“Mind in the Slow Lane: How Human Thought Lags Behind Lightning-Fast Wi-Fi”

The human brain is a remarkable biological entity, filled with approximately 86 billion neurons interwoven in ways that scientists have yet to completely chart and comprehend. However, when contrasted with contemporary technological gadgets, it is reasonable to assert that humans navigate life at a leisurely pace, due to the comparatively slow rate at which our brains process data.

An average Wi-Fi connection in the United States boasts a download rate exceeding 260 million bits per second. A phone call consumes about 64,000 bits per second. In contrast, our brains interpret thoughts at a mere ten bits per second, as per new calculations released this month in the journal Neuron.

“This is somewhat of a counterbalance to the relentless exaggeration regarding how profoundly intricate and powerful the human brain is,” explains study co-author Markus Meister, a neuroscientist at the California Institute of Technology, to Carl Zimmer of the New York Times. “If you truly attempt to put numbers to it, we are astonishingly slow.”

The researchers arrived at their figure by scrutinizing scientific literature on human performance speed and then applying techniques from information theory to calculate how swiftly the brain processes thoughts in these circumstances. For instance, skilled typists can hit keys at 120 words per minute, but that remarkable dexterity merely translates to ten bits per second of information processing, the researchers conclude. Accomplished video gamers appear to possess exceptionally rapid reaction times and make quick decisions, yet even their thoughts top out at ten bits each second.

The team speculated whether human thought speed could be hindered by our biological hardware—in other terms, is the body simply too sluggish to respond to our thought processes? To rule out this possibility, the researchers turned to a less physically demanding activity: blind speedcubing, wherein contestants observe a Rubik’s cube, then put on a blindfold and solve it as rapidly as they can. In this case, the act of perception—analysing the cube and devising the solution—plays a significant role and requires minimal movement compared to the cube-solving process. Yet even in this low-movement task, cognitive throughput registers at just under 12 bits per second.

Our chaotic environment, on the other hand, supplies far more than merely ten bits per second of information—and to be fair, human senses can keep pace with this influx. Within one second, our sensory apparatus can intake around ten billion bits of data, with approximately 1.6 billion bits processed by a single eye alone. But regarding cognitive thought in the brain, the frantic tempo of information exchange reduces to a relative crawl. Our eyes may perceive a broad view of our surroundings, yet our brains concentrate on merely a small segment of it at any given moment.

This slow rate of thinking implies we’re discarding immense quantities of information input and opting for only a minuscule fraction to utilize. Ten bits per second “is an extremely low figure,” Meister articulates in a statement. It’s a paradox, he continues, that in spite of the abundance of data bombarding our senses, we make use of so little. “What mechanisms does the brain employ to filter all of this information?”

One theory suggests our bodies were designed for an earlier, slower-paced era. The capability to operate on ten bits of information per second has sufficed for our ancestors’ survival. The earliest brains may have evolved for basic navigation, as detailed in the statement, and required only to follow one “thread” of thought at a time. From an evolutionary perspective, that cognitive speed was adequate for humans to adapt to the leisurely moving natural world. However, today’s digital landscape operates at a significantly quicker rate—outpacing the cognitive capacity of our biological systems.

“It appears that nature has established a speed limit within our conscious thoughts, and no extent of neural engineering may be able to circumvent it,” states Tony Zador, a neuroscientist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory who was not part of the research team, to Scientific American’s Rachel Nuwer. “Why? We genuinely don’t know, but it’s likely a consequence of our evolutionary background.”

Importantly, the new study exclusively examines conscious tasks, disregarding the multitude of other cognitive functions occurring just beneath our awareness. The brain continues to operate tirelessly even when we are standing or walking, for example, and had that information been integrated into the team’s speed estimates, they would “end up with a considerably higher bit rate,” Britton Sauerbrei, a neuroscientist at Case Western Reserve University who was not involved in the current research, tells the New York Times. Yet, he concurs with the study’s authors that the brain’s capacity engaged in deliberate tasks transmits limited data. “I believe their argument is quite robust,” he states.

Another inadequacy of our brains in comparison to computers and smart devices is that we are lacking in parallel processing capabilities. We operate most efficiently by managing one thought at a time, rather than juggling several simultaneously. Humans are poor at multitasking, despite the illusion that more work is accomplished when we shift among tasks, as per Jack Knudson of Discover magazine. This is because we aren’t truly managing two or more tasks simultaneously but are instead switching between them, often diminishing our concentration. Overall performance and effectiveness typically decline as

Consequently, in spite of our utmost efforts to extract greater productivity from our days.

The most recent assessments of human brain speed raise questions regarding the claims for neural-computer interfacing technologies designed to enhance our communication rate, according to the statement. With the realization that the human intellect is the limitation, the new research offers food for consideration to tech start-ups pursuing this trendy integration of computers with cognitive functions.

Ultimately, velocity isn’t necessarily paramount when it comes to cognition. Research has indicated that decelerating our information processing can facilitate retention in the mind. One prominent illustration is writing manually, which frequently consumes more time than typing. However, there is something about engaging our intricate motor skills and visual faculties that may assist in maximizing our cognitive abilities: Research has determined that writing by hand aids young children in remembering the alphabet, while jotting notes adults grasp new ideas more effectively during lectures, in comparison to those who type.

As overwhelming as the pace of a tech-laden life is in the digital era, these findings imply we still possess plenty of reasons to be the tortoise rather than the hare.