Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

arXiv blog

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Email Subscription

Recently on the arXiv blog...

Recent comments on the arXivblog

  • ... : Well, I did log in and searched in vain for your "withering reply".  Is it perhaps subtly hidden...
  • TooMany : While the anti-nuke contingent in the US and in parts of Europe continues to rant about the...
  • mulliguns : Points to why a pair may be the most difficult to row successfully, and that sometimes odd size...
  • shaase : It would seem difficult to guarantee that oarsmen all pull with the same force, so it will still...
  • seth : Even though the new arrangements were not immediately obvious, I do think they make common sense....
  • ... : I have examined the major uranium producing countries and made a forecast for 2009, 2010 and...
  • ZephirAWT : Frankly, I don't believe in communication hypothesis wery much, but there's is at least another...
  • ... : http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/The link above goes to your Technology Review...
  • jmc8888 : Great explanation of an issue that only concerns the idiots. If running out of nuclear fuel was a...
  • spad12 : "Federally insured loans do not reduce the overall cost of projects, they just shift part of the...
  • Siphon : Of course, many things do change with temperature: density of the radioactive material, which...
  • mbelvadi : I wonder if this model takes into account the slow cumulation of very tiny increments of...
  • ZephirAWT : That's OK, it's word consumption (110 thousands tons of uranium concentrate) - enough to next ten...
  • Bob... : 1) "Federally back the loans..."  Federally insured loans do not reduce the overall cost of...
  • tsport100 : What a load of alarmist rubbish this article is. Australia has 1.2 MILLION tonnes of known...
  • ZephirAWT : /*..Uranium is being taken from coal ash waste...*/It isn't - we are only speculating about it...
  • Colonel... : Says this blog: "The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high...
  • spad12 : "The initial costs (overnight costs) are very large.    Financing the construction effectively...
  • Bob... : "it is cheap after the initial costs (and even then a large portion of the costs is in the form...
  • pasward : Do they?  If you are headed toward a star, being off by 1,000,000 km is still going to get you...
Advertisement
Tuesday, August 25, 2009

New Measure of Human Brain Processing Speed

A new way to analyze human reaction times shows that the brain processes data no faster than 60 bits per second.

For more than a century, psychologists have used reaction time as a window into the brain. The thinking is that information processing takes time, so the average amount of time taken to begin or complete a task reflects the duration of the cognitive processes involved in it.

For example, a typical reaction-time experiment might ask a subject to classify a sequence of letters as a word or a nonword, by pressing a button. This kind of experiment is called a visual lexical decision task.

This information-centric approach is clearly ripe for an information-theoretic treatment. And sure enough, no sooner had Claude Shannon published his theory of information in the 1940s, than psychologists began to apply it to the exchange of information between the environment and the brain that goes on during reaction-time experiments.

Their approach eventually led to Hick's Law, one of the few laws of experimental psychology. It states that the time it takes to make a choice is linearly related to the entropy of the possible alternatives. The results from various reaction-time experiments seem to show that this is the case. Although one byproduct of this approach is that the results are intimately linked to the type of experiment used to measure the reaction time. And that makes each study peculiarly vulnerable to the idiosyncrasies of the experimental approach.

Today, Fermin Moscoso del Prado Martín from the Université de Provence in France proposes a new way to study reaction times by analyzing the entropy of their distribution, rather in the manner of thermodynamics.

The entropy is an estimate of the amount of information needed to specify the state of the system.

Moscoso del Prado says the entropy of the distribution of reaction times is independent of the type of experiment and so provides a better measure of the cognitive processes involved. That's important, not least because it provides a way to more easily compare the results from different types of experiment.

Moscoso del Pradon uses his method to determine how much information the brain can process during lexical decision tasks. The answer? No more than about 60 bits per second. Of course, this is not the information-processing capacity of the entire brain but one measure of the input/output capacity during a specific task.

Moscoso del Prado goes on to analyze the data from various types of reaction-time experiments, in particular to determine whether information-processing speed is constant during a particular task, as implied by Hick's Law. Moscoso del Prado reckons it isn't.

"This finding suggests an adaptive system where the processing load is dynamically adjusted to the task demands," he says. That makes sense. It seems crazy to assume that the brain carries on processing data at the same rate regardless of the complexity of the task at hand.

But this has an important implication: that the linearity of Hick's Law doesn't always apply. So Hick's Law will need some kind of modification to cope with this nonlinearity.

Just how to rewrite one of the basic laws of behavioral psychology isn't clear yet. But it's sure to involve a very different way of looking at the brain from when it was formulated.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0908.3170: The Thermodynamics of Human Reaction Times

28 Aug 09 update: Moscoso del Prado writes:

"I have a small scientific comment on your post. Although I think it
represents my results very well, I find the opening sentence:

"A new way to analyze human reaction times shows that the brain processes
data no faster than 60 bits per second."

a bit misleading. I don't think I have shown anything about the upper bounds
of the processing speed, in principle the curve I show in Figure 4 of the
manuscript could extend far beyond this, but I have no information to make
this extrapolation, so I would not claim (for the moment) any upper limit."

Comments

  • Cognitive reaction times
    Our brains are capable of more than just cognition. Any good badminton, squash, tennis or table tennis player is constantly amazed about the calculations his or her brain can accomplish at astonishing speeds.  One learns to keep from planning because that slows ones reactions down and gets in the way.

    Art Funkhouser (VIII, '62), Bern, Switzerland
    Rate this comment: 12345

    artfunk
    08/25/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • 60 bits/s?  Too low.
    Come on.  You can read about 7 words in a second, and surely that's more than 60 bits of information right there. 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    natelson
    08/25/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: 60 bits/s?  Too low.
      the key phrase is "during a specific task" ... this is a lexical decision task that requires discrimination. when reading, you build a prediction model for expected words based on context. it's a very different task and will have different rates of processing for different content.

      aside from that, more technically, 60 bits in one cognitive context is not 60 bits in another. so, 60 bits of lexico-visual information when you're reading a children's story is different from 60 bits when you are reading a gertrude stein poem.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      cloois
      08/26/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: 60 bits/s?  Too low.
      Actually 60 bits/s is probably almost bang on for human reading comprehension.

      Say you are correct about 7 words/s, and the average English word is 5.10 letters, giving 35.7 characters/s. Then let's be generous and say the entropy of English is 1.5 bits/character (ie how much information is required to represent the text in its most minimal form). That gives 53.6 bits/s for human reading, or if we include the spaces between words as another 1.5 bits each, then 64 bits/s.  The article estimate of 60 bits/s looks quite plausible, especially considering how non-rigorous the experiments were.

      The comment above me brings up another excellent point. The entropy of English certainly varies based on the complexity of the text considered (a much larger vocabulary introduces many more unique characters combinations, so more information is required to represent the text).

      References
      [http://blogamundo.net/lab/wordlengths/]
      [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)]
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Omi
      08/26/2009
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
    • Re: 60 bits/s?  Too low.
      Reading uses the massively parallel architecture of the brain's wetware.  See "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins for some insight into how a slow wetware computer can beat a fast electronic one. 60 bits per second would correspond roughly to sixty neurons firing in sequence.  That's a LOT of tree branching possibilities even with recursion.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      xenodochy
      08/26/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.