How is our brain different from real and virtual?

Most of us easily distinguish the real and the virtual. We know that characters in novels and movies are fictitious, we also understand that historical figures, even though we have never met them face to face, are real people. However, it seems that this difference is evident, scientists know very little about the special mechanism of the brain responsible for distinguishing between real and unreal events.

Recently research has identified two areas of the brain that are particularly more active when we see real characters compared to when we look at fictional characters. These two regions - amPFC and PCC - are linked to autobiographical memory recovery and self-reference thinking. Based on this finding, scientists have hypothesized that our brains can distinguish between real and virtual because real things often have a higher degree of personal relevance than virtual objects.

Another new study testifies to the hypothesis that personal relevance is the determining factor in the ability to discriminate virtually by using functional magnet resonance imaging (fMRI) to compare brain responses. set when processing information about real and fictional characters. Anna Abraham of the Max Planck Institute for Cognitive Science and Human Brain in Leipzig, Germany, together with Giessen University in Giessen, Germany, and D. Yves von Cramon of the Max Planck Institute for Cognitive Science and Human Brain and The Institute of Neuroscience in Cologne, Germany, recently published their findings on the latest issue of PLoS ONE magazine.

Abraham said: 'Perhaps the most important meaning of research is that it allows us to step closer to understanding what reality holds. The obvious difference between reality and fiction that we use in everyday life seems to have become too peculiar, not typical of our phenomenal experiences. The word 'real' itself does not bring much explanation, because it regulates things that exist objectively '.

Scientists' experiments have helped them understand what 'reality' is because the brain defines it. Two weeks before the experiment, 19 volunteers were asked to name family members and close friends, and they also had to read a list of names of famous people and names of characters. fiction to confirm that they are familiar with those names. In the process of conducting experiments, participants were allowed to see the names of individuals, which could be friends or family members (high personal relevance), celebrities (personal relevance). average), or fictional characters (low personal relevance). Participants must answer questions, for example if they can talk to one of the people or characters mentioned above (the interaction between real people and fictional characters is considered impossible). ).

As expected by the researchers, the results show that when the participants answered questions about friends and relatives (high personal relevance), there was stronger activity in the amPFC and PCC regions. , compared to questions about celebrities (moderate activity) and fictional characters (poor performance). Scientists explain that our knowledge of real people is much greater than our knowledge of celebrities, and much greater than knowledge of fictional characters. But this result also raises other questions.

What criteria did the brain use to distinguish between real people like George W. Bush and fictional characters like Cinderella?Recent research suggests that personal relevance may be a major factor, although there are exceptions.

Abraham said: 'I experienced my mother and former President George Bush more real than Cinderella, but why did I find George Bush less real than my mother? After all, both of them exist objectively. Is it because I have never interacted with him? Is it because I know less about him? Those are open questions that can only be answered when we define what makes reality. In this study, we have demonstrated that a factor that affects the degree to which we feel in someone is governed by our personal relevance to that person. "

The researchers further explained that personal relevance is clearly related to what is real, because some individuals experience this in certain fictional areas such as computer games or religious games. teacher. For example, for a computer game player, a character in World of Warcraft can make the amPFC and PCC regions more active than a real person with less personal relevance. Abraham added that, although current research does not provide information on the link between fictional violence and actual violence, future studies need to learn about this relationship.

She said: 'There is a lot of work to do before we evaluate those complex relationships. First, we need to define what exactly broken violence is exactly, is it limited to the violence experienced when playing computer games or it extends to watching violent movies, even both our illusions about carrying out violent acts. The most important thing when studying these points of view is to characterize (avoid overly general). "

In addition to supporting an understanding of how the brain distinguishes between real and virtual, this study also helps scientists understand the brain's default network, where amPFC and PCC depend. The default network is a group of areas of the brain that are generally linked to each other more intensively in passive processes, such as when resting or doing easy tasks. In these processes, the brain tends to perform multiple functions, such as reflecting past events, anticipating future events, or conscious thinking.

This study shows that the two regions of the brain in the default network are automatically linked when an individual looks at someone's name, even if the individual does not think about his or her personal relationship with that person. In other words, personal relevance has nothing to do with this work, but it can be explained by the nature of the brain. The default network can play a role in automatic diversity relationships with stimuli to respond quickly if necessary. This finding helps researchers better understand how the network works by default in the brain.

Abraham said: 'Our next plans are to clarify our findings by exploring the adjustment of personal relationships between real and fictional areas. Examples of fictional area research will be to study chronic game addicts with new players on group-related information and non-group related information. An example of a real-world research would be to study groups with different interests and dispositions - for example, political reporters will tend to search for information related to politicians who are affiliated. more important than celebrities, while the situation is predicted to be the opposite for paparazzi. Above are some trends that will be exploited. Once the findings are made clear to different situations, we will have a better position to discover how our brain encodes and records the first classification information, how is the difference between reality and fiction flexible, and other questions'.

Refer:
Anna Abraham and D. Yves von Cramon.'Reality = Relevance?Insights from Spontaneous Modulations of Network Default Brain when Telling Apart Reality from Fiction. 'PLoS ONE, March 2009, Volume 4, Issue 3, e4741 .