When I read this interesting article on brain functioning, I immediately thought of you, Geoff.

Here is the article and the link:

Brain's Voluntary Chain-of-command Ruled By Not One But Two Captains

Science Daily — A probe of the upper echelons of the human brain's chain-of-command has found strong evidence that there are not one but two complementary commanders in charge of the brain, according to neuroscientists at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070619134802.htm


Since your concepts of putting involve natural brain functioning, what is your opinion on this apparently new knowledge concerning brain decision-making?

Thanks ..... sammy

Dear sammy,

The full title is Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.0704320104, by Nico U. F. Dosenbach, Damien A. Fair, Francis M. Miezin, Alexander L. Cohen, Kristin K. Wenger, Ronny A. T. Dosenbach, Michael D. Fox, Abraham Z. Snyder, Justin L. Vincent, Marcus E. Raichle, Bradley L. Schlaggar, and Steven E. Petersen. [For an interesting sidelight on the Dosenbach brothers Nico and Ronny, see this Princeton alumni magazine article.]

This is an interesting but not surprising "finding" that is not yet fully understood. An earlier paper by these researchers covered much of the same ground: Dosenbach, N.U.F., Visscher, K.M., Palmer, E.D., Miezin, F.M., Wenger, K.K., Kang, H.C., Burgund, E.D., Grimes, A.L., Schlaggar, B.L., Petersen, S.E. A core system for the implementation of task sets. Neuron, 50:799-812.

The main idea is that a "task" has distinct controllers -- one for the entire task (the "sustaining" controller) and another for starting the task and monitoring performance for error for corrective action. These controllers are independent "top down" networks handling the "task set" of collection of processes used to accomplish the given "goal-directed" task. You may know that I have strongly advocated "top down" processes for golf performance as the best approach to getting the most effective use of the instincts -- see The "Mechanics of Instinct" in Putting: The Neurophysiological Paradigm for Applied Research.

When the "sustaining" controller ceases, for whatever reason, the person can lose focus and intentionality in the performance of the task. The "quick and dirty" habit of the brain that I write about is a pattern of behavior that turns off the sustaining of the task. This happens, for example, when the golfer standing behind the ball to "see the line" then starts walking towards the ball to aim the putter. "Walking" after a moment of perceptual attention while standing still is the signal or habit that often shuts off the sustaining controller of the task of "targeting" the putt. It's not really new to say that a sustaining signal or network in the brain underlies the continuity of focus and attention to the task.

All of these studies are very problematic in terms of interpreting their significance. There are not really very clear definitions of "task", "controller", "network", and "independence" in these studies. How these controllers are affected by distraction, emotion, limited attention, state of learning for the task, and similar cognitive factors is not yet investigated. And that's where the real shank of the knowledge lies.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.

Visit the new PuttingZone Blog for podcasts of putting tips:
Site PuttingZone Blog
RSS XML Subscription

So the brain can multi-task in parallel or operate in series .. and it's important that for orderly mental processes, you must focus on the task at hand and understand what you are doing ... so your brain can operate properly.

Geoff ... I like to compare the cognitive processes that go on in the minds of children, adults and seniors ... and particularily how each is able to learn and adapt.

Since golf is supposed to be a "fun" game for the child within us, I see most adults clowning like impatient children. Those who are famous in the game exhort us to have "fun" because they know if adults thought it out they would abandon the game in droves (as they did in the 1970s from tennis when they realized they had to sprint to play the game).

What I am suggesting is that adults play the game just as children do ... with their minds operating in a sloppy serial manner and avoiding how to play with learning and practice (practice is not "fun"). Most adults never advance their mental approach to the game above that of a child, and their brain functions similarily when on the golf course.

Seniors have lost the ability to improve cognitively due to the aging process and just hobble around and poke the ball along .. happy they are alive and on a golf course.

So ... adults = children ... except that adults can develop an unhealthy obsessive-compulsive attitude towards the game of golf .. thus messing up their minds as we witnessed at Oakmont.