Plasticity & Functional Recovery Flashcards
Brain Plasticity
Brain plasticity refers to the brain’s ability to change and adapt functionally and physically in response to experience, learning or injury. It suggests that the brain is dynamic, not static.
Brain plasticity follows a range of processes. One example is synaptic pruning, which is the process by which as we age, synaptic connections that are rarely used are deleted, while frequently used ones are strengthened. Another example is axonal sprouting, where nerve endings grow to form new connections and new neural pathways, altering existing ones in response to changing experiences.
Functional Recovery
Functional Recovery is the transfer of functions from a damaged area of the brain after trauma to other undamaged areas.
It can do this through a process called neuronal unmasking, where dormant synapses, which have not received enough input to be active, open connections to compensate for a nearby damaged area of the brain, allowing new connections in the brain to be activated, thus recovering any damage occurring in specific regions.
Strength - Plasticity & Functional Recovery
Point: There is research evidence from both Kuhn et al. and Davidson et al. that supports the concept of brain plasticity, showing how the brain adapts to new experiences.
Evidence: Kuhn et al. found that participants who played a video game for 30 minutes a day over a 2-month period had a significant increase in grey matter in various brain regions. Similarly, Davidson et al. demonstrated that Buddhist monks who engaged in frequent meditation exhibited a much greater activation of gamma waves, which are responsible for coordinating neural activity, compared to students with no meditation experience.
Justification: These studies support the idea of brain plasticity by showing that the brain’s structure and function can be modified through repeated experiences, such as video gaming and meditation. The increase in grey matter observed by Kuhn et al. suggests that playing video games can physically alter brain structure, while Davidson et al. findings indicate that meditation can lead to long-term changes in neural functioning, specifically in the activation of gamma waves.
Implication: This is a strength because it increases the credibility of the theory of brain plasticity. The research evidence supports the idea that the brain can change and adapt through new experiences, which increases our understanding of how external factors can influence brain structure and function. As a result, this enhances our confidence in the idea that lifestyle choices can have a measurable impact on brain health and recovery.
Strength - Plasticity & Functional Recovery
Point: There is research supporting the notion of brain plasticity, which suggests that the brain can change in response to experience.
Evidence: Maguire et al. found that the posterior hippocampal volume of London taxi drivers was positively correlated with their years of experience as a taxi driver. The taxi drivers’ brains showed significant differences compared to control participants who were not taxi drivers.
Justification: This evidence demonstrates that the brain can undergo physical changes as a result of repeated exposure to a specific task, such as spatial navigation. The correlation between the size of the hippocampus and time spent as a taxi driver indicates that the brain can adapt and reorganise itself, reinforcing the concept of brain plasticity.
Implication: Hence, this supports the idea of brain plasticity, suggesting that the brain is not static but rather adaptable in response to experiences.
Counterargument: However, some psychologists argue that research on brain plasticity is limited in scope.
Evidence: For example, Maguire’s study is considered biologically reductionist as it focuses on only one biological factor - the size of the hippocampus - in relation to spatial memory and navigation.
Justification: This reductionist approach overlooks the complexity of brain processes. Spatial navigation likely involves multiple biological and cognitive factors beyond the hippocampus. By narrowing the focus to a single variable, Maguire’s research does not fully account for the other aspects of the brain that might contribute to spatial memory and navigation, limiting our understanding of the broader processes involved.
Implication: Consequently, this reductionist approach is a limitation of the theory of brain plasticity. It reaffirms the need for a more holistic perspective, considering multiple biological, cognitive, and environmental factors to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the brain adapts to new experiences.
Weakness - Plasticity & Functional Recovery
Point: While there is substantial evidence for functional recovery (e.g., Tajiri et al.), there is research evidence suggesting that the ability for it to occur in the brain may deteriorate with age.
Evidence: Elbert et al. concluded that the capacity for neural reorganisation is significantly greater in children than in adults. Their findings suggest that neural regeneration is less effective in older brains, which may explain why adults often find recovery from brain trauma more challenging than younger individuals.
Justification: This suggests that age-related factors must be considered when evaluating the likelihood of successful functional recovery in the brain. As older individuals may have a reduced capacity for neural reorganisation, their recovery process may be slower and less effective compared to younger individuals, highlighting the importance of individual differences.
Implication: This is a limitation of research into functional recovery because it reduces its internal validity by neglecting to consider the effect of individual differences. Consequently if research fails to account for age as a variable, it may result in inaccurate conclusions about the brain’s capacity for recovery, particularly in adults.
Strength - Plasticity & Functional Recovery
Point: A strength of research examining plasticity and functional recovery is its indispensable value to the field of neurorehabilitation.
Evidence: Research into plasticity and functional recovery has led to the development of neurorehabilitation techniques, which include motor therapy and the electrical stimulation of the brain. These methods are used to counteract the negative effects of brain injury, stroke, or accidents, helping to improve motor and cognitive functions in patients.
Justification: This demonstrates the direct and positive impact of research into brain plasticity and functional recovery, as it provides insight into how the brain can reorganise and repair itself.
Implication: As a result, this conveys that research into brain plasticity and functional recovery have strong real-world applications in medical practices, where the processes of neural reorganisation and functional recovery are harnessed to help individuals regain lost abilities. Furthermore, such research has immense economic implications. As more individuals recover from brain injuries and return to work, it not only enhances their personal well-being but also contributes to societal productivity.
