Theta brainwaves reflect ability to beat built-in bias

EEG readings of theta brainwaves in the prefrontal cortex allowed researchers to correlate levels of brain activity with success in overcoming innate 'Pavlovian' biases. Credit: Jim Cavanagh/Michael Frank

Vertebrates are predisposed to act to gain rewards, and to lay low to avoid punishment. Try to teach chickens to back away from food in order to obtain it, and you'll fail, as researchers did in 1986. But (some) humans are better thinkers than chickens. In the May 8 edition of the Journal of Neuroscience, researchers show that the level of theta brainwave activity in the prefrontal cortex predicts whether people will be able to overcome these ingrained biases when doing so is required to achieve a goal.

The study helps explain a distinctly human mechanism of cognition, said the lead researchers at Brown University, and could be applied to studying and treating reward-seeking or punishment-avoidance conditions such as addiction or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Despite how we've evolved, life doesn't always encourage acting to gain reward or freezing to avoid punishment. Sometimes we must restrain ourselves to gain a reward (baseball batters can get on base by not swinging at bad pitches), or take action to avoid a penalty (tax cheats can come forward during amnesties). Acting counter to our ingrained "Pavlovian" is a matter of the brain recognizing the conflict between the rational course of action and the instinct.

"We have suggested that more advanced brain mechanisms in the prefrontal are needed to exert over behavior in these circumstances," said Michael Frank, the paper's senior author and an Associate Professor of Cognitive, Linguistic and at Brown. "This study provides evidence that temporally-specific brain activity within the prefrontal cortex is related to this ability, both between and within individuals."

Human vs. bias

That brain activity could be measured and quantified as theta brainwaves. Brown James Cavanagh led the research in which he recruited 34 people to play a custom-designed while wearing scalp monitors.

The game involved four scenarios, all reinforced by putting a little real money on the line: the instinctual scenarios of clicking for a reward, and not clicking to avoid a penalty; and the trickier scenarios of clicking to avoid penalty and not clicking to gain a reward.

Over many rounds, players tried to learn what to do when presented with one of four distinct symbols, each of which corresponded to a different scenario.

Cavanagh programmed the scenarios to usually, but not always, reward the proper behavior. For this reason, people had to pay attention to what was likely, rather than merely memorize a simple, reliable pattern.

Cavanagh and his co-authors measured how well people learned the proper action for each scenario. With the advantage of instinct, almost everyone learned to click for a reward. Most people also managed to learn to not click to avoid penalty, and even managed in similar numbers to click to avoid penalty. Like the chickens, however, significantly fewer people could restrain themselves in order to gain a reward.

Those who were bad at overcoming one Pavlovian bias were much more likely to fail at the other.

While the subjects were playing the game, the experimenters also measured theta brainwave activity in each subject's , for instance at the exact moment they saw the distinct symbols of the tasks.

The main idea of the study was to correlate the subjects' theta brain activity during the tasks with their ability to overcome ingrained bias when appropriate. Sure enough, the subject's ability to repress Pavlovian bias was predicted by the enhancement of theta during the trials when the bias was unwanted, compared to when it provided proper guidance.

"Some people are really good at it, and some are not, and we were able to predict that from their ," Cavanagh said.

This was not only true when comparing individual subjects, but also when comparing the subjects to themselves at different times (e.g. some subjects' abilities wavered from task to task and the theta varied right along with that).

Many psychological factors could have confounded the results – differential sensitivity to gains and losses, for example – but Cavanagh and Frank controlled for those with the help of a sophisticated computer model that accounts for, and statistically disentangles, the relationship of bias and theta from those other influences.

Our better nature

All of the study subjects were screened to ensure they were psychiatrically healthy. In these subjects, the study results not only confirmed that people harbor the ingrained biases, but differ in their ability to overcome them. Frank said the variations likely come from innate and situational factors. Evidence suggests that the degree of ingrained bias may have genetic and neurological roots, he said, but can also vary within the same individual based on factors such as fatigue or stress.

For people with psychiatric disorders, Cavanagh said, the predictive value of measurable theta activity for behavioral patterns could become an important tool for diagnosis and predicting treatment outcomes.

Frank, who is affiliated with the Brown Institute for Brain Science, added that the lab has begun studying whether people can improve behavior by purposely modulating theta activity. If so, that could lead to a therapy for addiction.

"We are beginning studies that allow us to safely manipulate activity in specific frequencies like theta in the frontal cortex which will allow us to assess the causal role these signals may be playing," he said.

It's not easy to work against primal intuition, but people have the ability and now researchers know how that's reflected in brains.

"This tells us a lot about the neurobiology of why we're special," Cavanagh said.

Related Stories

Advice vs. experience: Genes predict learning style

Apr 19, 2011

Researchers at Brown University have found that specific genetic variations can predict how persistently people will believe advice they are given, even when it is contradicted by experience.

In the brain, winning is everywhere

Oct 05, 2011

Winning may not be the only thing, but the human brain devotes a lot of resources to the outcome of games, a new study by Yale researchers suggest.

Study links hippocampus with unconscious bias

Oct 12, 2012

(Medical Xpress)—A new US study into brain function has found links between preferences and the regions of the brain involved in connecting new memories to old ones. The associations formed provide shortcuts ...

Recommended for you

Emotional adjustment following traumatic brain injury

21 hours ago

Life after a traumatic brain injury resulting from a car accident, a bad fall or a neurodegenerative disease changes a person forever. But the injury doesn't solely affect the survivor – the lives of their spouse or partner ...

New ALS associated gene identified using innovative strategy

Oct 22, 2014

Using an innovative exome sequencing strategy, a team of international scientists led by John Landers, PhD, at the University of Massachusetts Medical School has shown that TUBA4A, the gene encoding the Tubulin Alpha 4A protein, ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jeddy_Mctedder
1.3 / 5 (3) May 07, 2013
'theta waves'. this , and all 'conclusory' mri research with conclusions about specific behavior linked to the motion of blood in the brain will one day be considered the phrenology of the 20th and 21st century.

what bunk. research about random ass correlation masquerading itself as causation testing. it is beyond crap science, it is crap science selling itself as not crap. it's deceptive crap. like eating horsemeat.
SolidRecovery
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2013
'theta waves'. this , and all 'conclusory' mri research with conclusions about specific behavior linked to the motion of blood in the brain will one day be considered the phrenology of the 20th and 21st century.

what bunk. research about random ass correlation masquerading itself as causation testing. it is beyond crap science, it is crap science selling itself as not crap. it's deceptive crap. like eating horsemeat.


I will have to disagree with you on that. This is a study of effect not the cause. It is preliminary research to a very mysterious and complex system. Any information helps to build a knowledge base. Yes, in the future this study might be debunked by newer research but it is still a step forward and that is how science works. New knowledge is constantly accumulated and old knowledge is either kept or thrown out based on its merits.