This study investigated the neural correlates of flow states using fMRI. It aimed to test predictions from synchronization theory that flow involves increased activation in attention and reward networks compared to boredom and frustration states. Participants completed tasks designed to induce each state while in the scanner. Preliminary results from one participant found greater activation in attention-related areas like the inferior parietal lobe and reward-related areas like the thalamus during flow vs boredom. Flow vs frustration activated visual cortex areas but no clear reward areas. Further research is needed to fully test the synchronization component of the theory and address limitations like task modality differences.
1. Neural Correlates of Flow Experiences
Richard Huskey
Michael Mangus
Christian Yoder
René Weber
http://medianeuroscience.org
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
2. •
•
•
•
•
•
Six Characteristics of Flow
Sense that one’s skills are an adequate fit for the challenge
Disappearance of self-consciousness
Loss of temporal awareness
Pleasant experience that not perceived as taxing
Perform the given activity “for its own sake”
Intense concentration; “there is no attention left” Csíkszentmihályi, 1990
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
3. Problem!
• Flow is often heuristically defined
• Flow measurement primarily relies on self-report measures
Method 1: Poorly Defined
Scales
Method 2: Experience
Sampling Method (ESM)
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
4. Synchronization Theory of Flow
• “Flow is a discrete, energetically optimized, and gratifying
experience resulting from the synchronization of
attentional and reward networks under condition of
balance between challenge and skill” (Weber, Tamborini, Westcott-Baker, &
Kantor, 2009, p. 412).
• Five assumptions central to sync theory:
– Neural networks can oscillate at the same frequency – networks oscillating at the same
frequency are said to be in sync
– Synchronization is a discrete state
– The synchronization of neural networks is energetically cheap
– The effect of networks in sync is greater than the sum of individual parts
– Flow results from a synchronization of attentional and reward networks under conditions
of a balance between challenge/skill
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
5. Synchronization Theory of Flow
• Early Support:
– fMRI Attention (Weber, Alicea, & Mathiak, 2009)
– fMRI Attention/Reward (Klasen et al., 2012)
– fMRI Neural Correlates of Flow (Ulrich, Keller, Hoenig, Waller,
Grön, 2013)
– STRT Attention (Kantor & Weber, 2009; Weber & Huskey, 2013)
– Patch Clamp Attention/Reward (Stanisor et al, 2013)
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
6. Weber & Huskey, 2013
Overall Model = .928, F(2,119) = 4.626, p = .012
All pairwise comparisons significantly different, p < .033
Overall Model = .68, F(2, 118) = 28.12, p < .001
All pairwise comparisons significantly different, p < .014
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
7. The Present Study
• This study adapted the Weber & Huskey (2013) protocol to a
brain imaging environment and predicts:
– Increased activation in alerting (frontal and parietal cortical
regions) and orienting networks (superior and inferior parietal
lobe regions, the frontal eye fields, and the superior colliculus)
during flow compared to boredom and frustration.
– Increased activation in reward networks (dopaminergic system,
the orbitofrontal cortex, the ventromedial and dorsolateral
regions of the prefrontal cortex, the thalamus, and the striatum)
during flow compared to boredom and frustration.
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
11. Analysis
•
Preprocessing:
– Design matrix with 120 s “on” + temporal derivatives +
confound Evs
– Gamma convolution
– McFLIRT + MELODIC ICA
– BET + 8 mm smooth + slice time correction + B0 unwarping
– Contrasts:
•
•
Boredom (-1), Flow (1)
Frustration (-1), Flow (1)
– Linear registration to structural scan + nonlinear registration
to MNII152 space
•
Main Analysis:
– 3 EVs (one for each contrast)
– Fixed Effects
– Cluster corrected at Z > 2.3, p < 0.05
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
12. Reward: Flow > Boredom
Left Thalamus2:
z = 3.01 (48,52,41)
1
Juelich Histological Atlas | 2 Harvard-Oxford Atlas | 3 MNI Structural Atlas
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
13. Attention: Flow > Boredom
Inferior Parietal
Lobe1: z = 4.17 (15,36,49)
1
Secondary Somatosensory
Cortex1: z = 3.31 (23,53,45)
Cerebellum3:
z = 3.73 (38,21,16)
Juelich Histological Atlas | 2 Harvard-Oxford Atlas | 3 MNI Structural Atlas
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
14. Results: Flow > Boredom
Frontal Pole1:
z = 3.36 (37,90,54)
1
Superior Temporal
Gyrus2: z = 3.59 (74,57,33)
Paracingulate
Gyrus2: z = 3.51 (41,86,32)
Juelich Histological Atlas | 2 Harvard-Oxford Atlas | 3 MNI Structural Atlas
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
15. Attention: Flow > Frustration
Visual Cortex (V1)1:
z = 3.26 (36,33,39)
1
Visual Cortex (V3)2:
z = 2.87 (53,19,33)
Visual Cortex (V4)2:
z = 3.04 (57,25,33)
Juelich Histological Atlas | 2 Harvard-Oxford Atlas | 3 MNI Structural Atlas
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
16. Attention: Flow > Frustration
Lateral Occipital
Cortex2: z = 3.14 (32,22,49)
1
Juelich Histological Atlas | 2 Harvard-Oxford Atlas | 3 MNI Structural Atlas
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
17. Concluding Thoughts
• Even with an n=1 study, we see promising results
– Flow > Boredom contrast results in activations most closely
related to sync theory predictions
– Flow > Frustration contrast is less clear – no clear reward
activation
• Limitations:
–
–
–
–
Does not test the synchronization component of Sync Theory
Differing modality between primary task and secondary task
Study design would benefit from increased automation
Non-random block order
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
We should begin by defining the characteristics of flow experiences.
Flow occurs when our skills are perfectly matched to the challenge we are taking on. Sometimes these challenges are as intense as driving a racecar. Other times they are as every-day as cooking dinner. The point is, flow occurs when there is a balance between challenge and skill
When we are in flow, we experience a loss of self consciousness. This is like the composer who described an almost out-of-body experience as he watched his hand write music.
We also lose track of time. I’m sure we’ve all been doing something enjoyable where we completely forget to monitor time, and are shocked at how much time has passed.
Flow is a pleasant experience that we don’t perceive of as taxing. Marathon runners, snowboarders, rock climbers hanging from precarious cliffs; these activities are both emotionally and physically taxing. But, in the moment, we don’t feel these effects. The climber doesn’t feel exhausted until reaching the summit.
Flow experiences are gratifying in and of themselves. The enjoyment comes from *doing* the activity, not completing the activity.
The last characteristic of flow is that is it is a wholly absorptive experience. In flow, we are so caught up in the experience that we do not have enough attention left to focus on anything else.
Flow measurement suffers two main issues:
Often heuristically defined
Primarily relies on self report measures
This leads to two problematic measurements of flow:
Questionnaires (everyone uses a different one)
The ESM… remember pagers?
So, why do you care? Several attempts have tried to resolve some of these issues by theorizing the neural correlates of Flow and using cognitive neuroscience to design unobtrusive and online measures of flow.
In the Communication discipline, flow has been theorized as the outcome of a synchronization between attentional and reward networks under conditions of a balance between challenge and skill.
Despite initial support, there still is insufficient evidence to either confirm or falsify the theory. This study attempts to falsify a central premise of Sync theory; that is, that attentional networks are a component of flow experiences.
Sync theory is based on an understanding of how complex neurobiological systems exchange information. While a full-scale test of Sync theory likely requires a brain imaging scanner, components of sync theory can be tested individually. This study isolates the assumption that attentional networks are central to flow experiences, and tests the role of attention in flow experiences.
Four assumptions of sync theory:
1). Neural networks can oscillate at the same frequency – networks oscillating at the same frequency are said to be in sync
Related to information exchange between complex neurobiological systems
2). Synchronization is instantaneous
Networks are synchronized or they are not. Just like you are in flow or not. Networks can’t be “more” or “less” in sync just as you can not be “more” or “less” in flow
3). The synchronization of neural networks is energetically cheap
Why flow experiences are not perceived as taxing
4). The effect of networks in sync is greater than the sum of individual parts
Why the experience of flow as qualitatively different from the individual components of each antecedent.
5). Result of a synchronization of attentional and reward networks under conditions of a balance between challenge/skill
Accounts for the wholly absorptive and highly rewarding nature of flow experiences.
In the Communication discipline, flow has been theorized as the outcome of a synchronization between attentional and reward networks under conditions of a balance between challenge and skill.
Despite initial support, there still is insufficient evidence to either confirm or falsify the theory. This study attempts to falsify a central premise of Sync theory; that is, that attentional networks are a component of flow experiences.
Sync theory is based on an understanding of how complex neurobiological systems exchange information. While a full-scale test of Sync theory likely requires a brain imaging scanner, components of sync theory can be tested individually. This study isolates the assumption that attentional networks are central to flow experiences, and tests the role of attention in flow experiences.
Four assumptions of sync theory:
1). Neural networks can oscillate at the same frequency – networks oscillating at the same frequency are said to be in sync
Related to information exchange between complex neurobiological systems
2). The synchronization of neural networks is energetically cheap
Why flow experiences are not perceived as taxing
3). The effect of networks in sync is greater than the sum of individual parts
Why the experience of flow as qualitatively different from the individual components of each antecedent.
4). Result of a synchronization of attentional and reward networks under conditions of a balance between challenge/skill
Accounts for the wholly absorptive and highly rewarding nature of flow experiences.
Weber & Huskey manipulated a video game and applied two measures of flow: a commonly used self-report measure (left chart) and a novel STRT measure of flow (right chart).
Results show that, consistent with a limited capacity model of attention, reaction times are longest under flow conditions (relative to boredom and frustration)
This result provides support for the attentional component of Sync Theory. What about the reward component?
We see support for:
(1) Attentional components of Sync Theory
(2) Reward Components of Sync Theory
There is a need to congruently assess attention and reward
Accordingly, this study predicts:
Experimental stimulus = star Reaction. We experimentally manipulate challenge. Explain all three experimental conditions, and give examples for why we did each.
Block design: Three conditions (boredom, frustration, flow). Two block per condition, a total of 6 blocks. Each block scans for 4 minutes.
48 trials per block. Each trial displayed for 1500 ms at irregular but non-random intervals per block. Interstimulus interval calculated by taking a sample of normally distributed randomly generated numbers (M = 1969 ms, SD = 1000 ms)
Experimental stimulus = star Reaction. We experimentally manipulate challenge. Explain all three experimental conditions, and give examples for why we did each.
Block design: Three conditions (boredom, frustration, flow). Two block per condition, a total of 6 blocks. Each block scans for 4 minutes.
48 trials per block. Each trial displayed for 1500 ms at irregular but non-random intervals per block. Interstimulus interval calculated by taking a sample of normally distributed randomly generated numbers (M = 1969 ms, SD = 1000 ms)
What we predicted:
Thalamus: component of reward network, switchboard for relaying sensory information (e.g., to attentional networks)
What we predicted:
Inferior parietal lobe: alerting network (endogenous and exogenous alerting)
Secondary Somatosensory Cortex: visceral sensation, touch, attention
Cerebellum: attention and motor control
What we didn’t expect:
Superior Temporal Gyrus: auditory & speech processing – likely due to different modality in attentional task
Paracingulate Gyrus (aPCC): predict future intention of social interactants? (Walter Adenzato, Ciaramidaro, Enrici, Pia, Bara, 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience)
Frontal pole: reasoning, planning, multitasking (Koechlin, 2011 – Trends in Cognitive Sciences), goal directed behavior?
What we Predicted:
Visual Cortex: processing of visual stimuli
What we Predicted:
Visual Cortex: processing of visual stimuli
Lateral Occipital Cortex: attention, object recognition Grill-Spector, Kourtzi, Kanwisher, 2001 – Vision Research)
In the Communication discipline, flow has been theorized as the outcome of a synchronization between attentional and reward networks under conditions of a balance between challenge and skill.
Despite initial support, there still is insufficient evidence to either confirm or falsify the theory. This study attempts to falsify a central premise of Sync theory; that is, that attentional networks are a component of flow experiences.
Sync theory is based on an understanding of how complex neurobiological systems exchange information. While a full-scale test of Sync theory likely requires a brain imaging scanner, components of sync theory can be tested individually. This study isolates the assumption that attentional networks are central to flow experiences, and tests the role of attention in flow experiences.
Four assumptions of sync theory:
1). Neural networks can oscillate at the same frequency – networks oscillating at the same frequency are said to be in sync
Related to information exchange between complex neurobiological systems
2). The synchronization of neural networks is energetically cheap
Why flow experiences are not perceived as taxing
3). The effect of networks in sync is greater than the sum of individual parts
Why the experience of flow as qualitatively different from the individual components of each antecedent.
4). Result of a synchronization of attentional and reward networks under conditions of a balance between challenge/skill
Accounts for the wholly absorptive and highly rewarding nature of flow experiences.