Under Pressure

[Gyakuto]

It seems the misfiring of a population of neurones may be the cause of ‘choking under pressure’.

Choking under pressure: Brain neurons misfire when the stakes are highest

Whether we've watched athletes do it or had the misfortune to experience it ourselves, 'choking' at an important moment when the pressure is on comes down to more than mental fortitude. For the first time, scientists have uncovered a set of neurons that misfire when the stakes are at their highest,…

newatlas.com

As though we didn’t know, the likelihood of choking increased when the reward was deemed as more ‘valuable’. This appears to apply to both physical (sports) and cognitive (examinations) tasks.

Anecdotally, I find that if can disinhibit my expectations I perform much better. I couldn’t get the information in scientific papers to stick in my head when I was an undergraduate and it was really important, but during my PhD and as an academic I could casually read the literature and it did stay in my memory. When I attempted my fourth Dan grading, I wasn’t worried because I had three other possibilities to have a go at it, later in the year. Thus I was relaxed, did my thing and, to my surprise, passed first time! However, it can be a hard frame of mind to cultivate.


Original Source:

https://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(24)00608-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627324006081%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

 

[Fungus]

Thanks for posting!

This is extremely interesting, as it gives a neurcal level understanding to for example challenge and threat where hte peak cardiac output is is understood mainly at the vascular systeme regulation, cortisol and vasoconstriction. That there is always a sweet spot where you perform best is something I recognize too in many ways. So understaning deeper how it works is interesting.

I wasn't aware of this, the question is "why do the choke", will read the full paper carefully

As it's begind a paywall, a corresponding preprint copy is here

A neural basis of choking under pressure

Incentives tend to drive improvements in performance. But when incentives get too high, we can “choke under pressure” and underperform when it matters most. What neural processes might lead to choking under pressure? We studied Rhesus monkeys performing a challenging reaching task in which they...

www.biorxiv.org

 

[Fungus]

What the papers seems to conclude it that there exists what they call "adverse interactions between
motivational signals and diverse neural functions, including cognition and perception", one is still curious about an logical explanation for this? From the perspective of performance and rewards, this seems to be as they put in the review "the brain gets it wrong". But most of the time, the brain has evolved for a long time, so what is the "reason" for why brain "gets it wrong"?

The first thing that comes to my mind - if you view the brain as an information processing agent in a competitive environment - is to speculate that it has to do with resource management, or limted information capacity of processing. Perhaps the same "capacity" of "processing hardware" (from neural networks) is used for many things (multitasking). A lifeform must maintain many importan processes in parallell. So perhaps when a HIGH reward is presented, the brain sees is as an opportunity we can't afford to miss, and gives disproportional priority to processing the benefits of the reward itself, at the expensiv of focusing on execution. The paper found that motor activity was not affected, but was mistunded. Could it be like when error rates and thus response rates decrease on a network when the traffice gets too high?

So the "brain gets it wrong" needs qualification IMO. I have deep respect for the evolved brain, so maybe it seems to get it wrong, from the perspective of an artifical test, but maybe what that brain does, is the best it can do. IF this is the case, it seems questionable to say that the "brain gets it wrong"?

What do you think?

 

[Fungus]

So the "brain gets it wrong" needs qualification IMO. I have deep respect for the evolved brain, so maybe it seems to get it wrong, from the perspective of an artifical test, but maybe what that brain does, is the best it can do. IF this is the case, it seems questionable to say that the "brain gets it wrong"?

I wonder if the scenario where the same difficulty and same risk of a "task" offert different rewards is somewhat unnatural from an evolutionary perspective, and if this can explain why the brain "gets it wrong in this experiment"?

I mean, wouldn't it be more common in natura, that the extremely high rewards, also are associated with increasinhly higher stakes and risks. And no matter how high the rewards is, if the risk is too high and chances of success are low, maybe the brain are in doubt? That seems like a survival benefit.

So maybe the brain evolved, to associate high rewards with high risk? Extremely high reward and low risk, are probably not common in nature? But perhaps it happens in laboratories.

Are we missing something else?

 

[windwalker099]

Wondering how many here have experienced "tunnel vision "

"Tunnel vision is the loss of peripheral vision with retention of central vision,
resulting in a constricted, circular field of sight.
This condition can be caused by a variety of factors"

 

[Gyakuto]

What the papers seems to conclude it that there exists what they call "adverse interactions between
motivational signals and diverse neural functions, including cognition and perception", one is still curious about an logical explanation for this? From the perspective of performance and rewards, this seems to be as they put in the review "the brain gets it wrong". But most of the time, the brain has evolved for a long time, so what is the "reason" for why brain "gets it wrong"?

I think they phrased this poorly. Evolution has wired us for survival and for the most part that means being very cautious. ‘Should I run across that area to the bush laden with fruit with that sabre tooth tiger just over there?’ Empty stomach says, ‘You can do it!’, legs and cardio system say, ‘Yes you can!’, brain says, ‘Hang on, hang on, let’s just wait a few hours until Sabrey-baby has gone away. We won’t starve over that time. Cognitive areas of the brain are in conflict with the autonomic system and do their best to prevent a dangerous situation inhibiting areas of the brain that will all them to take the body into that risky situation. But completing the task is probably quite feasible….the cognition has underestimate our abilities (gets it wrong).

The first thing that comes to my mind - if you view the brain as an information processing agent in a competitive environment - is to speculate that it has to do with resource management, or limted information capacity of processing.

Nicely put!

Perhaps the same "capacity" of "processing hardware" (from neural networks) is used for many things (multitasking).

We are not capable of multitasking, only rapidly switching between the currently most salient task. This switching is performed by the basal ganglia. Some people’s basal ganglia are faster at switching than others. Most of us can switch between 3-4 tasks. Fighter pilots and astronauts can switch between up to ten and their selection tests have this ability built into them. I can switch between 37 tasks

A lifeform must maintain many importan processes in parallell. So perhaps when a HIGH reward is presented, the brain sees is as an opportunity we can't afford to miss, and gives disproportional priority to processing the benefits of the reward itself, at the expensiv of focusing on execution.

For grabbing a fistful of grapes, with a snake close to the bunch, perhaps, but for the multi-stage task of defusing a complex bomb, where precision is a necessity, this might be an issue, there may be neural conflict and choking.

The paper found that motor activity was not affected, but was mistunded. Could it be like when error rates and thus response rates decrease on a network when the traffice gets too high?

The motor control system has many levels of processing in a hierarchy. Very simply, the motor cortex is at the top acting like an army Major General. The basal ganglia (BG) and the cerebellum are below it like brigadier generals, below that are the spinal cord circuits. Say you’re walking along an icy pavement and slip on a patch. The BG and cerebellum notice a mismatch between intention (from descending command) what’s actually happening to your body (feet slipping and leg up in the air) information from various peripheral receptors. The BG and cerebellum report back to the motor cortex saying it needs to quickly send down error correction commands to the muscles to correct the intention/execution mismatch which it does. The BG and cerebellum check the orders are reasonable for the environmental situation (they error correction signals would be different if you were on an icy tightrope!) and let them pass down to make you stagger around, flail your arms around and regain your balance again! The cerebellum is a bit different to the BG in that it can calculate an error correction signal and send it down to the muscles quicker that going through the whole hierarchy. The BG does have that ability. All of this is incumbent upon the complexity of the situation since neural processing power is limited.

So the "brain gets it wrong" needs qualification IMO.

I agree. It was poor phrasing, but a good headline!

I have deep respect for the evolved brain, so maybe it seems to get it wrong,

The problem with the brain’s evolution is that newer (better adapted) structures have had to be built on older structure. It’s like improving a car’s engine without removing the original designs: like a hybrid car still with a redundant starting crank….redundant until the battery goes flat…

from the perspective of an artifical test, but maybe what that brain does, is the best it can do.

You often hear people say evolution is ‘survival of the fittest’. That’s incorrect and misleading. They should say, ‘survival of the best adapted [to the current environment]’. A shark is the best adapted to oceanic life, but place it in a shade woodland area and it’d soon die! Put a kangaroo in a rainforest and it too wouldn’t last very long. Our brains are very well adapted to low speeds, our bodies to moderate temperatures and pressure etc….our environment. Put it at relativistic speeds and it simply will not cope…it hasn’t evolved to.

IF this is the case, it seems questionable to say that the "brain gets it wrong"?

What do you think?

The situations where the brain chokes are highly artificial. Examinations and elite sporting events. Our brains weren’t evolved to handle those situations…well competition of sorts but not with spectators TV cameras etc. Some brains are better than others in these situation and if there was a survival advantage to those situations, they’d be the ‘best adapted’ and pass on those traits to the next generation!

Sorry for the rambling response. I hope it helps?

 

[Fungus]

I think they phrased this poorly. Evolution has wired us for survival and for the most part that means being very cautious. ‘Should I run across that area to the bush laden with fruit with that sabre tooth tiger just over there?’ Empty stomach says, ‘You can do it!’, legs and cardio system say, ‘Yes you can!’, brain says, ‘Hang on, hang on, let’s just wait a few hours until Sabrey-baby has gone away. We won’t starve over that time. Cognitive areas of the brain are in conflict with the autonomic system and do their best to prevent a dangerous situation inhibiting areas of the brain that will all them to take the body into that risky situation. But completing the task is probably quite feasible….the cognition has underestimate our abilities (gets it wrong).

Nicely put!

We are not capable of multitasking, only rapidly switching between the currently most salient task.

Yes sure, a "poor mans multitasking", but the conclusion is we get hogging stays the same.
In computer science this switching is often called "trashing", when more and more resources goes to the "switching task" itself rather than the actual tasks in the pipeleine. At sometime, you simply have to discard some tasks, or you will spend ALL resources on "task switching".

This switching is performed by the basal ganglia. Some people’s basal ganglia are faster at switching than others. Most of us can switch between 3-4 tasks. Fighter pilots and astronauts can switch between up to ten and their selection tests have this ability built into them. I can switch between 37 tasks

Regarding focusing on the environemtn, I can reliably focus on 2 tasks at once. I can do more, but then trashing sets in, and error rates raise.

You often hear people say evolution is ‘survival of the fittest’. That’s incorrect and misleading. They should say, ‘survival of the best adapted [to the current environment]’.

Yes indeed, another way of putting it is that the term "fittest" is always contextual and relative, and not absolute. Take this to lower levels, and even true and false are contextual if they are seen as truncated opionions of an agent with limited information capacity!

Yes indeed, another way of putting it is that the term "fittest" is always contextual and relative, and not absolute. Take this to lower levels, and even true and false are contextual if they are seen as truncated opionions of an agent with limited information capacity!

Sorry for the rambling response. I hope it helps?

Yes, thanks!

 

[Gyakuto]

Yes sure, a "poor mans multitasking", but the conclusion is we get hogging stays the same.
In computer science this switching is often called "trashing", when more and more resources goes to the "switching task" itself rather than the actual tasks in the pipeleine. At sometime, you simply have to discard some tasks, or you will spend ALL resources on "task switching".

Are you familiar with the first lunar landing? On descent, the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) kept throwing out ‘1202’ and ‘1201’ warnings much to alarm of Armstrong and Aldrin. They turned out to be ‘executive overflow’ alarms. The AGC was saying it didn’t have sufficient time in it’s cycle to complete all the tasks it was being asked to do and was prioritising ‘essential’ tasks to landing safely, there on in (trashing). One of the reasons for this was that Aldrin decided to keep the abort guidance computer’s radar switched so it knew where the command module was in orbit in case of an emergency abort - a very reasonable thing to do, but it was too much for the AGC to handle in it’s serial attention to each task.

Regarding focusing on the environemtn, I can reliably focus on 2 tasks at once. I can do more, but then trashing sets in, and error rates raise.

Do you drive? You’re easily doing 3-4 tasks, if not more, when you do that.

Yes indeed, another way of putting it is that the term "fittest" is always contextual and relative, and not absolute. Take this to lower levels, and even true and false are contextual if they are seen as truncated opionions of an agent with limited information capacity!

Make sure you always correct anyone who says “survival of the fittest” with a derisory “you really mean, ‘survival of the best adapted’” You will make many friends

 

[Hot Lunch]

This explains why I always go into tests (not just martial arts) and situations where I have to speak or perform in front of an audience with a cocky attitude. Half the time, it's deliberate and I'm faking it... the other half, I'm so used to doing it that it's natural at times.

Since I was a kid, I was always told that the first answer that immediately comes to mind is usually correct answer. People usually get it wrong when they second-guess themselves.

 

[Gyakuto]

This explains why I always go into tests (not just martial arts) and situations where I have to speak or perform in front of an audience with a cocky attitude.

Well, I never would have contemplated you using such a strategy.

Since I was a kid, I was always told that the first answer that immediately comes to mind is usually correct answer. People usually get it wrong when they second-guess themselves.

Would you rather have bionic legs or a bionic penis?

 

[isshinryuronin]

Would you rather have bionic legs or a bionic penis?

I believe they asked Steve Austin (The Six Million Dollar Man) this same question. He chose legs. Perhaps he anticipated his exploits being turned into a family TV show.

 

[Gyakuto]

I believe they asked Steve Austin (The Six Million Dollar Man) this same question. He chose legs. Perhaps he anticipated his exploits being turned into a family TV show.

I believe he did try the ‘bionic member’ for a while, but the ghastly death of his third sexual partner made him change his mind.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Well, I never would have contemplated you using such a strategy.

Would you rather have bionic legs or a bionic penis?

Bionic legs. A bionic member would be a downgrade for me

 

[Hot Lunch]

I believe he did try the ‘bionic member’ for a while, but the ghastly death of his third sexual partner made him change his mind.

Yeah, that reminds me of my trying to figure out how Superman and Lois Lane... yeah.

But forget that. How does he take a leak without shattering the toilet to pieces? I read a fan theory that he has red sun radiators his bathroom to temporarily depower him, but I'm not buying it.

 

[HighKick]

It seems the misfiring of a population of neurones may be the cause of ‘choking under pressure’.

Choking under pressure: Brain neurons misfire when the stakes are highest

Whether we've watched athletes do it or had the misfortune to experience it ourselves, 'choking' at an important moment when the pressure is on comes down to more than mental fortitude. For the first time, scientists have uncovered a set of neurons that misfire when the stakes are at their highest,…

newatlas.com

As though we didn’t know, the likelihood of choking increased when the reward was deemed as more ‘valuable’. This appears to apply to both physical (sports) and cognitive (examinations) tasks.

Anecdotally, I find that if can disinhibit my expectations I perform much better. I couldn’t get the information in scientific papers to stick in my head when I was an undergraduate and it was really important, but during my PhD and as an academic I could casually read the literature and it did stay in my memory. When I attempted my fourth Dan grading, I wasn’t worried because I had three other possibilities to have a go at it, later in the year. Thus I was relaxed, did my thing and, to my surprise, passed first time! However, it can be a hard frame of mind to cultivate.


Original Source:

https://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(24)00608-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627324006081%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

I suppose my engineering mind looks at this differently. If all the necessary inputs are there, the output can be successfully achieved. With a bit of math, it can be achieved on the the first try. Applying this to our human body, this is where practice comes into play. Since golf was used in the previous link, lets stay with it.
I occasionally golf, but I am just bad at it, even when I play lot. I think it is one of those sports a person should not play if they can't laugh at themselves.
Using the photo where the golfer barely misses the putt, I would aver he missed an input. Did not know how the greens bent, how wet/dry it was, ball had a slight scar on it, etc... And all this assumes he was comfortable with his putter. So many input variables, it is easy to miss one when the brain calculates how to swing the putter. And let's not forget the variables from our bodily parts. Eyes not quite 20/20, or a bodily member sore or weak. Endless variables.
This is a great time to say "Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect"

 

[drop bear]