Latest news with #NatureHumanBehavior
Fast Company
26-05-2025
- Health
- Fast Company
Forget ‘digital dementia'—tech use may help keep older brains sharp
A new study paints a promising picture for the ways that digital technology use affects the aging brain. Published in Nature Human Behavior last month, neuroscientists at Baylor University and the University of Texas at Austin conducted a meta-analysis drawing on 57 different studies and data from more than 400,000 participants over the age of 50. A digital brain boost The new study found that across the board, the use of everyday digital technology like computers, smartphones, and the internet is associated with lower measures of cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults. The strength of that positive association was comparable to established protective factors for dementia like reduced blood pressure, cognitively engaging hobbies, and exercise. The results contradict assumptions that long-term technology use might lead to cognitive decline in old age. 'There was no credible evidence from the longitudinal studies, or the meta-analysis as a whole, for widespread digital 'brain drain' or 'digital dementia' as a result of general, natural uses of digital technology,' coauthors Jared Benge and Michael Scullin wrote. The meta-analysis, which aggregated findings across many different pieces of research, included previous studies on digital technology use in adults older than 50 if they examined cognitive performance or dementia diagnosis as an outcome. The average participant age was 68.7 years at the beginning of the study (a third of the studies were longitudinal, collecting data over time). These participants are described as 'digital pioneers' who did not have access to technology and the internet while growing up. Within the meta-analysis, the three studies that focused on the use of social media showed findings that are more mixed, with inconsistent results for cognitive measures. The authors hypothesize that increased social media use could mean participants had less face-to-face social interaction, which is notable because in-person socializing is believed to protect the aging brain against dementia. Helping seniors stay social Beyond social media, technology use could enable a thriving social life for aging adults, who might use video calls, messaging, and email to stay in touch with loved ones—digital tools that share little in common with social media's algorithmic feeds. 'Digitally enabled social connections improve feelings of loneliness in some older adults, but they may also increase exposure to socially driven misinformation or reduce the frequency of face-to-face relationships,' the authors wrote. 'Additional work is therefore needed to understand how, when, and for whom digital social connectedness benefits well-being and cognition.' The authors also suggest that future studies should look at the same trends in lower-income countries, where a spike in dementia diagnosis is expected and access to technology is expanding rapidly. While the study's results show a robust positive trend between the use of technology and a healthy aging mind, figuring out the root cause of those positive outcomes is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. 'For example, decreased walking speed presages cognitive decline in a host of neurodegenerative diseases, but the reverse causal direction is also present: Regular walking leads to better cognitive performance and slower rates of cognitive decline,' the authors wrote. For aging adults, it's possible that better cognition promotes technology use, even as technology use promotes better cognition. 'While the current meta-analysis showed a consistent, strong positive association between natural uses of digital technologies and overall cognitive well-being, there is no simple answer to whether technology is 'always good' or 'always bad' for the aging brain,' the authors wrote. 'It is unknown whether the current findings will hold in future decades for people who were initially exposed to digital technologies during childhood or as the types of general digital technology exposure change.'
Washington Post
26-05-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Study links technology use to lower risk of cognitive decline
Engagement with digital technology was associated with a 58 percent reduced risk of cognitive impairment in people middle-aged and older, according to a study in the journal Nature Human Behavior. Researchers conducted a systematic review of 57 studies to see whether exposure to technology has helped or harmed cognition among the first generation of adults with prolonged exposure to digital devices such as smartphones, tablets and computers. The studies involved more than 411,000 adults with an average age of 69.
Medscape
20-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
New Data: Autism Doesn't Impede Effective Communication
Autism is clinically defined by impairments in social communication, leading to assumptions that individuals with autism are less effective communicators. But a new study challenges this notion. The study found no significant difference in the effectiveness of how adults with autism and those without autism communicate, challenging the stereotype that people with autism struggle to connect with others. This suggests that social difficulties faced by people with autism are more about differences in how people with and without autism communicate, rather than a lack of social ability in people with autism, researchers said. The study was published online on May 14 in Nature Human Behavior. Prior studies have suggested that communication challenges might stem from neurotype mismatches (autistic vs nonautistic) rather than autism itself. To investigate further, a team led by Catherine Crompton, PhD, with the Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, tested how effectively information was passed between 311 adults with (n = 154) and without autism (n = 157). The participants were tested in groups where everyone had autism, everyone was without autism, or a combination of both. The first person in the group heard a story from the researcher, then passed it along to the next person in the group. Each person had to remember and repeat the story, and the last person in the chain recalled the story aloud. The amount of information passed on at each point in the chain was scored to discern how effective participants were at sharing the story. The researchers found no significant differences in the effectiveness of information transfer between groups with autism, groups without autism, and mixed groups. They did note significant decay of information over time, but this was unrelated to neurotype matching. After the communication task, the researchers asked the participants to rate how much they enjoyed the interaction with the others in the group. They found that adults without autism preferred interacting with others like themselves, while those with autism preferred learning from peers with autism, which could come down to the different ways that people with and without autism communicate, the researchers said. For adults with autism, disclosing their diagnosis might improve social experiences by fostering greater rapport, the data suggested. Overall, the results support a paradigm shift from viewing autistic communication through a deficit model to recognizing it as a difference in communication style, the researchers said. 'Autism has often been associated with social impairments, both colloquially and in clinical criteria,' Crompton said in a news release. 'Researchers have spent a lot of time trying to 'fix' autistic communication, but this study shows that despite autistic and nonautistic people communicating differently, it is just as successful,' she said. 'With opportunities for autistic people often limited by misconceptions and misunderstandings, this new research could lead the way to bridging the communication gap and create more inclusive spaces for all,' Crompton added.
Toronto Sun
19-05-2025
- Toronto Sun
AI is more persuasive than a human in a debate, study finds
Published May 19, 2025 • 4 minute read Photo by Getty Images Technology watchdogs have long warned of the role artificial intelligence can play in disseminating misinformation and deepening ideological divides. Now, researchers have proof of how well AI can sway opinion – putting it head-to-head with humans. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account When provided with minimal demographic information on their opponents, AI chatbots – known as large language models (LLMs) – were able to adapt their arguments and be more persuasive than humans in online debates 64 percent of the time, according to a study published in Nature Human Behavior on Monday. Researchers found that even LLMs without access to their opponents' demographic information were still more persuasive than humans, study co-author Riccardo Gallotti said. Gallotti, head of the Complex Human Behavior Unit at the Fondazione Bruno Kessler research institute in Italy, added that humans with their opponents' personal information were actually slightly less persuasive than humans without that knowledge. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Gallotti and his colleagues came to these conclusions by matching 900 people based in the United States with either another human or GPT-4, the LLM created by OpenAI known colloquially as ChatGPT. While the 900 people had no demographic information on who they were debating, in some instances, their opponents – human or AI – had access to some basic demographic information that the participants had provided, specifically their gender, age, ethnicity, education level, employment status and political affiliation. The pairs then debated a number of contentious sociopolitical issues, such as the death penalty or climate change. With the debates phrased as questions like 'should abortion be legal' or 'should the U.S. ban fossil fuels,' the participants were allowed a four-minute opening in which they argued for or against, a three-minute rebuttal to their opponents' arguments and then a three-minute conclusion. The participants then rated how much they agreed with the debate proposition on a scale of 1 to 5, the results of which the researchers compared against the ratings they provided before the debate began and used to measure how much their opponents were able to sway their opinion. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'We have clearly reached the technological level where it is possible to create a network of LLM-based automated accounts that are able to strategically nudge the public opinion in one direction,' Gallotti said in an email. The LLMs' use of the personal information was subtle but effective. In arguing for government-backed universal basic income, the LLM emphasized economic growth and hard work when debating a White male Republican between the ages of 35 and 44. But when debating a Black female Democrat between the ages of 45 and 54 on that same topic, the LLM talked about the wealth gap disproportionately affecting minority communities and argued that universal basic income could aid in the promotion of equality. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'In light of our research, it becomes urgent and necessary for everybody to become aware of the practice of microtargeting that is rendered possible by the enormous amount of personal data we scatter around the web,' Gallotti said. 'In our work, we observe that AI-based targeted persuasion is already very effective with only basic and relatively available information.' Sandra Wachter, a professor of technology and regulation at the University of Oxford, described the study's findings as 'quite alarming.' Wachter, who was not affiliated with the study, said she was most concerned in particular with how the models could use this persuasiveness in spreading lies and misinformation. 'Large language models do not distinguish between fact and fiction. … They are not, strictly speaking, designed to tell the truth. Yet they are implemented in many sectors where truth and detail matter, such as education, science, health, the media, law, and finance,' Wachter said in an email. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Junade Ali, an AI and cybersecurity expert at the Institute for Engineering and Technology in Britain, said that though he felt the study did not weigh the impact of 'social trust in the messenger' – how the chatbot might tailor its argument if it knew it was debating a trained advocate or expert with knowledge on the topic and how persuasive that argument would be – it nevertheless 'highlights a key problem with AI technologies.' 'They are often tuned to say what people want to hear, rather than what is necessarily true,' he said in an email. Gallotti said he thinks stricter and more specific policies and regulations can help counter the impact of AI persuasion. He noted that while the European Union's first-of-its-kind AI Act prohibits AI systems that deploy 'subliminal techniques' or 'purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques' that could impair citizens' ability to make an informed decision, there is no clear definition for what qualifies as subliminal, manipulative or deceptive. 'Our research demonstrates precisely why these definitional challenges matter: When persuasion is highly personalized based on sociodemographic factors, the line between legitimate persuasion and manipulation becomes increasingly blurred,' he said. 05-19-2025 11:20AM Toronto Maple Leafs Toronto Maple Leafs Celebrity Toronto Maple Leafs News
Washington Post
19-05-2025
- Science
- Washington Post
AI is more persuasive than a human in a debate, study finds
Technology watchdogs have long warned of the role artificial intelligence can play in disseminating misinformation and deepening ideological divides. Now, researchers have proof of how well AI can sway opinion — putting it head-to-head with humans. When provided with minimal demographic information on their opponents, AI chatbots — known as large language models (LLMs) — were able to adapt their arguments and be more persuasive than humans in online debates 64 percent of the time, according to a study published in Nature Human Behavior on Monday.
