Dr. Klingberg has just published a very stimulating popular science book, The Overflowing Brain, that should help in precisely that direction. Given the importance of the topic, and the quality of the book, we have named  The Overflowing Brain: Information Overload and the Limits of Working Memory  The SharpBrains Most Important Book of 2008, and asked Dr. Klingberg to write a brief article to introduce his research and book to you. Below you have. Enjoy!

---

Research and Tools to Thrive in the Cognitive Age

By Dr. Torkel Klingberg

Do we all have attention deficits?

The information age has provided us with high technology which fills our days with an ever increasing amount of information and distraction. We are constantly flooded with on-the-go emails, phone calls, advertisements and text-messages and we try to cope with the increasing pace by multi tasking. A survey of workplaces in the United States found that the personnel were interrupted and distracted roughly every three minutes and that people working on a computer had on average eight windows open at the same time. There is no tendency for this to slow down; the amount and complexity of information continually increases

The most pressing concerns with this environment are: how do we deal with the daily influx of information that our inundated mental capacities are faced with? At what point does our stone-age brain become insufficient? Will we be able to train our brains effectively to increase brain capacity in order to stay in-step with our inexorable lifestyles? Or will we be stricken with attention deficits because of brain overload?

In his article “Overloaded Circuits: Why Smart People Underperform,” psychiatrist Edward Hallowell coins the term “attention deficit trait” to characterize the situation in which so many of us find ourselves. This is not a new diagnosis of any use to doctors, but rather a description of the mental state that information technology, a faster pace, and changing work patterns have induced. Some would call it a lifestyle.

The point of Hallowell’s term is that it illustrates how the modern work situation, with its pace and simultaneous demands, often gives us the feeling of having attention difficulties and of not quite having the capacity to do our jobs. Our brains are being flooded. But is it really the case that the information society generally impairs people’s attentional abilities? What are attentional abilities, anyway, and exactly what in our complex work situations is mentally demanding?

Cognitive Demands in the Information Age

In my book “The Overflowing Brain: Information Overload and the Limits of Working Memory” I try to pinpoint the nature of the cognitive demands of modern life and the psychological and neural basis of our capacity limitations. One demand factor in our working lives is the incessant distractions: all the impressions that buzz around us like mosquitoes and make it hard for us to concentrate on what we’re doing. The torrent of information increases not only the volume of data we’re expected to take in but also the volume we need to shut out.

Another important demand factor is multitasking, which is the quick and easy solution for all those who want to get more done in less time. However, doing (or at least trying to do) several tasks simultaneously is one of our most demanding everyday activities. Running on a treadmill while watching TV usually isn’t too taxing, nor is chewing gum while walking in a straight line. But even such a mundane situation as talking on a cell phone while driving is not as easy as we’d like to think. Apart from the fact that it’s difficult to hold the wheel and shift gears with the same hand, or to keep our eyes on the road and on the phone’s display at the same time, there’s something in the mentally demanding task of telephoning that makes us worse drivers.

Information overload, distractions and multitasking are probably the most important factors in making the information age so cognitively demanding are.

The Role of Working Memory: challenges and opportunities

There are plenty of indications that those three factors are loading on our working memory capacity, which is our capacity to hold on to relevant information for short periods of time. The problem is that our working memory capacity is a scarce resource. The increase in information load thus meets a biological constraint in how much we can handle. A question that has always fascinated me is how this capacity constraint is wired in our brain, and if we can in some way increase this capacity, and this question is a thread that I follow throughout the book.

In the research that my colleagues and I have done at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, we have shown that training on working memory tasks, close or above the limit of our capacity, can improve our working memory. This improvement is not only confined to the trained tasks, but generalizes to other cognitive tasks requiring working memory and control of attention. We have also shown that this training improves the ability to focus in everyday life. The working memory capacity limitation is not immutable, but actually possible to stretch.

Furthermore, it is possible that the increasing information load not only is harmless, but might actually improve our cognitive abilities through improvement of working memory. The now well known Flynn effect tells us that fluid intelligence is increasing, presumably due to environmental demands on cognition. The most important cognitive demands of modern life relates to working memory, and the most important cognitive function underlying fluid intelligence is working memory capacity. The way environmental demands improves fluid intelligence might thus be through improvement on working memory capacity.

In other words, modern life itself may help make us more cognitively able. And emerging tools may enhance our abilities and better prepare us for the demands of the Information Age.

Reflections for the Future

Training our brains might thus be a way to keep up with the increasing demands of the information age. This might be especially relevant for those of us that are over 25 years of age, when working memory capacity starts to decline year by year, at the same time as the demands increase. In my book I, half jokingly, suggested that in the future we might see company-funded cognitive fitness training for employees. It was with a certain satisfaction that I recently read in SharpBrains blog about a new initiative by the USA Ice Hockey league to provide computerized cognitive training -focused on important perception and decision-making skills- to its players.

In the future we might be as aware of cognitive function as we know are obsessed with calories, diets, glycemic index and cardiovascular training, and brain training might be a part of our every day life.

-- Dr. Torkel Klingberg leads the Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience Lab at the Karolinska Institute, which is part of the Stockholm Brain Institute. He has recently written The Overflowing Brain: Information Overload and the Limits of Working Memory (Oxford University Press, November 2008).

Why do we talk about ice hockey in a  brain fitness blog?

Well, we recently announced this very innovative initiative, and now can offer more context:

USA Hockey and Intelligym:

- "USA Hockey, with partners ACE (Applied Cognitive Engineering) and the BIRD (Binational Industrial Research and Development) Foundation, have announced plans to develop a revolutionary product that will, for the first time ever, provide players a training tool to develop “hockey sense.”

- "To be called Hockey IntelliGym, the software-based product will furnish players with a highly effective training tool to develop perception and decision-making skills. Further, it will enable coaches to fine-tune the training program and follow-up on the progress of their players."

- “We’re really into unchartered territory with the development of Hockey IntelliGym,” said Dave Ogrean, executive director of USA Hockey. “With the expertise of ACE and the support of the BIRD Foundation, we’ll be able to produce a product that will give our players an opportunity to improve in areas that training has never before been available.”

- "It is anticipated that the product will be available in December 2010"

Full release: here

Comment:  this initiative is very meaningful for two reasons: first, it shows how the Brain Fitness field is composed of several market segments (we cover ACE as one of the companies in the Corporate, Military & Sports segment) beyond what we can call "healthy aging". Second, it beautifully illustrates the potential to enhance cognitive performance at all ages - to improve quality of life, driving skills, job-related skills...

For more context, read: Cognitive Training for Basketball Game-Intelligence: Interview with Prof. Daniel Gopher

Dr. Newberg, thank you for being with us today. Can you please explain the source of your interests at the intersection of brain research and spirituality?

Since I was a kid, I had a keen interest in spiritual practice. I always wondered how spirituality and religion affect us, and over time I came to appreciate how science can help us explore and understand the world around us, including why we humans care about spiritual practices. This, of course, led me to be particularly interested in brain research.

During medical school I was particularly attracted by the problem of consciousness. I was fortunate to meet researcher Dr. Eugene D'Aquili in the early 1990s, who had been doing much research on religious practices effect on brain since the 1970s. Through him I came to see that brain imaging can provide a fascinating window into the brain.

Can we define religion and spirituality -which sound to me as very different brain processes-, and why learning about them may be helpful from a purely secular, scientific point of view?

Good point, definitions matter, since different people may be searching for God in different ways. I view being religious as participating in organized rituals and shared beliefs, such as going to church. Being spiritual, on the other hand, is more of an individual practice, whether we call it meditation, or relaxation, or prayer, aimed at expanding the self, developing a sense of oneness with the universe.

What is happening is that specific practices that have traditionally been associated with religious and spiritual contexts may also be very useful from a mainstream, secular, health point of view, beyond those contexts. Scientists are researching, for example, what elements of meditation may help manage stress and improve memory. How breathing and meditation techniques can contribute to health and wellness. For example, my lab is now conducting a study where 15 older adults with memory problems are practicing Kirtan Kriya meditation during 8 weeks, and we have found very promising preliminary outcomes in terms of the impact on brain function. This work is being funded by the Alzheimer's Research and Prevention Foundation, but we have submitted a grant request to the National Institute of Health as well.

Can you give an overview of the benefits of meditation, including Richard Davidson's studies on mindfulness meditation?

There are many types of meditation - and we each are researching different practices. Which of course share some common elements, but are different in nature. Dr. Davidson has access to the Dalai Lama and many Buddhist practitioners, so much of his research centers on mindfulness meditation. We have easier access to Franciscan monks and to practitioners of Kirtan Kriya meditation.

At its core, meditation is an active process that requires alertness and attention, which explains why we often find increased brain activity in frontal lobes during practice. Usually you need to focus on something - a mantra, a visual or verbal prompt- while you monitor breathing.

A variety of studies have already shown the stress management benefits of meditation, resulting in what is often called Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction. What we are researching now is what are the cognitive - attention, memory- benefits? It is clear that memory depends on attention and the ability to screen out distractions - so we want to measure the effect of meditation on the brain, both structurally and functionally.

To measure the brain activation patterns we have been using SPECT imaging, which involves injecting small amounts of radioactive tracers in volunteers, and helps us get a more view of what happens during practice (fMRI is much more noisy).

To measure functional benefits we use the typical batteries of neuropsychology testing.

If there is a growing body of evidence behind the health and cognitive benefits of meditation - what is preventing a more widespread adoption of the practice, perhaps in ways similar to yoga, which is now pretty much a mainstream activity?

Well, the reality is that meditation requires practice and dedication. It is not an easy fix. And some of the best-researched meditation techniques, such as mindfulness meditation, are very intensive. You need a trained facilitator. You need to stick to the practice.

In fact, that's why our ongoing research focused on a much easier to teach and practice technique. We want to see if people can practice on their own, at home, a few minutes a day for a few weeks.

The other problem is that this is not a standardized practice, so there is a lot of confusion: many different meditation techniques, with different sets of priorities and styles.

My advice for interested people would be to look for something simple, easy to try first, ensuring the practice is compatible with one's beliefs and goals. You need to match practice with need: understand the specific goals you have in mind, your schedule and lifestyle, and find something practical. Otherwise, you will not stick to it (similar to people who never show up at the health club despite paying fees).

New York Times columnist David Brooks recently wrote two very thought-provoking articles, one on the Cognitive Age we are living in, another on the Neural Buddhists, where he quotes your work. What is the big picture, the main implications for society from your research?

I believe Philosophy complements Science, and all of us human beings would benefit from spiritual practices to achieve higher state of being, develop compassion, increase awareness, in ways compatible with any religious or secular beliefs. This is the main theme of my upcoming book, How God Changes Brain (to be published on March 2009): how we develop a shared knowledge of our common biology, and celebrate the differences which are based on our specific contexts. We are spiritual and social beings.

From an education point of view, I believe schools will need to recognize that rote learning is not enough, and add to the mix practices to improve cognition, and manage stress and relationships.

That spiritual angle may prove controversial in a number of scientific quarters. What would, for example, say to biologist Richard Dawkins?

I'd tell him that we all view the world through the lens of our brains, reflecting our cultural, social, and personal background. His view is based on his lens. Same as mine. All of us have a belief system. His is not particularly more accurate than everybody else's.

We shouldn't throw out the baby with bathwater. I don't think religion is a black & white matter: yes, fundamentalism is a problem, as is rejecting data and ignoring scientific findings. But there are also good elements: the motivation to care about human beings, to develop compassion, to perfect ourselves and our world.

Dr. Newberg, thank you for your time today.

My pleasure.

------

You may enjoy more interviews with leading scientists by checking out our Neuroscience Interview Series.

The concepts of night and day do become challenging when working for a few days in a place with a 12-hour time difference with one's home base. Sleep is indeed very important to maintain top cognitive shape...which leads me to a fascinating news announcement:

Health insurance firms offering online cognitive therapy for insomnia (Los Angeles Times)

- "helping consumers get a good night's sleep has become a priority for most of the top-tier U.S. health insurance companies, including WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna, Kaiser Permanente and several Blue Cross plans. Their new programs don't involve sleeping pills. Instead, insurers are advocating the use of cognitive behavior therapy. Traditionally, the therapy has been done largely through face-to-face sessions, but many of the programs are now available online."

- "And use of sleeping pills has skyrocketed. A study this year in the journal Health Affairs found a 50% jump in sleeping pill use --- from 5,445 people per 100,000 in 1998 to 8,194 per 100,000 people in 2006. Though one version of Ambien, a popular sleep aid, is now available as a lower-cost generic costing about 50 cents per pill, newer drugs such as Rozerem and Lunesta cost about $4 and $5 per pill, respectively, or a minimum of nearly $1,500 per year for patients who take a sleeping pill every night. Online behavioral therapy programs cost less than $40 per user, and face-to-face counseling can range from about $300 to $1,800, depending on how many sessions a patient goes through and what level of specialist, from social worker to psychiatrist, provides the therapy."

- "Unlike sleeping pills, counseling is usually a one-time thing and costs do not continue year to year."

To read more on this trend - see The Future of Computer-assisted Cognitive Therapy

- In short, here we have a number of major societal problems (anxiety, depression...) that affect people of all ages, and an intervention that teaches people cognitive skills to be able to manage those related challenges better.  Talk about "teaching how to fish" vs. simply handing out fish (which we could argue is what antidepressant medications do).

- Why don't more people benefit today from that approach? A major problem, in my view, is the lack of a scalable distribution model. Meaning, using the traditional face-to-face approach, one needs to create, train, certify, ensure quality of, a very large  network of practitioners.

In other words, Applied Cognitive Engineering (ACE) and USA Hockey have partnered to bring to market a cognitive simulation game to improve the performance of ice hockey players - similar to what  ACE has been offering to professional and amateur basketball players.

ACE has raised $2.5M, and ACE and USA Hockey have received a joint $800k development grant from the BIRD Foundation for the co-development of a training system for Ice Hockey players. (The article mentions SharpBrains' Market Report as a sign of how the market is growing, since we cover ACE).

For more context on cognitive simulations, you will enjoy this Interview with Prof. Daniel Gopher:

Alvaro Fernandez: Tell us a bit about your overall research interests.

Daniel Gopher: My main interest has been how to expand the limits of human attention, information processing and response capabilities which are critical in complex, real-time decision-making, high-demand tasks such as flying a military jet or playing professional basketball. Using a tennis analogy, my goal has been, and is, how to help develop many “Wimbledon”-like champions. Each with their own styles, but performing to their maximum capacity to succeed in their environments.

What research over the last 15-20 years has shown is that cognition, or what we call thinking and performance, is really a set of skills that we can train systematically. And that computer-based cognitive trainers or “cognitive simulations” are the most effective and efficient way to do so.

This is an important point, so let me emphasize it. What we have discovered is that a key factor for an effective transfer from training environment to reality is that the training program ensures “Cognitive Fidelity”, this is, it should faithfully represent the mental demands that happen in the real world. Traditional approaches focus instead on physical fidelity, which may seem more intuitive, but less effective and harder to achieve. They are also less efficient, given costs involved in creating expensive physical simulators that faithfully replicate, let’s say, a whole military helicopter or just a significant part of it.

On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not.

I recently reviewed Dr. Burton’s book on the Brain Science Podcast and last week I had the opportunity to interview him for the show. He explained that one of the origins for his book was his experience with patients with conditions like Cotard’s syndrome (where the patient thinks he is dead or does not exist). What Dr. Burton calls the “feeling of knowing” is so strong that people consistently trust it even when their beliefs contradict the evidence. At first it might seem surprising that this feeling is generated at an unconscious level in our brain, yet the same sort of processing creates the world we see and hear. It is well-known that what we see is not what enters our eyes, but rather a highly processed signal that is actually partly determined by our expectations. We can’t really control what we see, and similarly we do not have any conscious access to, or control over, the “feeling of knowing.” Keep that in mind then next time you can’t convince a friend to change their opinion.

One implication of this idea is that it argues for trying to be more tolerant of those whose beliefs are different from our own. However, it also has an important implication for brain health. Recently it is has become quite popular to tout programs that claim to improve one’s intuition or ability to access gut feelings. While it might be true that one can learn to become more aware of the emotional signals coming from one’s body, Dr. Burton argues that “gut feelings” or intuition should not be assumed to be true without testing.

This is difficult to accept because the emotional weight of the “feeling of knowing” tends to outweigh our attempts at logical reasoning. However by becoming aware that our intuitions and hunches are generated by the brain, we can also learn to subject them to the same scrutiny that we apply to optical illusions. We can’t control the “feeling of knowing,” but we can become aware of how it effects our behaviors and decisions.

Links:

- Brain Science Podcast #42: Dr. Campbell discusses On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not by Robert Burton.

- Brain Science Podcast #43: Interview with Dr. Robert A Burton. (Note: a complete transcript of this interview is now available.)

- Robert Burton’s new book: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not.

Ginger Campbell, MD graduated from the University of Alabama School of Medicine. She also has a Master's Degree in Biomedical Engineering and spent several years teaching at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. Dr. Campbell has been practicing emergency medicine since 1992. She started the Brain Science Podcast in 2006. Her goal is to help general audiences understand how recent discoveries in neuroscience are unraveling the mysteries of how our brains make us who we are.

If interested in the topic on intuition vs. logic, you may also enjoy this related essay:

- To Think or to Blink?, by Madeleine Van Hecke.

To Blink or not to Blink?

To Think or not to Think?

We are pleased to present, as part of our ongoing Author Speaks Series, an article by Madeleine Van Hecke, author of Blind Spots: Why Smart People Do Dumb Things. In it, she offers the "on the other hand" to Malcolm Gladwell's Blink argument. 

To Think or to Blink?

- By Madeleine Van Hecke, PhD

Is thoughtful reflection necessarily better than hasty judgments?

Not according to Malcolm Gladwell who argued in his best-selling book, Blink, that the decisions people make in a blink are often not only just as accurate, but MORE accurate, than the conclusions they draw after painstaking analysis.

So, should we blink, or think?

When we make judgments based on a thin slice of time – a few minutes talking with someone in a speed dating situation, for example – are our judgments really as accurate as when we analyze endless reams of data?

Gladwell says sure – that’s why Blink is called “the power of thinking without thinking.” Gladwell tells some compelling stories to demonstrate that power, including his opening gambit about the Greek kouros sculpture that two experts accurately detected as a fake within a few moments perusal, after months of scientific testing had deemed it genuine.

But Gladwell’s own examples show that people are most likely to be correct in their “blink” judgments when they are like the two art experts – when their judgments rest on a mother lode of background experience or information. So a “blink” judgment might serve you well at those times – but the rest of the time, you need to slow down in order to avoid the blind spots that can trip up even the smartest people. In my book, Blind Spots, I suggest tactics to help one make better decisions because they help sidestep the pitfalls that our blind spots keep us from seeing.

While some "blink" decisions can be on target when they're based on our expertise, they don't always serve us well, for two reasons. First, because in highly-charged, emotional situations – such as when a police officer becomes suspicious of someone and fears danger – blink decisions can result in tragedy. Gladwell acknowledges this– he notes that some police departments have adopted one-officer squad cars. Why? Because an officer alone will act more slowly, often wait for back-up. This delays the time between becoming suspicious and taking action, and it apparently reduces the number of inaccurate blink-decisions that officers make.

In Blind Spots, I point out that failing to stop and think is a blind spot – we don’t think because we don’t recognize “this is a situation in which I really need to step back from what’s going on and figure out what to do.” As a result we shoot off an e-mail that we later regret, or exuberantly embrace a flawed marketing plan. Every time you have ever said “I realize now,” you’re recognizing an earlier time where you failed to stop and think.

The second reason that expert blink decisions can go astray is because sometimes our very expertise blinds us to new, more creative perspectives. Why, for example, did people design early train cars with no central aisles, and with brakes that had to be operated by a conductor seated outside, on top of the train car – a dangerous practice? Because these early cars were almost exact replicas of what the expert designers were most familiar with – the stagecoach. So our expertise can sometimes trap us.

Now, I think intuition is important, and one of the good things about Blink is that it’s kind of a corrective book, one that celebrates the value of intuitive thinking and pokes fun a bit at careful, analytic reasoning. But Blink oversimplifies the issue. Blind Spots reflects more deeply on the tension between analytic thought and intuition. It’s a mistake to enthrone logic as the sole and sure-fire way to Truth, but it’s also a mistake to blithely accept every whim as inspired. A better slogan might be “Don’t believe everything that you think.” The strategies in Blind Spots help you figure out what you should and shouldn’t believe.

Some of the stories that Gladwell tells are testimony to the mystery of our minds, and I absolutely agree that our minds often work in mysterious ways. But that mystery goes way beyond the nature of intuition. Take the evidence that children can be incredibly logical in their thinking. One three-year-old girl was being teased by her Aunt, who was nibbling at the child’s toes and threatening “I’m going to eat you up!” “No!” said the little girl, “I’m going to eat you up!” “Aha,” said the Aunt, “but I’m bigger than you, so I’ll eat you up first.” “Uh-uh” retorted this youngster: “because I’ll eat your mouth first.” The logic of this preschooler is quite breathtaking. How did she do that?

On the other hand, there’s also research that raises the opposite question: the “How could anyone be so dumb?” question. Some studies, for example, show that intelligent adults consistently make mistakes in reasoning. How do you explain that? To me, the apparent stupidity of adults – the enigma of why smart people do dumb things — is a puzzle to be solved.

Smart people do dumb things because our minds work FOR us – 80 or 90 percent of the time. But the rest of the time they work against us: they create blind spots that trip us up. Some of these blind spots are familiar to us, like “my-side bias” - not seeing another point of view. One smart fellow told me what he did to get a squirrel out of his basement. He opened a window, piled up some planks and boxes to create a road, and set down a trail of nuts, ending with a heap on the patio. Now that MIGHT have been a smart thing to do - but it could have backfired. Because that trail went both ways – possibly leading the troublesome squirrel out of the basement, but possibly leading other squirrels INTO the basement. Some smart plans fail because of my-side bias. Forgetting that there’s another point of view is one of the natural blind spots that work against us.

It takes some time, it takes some effort – it takes more than a blink – but paying attention to your Blind Spots can help you think more critically and more creatively.

-- Madeleine Van Hecke, Ph.D., is a licensed clinical psychologist, speaker, consultant, and author. She is the author of Blind Spots: Why Smart People Do Dumb Things (Prometheus Books, Inc., 2007).

If you enjoyed this, you may enjoy reading this related article:

Why Smart Brains Make Stupid Decisions. 

Before we explore this issue let’s start by describing the symptoms of ADHD.

What is adult AD/HD?

AD/HD is a disorder of the brain. Research clearly indicates that AD/HD is to a large extent genetic, that is it tends to run in families. However, AD/HD is a complex disorder and other causal factors may be at play.

Typically, the symptoms arise in early childhood, unless they are associated with some type of brain injury later in life. Some people have mild AD/HD with only a few symptoms while others have more serious AD/HD with more symptoms.

Symptoms of inattention (adapted from the DSM-IV)

* Fails to pay attention to details
* Has difficulty sustaining attention
* Does not appear to listen
* Struggles to follow through on instructions
* Has difficulty with organization
* Avoids or dislikes tasks requiring sustained mental effort
* Loses things
* Is easily distracted
* Is forgetful in daily activities

Symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity (adapted from the DSM-IV)

* Fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in chair
* Has difficulty remaining seated
* Difficulty engaging in activities quietly
* Acts as if driven by a motor
* Talks excessively
* Blurts out answers before questions have been completed
* Difficulty waiting or taking turns
* Interrupts or intrudes upon others

Before you start thinking “I knew it! I have AD/HD”….

One must have serious symptoms in different areas of his or her life (for example, do the symptoms make it difficult to do one´s job or cause problems in one´s relationships?) to be diagnosed with AD/HD. If you have a number of symptoms, but none are serious, you won't be diagnosed with AD/HD.

How does AD/HD affect performance at work?

Ron de Graaf and colleagues recently screened for AD/HD 7,075 18-44 year-old workers in 10 countries (Belgium, Columbia, France, Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States). This was done in ten national surveys in the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative (link to study below).
As mentioned earlier, 3.5% of these workers turned out to have AD/HD. Most of them were undiagnosed and thus untreated. In the US, the percentage increased to 4.5%. ADHD was more common among men than women and more common in developed than developing countries. Let’s think about the AD/HD symptoms and how they could interfere with work:Distractibility or inattention

= Difficulty to ignore external distractions, such as people talking or moving
= Difficulty to ignore internal distraction (thoughts), which may lead to daydreaming
= Difficulty managing complex or long-term projects
= Difficulty to find important papers and to turn in reports on time, which can create the impression of carelessness
= Poor memory resulting from poor attention

Hyperactivity and Impulsivity

= Difficulty to stay still during meetings
= Temper outbursts
= Difficulty to listen, tendency to interrupt, etc, which may cause interpersonal issues

Evidently, AD/HD symptom can indeed interfere with work.

Ron de Graaf and colleagues found that workers with AD/HD spent more than 22 fewer "role performance" days per year (including 8.7 days absent) working compared with non-AD/HD workers. AD/HD workers said they could not carry out their routine tasks.

Furthermore, compared to women without AD/HD, women diagnosed with AD/HD in adulthood were found to be more likely to have depressive symptoms, be more stressed and anxious, and have lower self-esteem.

What can adults do if they think they present AD/HD symptoms?

They should see a doctor to seek diagnostic and take appropriate medications. Perhaps try to structure and organize their environment differently to help cope with the challenges. Perhaps find little ways to gradually train attention.

In any case, this is an important matter, for employees, and for companies.

--- This article was written by Pascale Michelon, Ph. D., for SharpBrains.com. Dr. Michelon, Copyright 2008. Dr. Michelon has a Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology and has worked as a Research Scientist at Washington University in Saint Louis, in the Psychology Department. She conducted several research projects to understand how the brain makes use of visual information and memorizes facts. She is now an Adjunct Faculty at Washington University, and teaches Memory Workshops in numerous retirement communities in the St Louis area.

Further reading:

- Link to the citation and study: Here.