What does your mind do when it wanders? Perhaps you catch yourself getting 'lost in thought'... moments of daydreaming, wondering, wandering...
Do you believe that those 'lapses in attention' are helpful or hindering?
Without knowing what the brain is actually doing during those moments, we might be too quick to dismiss our lapses in attention as wasted time or something to be discouraged.
“Rest is not idleness.”
John Lubbock, The Use of Life (1894)
Looking Out and Looking In
In this interview with pioneering neuroscientist Dr. Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, we explore the brain's distinctions between looking out, being outwardly and outcome-focused, compared with the brain's ability and tendency to look inward, beyond the here-and-n0w.
From this research, we see how the brain's ability to shift, toggle and navigate between these inward and outward views is in fact a powerful mechanism for more complex thinking.
Our brain's ability to perceive beyond the here-and-now is related to social-cognitive complexity.
There are a lot of different ways we can talk about complexity.
In some of her research, we see Complexity as an increasing coordination and integration of perspectives and elements. The ability to coordinate and integrate different perspectives and elements, is also reflected in increased coordination and ability to efficiently activated and toggle between networks and systems of the brain.
This toggling and shifting of activity depending on context and what we are doing with our attention is part of a wider view of looking at systems that help us deal both with our external environments, our internal environments as well as what we are able to do with all of that information.
A Bias Towards Outward Attention
A lot of discussion about attention has to do with how we are attending to the outside world. When we talk about challenges with attention, we are often pointing to lapses in externally focused attention.
Decades of research reflect that there are three differentiated systems that help monitor and respond to the environment around us and incoming stimuli: these are the Alerting, Orienting and Executive Control Systems (see Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002; Posner & Petersen, 1990)
These are critical for cognitive development and many different domains of life, and interventions in schools for example that strengthen these skills help improve academic performance (Posner & Rothbart, 2005; Smallwood et al., 2007; Stevens, Lauinger, & Neville, 2009).
What if our environments are demanding TOO MUCH of this externally-oriented attention?
What if our brain needs time for inward reflection as a way to make it better at processing information?
What if our assessment of brain functioning based on outward attention is an INCOMPLETE PICTURE?
Rest is Not Idleness
To understand this, we can look at what the brain does when it is NOT goal-directed, or paying attention to an external stimulus. Increasing amounts of research are exploring how the brain’s architecture activates according to various functions, such as Task Positive and Task Negative.
TASK POSITIVE: when brain architecture is recruited with active engagement in goal directed tasks involving attention to the world (Seeley et al., 2007). This is what Immordino-Yang and colleagues call the ‘looking out’ system.
TASK NEGATIVE: is associated with the Default Mode Network - the ‘looking in’ system (Buckner & Vincent, 2007; Raichle et al., 2001). This system is usually heightened during passive rest (Greicius, Krasnow, Reiss, & Menon, 2003).
Research has found that brain areas involved in the Looking In System seem to specialize in processing abstract information related to the "psychological, affective, and subjective aspects of the self and other people, both in everyday contexts and for more complex moral, socioemotional, prospective, and retrospective functions (Buckner & Carroll, 2007).
As one network is engaged, the other decreases in activity.
Research also shows that the brain toggles between these networks as it moves from external monitoring and goal-directed to activity to a more internal directed mental state (Esposito et al., 2006; Fox et al., 2005).
The Quality of Looking In Relates to the Quality of Looking Out
Research suggests that the externally-oriented and internally-oriented networks support systems that are codependent and co-regulate one another (Fair et al., 2008) - as Yang and colleagues state:
"(a) the quality of neural processing that supports the system for “looking out” is tied to the quality of neural processing that supports the system for “looking in” and to individuals’ abilities to move between these two modes efficiently;
(b) the quality of neural processing during “looking in” is related to socioemotional functioning as well as to other dimensions of thought that transcend the “here and now.”"
Lapses and fluctuations in outward attention can be helpful for our brain
Another key piece from their studies is that momentary fluctuations in these networks are important for perception, attention and cognition*
*(see Northoff, Duncan, & Hayes, 2010, for a review; Spreng, Stevens, Chamberlain, Gilmore, & Schacter, 2010).
For example, in one of their studies, they found that when people alternated blocks of resting with looking at images and listening to sounds, the more effectively their DM regions activated at rest and then deactivated while attending to the sounds and images again (Greicius & Menon, 2004).
Another study showed that people who took reflective pauses during interviews were related to more complex reactions to social situations. This was observed by seeing a person briefly withdraw and look blankly as they gazed at their lap. After these brief moments, they emerged with reflections of their own situations and how they connected with what they had just observed in another social situation.
A takeaway from this research is that when the brain is not engaged in goal-directed, externally-focused activity, it is still doing something important.
Our ability to shift, coordinate and navigate between these systems according to context is key.
Yang and her research team are opening space for a few implications and ideas for how we optimize brain functioning, particularly in settings such as those found in classrooms - and i would argue that these suggestions extend into our daily and work life:
First, devoting time and skill building for constructive internal reflection would be beneficial for emotional wellbeing.
Second, many environments and contexts are overly biasing young people’s attention to the external world, and this might undermine the development of the brain’s ability to think in more abstract Ways and to access more complex thought about the self and others...
Social-cognitive complexity means: Advancing our thinking from “what happened” to knowledge about “what this means for the world and for the way I live my life”.
Teaching Effectiveness: Transformational, Responsive, Transactional, Gate-Keeping
CANDLE's research team is also exploring how teachers' brain activity and ability to see students from a zoomed-out perspective is reflected in their teaching effectiveness and their narratives about what they are here to do as teachers. You’ll hear more about this in the interview as we reflect on their research on teaching and how it can manifest in ways they call Transformative, responsive, Transactional and Gate-Keeping (Kundrak, 2024).
I want to pause for a moment and invite you to reflect...
How might our world, our society, families, relationships change if we created more intentional space for exploration and guidance as to how we can constructively navigate between these complementary networks of the brain.
- Are there mindfulness and mediation resources you know of that you can bring more to forefront?
- Are there times where you might be overemphasizing being outwardly focused and goal-directed?
- What would that do for all of us if more of us were able to practice and improve ou ability to intentionally and constructively shift between these networks?
As you’ll hear in this interview, Mary Helen Immordino Yang’s research has had a profound impact on my thinking - all the way back when i was a school counselor and presenting information to teachers and parents, I remember citing her research on adolescent brain development and seeing how much it resonated with and helped adults understand the young people around them.
About Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
Dr. Mary Helen Immordino-Yang is one of the founding directors of the Center for Affective Neuroscience Development, Learning, and Education, or CANDLE, at the University of Southern California. She has also been recently elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is one of the US's oldest and most prestigious honorary societies.
She is internationally recognized for her pioneering research at the intersection of neuroscience, human development, and education, and has made groundbreaking contributions to understanding how emotion, social experience, and culture shape brain development and learning. Her work has informed education policy, curriculum, and teacher preparation around the globe. Mary Helen Immordino-Yang received her doctorate in education from, Harvard University), Professor of Humanistic Psychology, is a professor of education, psychology, and neuroscience at the University of Southern California and founding director of the USC Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education (candle.usc.edu). Her work pairs in-depth qualitative interviews with longitudinal brain imaging and psychophysiological recording to reveal coordinated mental, neural, and bodily processes by which adolescents and their teachers build meaning—deliberating on the abstract, systems-level, and ethical implications of complex information, social situations, and identities. a faculty member in the USC Brain and Creativity Institute. She has received multiple awards for her work and served as a distinguished scientist on the Aspen Institute's National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, and was elected to the National Academy of Education in 2023.
References
Buckner, R. L., & Vincent, J. L. (2007). Unrest at rest: Default activity and spontaneous network correlations. NeuroImage, 37, 1091–1096.
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 201–215.
Esposito, F., Bertolino, A., Scarabino, T., Latoffe, V., Blasi, G., Popolizio, T., . . . Di Salle, F. (2006). Independent component model of the default-mode brain function: Assessing the impact of active thinking. Brain Research Bulletin, 70, 263–269.
Fair, D. A., Cohen, A. L., Dosenbach, N. U., Church, J. A., Miezin, F. M., Barch, D. M., . . . Schlaggar, B. L. (2008). The maturing architecture of the brain’s default network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 4028–4032.
Fan, J., McCandliss, B., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340–347.
Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., & Raichle, M. E. (2005). The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 9673 9678.
Greicius, M. D., Krasnow, B., Reiss, A. L., & Menon, V. (2003). Functional connectivity in the resting brain: A network analysis of the default mode hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 100, 253–258.
Greicius, M. D., & Menon, V. (2004). Default-mode activity during a passive sensory task: Uncoupled from deactivation but impacting activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1484–1492.
Kundrak, C., Immordino-Yang, M.H., Candaux, E., Knecht, D., & Garrett, J. (2024) The power of developmental thinking: Social-cognitive complexity of urban secondary teachers’ pedagogical narratives predicts the quality of their cl
Lubbock, J. (1894). The use of life. Leipzig, Germany: Bernhard Tauchnitz.
Northoff, G., Duncan, N. W., & Hayes, D. J. (2010). The brain and its resting state activity—Experimental and methodological implications. Progress in Neurobiology, 92, 593–600.
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). Influencing brain networks: Implications for education. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 99–103.
Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 98, 676–682.
Seeley, W. W., Menon, V., Schatzberg, A. F., Keller, J., Glover, G. H., Kenna, H., . . . Greicius, M. D. (2007). Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 2349–2356.
Smallwood, J., Fishman, D. J., & Schooler, J. W. (2007). Counting the cost of an absent mind: Mind wandering as an underrecognized influence on educational performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 230–236
Spreng, R. N., Stevens, W. D., Chamberlain, J. P., Gilmore, A. W., & Schacter, D. L. (2010). Default network activity, coupled with the
frontoparietal control network, supports goal-directed cognition. NeuroImage, 53, 303–317.
Stevens, C., Lauinger, B., & Neville, H. (2009). Differences in the neural mechanisms of selective attention in children from different socioeconomic backgrounds: An event-related brain potential study. Developmental Science, 12, 634–646.
