Norwegian brain scientists sees your mistakes 30 seconds before you make them

[Safe-Keeper]

Brain patterns predict mistakes: study

Tom Eichele of Norway's University of Bergen has discovered that 30 seconds before we make mistakes in routine work, our brain goes into a sort of 'resting mode', which in turn causes us to make the mistake.

Excerpts:

It turns out that dull tasks really do numb the brain. Researchers have discovered that as people perform monotonous tasks, their brain shifts towards an at-rest mode whether they like it or not.

And since this state begins about 30 seconds prior to a mistake being made, it could be possible to design an early-warning system which could alert people to be more focused or more careful, Eichele said.

Very impressive, in my eyes. Could someone here with more knowledge of brain science comment on this?

 

[alfaniner]

What is the ratio of times that the brain goes into "rest mode" and a mistake is made, and the same when a mistake is not made?

 

[INRM]

alfaniner,

Very good point. Because this strikes me as a higher likelyhood of mistake making period than actually a guaranteed mistake making period.

As for developing devices to identify when this mistake period is going to occur strikes me as potential for disaster -- it opens the door to allowing "mind-reading"

INRM

 

[Dragoonster]

I'd be worried that the brain is resting because it needs to. I was a machine operator for years, many 12 hour days, and being vigilant all the time certainly seemed to make me more tired as the day went on and more apt to not pay even more attention. Taking breaks, whether zoning out or idly chatting/ruminating seemed to improve performance during the more crucial times.

If the mistakes are a lot more negative than most routine things it might be worthwhile. Say, in fighter pilots or air traffic controllers. But I'd hate to see normal businesses use this at all. And even in crucial areas, perhaps it's less risky to have normal brain rest for 10 hours, than 6 hours of forced alertness followed by a sort of "brain rebellion" where it fights the system.

Maybe a similar already used model is fighter pilots who are routinely given drugs to maintain alertness. I think while it improves short-term performance, it was found that pilots were exceeding their cockpit times and it was sometimes screwing them up for medium-length periods.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

What the article says is that typically, 30 seconds before the test subject made his or her mistake, a certain portion of the brain 'lit up'. These are areas areas that are often active when we relax while awake. Once the subjects realized they'd made a mistake, the 'rest mode' ended.

As for developing devices to identify when this mistake period is going to occur strikes me as potential for disaster -- it opens the door to allowing "mind-reading"

Not sure where you're headed with this. We already 'read minds' using lie detectors, CAT scans, etc. How's this any different?

 

[Lucky]

Here is the paper.

As for developing devices to identify when this mistake period is going to occur strikes me as potential for disaster -- it opens the door to allowing "mind-reading"

Not sure where you're headed with this. We already 'read minds' using lie detectors, CAT scans, etc. How's this any different?

I'd say that (this time) INRM has a point. As a scientist I find this study most interesting, but it's surely obvious that (as with any potential new technology) there's the danger of misuses and abuses. In this case, would we be happy about a device that would enable (say) monitoring of factory workers to detect when their attention is flagging (and perhaps initiate corrective action)?

In the future, it may be of great value to monitor these brain states in real-world situations with appropriate devices that could be used outside the laboratory. This may help to avoid human errors, particularly during monotonous tasks in which gradual disengagement is difficult to avoid.

I'd be worried that the brain is resting because it needs to.
...
I'd hate to see normal businesses use this at all. And even in crucial areas, perhaps it's less risky to have normal brain rest for 10 hours, than 6 hours of forced alertness followed by a sort of "brain rebellion" where it fights the system.

I agree. Seems to me some caution is called for.

As to whether the technology is feasible, it's like potential medical diagnostic or screening data. (Assuming there's anything in it) it depends on:

• Whether the data is in principle capable of providing precise 'diagnostic' information.
• If not, whether useful applications can be found for imprecise information.