While some people seem to be always in a daydream, the truth is that we all do it - even though some of us might like to call it “multi-tasking”. While we perform routine tasks, our minds seem to naturally wander to other thoughts, plans and schedules. Whatever you call it, daydreaming is really a gift of nature, allowing our minds to attend to tasks and still process other thoughts unrelated to the tasks but possibly of importance to us. Now scientists may have identified the region of the brain responsible for our ability to daydream.

A default network of cortical regions, known to be active when the mind is unoccupied has now been seen to be active when a person is engaged in routine activities.

Research at Dartmouth college involved functional MRI and participants who performed routine tasks they had practiced for several days. Malia Mason of Harvard Medical School trained subjects in memory tasks that were repeated for four days. On the fifth day, the subjects performed these tasks while fMRI was performed.

While the subjects were not performing any task, there was activation in several cortical regions, including parts of the medial prefrontal cortex (involved in executive functions), the premotor cortex (which coordinates body movements), and the cingulate (part of the limbic system that is implicated in memory and learning). When the subjects were asked to perform their well-rehearsed tasks, many of these areas were recruited once again, but when the job was slightly altered, the signals from these areas attenuated.

It appears that daydreaming may be the default state of the brain. Daydreaming may serve to keep us interested and aroused when performing mundane tasks and it may be the key to our ability to multi-task.

“In a sense, these thoughts reflect an amazing capacity on our part to multitask,” Mason explains, expanding on the last possibility. “It’s like we have a sense of what we can and what we cannot get away with. In other words, it is as if we have a sense of how much attentional resources we have “left over” and [then we] allocate these resources to working out some problem or anticipating what we have to do in the near future.”

Scientific American

How much of their brains do humans normally use? Was your answer 10%? Most likely; this is a statistic you have heard all your life - and it is wrong.

No one knows exactly where this myth started. One quote from psychologist William James, in 1908 states: “We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources”.

Of course this was before the days of fMRI and PET scans that can show the regions of brain that are activated during the performance of different tasks and functions. While it is true that all regions of the brain may not be active at any one time, it is not true that we use only 10% of our brain’s capacity. Over the course of a day - even during sleep - different activities will call different regions of the brain into action.

Why does this myth persist in the media and popular culture? Psychologists suggest it may be due in part to our desire to believe in our unlimited potential, that with training and concentration, we could harness the brain’s untapped resources and improve our lives, gaining an advantage over others.

Psychics and others have often used the “10% myth” to explain psychic powers and paranormal experiences. They assert that if we use only 10% of our brains then the other 90% is available for the development of psychic powers. Famed psychic Uri Geller, who claims to be able to bend spoons with his mind, wrote in his 1996 book Uri Geller’s Mindpower Kit: “In fact, most of us use only about 10 percent of our brains, if that.” In fact, that is clearly and scientifically untrue.

Additional resources:

Snopes.com

Live Science - Most Popular Myths in Science

The New England Skeptical Society - The Psychology of the 10% Brain Myth

Scientists long ago identified the appetite-suppressing hormone Leptin and the way it works on the brain to control hunger. Now there is more evidence that the tendency to obesity and perhaps the development of diabetes, may have links to the brain.

In studies, mice who were lacking in the protein SH2B1 were obese and developed diabetes. Replacing the SH2B1 in mice lacking this protein prevented obesity and the mice did not develop diabetes. It even prevented obesity in mice being fed a high-fat diet, which indicates that SH2B1 in the brain is necessary to regulate body weight and fat content.

According to the study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, neuronal SH2B1 regulates energy and glucose metabolism at least in part by enhancing leptin sensitivity in the brain, particularly in the hypothalamus. Systemic deletion of SH2B1 resulted in severe leptin resistance. Leptin resistance precedes the onset of obesity in mice lacking SH2B1. Restoration of SH2B1 in mice corrected leptin resistance.

Source: Journal of Clinical Investigation

Is forgetting what you have learned ever helpful? A study appearing in the January, 2007 issue of Psychological Science says that when it comes to learning a second language, at least in the beginning, the answer is yes.

While learning a new language, our native language words may distract us and inhibit our ability to express thoughts in a new tongue. In the study, University of Oregon psychologist Benjamin Levy and his colleague Dr. Michael Anderson asked native English speakers who had completed at least one year of Spanish to repeatedly name objects in Spanish. The more the students were asked to repeat the Spanish words, the more difficulty they had in producing the corresponding English words for the objects. The more a person immerses in a second language the more the brain inhibits native language - a phenomenon known as first-language attrition - making it possible to forget words one has used all one’s life.

Researchers found that the more fluent bilingual students were less prone to first-language attrition suggesting that the phenomenon assists the brain in the first stages of second language learning but becomes less necessary as the student achieves fluency.

Although the value of suppressing previously learned knowledge to learn new concepts may appear counterintuitive, Levy explains that “first-language attrition provides a striking example of how it can be adaptive to (at least temporarily) forget things one has learned.”

Association for Psychological Science