Talking about Generations

The red areas indicate regions of activation in the functional MRI scanner during the particular task – reading (1st photo) or web searching (2nd photo).

By Ines Schinazi

Technology is obviously changing the way we speak, communicate, interact, and relate to each other. But is technology also changing our brains? Dr. Gary Small thinks so. Of course, the brain’s extreme plasticity is nothing new. But the overwhelming flood of technology in nearly ever aspect of our lives is.

Technology has greatly contributed to making Dr. Gary Small’s research possible. In many ways, technology has sparked his thinking.

He explains, “It was really in my personal life, noticing these technologies, that I felt I wanted to understand it more… I was struck how they’re have been so few direct studies of brain function while our brains are using these new technologies.”

Of course, without technology, Dr. Small’s elaborate research wouldn’t be possible at all.

While technology propels us forward, permitting someone like Dr. Small to explore these questions, it also paradoxically holds us back.

Through his research Dr. Small also reveals the widening “brain gap” occurring between “digital natives” and “digital immigrants,” thus affecting the family, the workplace, and society at large.

Dr. Small is a world- renowned expert on memory, aging, and the brain. He is currently the director of the UCLA “Memory & Aging Research Center at the Semel Insitute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior.” His latest book is the cleverly titled “iBrain.”

His extremely innovative research has made the headlines of “The New York Times,” “The Wall Street Journal,” and “USA today” among other publications. “Scientific American” magazine has named him one of the world’s top innovators in Science and Technology.

His recent UCLA study titled “Your Brain on Google” makes us wonder if our own brains are under the Google influence. In an exclusive interview, Dr. Small shares some of his thoughts.

Ines: Could you talk about the “Your Brain on Google” study you did at UCLA?
Dr. Small: We wanted to see what the brain looked like the first time it searched online. To do that, we had to find [older] people that were “naïve” to the Internet. That was probably the hardest part of the study. So we found these people, and matched them up with people who had Internet-search experience.

We put them in a functional MRI scanner, where we can measure brain function from moment to moment.

We simulated Internet searching and reading a book in the scanner. We found that when the Internet savvy people searched online there was a greater than two-fold increase in activation throughout the brain. We thought that that had to do with the neural networks knowing how to search online and showing greater activation.

We also have found, and are presenting this next month, that if you take these “Internet Naïve” people and have them search online for just an hour a day during a week or two, that their brains look identical to somebody who has been searching online for years. It tells us that an older brain really can adapt quite quickly.

Ines: You are considered one of the world’s top experts on memory, aging, and the brain. Specifically, how did you start exploring the connection between digital technology and the brain? What sparked the interest?
Dr. Small: My work has been primarily in Alzheimer’s disease, in memory, and in how the brain ages. I’ve spent much of career developing technology on how to measure the brain, like PET scan techniques, and so forth.

And it struck me in the past few years that all the technology that we are developing, which improves our lives, may also have an effect on the brain. It was really in my personal life, noticing these technologies, that I felt that I wanted to understand it more.

That’s why I wrote the book “iBrain.” During the course of writing “iBrain,” we did this study at UCLA called “Your Brain on Google.” Because I was struck how they’re have been so few direct studies of brain function while our brains are using these new technologies.

Ines: Your research reveals the wide disparity between digital natives and digital immigrants, which you call the “Brain Gap.” How do you perceive this brain gap affecting the family?
Dr. Small: I think it definitely affects the family. I can see that in my own family. The younger people, the young teenagers, are using technology more, they’re better at, but they’re not spending time face-to-face with human contact.

We have a rule at our house that there’s no technology during dinnertime. Yet it’s a strange situation. The other day, I said to my son, “Stop playing that video game, and come watch television with me!”

It speaks to my concern about the repeated use of technology, and not socializing. It’s a moving target. It’s a complex topic, and I don’t have all the answers. In writing “iBrain” I was hoping to generate some discussion, raise some questions, and get people to study it more…

Ines: How does the brain gap affect the workplace, as digital natives and digital immigrants must now collaborate to accomplish the same tasks?
Dr. Small: In the workplace, when people have to adapt, they do. An example is my father, who was already in his 80’s, and was still working. He wouldn’t use a computer at all. But when they changed to an electronic filing system at the office, he was forced to use a computer, and he adapted quite readily.

I think some older people will have advantages because of the “face-to-face contact” [skills]. Yet younger people will have advantages because of the technology skills in the workplace. The people, who excel the most, are those who can master both approaches.

Ines: What are the steps we can take to minimize the “brain gap” in the workplace and in the family?
Dr. Small: I think they need to first become aware of the issues, and have discussions. I think the way to bridge the gap, is to upgrade the tech skills of the older generation, and help young people, with their human contact face-to-face skills.

Ines: There’s always a great deal of discussion about the “left” and “right” sides of the brain, which determine people’s natural aptitudes.

Do you think technology-use, is comparable to other skills like Art, Math, and Literature? Do some people have more of a natural aptitude or talent? Or are people’s technological skills directly proportionate to their technology-exposure?
Dr. Small: That’s a complex question. We haven’t studied it directly. My sense is that this is something that some of us are better at innately. But it’s also something that can be learned. So it’s not just one or the other. The brain is quite plastic, and does respond well to these kinds of exposure. We found in our study “Your Brain on Google” that an older brain really adapts quite quickly.

Ines: You find that digital natives often lack basic “people skills,” such as reading facial expressions, or feeling empathy. In the future, are digital natives at risk of losing their “people skills” all together?
Dr. Small: Yes. That is an issue. People see it anecdotally all the time. Young people are not showing eye contact when they’re having a conversation. They really can’t read non-verbal cues when they are having a conversation. So I think this is a risk, and that’s one reason I try to heighten people’s attention to it.

Ines: We live in the world of the iPod, the iPhone, the iMac, and now the “iBrain.” How did you come up with the creative title for your latest book?
Dr. Small: I have to credit our editor, Mary-Ellen O’Neill. It was a very good idea. It’s a terrific title. The book is about the brain, and the effect of new technology on the brain.

So, you were just doing a play on words with “iBrain, iPhone, etc.” [In regards to the meaning of the “I”] you could say it stands for “intelligent” or “interactive.” It’s interesting because in the study “Your Brain on Google” we found the frontal lobe was particularly activated, and that’s the interactive part of the brain. So searching online is quite interactive. You’re making lots of decisions. You’re going back and forth. It really engages neural circuits in the frontal lobe of the brain.

Ines: Your research insists on the positive aspects of internet-use. You find that the Internet helps develop important skills like multi-tasking, complex reasoning, and decision making, in both the young and the aging. That said the effects are only positive if people use technology responsibly, not giving into its addictive nature.

We know that Internet addiction is a growing problem all over the world, as there have recently been a lot of rehab centers opening up to treat this problem. Are the brains of addicts wired differently?
Dr. Small: We do know that some people have a predisposition for addiction. So they’re brain wiring may be a bit different, and there may be some genetic determining of that.

But I think all of us have the capacity to become addicted to things. It depends on the amount of exposure, the situation, and a lot of different factors. I think that just like with any condition, there’s a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

You find that people that get addicted to technology are often the same people that have a tendency to get addicted to alcohol, drugs, and food. It’s the same dopamine reward system. The primitive systems of the brain drive these addictions. We talk about this to some extent in “I Brain.”

Ines: What are your suggestions for avoiding the addiction problem as a society?
Dr. Small: I think there’s a lot of controversy about it. Not so much in Asia, and in some other countries. But in the U.S. the American Psychiatric Association hasn’t decided yet that there is such a thing. I think there is, and I think we should take it seriously and try to help people.

Ines: What are your thoughts on popular social networks like Facebook and Twitter? Are they good for the brain?
Dr. Small: I think like anything they can be good. But when overdone they can be negative. I’ve talked to a lot of schools, and a lot of kids, who are spending a lot of time on Facebook.

A negative is that they’re losing their face-to-face communication skills. But they’re getting good at their “Facebook-to-Facebook” skills.

You know, it’s marvelous how we can network with this. But I think that we need to use it in moderation, and not overdue it. I always recommend a balance, that you spend time offline, to balance the online time.

Ines: And these social network sites seem particularly addictive…
Dr. Small: Yeah, anyone who has been involved with [social networking sites], really sees the draw. For me, it’s not Facebook, but I have so much business on e-mail that it’s hard for me to get off my e-mail. It’s helpful. But too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I think you have to have a balance and know when to use the electronic communication and when to use the old-style communication.

Ines: Much of your research works towards helping the old stay as young as possible. Your research is an effort towards reconciling good health with old age.

However, do you think that some of the enormous attraction to this type of research comes from our society’s general fear of aging?
Dr. Small: Yes. We want to stay young. We want to stay healthy. There’s certainly an emphasis on youth.

What we’re learning from science is that we have more control than we think. Genetics only accounts for part of what determines how well and how long we live. So we’re trying to help people understand that, and figure out when they can do today to live better and longer.

Ines: We know that with the excessive use of technology, individuals are developing more “virtual ties” and “virtual relationships” than “real life” ones.

Is the trend of virtual relationships also a product of the changing brain? Or does it say more about our society and socialization in general?
Dr. Small: I think it speaks to how enticing all these things are. I love technology. It’s really tremendous. I think that it’s something that can really enhance our lives, and it does.

But I think it’s “sneaked up” on us so quickly, we haven’t thought about the positives and the negatives. That’s what “iBrain” is about. To try and put it in balance, and think about it intelligently, to enhance our lives, to control the technology, to make things better rather than the other way around.

Ines: A study affirms that women are inherently better at multi-tasking because ever since ancient times, while their husbands were out hunting, they sustained the family, by multitasking. This same historical context also caused men to be better at focusing on a single task at a time.

In your opinion, how will the digital age, with its constant multi-tasking, impact future generations and their gender roles?
Dr. Small: I think there’s a kind of “narrowing” of the gender divide as a result of this.

Interestingly men seem to get into the technology earlier, but now there’s not so much of a divide.

But there are some differences in terms of “use patterns,” going back to evolutionary development, defining the roles of men and women, where men were the hunters, and women the nurturers.

That’s interesting, the thought of multi-tasking, and women being better at it. I think there’s some truth to that. I find I can focus on a single task, whereas my wife has a little bit harder time doing that, and will notice other things going on.

I think all bets are off with the technology today. We’re seeing fewer differences between men and women.

Tags: Artikullocks, generations, ibrain, Job, Social Media, Technology