For the Brain, Keeping it Real Means Keeping it Relevant

BrainHow does the brain distinguish between reality and fiction — and more importantly, does the brain distinguish between reality and fiction? 

These questions served as the jumping off point for a new fMRI study that attempted to identify how the brain responds when exposed to contexts involving real people or fictional characters.  The study followed up on a similar study conducted in 2008 entitled: “Meeting George Bush versus meeting Cinderella: the neural response when telling apart what is real from what is fictional in the context of our reality“.

In the present study, researchers evaluated subjects’ brain regions–specifically the anterior medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate cortices (amPFC, PCC)–while they were exposed to contexts involving three groups: (1) family and friends (high relevance), (2) famous people (medium relevance), and (3) fictional characters (low relevance).  The working hypothesis was that exposure to contexts with a higher degree of relevance would result in stronger activation of the amPFC and PCC. 

In previous studies, the amPFC and PCC were implicated in self-referential thinking and autobiographical memory retrieval. The idea behind the present hypothesis is that information about real people, as opposed to fictional characters, is coded in the brain in such a way that its elicits a self-referential and autobiographical response. The more personally relevant the context is, the stronger the response.

The results were consistent with the hypothesis, showing a gradient pattern of activation in which higher relevance entities were associated with stronger amPFC and PCC responses (as shown in the graphic below).  This result also held true for several other brain regions to varying degrees.  

In other words, for our brains, reality equals relevance. 

 

journalpone0004741g0031

 

This study is interesting because it sparks a new round of questions about personal “relevance.”   For example, in a social networking context, how is relevance defined?  If you never meet someone face-to-face, but talk to them often, can they still be as “relevant” to you as someone you see and talk to all the time?   I foresee a future fMRI study that examines brain regions while subjects communicate online with people they talk to frequently (online) but have never seen. 

It would also be interesting to know whether the brain’s reality-fiction differentiation system can be short-circuited.  If the brain suffers damage to the amPFC and/or PCC, would one’s ability to determine degrees of personal relevance be handicapped?  Is it possible that people who believe themselves to have closer relationships with others than they actually do suffer a deficit in this area? 

This might be useful for a bit of pop culture analysis as well, such as someone believing they “know” a person 0n a reality TV show.  The very nature of reality TV is set up to elicit this sort of response by supplying personal information about people on the show, which creates a sense of “knowing” them.  In light of this study, I’m seeing that tactic as a way of tricking the brain into encoding information for higher relevance than it deserves.
ResearchBlogging.orgAnna Abraham, & Yves von Cramon (2009). Reality = Relevance? Insights from Spontaneous Modulations of the Brain’s Default Network when Telling Apart Reality from Fiction PLoS ONE

Link to the study on PLoS ONE

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

7 Comments

Filed under About Research

7 responses to “For the Brain, Keeping it Real Means Keeping it Relevant

  1. Hmmm…

    I’m not sure the study had anything to do with how we know who is real and who is fantasy at all. Certainly George Bush is not real in terms of an honest 3-dimensional personality. The Persona of The President must at some point become completely fictional in order for the actual person living it to survive. He lives in a “real life” reality show. Most famous people do.

    On the other hand, Cinderella is pretty consistent and we all know what her character is made of. Her life is pretty much recorded in it’s entirety for us – unlikely tho it may be.

    What is real is not about the difference between flesh and blood and celluloid. It’s about honesty and integrity. Even our families can betray us that way.

    How does this study measure any of this?

  2. Pingback: Wednesday Round Up #56 « Neuroanthropology

  3. Pingback: IMAP | Daily Digest for April 29th

  4. Louisa Wirth

    Hi,

    I wish to acquire permission to use the image (https://neuronarrative.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/brain_000005809739xsmall.jpg). How do I need to go about it?

    Thank you in advance,

    Louisa

  5. Ditto from above:

    I wish to acquire permission to use the image (https://neuronarrative.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/brain_000005809739xsmall.jpg). How do I need to go about it?

    Thank you in advance,
    Sandie Pope

  6. Bob Bourgault

    I would like permission to use the above images in my lesson plan.
    Gratefully,
    Bob

  7. Allan Waalkes

    Good day,
    I’m Allan Waalkes from Germany.
    I’ve seen your photo

    at google and i want to ask the owner for permission
    to copy and install this picture in much smaller appearance to my blog online.
    My website is just a private and independent synopsis of disclosures in modern science.

    Thank you very much and have a good one.
    I will be waiting for your reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s