When Xavi Hernandez receives the soccer ball in his offensive half
of the field, the Barcelona maestro has a world of decisions waiting
for him. Hold the ball while his teammates arrive, make the quick
through pass to a slicing Lionel Messi or move into position for a
shot.
The question that decision researchers want to know is whether
Xavi’s brain makes a choice based on the desired outcome (wait, pass or
shoot) or the action necessary to achieve that goal. Then, could his
attitude towards improvement actually change his decision making
ability?
Traditionally, the decision process was seen as consecutive steps;
first choose what it is you want then choose an action to get you
there. However, a recent study from the Montreal Neurological
Institute and Hospital at McGill University tells us that the brain
uses two separate regions for these choices and that they are
independent of each other.
“In this study we wanted to understand how the brain uses value
information to make decisions between different actions, and between
different objects,” said the study’s lead investigator Dr. Lesley
Fellows, neurologist and lead researcher. “The surprising and novel
finding is that in fact these two mechanisms of choice are independent
of one another. There are distinct processes in the brain by which
value information guides decisions, depending on whether the choice is
between objects or between actions.”
Fellows’ team asked two groups of patients to play games where they
chose between either two actions (moving a joystick) or two objects
(decks of cards). Each group had previous damage to different areas of
the frontal lobes of their brains. They could win or lose money based
on the success of their choices.
Those that had damage to the orbitofrontal cortex could make correct
decisions between different actions but struggled with choices about
different objects. Conversely, the other group, having sustained injury
to the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, had difficulty with action
choices but excelled with object choices.
Dr. Fellows hopes this is just the beginning of more neuro-based
studies of decision making. “Despite the ubiquity and importance of
decision making, we have had, until now, a limited understanding of its
basis in the brain,” said Fellows. “Psychologists, economists, and
ecologists have studied decision making for decades, but it has only
recently become a focus for neuroscientists.”
So, back to Xavi, it seems his decision-making may be a
multi-tasking mission by his brain. Of course, we may never be able to
judge the accuracy of any soccer player’s decisions since the actual
execution of the motor skills required has an critical effect on the
outcome. In other words, the decision to thread a pass through
defenders may be an excellent choice but a number of variables could
spoil it, including a mis-kick by Xavi, a sudden last movement by Messi
or an alert defender intercepting the pass.
As rare as this may be, Xavi may actually consider his decision a
mistake. How he reacts to that mistake depends on his opinion of
neuroplasticity, according to Jason S. Moser, assistant professor of
psychology at Michigan State University. ”One big difference between
people who think intelligence is malleable and those who think
intelligence is fixed is how they respond to mistakes,” claims Moser.
He hypothesized that those people, including athletes, who think
that their intelligence is fixed often don’t make the extra effort
required to learn from their mistakes as they think its futile.
However, if you believe your brain continues to evolve and change over
your lifetime, then you will bounce back sooner from a mistake and
work harder to improve.
To prove this, his team gave volunteers a memory task to remember
the middle letter of a five letter sequence, like “MMMMM” or “NNMNN.”
The participants also wore an EEG skull cap that measured brain
signals. After we make a mistake, our brain sends two signals within a
quarter second of each other; the first alerts us that we made a
mistake while the second signal that indicates we’re aware of the
mistake and are working on a solution.
For those in the test group that thought their brains could be
improved, they not only did better on successive tests but the second
signal from their brain was significantly bigger, indicating their
brains were working harder to correct the mistake. If Xavi feels he
can only get better, he will process any mistake at a fundamentally
different neuro level than other players. ”This might help us
understand why exactly the two types of individuals show different
behaviors after mistakes,” concluded Moser.
Facing a player like Xavi who not only multitasks decisions but also
believes he can learn from any mistakes must be a depressing thought
for Barcelona’s opponents.
For more stories on the brain and sports, visit Axon Potential on Twitter and Facebook
