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."
Sexist! (Score:5, Interesting)
>"of the remarkable impact a mother's love has on a child's brain development."
Oh, so only a MOTHER'S love could cause that, not a father's or anyone else...
Re:Sexist! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Any other variables..? (Score:2, Interesting)
Look, you are asking for something that does not exist. To get what you are asking for would require a couple hundred Skinner boxes, clones, and a brain dead ethics panel.
Medicine is the art of applying science, and unfortunately, you are going to have to deal with live data which is going to be messy and factors that are going to be subjective. However, evidence based medicine can turn out pretty specify – even outside laboratory conditions.
So stop being snippy.
And, from an antidotal viewpoint, it seems about right. I worked with a couple of neglected kids over the course of 3 years – one which was basically locked in a closet for the first 10 years of his life.
However, the Anonymous Coward does make a interesting point about nutrition. What shocking to me are the size differences of the brain. For me that points to malnutrition (which is not uncommon in these situations) – not just lower quality of food.
Re:Um... (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, while it comes up for very understandable reasons every time a story about looking at brain structure appears, the spectre of phrenology is really only useful as a cautionary tale about optimism....
Phrenology falls especially flat because it used skull morphology as an (inaccurate) proxy for measurements of the brain that weren't nondestructively available at the time(not that knowledge of brain function was good enough to have made such measurements useful even if available); but it was an early stab at the theory that psychological phenomena, and 'mind' in general, are ultimately dependent on the physical operations of the brain.
That's the nuisance. Phrenology was embarrassingly lousy as an actual scientific theory of anything resembling predictive power(and pop-phrenology was even worse, barely better than horoscopes and speculations about why undesireables look like monkeys); but made an early grab for the only really viable premise in neurology, the idea that mental phenomena are ultimately based on physical activity in the brain.
Unless you are some kind of Cartesian dualist, an Occasionalist, or take monads really seriously, you don't have a whole lot of options other than being a (hopefully much improved) post-phrenologist...
Re:Sexist! (Score:5, Interesting)
Together, the mother and father can ensure that the child receives a quality education and good nutrition and health care.
Meh.... 2 fathers and no mothers. a mother and a much older brother. a father and an aunt. a father and an uncle.
The reality isn't a message isn't about a "father and a mother"; its that 'more is better'.
More attention and care from more diverse individuals is better.
Doesn't really matter what the biological relationships or genders are; although its probable that exposure to both genders is ideal - for the inherent diversity that entails. But that could provided by an aunt/uncle or grandparent in a gay couple, or single parent scenario.
Re:What about teh gayz?! (Score:1, Interesting)
You are wrong, sir - Only a lactating woman can breast-feed. By "bonding," they not only mean the emotional bond from the titty-suckin', but the chemical benefits that only real breast milk (and not formula) can provide.
I surmise that the Slashdot males are social retards because of the lack of cerebral development caused by being too timid to latch on to the breast (an inborn fear of bonding with women that apparently follows them for life) and so chose the vastly-inferior formula-feed, or their Christian mommies deprived them of the breast for being the uptight shrews they are.
Either way, tit milk...that's the key to this whole article. Read between the shallow lines in your brains.
-- Ethanol-fueled
Re:Sample size? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about teh gayz?! (Score:1, Interesting)
Roughly 100,000 years of human history in which it was done one way and worked, compared with 50 years of sexual liberation where youth descended into ramapnt suicide, depression, crime and delinquency. True, correleation isn't causation, but it's a pretty good indication in this case as we're talking about developmental environment and developmental trajectory of individuals.
Your move.
Re:Any other variables..? (Score:5, Interesting)
There was actually a study conducted with real babies I believe in Canada... might have been US in the 1950's or so. They were given absolutely no nurturing at all, fed, changed, that was it. No stimulus was given. It was a terrible chapter in psychology that I remember reading about in college. It was eventually shut down after it went on far too long and the neglected children were permanently scarred from it. I can't seem to find the exact study right now, but it was a very visible and terrible result in those children. If MRI technology had been in use then I'm sure it would probably verify this study too.