Walking in nature for only 15 to 20 minutes can improve your attention capacity, even if you don't always enjoy it.
In his new book of 324 pages, “nature and mind: the science of how nature improves cognitive, physical and social well -being” (Simon and Schuster), the environmental neuroscientific Marc G. Berman establishes how our natural environment can help restore the overestimulated and overestimulated nerve systems of people.
The help of the shelf is a well -being column where we interviewed researchers, thinkers and writers about their last books, all with the aim of learning to live a more complete life.
Berman, founder and director of the Environmental Neuroscience Laboratory of the University of Chicago, is also a professor and president of the Department of Psychology of the University of Chicago, as well as co -director of the Masters of Computer Social Science Program.
Through the investigation of his laboratory, Berman and his team discovered that walking for longer periods, for example, approximately 50 minutes, can substantially increase cognitive function, but beauty is that it can still obtain a remarkable cognitive benefit when spending only 15 to 20 minutes on nature.
Author Marc G. Berman
(Sadie Whitehead)
In a study, Berman and his team asked people to walk at different times of the year: in June, when it was pleasant in Michigan and in January, when they were 25 degrees and the trees were naked. As you will have guessed, the summer group was happily happy, and the winter group did not enjoy its walk.
“But they still showed the same cognitive benefit as the people who walked in June,” he said about the last group. “For these cognitive benefits, it is not about liking interaction. It is something deeper. This is how we process natural stimulation.”
(Simon Element / Simon & Schuster)
The Times spoke with Berman about what he and others have discovered by studying how our natural environments affect the human psyche and how we could design more elements of nature in our cities to improve our general well -being.
This interview has been condensed and edited by clarity.
What is environmental neuroscience? Where did that term come from?
It was based on some previous investigations where people studied rodents and discovered that when rodents lived in rich environments that had toys and there were other rodents around, these rats had more synapses in the brain, more glia cells. The physical environment that were these rodents [living] In he was impacting his brains. And that really took me.
[Then] I took this course with Professor Steve Kaplan, and he was talking about this theory called the attention restoration theory and how people could restore their attention by interacting with natural environments. Steve, an advisor and I designed studies to prove the theory of attention restoration, and I saw in the field there were really not a place for this type of research.
All these studies in rodents were done years ago, and nothing was really joining. I saw all these different connections, and I thought, maybe I could help define this new environmental neuroscience field, where we would really see how the physical environment that really surrounds us affects the functioning of the brain and try to combine cutting -edge techniques in cognitive neuroscience with ideas of environmental psychology.
Can you talk about these terms you use in the book: “Involuntary Attention” and “Soft fascination”? It seems that what you are saying is that, when we are in nature, it has a way of recharging due to the way we dispense our brain space or energy.
[Let’s] Start with the theory of attention restoration. One of the key principles that was raised by Steve Kaplan and his wife, Rachel Kaplan, is that humans have two types of attention. A type of attention is called directed attention. Sometimes that is called endogenous or upward attention. That is the type of attention in which you, as an individual person, are deciding to pay attention to. So, presumably, you are deciding to pay attention to me and what I am saying, even if it could not be the most interesting thing you can find in the environment.
I find what you are saying interesting, just to be clear.
[Laughs] Humans are really good to direct their attention, but we can only direct our attention for so long before let's talk mentally, and it is difficult to concentrate. We have all had that feeling at the end of a long workday where you could be looking at the computer screen and, you know, nothing happens.
When you cannot concentrate more, we say that you are in a state of directed attention fatigue. You have exhausted this resource of directed attention.
That is different from involuntary attention, which is when our attention is automatically captured by an interesting stimulation in the environment. The bright lights, strong noises, that type of stimulation automatically capture our attention, and we really have no control over it.
Take food
Of “nature and mind: the science of how nature improves cognitive, physical and social well -being” “
Like the strong buzz of a motorcycle.
Yes, and it is believed that this type of attention is less susceptible to fatigue or exhaustion. So, do not listen to people say: 'Oh, I can't look at that beautiful waterfall. It is too interesting to see. I am too tired. One of the ideas with the theory of restoration of attention is that if you can find environments that do not impose many demands about their directed attention and at the same time have an interesting stimulation that activates involuntary attention, can restore or replace [your] directed attention.
Ok, what would be an example of that?
We say that the type of stimulation that activates involuntary attention has to be what we call “gently fascinating.”
When you look at that waterfall, do not capture all your attention resources. You can still put aside and think about other things while looking at the waterfall. If you are in Times Square, it is also very interesting. He captures a lot of his attention approach, but he does it in a way that consumes everything.
The type of stimulation offered by this restorative and restorative experience must be gently fascinating and not fascinating.
In the book, he writes enough about the curved design of nature and its benefits. For cynics among us, I wanted to ask: can we design more nature around us and more of its elements in buildings and benefit without really being in nature, without taking a walk in the park or in the forest? Are they just the curves we need?
We can get some of the benefits that way. Antoni Gaudí and other architects knew that in how they designed buildings, people really like such buildings that have biophilic design, where they mimic the patterns of nature in design. I don't see that as a replacement of nature. That is like a supplement.
We find that in many of our studies, entering real nature gives you the greatest explosion for your money, because being in nature, you get all modalities: the visual, the auditory, the touch, even the olfactory, the smell. You are obtaining all this type of experience that I think you can really imitate in a built space.
I would not like to say: “Oh, the food to carry is, if we find all the ingredients of nature, we can destroy all nature and then simply build it.” No, we have to preserve all nature, because we cannot design anything as good as nature.
(Maggie Chiang / For the Times)
You write about the benefits of experiencing nature when you are depressed, anxious or afflicted. What does nature have anxious or depressed mind? Is it that we are finally keeping our phones?
We have carried out studies with people who have been diagnosed with clinical depression and we were not sure if the nature of nature would be so beneficial for them.
We think: “Well, if nature increases attention and cognitive skills and if someone suffers from depression and is reflecting on negative thoughts and feelings, perhaps a walk alone in nature could actually increase depression and increase depressive rummy.”
We did the same study to walk [with] A non -clinical sample. But with these participants with clinical depression, we actually indicate them to ruminate about negative thoughts and feelings before they went for a walk. And we discovered that the walk in nature was actually more beneficial for participants who suffered from clinical depression than for our non -clinical samples.
We believe that it is because when you are in a depressive state and you are reflecting on negative thoughts and feelings, that is actually stealing a lot from your attention approach and your directed attention. Then nature is promoting them, and we believe that it is giving them cognitive resources and then dealing with their depression and rummy.
In the book, you talk about how nature can make us see again as people. How do we care, and especially parents for their children who grew in this type of dehumanizing culture in which we are, take advantage of that benefit?
There was a study by some China researchers where they discovered that being in nature, you are not so self -centered. You feel you are part of something bigger. And then that actually increases the feeling of humanization of others. Although there may not be people out there, you start feeling more connected to everyone, in part probably because you feel more connected to nature.
And they discovered that this could even happen with interior plants, which found greater feelings of humanization of others and self-transcendence. And not only was it driven by nature, which made people feel good. It was that nature increased these feelings of self-transcendence, and after the feelings of humanization increased.
You and I have said “in nature” several times. How do you define “in nature”? As, why is the base when our brain says: “I am in nature”?
It is something difficult to define. It probably differs for different people, such as the definition of your father's nature. [in Oklahoma] I could differ from someone who lives in New York or Los Angeles.
What conceives a person as natural than another not? What seems to be very consistent in all cultures is this preference of nature: that people prefer things that seem more natural for things that seem more constructed.
How important is, in terms of benefits of being in nature, that nature inspires astonishment? A walk in nature through a park that his average person would perceive as boring: does that benefit them?
You do not have to go to the beautiful more impressive nature to obtain these cognitive benefits. But if nature is so boring, as, I don't think it gets a benefit as walking through a corn field per se. And we have really asked people: “Do you like the corn field or walking through an urban wooded street?” And people like urban street lined with trees better than the corn field. It could be argued that perhaps the corn field is really less natural than the street lined with trees because it has been so influenced by humans. But it is only to say that not all nature is created the same, and not all urban are created the same.
