Experts explain why daydreaming could actually be key to a productive day
What our brains really need is some much-needed time off from concentrating. By not consciously focusing on anything and allowing the mind to drift, this can reduce stress and improve cognitive sharpness.
This can often be easier said than done. But attention restoration theory (Art) can help you learn to give your brain space to drift. While this might sound like a fancy name for doing nothing, the theory is supported by neuroscience.
Attention restoration theory was first put forward by psychologists Rachel and Stephen Kaplan in 1989. They theorised that spending time in nature can help restore focus and attention.
They proposed there are two distinct types of attention: directed attention and undirected attention. Directed attention refers to deliberate concentration – such as studying, navigating through a busy place or posting on social media. Basically, it's any activity where our brain's attention is being directed at a specific task.
Undirected attention is when we're not consciously trying to focus on anything – instead allowing things to gently capture our attention without trying. Think listening to chirping birds or watching leaves gently rustling in the breeze. In these instances, your attention naturally drifts without having to force your focus.
Without time for undirected attention, it's thought that we experience 'attentional fatigue'. This can make it increasingly difficult to focus and concentrate, while distractions become more likely to grab our attention.
In the past, we encountered many situations in our daily lives that we might classify as 'boring'. Moments such as waiting for the bus or standing in the supermarket queue. But these dull moments also gave our minds a chance to switch off.
Now, our smartphones give us the opportunity for constant entertainment. Being able to constantly expose ourselves to intense, gripping stimuli offers little mental space for our overworked brains to recover.
But attention restoration theory shows us how important it is to create space for moments that allow our brains to 'reset'.
Restoring attention
The origins of Kaplan and Kaplan's theory can actually be traced back to the 19th century. American psychologist William James was the first to formulate the concept of 'voluntary attention' – attention that requires effort. James' ideas were published against the backdrop of the broader cultural movement of Romanticism, which lauded nature.
Romantic ideas about the restorative power of nature have since been backed by research – with numerous studies showing links between time in nature and lower stress levels, better attention, improvements in mental health, mood and better cognitive function.
The restorative benefits of nature are backed by neuroscience, too. Neuroimaging has shown that activity in the amygdala – the part of the brain associated with stress and anxiety – was reduced when people were exposed to natural environments. But when exposed to urban environments, this activity was not reduced.
Numerous studies have also since backed up Kaplan and Kaplan's theory that time in nature can help to restore attention and wellbeing. One systematic review of 42 studies found an association with exposure to natural environments and improvements in several aspects of cognitive performance – including attention.
A randomised controlled trial using neuroimaging of the brain found signs of lower stress levels in adults who took a 40-minute walk in a natural environment, compared to participants who walked in an urban environment. The authors concluded that the nature walk facilitated attention restoration.
Research has even shown that as little as ten minutes of undirected attention can result in a measurable uptick in performance on cognitive tests, as well as a reduction in attentional fatigue. Even simply walking on a treadmill while looking at a nature scene can produce this cognitive effect.
Time in nature
There are many ways you can put attention restoration theory to the test on your own. First, find any kind of green space – whether that's your local park, a river you can sit beside or a forest trail you can hike along. Next, make sure you put your phone and any other distractions away.
Or, when you face boring moments during your day, instead of picking up your phone try seeing the pause as an opportunity to let your mind wander for a bit.
Each of us may find certain environments to be more naturally supportive in allowing us to switch off and disengage the mind. So, if while trying to put attention restoration theory into practice, you find your brain pulling you back to structured tasks (such as mentally planning your week), this may be sign you should go someplace where it's easier for your mind to wander.
Whether you're watching a ladybird crawl across your desk or visiting a vast expanse of nature, allow your attention to be undirected. It's not laziness, it's neurological maintenance.
Anna Kenyon is a Senior Lecturer in Population Health at the University of Lancashire.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Dozens killed seeking aid in Gaza as Israel weighs further military action
Advertisement Another escalation of the nearly 22-month war could put the lives of countless Palestinians and around 20 living Israeli hostages at risk and would draw fierce opposition both internationally and within Israel. Netanyahu's far-right coalition allies have long called for the war to be expanded and for Israel to eventually take over Gaza, relocate much of its population, and rebuild Jewish settlements there. President Trump, asked by a reporter Tuesday whether he supported the reoccupation of Gaza, said he wasn't aware of the 'suggestion' but that 'it's going to be pretty much up to Israel.' Of the 38 Palestinians killed while seeking aid, at least 28 died in the Morag Corridor, an Israeli military zone in southern Gaza where UN convoys have been repeatedly overwhelmed by looters and desperate crowds in recent days, and where witnesses say Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire. Advertisement The Israeli military said troops fired warning shots as Palestinians advanced toward them, and that it was not aware of any casualties. Nasser Hospital, which received the bodies, said another four people were killed in the Teina area, on a route leading to a site in southern Gaza run by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an American contractor. The Al-Awda Hospital said it received the bodies of six people killed near a GHF site in central Gaza. GHF said there were no violent incidents at or near its sites and that the one in central Gaza was not open on Wednesday. It said the violence may have been related to the chaos around UN convoys. Two of the Israeli airstrikes hit Gaza City, in the north of the territory, killing 13 people there, including six children and five women, according to the Al-Ahli Hospital, which received the bodies. The Israeli military says it only targets militants and blames civilian deaths on Hamas because its militants are entrenched in heavily populated areas. Israel facilitated the establishment of four GHF sites in May after blocking the entry of all food, medicine, and other goods for 2 1/2 months. Israeli and US officials said a new system was needed to prevent Hamas from siphoning off humanitarian aid. The United Nations, which has delivered aid to hundreds of distribution points across Gaza throughout the war when conditions allow, has rejected the new system, saying it forces Palestinians to travel long distances and risk their lives for food, and that it allows Israel to control who gets aid, potentially using it to advance plans for further mass displacement. Advertisement The UN human rights office said last week that some 1,400 Palestinians have been killed seeking aid since May, mostly near GHF sites but also along UN convoy routes where trucks have been overwhelmed by crowds. It says nearly all were killed by Israeli fire. This week, a group of UN special rapporteurs and independent human rights experts called for the GHF to be disbanded, saying it is 'an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas in serious breach of international law.' The experts work with the UN but do not represent the world body. The GHF called their statement 'disgraceful' and urged the UN and other aid groups to work with it 'to maximize the amount of aid being securely delivered to the Palestinian people in Gaza.' The Israeli military says it has only fired warning shots when crowds threatened its forces, and GHF says its armed contractors have only used pepper spray and fired into the air on some occasions to prevent deadly crowding at its sites. Israel's air and ground war has destroyed nearly all of Gaza's food production capabilities, leaving its people reliant on international aid. A new report by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN satellite center found that just 8.6 percent of Gaza's cropland is still accessible following sweeping Israeli evacuation orders in recent months. Just 1.5 percent is accessible and undamaged, it said. The military offensive and a breakdown in security have made it nearly impossible for anyone to safely deliver aid, and aid groups say recent Israeli measures to facilitate more assistance are far from sufficient. Advertisement Hospitals recorded four more malnutrition-related deaths over the last 24 hours, bringing the total to 193 people, including 96 children, since the war began in October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Jordan said Israeli settlers blocked roads and hurled stones at a convoy of four trucks carrying aid bound for Gaza after they drove across the border into the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Israeli far-right activists have repeatedly sought to halt aid from entering Gaza. Jordanian government spokesperson Mohammed al-Momani condemned the attack, which he said had shattered the windshields of the trucks, according to the Jordanian state-run Petra News Agency. The Israeli military said security forces went to the scene to disperse the gathering and accompanied the trucks to their destination.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Your bra might be sabotaging your health — this style is the ‘worst offender'
They lift, they separate… and they just might sabotage your health. Surveys show that 8 in 10 American women wear a bra most days, and the majority agree it's a real pain in the chest. But could your style of over-the-shoulder boulder holder be doing more harm than good? 'This is such an important question — and one we've been trained not to consider,' Bree McKeen, founder and CEO of Evelyn & Bobbie, told The Post. Advertisement 5 Studies show most women are wearing the wrong bra size, which comes with a host of consequences. – 'The truth is, most of us were never taught how to properly assess whether a bra is actually serving our bodies, we just put up with the discomfort,' she said. 'But bras can have a significant impact on our health — both physically and emotionally.' McKeen revealed five surprising ways your bra might be hurting your wellbeing and named the worst offender still lurking on store shelves today. #1 Musculoskeletal mayhem Advertisement The average woman carries between half a pound and 1.5 pounds per breast — but for those with D-cups or larger, each side can weigh 3 pounds or more. 'If your bra doesn't distribute weight effectively, your shoulders and neck end up doing all the work,' McKeen said. That uneven load can lead to a laundry list of issues, including poor posture, neck and back pain, tension headaches and even long-term spinal misalignment. 5 Bree McKeen launched Evelyn & Bobbie in the US in 2019. Evelyn & Bobbie Advertisement 'It's especially true for women with fuller busts, who carry meaningful weight on their chest every day,' McKeen said. She knows firsthand. As a curvy woman with a 34G cup, she struggled for years with aching shoulders, tension headaches and posture issues from wearing underwire bras before founding Evelyn & Bobbie. #2 Strap attack You wouldn't carry a bag of sugar around your neck with a shoestring, right? Advertisement 'That's what a lot of women are essentially doing every day,' McKeen said. 'Ouch!' The straps of a poorly designed bra, she explained, can dig into the nerves that run from your neck and shoulders down to your arms. 'Over time, that can cause tingling, numbness or shooting pain — something many women live with daily and never trace back to their bra,' McKeen said. 5 Underwire bras, while providing support, can have several drawbacks, according to McKeen. Vitalina – #3 Lymph lock Traditional underwire bras — especially tight or ill-fitting ones — can squeeze the tissue around your breasts and underarms, McKeen said. That squeeze can restrict blood flow and interfere with the lymphatic system, which plays a key role in fighting infections and balancing fluids in your body. 'There is virtually no research on the impact of restricting lymph around the breast, so I'm a little cautious when it comes to this topic,' McKeen said. 'But what we do know is that lymphatic flow is critical for our tissues to detox properly.' Advertisement After surgery, doctors often recommend wire-free bras to reduce swelling and speed healing. 'Why not just wear that every day?' McKeen asked. 'I personally want a bra that doesn't restrict my natural physiology.' #4 Irritants and invaders Common allergens like latex, nickel and spandex often sneak into bras and can irritate your skin, causing symptoms like itchiness, redness, swelling and rashes, McKeen said. She also warned that some bras contain toxic materials that can transfer directly onto your skin. Advertisement 5 Evelyn & Bobbie makes bras that offer support without the underwire. Jenna Saint Martin One major culprit: Bisphenol A (BPA), a common chemical found in some fabrics that has been linked to health concerns such as asthma, heart disease, obesity and hormone disruption. In 2022, the Center for Environmental Health found that sports bras from top brands exposed wearers to up to 22 times the 'safe' BPA level. 'I'll take BPA-free bras, please,' McKeen said. 'I don't drink out of cheap plastic water bottles, and I don't put that on my skin either.' Advertisement #5 The emotional load This one's often ignored — but it hits deep. 'Wearing something that hurts or digs or reminds you all day long that your body doesn't fit the mold … and that takes a toll,' McKeen said. 'The discomfort can be distracting, exhausting, even demoralizing.' Studies back it up: women who suffer physical bra pain often report more anxiety and lower self-esteem. Advertisement 'Here's the deeper truth: What you wear against your body every day matters,' McKeen said. 'Not just for your physical health — but for your confidence, your energy, your ability to show up fully in your life.' 5 Underwires can dig into the skin, causing pain and pressure marks. New Africa – What's the worst bra for your health? 'Unfortunately, it's the kind that's been marketed to us as the 'gold standard:' the traditional underwire push-up bra,' McKeen said. That style, she explained, unnaturally forces breast tissue upward and inward using a flat piece of steel — all while putting pressure on vital lymphatic drainage pathways. 'The underwire also digs into delicate tissue and is often placed directly over the inframammary fold, where many women develop cysts or pain,' McKeen said. 'Many times, I've seen actual scars on full-busted women from the constant pressure and chafing,' she noted. Plus, McKeen said, this design leaves the straps and band doing all the heavy lifting, leading to shoulder grooves, back pain and constant adjusting all day long. 'At Evelyn & Bobbie, our mission is bigger than bras,' McKeen said, pointing to their patented technology that delivers support without underwires. 'It's about restoring dignity to the daily experience of being a woman. It's about listening to your body, honoring its needs, and refusing to settle.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Some questions about that global AI race
Just how far is the U.S. ahead of China in the AI race? The conventional wisdom is that the U.S. has an edge on China in artificial intelligence — and President Donald Trump's ambitious new AI policy is built around keeping it. 'America is the country that started the AI race,' Trump said during a speech in July. 'And as president, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it.' But some big questions are swirling around that whole argument — like, how far ahead the U.S. really is, and what it means to have a lead at all. 'When people make claims like that, they're making political statements,' said Chris Miller, a Tufts University economic historian who wrote the book 'Chip War.' What it means to have an 'edge' is ill-defined: it could be technological, economic or geopolitical. 'I don't know how to answer that,' said Suresh Venkatasubramanian, who served in the Biden White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, when DFD asked if the U.S. is ahead. 'There's so many dimensions.' 'American [AI] models are about 3 [to] 6 months ahead of Chinese models,' White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks told DFD in a statement — though he added that when it comes to semiconductors, the U.S.' lead 'grows to years.' There's also the proposition that China is ahead in some ways — in part because the U.S.' chip export controls arguably led DeepSeek, a Hangzhou-based startup, to make breakthroughs in developing more efficient AI algorithms. Depending on which dimension you care about, the race could steer policy in very different directions. In general, it's hard to argue that America isn't currently leading the AI race. The San Francisco Bay Area is unquestionably the global AI talent and business capital. The largest AI companies are American, and so are their biggest customers. OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude are the most popular generative AI systems among users worldwide. Under the hood, American AI chips are the most advanced in the world (though they're largely manufactured in Taiwan). China is hungry for America's semiconductors, undertaking extensive smuggling operations to get around U.S. restrictions. Even chips purposefully designed to be less advanced than their cutting-edge models are a hot commodity — the president lifted bans on their sales to China in trade negotiations. America also has better computing infrastructure, with around ten times more data centers than China. However, China has proved in recent months that it's within striking distance of the U.S.' AI models. While Silicon Valley's chatbots still top performance charts, China's are running ahead on some metrics. DeepSeek set off shockwaves in January when it unveiled its V3 model that uses a tenth of the computing power required for those in America. In July, the Beijing-based company Moonshot AI released its Kimi K2 model, which could outperform ChatGPT and Claude in coding at a fraction of the cost. Alibaba, also based in Hangzhou, debuted a model just a couple of weeks ago that bested American LLMs in logical and mathematical problem solving. China is making strides in computing power as well. Huawei came out with a showstopping processing system known as CloudMatrix 384 in late July, which trumps Nvidia's competing product in memory capacity and bandwidth. (AJ Kourabi of the research firm SemiAnalysis offered a caution on its importance in the AI race, telling DFD it's 'still extremely difficult to train on.') Pinpointing exactly where the U.S.-China race is getting close isn't just a high-tech debate exercise. It's driving policy. Some of the concerns are clearly baked into Trump's AI Action Plan. China's easy access to electricity is what enables systems like CloudMatrix 384 to run — it's packed with a ton of less efficient chips, but you can brute force performance with more energy. You can draw a straight line from that concern to the plan's warning that China has 'rapidly built out their grid,' and its recommendations to further loosen environmental regulations so that the U.S. can keep up. The plan also suggests taking the brakes off the AI industry by overriding state laws (a controversial idea that showed up in the Big Beautiful Bill this summer). And during a speech on the plan, Trump blamed copyright laws for slowing down training of AI models. Though the plan itself doesn't address copyright, AI companies have long complained the rules stifle their competitiveness. The debate over chip exports is also a point of tension — one where national security hawks are in direct conflict with the go-go business types, though both have an argument that they're helping the American cause. Tighter restrictions on high-end chips mean that China lacks access to the best technology, and is hamstrung at the most advanced end of AI development — but pro-business officials and influential CEOs argue that disseminating chips more broadly gets the world hooked on the U.S.' AI tech stack. In some ways, however, this 'AI race' framework isn't all that helpful for setting priorities, and could ultimately be self-defeating. We don't really know what we're sprinting towards. 'This is an infinite race,' Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said in April. Also, beating China could be a pyrrhic victory. Trump's AI plan writ large looks a lot like a centrally planned industrial policy: companies buy closeness to Trump, and get rewarded for it. The AI plan fuses state and industry in a way that leaves out a lot of the AI debate that Americans arguably would prefer to have. Data centers are causing utility bills to rise and drying up well water for the people living around them, and AI has been increasing unemployment rates. Many critics of the AI rush think the U.S. may be boosting the industry by shutting off dialogue about those things — winning the race, but becoming less American in the process. A senator questions Intel on ties to China Senate Intelligence Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) is inquiring into reports about Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan's involvement with China-backed semiconductor firms and a criminal case regarding one of his former companies, POLITICO's Anthony Adragna reports. Cotton sent a letter on Tuesday to the chair of Intel's board of directors, Frank Yeary, about the 'security and integrity of Intel's operations.' Cotton asked whether the company knew about subpoenas issued to Tan's previous company, Cadence Design Systems, before it hired him. The company pleaded guilty last week on charges that it illegally exported chip design tools to a university linked to the Chinese military, and agreed to pay more than $140 million in penalties. 'Intel and Mr. Tan are deeply committed to the national security of the United States and the integrity of our role in the U.S. defense ecosystem,' an Intel spokesperson said in a statement. Intel was awarded up to $7.86 billion in federal grants under the 2022 CHIPS Act, in addition to another $3 billion for the secure enclave program. California strikes down an election deepfakes ban A federal judge in California struck down one of the country's strictest laws on AI-generated deepfakes in a win for Elon Musk's X, POLITICO's Chase DiFeliciantonio reports. Judge John Mendez on Tuesday overruled a law prohibiting online platforms from hosting deceptive election-related deepfakes during the runup to a vote. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the law last year after chiding Musk for sharing a manipulated video of then-Vice President Kamala Harris on X. The creator of the video, Christopher Kohls, brought the legal challenge on First Amendment grounds. X later joined the case. Mendez did not rule on the First Amendment arguments raised in the case, but rather made the decision based on Section 230 of the Communications Act, which shields platforms from liability for content posted by third parties. Mendez also signaled that he intends to overturn another law requiring labels on digitally altered campaign materials. post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
