Misconceptions: The Truth About Brain Usage: Debunking the 10% Myth

In Summer 2023, students in Dr. Emily Stark’s Social Psychology course completed a research project where they identified a misconception related to psychology, conducted both background research and an empirical project measuring belief in that misconception, and summarized their findings in a short blog post paper. The goal was to build student research skills as well as showcase the importance of thinking critically about information encountered in the media or in popular culture. This post shares one of the final blog papers created for this project. For more information on this project, just use the contact page to contact Dr. Stark.


By Mooyoung Lee

Have you ever heard the claim that humans only use 10% of their brain? I am sure most of us have heard somewhere that people use only 10% of our brain. This idea also leads to a statement that people could possess extraordinary abilities by unlocking the remaining 90% of their brain. However, the belief that you use only 10% of your brain has been mistakenly propagated as a myth. In reality, the human brain is a highly complex organ, where different regions work together to perform various functions. Advanced imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), have shown that even during simple tasks, multiple areas of the brain are active simultaneously. To investigate people’s beliefs on this misconception, I created three survey questions regarding brain usage to collect data using Qualtrics.

Survey Results

I conducted a survey among 41 individuals for the first two questions and 39 individuals for the third question to measure their beliefs regarding human brain usage. The results show that a notable number of participants still hold onto this commonly mistaken belief about how much of the brain we use.

 Q1. Humans only use 10% of their brain.

·       Strongly Disagree: 36.59%

·       Somewhat Disagree: 14.63%

·       Neither Agree nor Disagree: 21.95%

·       Somewhat Agree: 17.07%

·       Strongly Agree: 9.76%

 From these numbers, it is evident that a significant portion of participants, totaling 26.83% (Somewhat Agree + Strongly Agree), still hold onto the misconception that humans use only 10% of their brain. Additionally, 21.95% of participants are unsure about the accuracy of this myth.

 Q2. If people could unlock the full potential of their brain (the remaining 90%), they would possess extraordinary abilities.

·       Strongly Disagree: 34.15%

·       Somewhat Disagree: 17.07%

·       Neither Agree nor Disagree: 17.07%

·       Somewhat Agree: 19.51%

·       Strongly Agree: 12.20%

 34.15% strongly disagreed with the statement, while a notable portion of 31.71% (combining those who somewhat agree and strongly agree) still expressed some level agreement that unlocking their brain's unused potential could lead to extraordinary abilities.

 Q3. How often have you come across information or media that says people only use 10% of their brain?

·       Very Often: 12.82%

·       Often: 20.51%

·       Occasionally: 23.08%

·       Rarely: 23.08%

·       Never: 20.51%

 Remarkably, nearly half of the participants (46.15%) reported coming across such claims either very often, often, or occasionally. Only around 20% replied they had never heard this misconception, showing that the myth is widespread.

Now, let's dive into the debunking of the 10% brain usage myth by some examples.

 First, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we have been able to debunk this misconception with hard evidence. fMRI is a special machine that takes pictures of your brain while you are doing different things, like thinking, resting, or talking. It helps scientists see which parts of your brain are working when you do these activities. Let's explore how our brains function when we do mathematical thinking.

In one study (Atabek et al., 2022), researchers wanted to see how feeling anxious affects the math skills of 12th-grade students in Turkey. They asked 68 students to fill out questionnaires to measure their anxiety levels. Then, they picked 23 students with the highest and lowest anxiety levels for brain scanning using fMRI. While getting scanned, the students solved math problems, and their brain activity was recorded. The study's results showed that there was no significant difference between the students' anxiety levels and their math performance though. However, the brain images revealed that both groups (high and low anxiety) had increased brain activity in the occipital and motor cortexes. They also observed that both groups showed increased activity in the right prefrontal cortex when they were doing math, and students with high anxiety had even more activity in this part of the brain. Therefore, this 10% brain myth is a misconception because you observe here that several parts of the brain are active while solving math problems.

Then, what about the brain's activity while sleeping, rather than mathematical thinking?

There is another fMRI study focused on brain activity during sleeping for infants (Fransson et al., 2009b). The researchers aimed at exploring resting-state networks in the brains of newborn infants who were born at full term. They used fMRI to study the brain activity of 19 healthy sleeping infants. Resting-state networks refer to the different parts of our brain that stay connected and communicate with each other even when we are not doing anything. The results revealed the presence of six resting-state networks in the infant brain, including sensory cortices, parietal and temporal areas, the prefrontal cortex, and the bilateral basal ganglia. The fMRI t-value images of the infants below provide clear evidence that the brain remains active even during sleep. It demonstrates that our brain is constantly active in different regions, regardless of whether we are awake or asleep.

Lastly, I brought an example regarding brain damage. Using only 10 percent of our brain might suggest that most brain injuries wouldn't result in significant issues if the damage occurred in inactive parts of the brain. Rapcsak et al. (2001) conducted a study to investigate a connection between damage to the prefrontal cortex (a part of the brain responsible for decision-making) and problems with remembering faces. The study involved 23 individuals with injuries in the frontal lobe of their brains and 28 people without any neurological or psychiatric conditions (control group). They conducted face memory tests to assess both the ability to remember faces forward in time (anterograde memory) and backward in time (retrograde memory). Consequently, individuals with damage to the frontal lobe experienced significant difficulties in anterograde face memory and mild retrograde face memory compared to control subjects. Additionally, those with damage to the right frontal lobe displayed a higher susceptibility to false recognition. This research highlights how specific brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex play crucial roles, challenging the notion that large portions of our brain remain inactive.

 In conclusion, the idea that we use only 10% of our brain is not true. Modern brain imaging studies show that different parts of our brain are active when we think, solve problems, or even sleep. So, remember, you're using your entire brain, not just a small fraction of it!


References

Atabek, O., Şavklıyıldız, A., Orhon, G., Colak, O. H., Özdemir, A., & Şenol, U. (2022). The effect of anxiety on mathematical thinking: An fMRI study on 12 th-grade students. Learning and Motivation, 77, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2021.101779

Fransson, P., Skiöld, B., Engström, M., Hallberg, B., Mosskin, M., Ådén, U., Lagercrantz, H., & Blennow, M. (2009b). Spontaneous brain activity in the newborn brain during natural Sleep—An FMRI study in infants born at full term. Pediatric Research66(3), 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1203/pdr.0b013e3181b1bd84

Rapcsak, S. Z., Nielsen, L., Littrell, L. D., Glisky, E. L., Kaszniak, A. W., & Laguna, J. F. (2001). Face memory impairments in patients with frontal lobe damage. Neurology, 57(7), 1168-1175. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.57.7.1168

 

Karla Lassonde