Human thought runs at just 10 bits per second, say Caltech scientists — that's why we are mostly single-taskers

News
By
published

In contrast, our sensory organs gather data at a billion bits per second.

Caltech scientists
(Image credit: Caltech)

Humans process thoughts at just 10 bits per second, according to a recent paper published by Caltech researchers. In contrast, a human's sensory organs gather data at a billion bits per second. So, if you ever feel overwhelmed by what is going on around you, it's only natural.

The research paper, dubbed 'The unbearable slowness of being: Why do we live at 10 bits/s?' ponders the human neural substrate which limits thoughts to such a slow pace, and proposes new research to look into this 'bottleneck' now that it has been quantified.

Caltech scientists

Prof. Markus Meister and Graduate Student Jieyu Zheng (Image credit: Caltech)

Caltech-based scientists Prof. Markus Meister and Graduate Student Jieyu Zheng wrote the paper, highlighting the disparity between outer brain and inner brain data throughput. They question why the inner brain, where you think about the deluge of data we experience, works so slowly despite being home to approximately a third of the brain's 85 billion neurons.

The researchers say they used an information-centric approach to measuring human thinking speed, applying a wide range of techniques based on information theory. In addition to conducting their own experiments, the Caltech boffins measured human performance in tasks such as reading and writing, playing video games, and solving Rubik's Cubes to come up with their headline 10 bits per second assessment.

"This is an extremely low number," Meister admitted of the result. "Every moment, we are extracting just 10 bits from the trillion that our senses are taking in and using those 10 to perceive the world around us and make decisions. This raises a paradox: What is the brain doing to filter all of this information?" It also remains a mystery why most humans can only think about one thing at a time despite our senses being highly parallel.

So, the research paper seems to have sparked a lot of questions, but Meister and Zheng already have some ideas about the leisurely pace of human thought. "Our ancestors have chosen an ecological niche where the world is slow enough to make survival possible," Zheng and Meister wrote in the research paper. "In fact, the 10 bits per second are needed only in worst-case situations, and most of the time our environment changes at a much more leisurely pace."

There are also some implications here about technologies such as Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs). The researchers ponder, for example, if neural interfaces will be hamstrung at the same effective 10 bits per second. Perhaps this research will lead to a faster way to connect the inner and outer brain processes, making better use of those billions of neurons.

Mark Tyson
Mark Tyson
News Editor

Mark Tyson is a news editor at Tom's Hardware. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

52 Comments Comment from the forums
  • hotaru251
    10 bits per second?
    Eat it NES!

    Do wonder if its just thought is considered a "less important" task and its slowness is by design to keep more important data (i.e. senses that can tell you about world/dangers) from ever being slowed down as a survival thing.
    Reply
  • newtechldtech
    This is not Science. this is complete utter rubbish . no one "knows" how thoughts happens in the brain. Full Stop .
    Reply
  • Dementoss
    It's hard to understand how hey have come to the conclusion, that human thought processes are so slow. If our thought processes are really so slow, it would be interesting to know how they believe we can do things like, driving a car in a busy town centre whilst listening to the radio and talking talking to a passenger, riding a mountain bike at speed on a difficult trail, or learning to fly a plane, etc...
    Reply
  • acadia11
    Always been said we are serial processing pattern inference machines. Maybe, over billions (really 500 million or so since Cambrian expansion) of years we’ve derived an extremely complex digital compression algorithm and it’s far more efficient / optimized to use as little energy as possible. Consider we are creating “thinking machines” today but it takes an ungodly amount of energy to do so … if we learned and processed information like our AI inventions how would the human body power the brain? I’d trust nature on this one otherwise we’d probably need to eat candy by the tanker load?
    Reply
  • A Stoner
    If I actively try to think of an image in my mind it is going to give me something in billions of colors with nearly infinite pixels and I can summon that up in a fraction of a second. I can even think in moving images. I can control the image for what it is composed up of.

    That all requires much more bandwidth than 10 bits per second.

    Talking would be far more than 10 bits per second. A fast talker can bring forth hundreds of words per minute. Each word is many bits in size. I checked my calendar and it is not April 1.
    Reply
  • Notton
    I can kind of see it being true.
    If you've looked into any sort of how the human brain works, you quickly realize it makes shortcuts everywhere.
    We have handedness because it saves brain power (calories)
    What we see with our eyes isn't actually what we see, and our brain fills a huge portion of the missing bits. (This is why we fall for visual tricks)
    The brain doesn't process a large part of the functions, like reflexes, breathing, digestion, etc.
    Humans are awful at math without writing it down on something.

    I'd imagine we would have to consume a million calories per day to run our brains at full power.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, using the least amount of energy to accomplish a task. But there's also research into if the brain processes information in a quantum way such that it causes consciousness as well.

    But as it relates to machines being able to stimulate sensory inputs, if it will only take a low bit rate to do it then it bodes well for more affordable, power efficient bionics.
    Reply
  • pjmelect
    Utter rubbish, I can easily read and understand what I am reading at 300 baud and although it is a strain I can read at 1200 baud without a problem which makes nonsense of the 10 bits per second.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    If anyone ever needs an example of I read the headline and not the article then went straight to the comment section to argue. This thread is it.
    Reply
  • adamXpeter
    A Stoner said:
    I can even think in moving images. I can control the image for what it is composed up of.

    That all requires much more bandwidth than 10 bits per second.
    They weren't speaking about sensory information, but about the speed of thinking. Your vision misleads you, it is hard to see with the single lens we had. So the brain avoids looking through the eyes and prefers it's internal model of the environment. I am sure it happened to you that you did not find the keys of the car before leaving the house - the more stressed you were because of the potential of being late, the less you found the key. Because more CPU power went to counter the danger than remained to correct the physically distorted picture, the brain used more the inner model where the places for the keys were limited by rationality :)
    Reply