>"First, robust regression between each edge in the connectivity matrices and d′ was performed across subjects. The resulting r values were statistically thresholded at P < 0.01 and separated into a positive tail (edges whose strength indexed higher d′ across subjects) and a negative tail (edges whose strength indexed lower d′ across subjects)."
If they tried out different thresholds (I bet they did p<.05, p<.001, etc),then information leaked into the holdouts. So it is unsurprising they could get better than chance performance.
Author fails to mention that Kerouac's three week sprint for On the Road was fueled by coffee and benzedrine (racemic mixture of amphetamines, akin to Adderall), as well as inspiration.
Reading these articles makes me depressed. They demonstrate how hamstrung we are by our genes. Is there a way we can exploit this to improve our attention spans? Because my attention span could use some improvement (I'm on HN right now :(
Yes, start meditating. Meditation is scientifically proven to make use of your neuroplasticity, improve it and rewire your brain. I am diagnosed ADHD-PI and meditation over time corrected my symptoms to a level at which I function completely normally without any medication.
Oh, and it will make your life a hundred times nicer in general :)
Yes, read "Meditation for dummies" and "The power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle. There's also a book called "The mindfulness approach to attention deficit" or something like that which you might wanna check out. Also, /r/meditation :)
Read Search Inside Yourself written by former Google employee Chade-Meng Tan. I recommend his book, because it summarized everything I knew in one book. Besides good ideas about meditation the book is humoristic and scientific.
Also, going to a meditation retreat really helps :)
> They demonstrate how hamstrung we are by our genes.
They can't really do that because the space of possible environments, daily habits, and upbringings is much, much bigger than what is practiced by people in the present and that space is much, much bigger than the space that is practical and ethical to investigate scientifically.
That said, if you want to improve your attention, then you have to assume that it's possible for you to explore that space and find a solution that is better for you. Being a pessimist will hold you back, so be an optimist: you can improve the endurance and quality of your attentiveness.
>That said, if you want to improve your attention, then you have to assume that it's possible for you to explore that space and find a solution that is better for you.
Rephrased: assuming some combination of genetics and environment are overwhelmingly responsible for your ability to concentrate, and you have no control over the former, then a significant part of the latter (currently) is people positively affecting your ability to concentrate.
In this case they're talking about your biology (brain), which is even more proximal than your DNA. It does make sense that your mind cannot be free from the brain, right?
Most of the genes that can be mildly harmful must also be mildly (or more) helpful, perhaps in some other domain, or else they would have become far less prevalent over time.
The huge practical problem with this test is it requires an MRI. Don't get me wrong, this is great work, but I don't see it coming into the spotlight as a new way to diagnose attention disorders.
Personally, I'd opt against getting an MRI. I'm probably being too cautious, but I would never get an MRI unless I have strong reason to believe the outcome will benefit me.
"...genotoxic (i.e., potentially carcinogenic) effects of MRI scanning have been demonstrated in vivo and in vitro, leading a recent review to recommend 'a need for further studies and prudent use in order to avoid unnecessary examinations, according to the precautionary principle'." [1]
"Medical societies issue guidelines for when physicians should use MRI on patients and recommend against overuse. MRI can detect health problems or confirm a diagnosis, but medical societies often recommend that MRI not be the first procedure for creating a plan to diagnose or manage a patient's complaint." [2]
[1] Hartwig, V., Giovannetti, G., Vanello, N., Lombardi, M., Landini, L., and Simi, S. (2009). "Biological Effects and Safety in Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review". Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 6 (6): 1778–1798. doi:10.3390/ijerph6061778. PMC 2705217. PMID 19578460
[2] Consumer Reports; American College of Physicians. presented by ABIM Foundation. "Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question" (PDF). Choosing Wisely (Consumer Reports). Retrieved August 14, 2012.
>"First, robust regression between each edge in the connectivity matrices and d′ was performed across subjects. The resulting r values were statistically thresholded at P < 0.01 and separated into a positive tail (edges whose strength indexed higher d′ across subjects) and a negative tail (edges whose strength indexed lower d′ across subjects)."
If they tried out different thresholds (I bet they did p<.05, p<.001, etc),then information leaked into the holdouts. So it is unsurprising they could get better than chance performance.