EST)]

From Bruce Nevin (11.13.2004 12:15
EST)

Bruce, I don’t get permission to open the
PPfile. Do I do anything wrong.

www.internationalmta.org/2003/2003PowerPointFiles/A12-Cowan.ppt

Try navigating to
http://www.internationalmta.org/2003/2003PowerPointFiles/

and then right-click the file and “save link as” a file on your
desktop.

If that fails, I can send you the file. Who knows, they may think that
anyone with an address outside the US is an evil doer.

… I think
biofeedback and psychofeedback is quite related. And if I am right, I
find psychofeedback more interesting. Is it possible that biofeedback is
part of control at lower levels and that psychofeedback is part of
control both on higher and lower levels?

Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.14,21:40 EST)–

Paul G Thomas …
defined … psychofeedback as a method to [the] control human organism
[by] using earlier experiences and feedback [from?] present experiences
[perceptions?] of experiences.

If I understand this correctly, it is like the processes which (on
introspective evidence) I have proposed are involved in the amplification
or escalation of body sensations in what looks like runaway feedback
mounting up until we become conscious of these perceptions, often
experiencing them as emotions.

Is Mr. Thomas more concerned with performance improvement and with
“motivating” people? That’s what I infer from reviews on
amazon.com. And people like golfers and jugglers like his book, e.g.

http://www.rbookshop.com/hobbies/j/Juggling/

Seems related to Dr. Maltz’s psycho-cybernetics.

    /Bruce

Nevin

···

At 12:03 PM 11/14/2004 +0100, Bjørn wrote:
At 08:34 PM 11/14/2004 +0100, Bjørn wrote:

[Bjorn Simonsen (2004.11.18,23:05 EST)]

[From Bruce Nevin (11.18.2004 13:20 EST)]

Thank you Bruce, I had a crash on my hard disk and had to format it. I had
not loaded Power Point. After I had loaded PP I got permission.

If I understand this correctly, it is like the processes which (on

introspective evidence) I

have proposed are involved in the amplification or escalation of body

sensations in what

looks like runaway feedback mounting up until we become conscious of these

perceptions,

often experiencing them as emotions.

Here is his definition of psycho feedback: Psycho feedback is a method to
control the human system through both feedback the result of earlier
performances and through expressing the result of present performances or
experiences.

Here is an example how I used his technique when I stopped smoking in 1992.
I formulated a statement I expressed for myself every time I would have a
smoke or when I saw other smoking or when I saw pictures of people smoking.
It was:
"I have finished smoking. I will manage this by imagine the advantages by
being a non-smoker. I will govern myself in accordance with this plan rather
than act in accordance to old mental tracks. This is a contract I can't
withdraw from."

My new plan should be the result of present performances. I expressed my
earlier performances to be wrong every time I perceived a wish to smoke.

After I was familiar with PCT I think my new plan is a reference and wishing
to smoke was the actual perception. Saying that it was wrong when I smoked
earlier was maybe an automatic action (feedback). I don't think Mr. Thomas
knew PCT, but he knew much about Norbert Wiener.

Is Mr. Thomas more concerned with performance improvement and with

"motivating" people?

That's what I infer from reviews on amazon.com. And people like golfers and

jugglers like his book, e.g.

He was absolutely concerned with performance improvement, but not with
"motivating" people. He was very clear that other people couldn't motivate
other people. He said, "Motivation is stimulus and control of purposeful
behavior toward a specific goal".

Mr. Thomas referred to Dr. Maltz's psycho-cybernetics saying it was of great
value for many people. He learned people about the cybernetics principles,
but he didn't follow up his knowledge. (?)

Bjorn