Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Brain Scans Show the Impact of Neglect On a Child's Brain Size 206

An anonymous reader writes "A shocking comparison of brain scans from two three-year-old children reveals new evidence of the remarkable impact a mother's love has on a child's brain development. The chilling images reveal that the left brain, which belongs to a normal 3-year-old, is significantly larger and contains fewer spots and dark 'fuzzy' areas than the right brain, which belongs to that of a 3-year-old who has suffered extreme neglect. Neurologists say that the latest images provide more evidence that the way children are treated in their early years is important not only for the child's emotional development, but also in determining the size of their brains. Experts say that the sizeable difference in the two brains is primarily caused by the difference in the way each child was treated by their mothers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brain Scans Show the Impact of Neglect On a Child's Brain Size

Comments Filter:
  • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday October 29, 2012 @06:21PM (#41811363)
    Forget nutrition; with n=1, even random variation (i.e. something other than parents' gene pool, nutrition, or parenting) could account for it. The article mentions a study from UCLA, so probably there's more behind this than is included in the (very lame) article.

    Doing controlled studies of the effects of parental neglect in humans would require a horribly un-ethical study, but the findings in controlled studies of rats and monkeys [sciencedirect.com] have been consistent. Leaving your baby stuck in a crib all day until it forgets how to cry for help is not something you want to do.

  • Sample size of two (Score:5, Informative)

    by J'raxis ( 248192 ) on Monday October 29, 2012 @06:29PM (#41811439) Homepage

    Your "study's" sample size is two. But gratuitous use of words like "shocking" and "chilling" will probably make most people ignore that.

  • Re:Sample size? (Score:4, Informative)

    by codebonobo ( 2762819 ) on Monday October 29, 2012 @07:04PM (#41811757)
    The original research cites many studies of sample sizes of 1000, 200, 122, ect. Here is the cited research: http://www.childtrauma.org/images/stories/Articles/mindbrain.pdf [childtrauma.org] without the obnoxious ads.
  • by ChumpusRex2003 ( 726306 ) on Monday October 29, 2012 @07:29PM (#41811977)

    The original research cites a large number studies with large numbers of children (hundreds or thousands). One of the major studies cited looks at different "types" of neglect which they call "global neglect" and "chaotic neglect". These mean multi-modal or single-modal sensory deprivation; e.g. no exposure to speech, or no exposure to physical experiences (for example, not allowed out of bed), no exposure to cognitive stimuli, etc.

    The research showed that for "chaotic neglect" (i.e. one aspect of stimulus missing), brain scans were usually normal, or only slightly abnormal (e.g. brain volume reduced). However, for "global neglect" (multiple aspects of stimulus missing), then nearly half the brain scans were abnormal, showing severely reduced brain volume.

    Of course, there are other aspects to neglect, not just sensory and intellectual deprivation; but that was not what the image, or the description in the text was about; this review purely (as far as possible in an observational study) looked at the differences between partial and severe sensory/intellectual deprivation.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29, 2012 @08:13PM (#41812375)

    You are wrong, sir - Only a lactating woman can breast-feed.

    Not true. Men can also breast feed. Rare, but it does happen.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Working...