Why is brain plasticity necessary ?

Brain development is based on genetic information and from a mechanism of adaptation to the environment. However, during the gestation period, since the uterine environment is very similar in the majority of individuals, the brain seems to grow based on genetic information, so it will be developing bases of the mechanisms that will be run later, that allow interaction with the external world. The genes that determine this polarity, are called organizers genes and they are not only expressed in the nervous system, but in other tissues and organs. While the genes that direct the differentiation-specific structures known as regulatory genes because they govern not only the anatomical structure but the function of the cells (Poch, 2001).

The reasons why the distribution of structures and the development agenda are preset are not very clear, but one theory is that the nature or complexity of the functions and the genetic programming can perhaps obey physical laws that govern other natural processes. In this sense Walsh and Diller (1981) explain that the brain maturity is a progression of neural development, which is determined by two types of neurons that built the kind of connections that are established between structures. On the one hand, pyramidal neurons (called macro neurons) differ from the neurons of local type, by which the first develop much earlier, establishing early connections then it will be difficult to restore after a brain injury, apparently these neurons are genetically clip-art and are running during birth, and they are responsible for establishing the functions of lower order, for example in the case of language, sound analysis and its phonological representation; while local neurons, will enjoy a longer liberty or plasticity and will be responsible to establish new connections in more advanced developmental periods. This type of neurons will be involved in the processes of higher order, is consolidating in a more progressive way and involved in functions such as semantic processing (Tubino, 2004).

In this way, brain plasticity mechanisms may include neurochemical changes, on cortex, receivers or structures, so it’s possible to say that functional plasticity is accompanied by structural plasticity, most important among the mechanisms of functional reorganization are the unmasking, the synaptic bud, the dendritic arborization, inhibition and facilitation and modification of neurotransmitters, among others, so it admits the possibility that there are several types of neuronal plasticity, which are considered to a) the developing brain plasticity; b) plasticity of the brain in learning period and c) plasticity in the adult brain (Aguilar, 2003).

Plasticity of the brain in development

Deacon (2002) explains about the plasticity of the brain in development, that during the period of embryogenesis genes are those who will determine the distribution of the different brain tissues and will also be responsible for the coordination of the processes that later will take place in the formation of the embryo, including the basic structures of the brain; but after the birth the genetic will run other mechanisms of brain structure that will largely depend on the environment both internal and external.

 

So at the beginning of the development of the nervous system, there is an excess of neural fibers, and an important part of the development process includes the neuronal trimming of excessive connections that are not necessary and may in fact be can be harmful to normal operation. 

In fact, thought this explosion of connections as early is part of the process of plasticity during development, and this has advantages of adaptation. However if any damage occurs during the period in which there are excessive and available connections, there are more possibilities of the system to survive despite the damage that you can design a route of alternate connections that may be suitable for the repair of the damage (Avaria, 2005).

It is so accepted that there are moments or critical periods in which each of the different areas of the central nervous system has special sensitivity and responsiveness to the changes induced by the different influences, and there is enough evidence about the influence of the experience affects most the final organization of the local circuits which to the main roads, because time has already completed the topographic organization of large circuits. 

But even if there is a period of particular sensitivity to receive sensory information that ultimately is going to influence and direct the learning, so although there is a certain structural predisposition that is set from the beginning and favors a previously established connection ans its maintain, this connection depends on the strength of the neuronal signals, as no matter where come from those signals but are retained and are finally established. However, is known that the age in which the injury occurred is one of the crucial factors to take into account to predict the course of brain injuries, as it has been found in research that focal lesions before one year of age will have a worse prognosis of intellectual function that injuries of the same type after that age (Riva & Cazzaniga 1986; Woods, 1980;  Tubino, 2004).

In this sense, since plasticity is greater in the first years of life, for most of the lesions and gradually decreases with age, the learning and the recovery will be enhanced if experiences are provided or stimuli early to the individual, especially in children, since the structures nerve in the first years of life are a maturation process that continuously new synaptic connections are established and growing myelination occurs their structures, so that in response to the stimuli coming from the experience, and by means of internal biochemical processes, the infant brain is forming. 

During this critical period, the circuits of the cerebral cortex have, as already mentioned, large capacity of plasticity, for which the absence of an adequate intake of stimuli, experiences or nutrients has important future functional consequences (Wash and Diller, 1981; Deacon, 2000; Hernandez-Muela, Mules, Mattos, 2004; Avaria, 2005).

 

Even when you know some of the factors that control the duration and the time that establishes these periods of special sensitivity, described that they relate to particular synaptogenesis, i.e., the phase in which there is hiperproducción of synapses in the cerebral cortex, but, as already explained, of these synapses will lose those neurons that do not establish any relevant connection finally will be eliminated by the system, giving rise to a phenomenon of remodeling of the brain network, so it is said that genetically predetermined development configures phases of production or synaptic outbreak (Wash and Diller, 1981).

However, there is evidence that not all the brain areas show periods of synaptogenesis and synaptic loss at the same time. In the primary visual cortex, for example there is an outbreak of synaptogenesis by 3-4 months of age with a maximum density at 4 months. But in the pre front cortex takes longer and reaches the synaptic density maximum to 3-5 years. The time course of the Elimination of synapses is also more prolonged in the frontal cortex (up to 20 years) than in the visual cortex (4 years); so, it is possible to affirm that maturation times for different brain structures are different, and the primary areas senso-motor cortical unfold before large areas of association. 

In this sense, el made that are necessary stages so that neural activity to complete development, involves the brain maturation is changed through his own stimulation and experience, providing the necessary adaptability to the brain. This scheme is probably cheaper from the biological point of view, since a model whereby the genetic control for the formation of all synapses is needed would require a incredible number of specific molecular markers and their respective genes, what a system rigid and dependent would do it. This is explained because of the extreme immaturity of the brain of the newborn, whose fragility justifies the total parental dependence of the newborn human. This emphasizes the total difference of man with respect to most of the animals, which even newborns, they are already capable of running many of its basic functions (Tubino, 2004).  

Also known that the ability to analyse and synthesize multiple sources of information, and generate different responses from the brain, which illustrates the centralized organization and brain function, there is a hierarchy in the organization in such a way that the lower segments carry out specific functions subject to the control and modulation of segments above, by which the complexity of the information processing increases progressively as the level becomes to up to the crust. But, from the periphery may cause, with certain stimuli, responses in higher levels that force the organization or the acquisition of certain functions. 

However, it has been particularly studied the early lesions that occur in the linguistic areas, which generally manage a good recovery function, but currently, there is extensive evidence that the process of recovery of functions is not able to completely eliminate the effects of the early focal lesions as in the case of the language, throughout the subsequent development of the infant, you can see difficulties in reading, writing, comprehension, articulation, fluency and/or syntax (Verger and Junque, 2000)

One possible explanation of this effect, is that all the sensory and motor regions primary brain are related from a functional point of view, by association fibers. Cortical association areas, for example, are directly connected among themselves, while the primary cortical areas are connected each other indirectly through the Association areas. Homologous areas in both hemispheres are connected through fiber inter hemispheric, mainly by the Corpus Callosum. This brain interconnectivity allows a constant interaction within each hemisphere and between both hemispheres, and in this way is intended to adapt responses globally and dynamics (Hernandez-Muela, Mules and Mattos 2004; Poch, 2001).

It is thus that the brain works in a coordinated manner and analyzes the world in a global way, for this reason, when you read something is to understand the letters that make up each word, understood the meaning of each of the words of a sentence, however, these processes are not synthesized independently, but that a general sense is given to each phrase. This is possible thanks to the coordination between each of the lobes of the brain, this is the engineering of the brain, which that allows you to interpret the world and the same design a spacecraft that learn the abc. East the working tool when it comes to learning, and modify their connections, is the final triumph of the teaching. 

It has be found at the same time, another important aspect that is modifiable during critical periods: cerebral laterality, this is expressed in three aspects: anatomical symmetry, unilateral functional differences (as the location of language, speech and analytical processing in the left hemisphere, and temporo-spatial skills, as those related to music and the emotional and humorous repertoire (right) and contralateral sensorimotor control, in this way, understand the functionality of the brain in these three aspects is essential to understand the processes that take place in the reorganization of the brain during the learning process because it is a very rich source of experiences that can benefit education (Maciques, 2004).

References:

 Aguilar, F. (2003) Plasticidad cerebral: parte 1. Rev Med IMSS. 41(1) 55-64.

Avaria, M. A. (2005)  Aspectos biológicos del desarrollo psicomotor.  Rev. Ped. Elec. [en línea] Vol 2, N° 1.

Deacon, T. (2000) Evolutionary perspectivas on language and brain plasticity. Cognitive science. 28 (1) 34- 39.

Hernández-Muela, S., Mulas, F. y  Mattos, L. (2004) Plasticidad neuronal funcional Rev Neurol. 38 (Supl 1): S58-S68.

Maciques (2004)  Plasticidad Neuronal. Revista de neurología. 2 (3) 13-17.

Poch, M.L. (2001) Neurobiología del desarrollo temprano. Contextos educativos. 4. 79-94.

Tubino, M. (2004) Plasticidad y evolución: papel de la interacción cerebro – entorno. Revista de estudios neurolingüsticos.Vol. 2, número 1. 21-39

Verquer, K. & Junqué, C. (2000) Recuperación de las lesiones cerebrales en la infancia: polémica en torno a la plasticidad cerebral. Rev Logop Fon Audiol. XX(3):151-157.

Walsh, T. M. & Diller, K. C. (1981) Neurolinguistic considerations on the optimum age of second language learning. En. K.C. Diller (Ed) Universal in language learning aptitude USA. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.

Woods, B. (1980) The restricted effects of right hemisphere lesions after age one: Wechsler test data. Neuropsychology. 18: 65-70.

Intelligence or adaptive responses to the environment?

It seems sometimes the universe conspires to make me fall into certain issues, because different persons have shared me different texts about intelligence during the past few weeks. I will not mention them, just in case this articlecan be  offensive to some persons, but I thank all of them for the inspiration. I read around 500 pages before this idea made sense.

It is not a secret that I don't like the concept of intelligence, I have said it at diverse conferences, when people ask me how this links with my ideas about learning, I reply so far, I have not needed it to explain how species evolutionarily have to adapt to the environment, and I still believe that learning is one process that allows them to create responses front the needs around the environment.

I've seen the concept of intelligence as a tautology: no one can prove that it is necessary for learning, because with the right teaching strategies children are able to learn, and when I say ALL,  I mean of children with disorders of neurodevelopmental, people with acquired brain damage, and other species. If the answer makes sense in the environment, the response can be developed under specific mechanisms.

At the same time, so far, after many years of testing and labeling  children, there is no agreement between psychologists about what intelligence is, even more, there is no agreement among the biological, neurocognitive and psychological models, it is not possible to find studies able to unify it from different points of view.

The following map allows me to argue my refusal to believe on the one hand, we can make someone more intelligent, as many schools say and secondly, accept that if someone is not intelligent, doesn’t have a chance to learn:

 

from Lynn and Vanhanen, (2012)

This map was created from hundreds of studies carried out by various associations and independent investigations around the world using standardized tests measuring intelligence and published by Lynn and Vanhanen. What I see on this mapt is the enormous cultural impact, which on average, intelligence is not increased by attending an expensive school, and that intelligence is not victorious before the environment test.

So far, what I can assure, there are only some constants over time, the language, the reading writing and arithmetic skills, all these processes survive among generations, but at the same time are dependent on the social environment, so culture has a great weight in which is called intelligence. 

If we look the map at detail, Finland, which is the country best placed in the PISA tests, is not among the most intelligent. There is not correlation between these tests and the average intelligence of the countries, probably the only thing clear is that greater cultural input, higher average in academic tests, but another view is the fact intelligence does not correlate with academic tests.

But this makes sense, since environmental needs direct the kind of responses expected, in the case of the United States, intelligence is located along East and West coasts, does the landscape have any relationship?.

Now, let’s take a breath for a moment, it is socially said that the most intelligent people are those who manage to highlight, for example a pair of icons in science: Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, both with bad scores in initial education, but none is considered a genius by his score on intelligence tests, but by their ability to analyze problems that no one else would have been able to resolve.

We admire people who have the ability to join the points as no one else has done in any field, which implies the process of association of ideas and especially creativity, divergent, convergent thinking.

This ability to be flexible at the environment is what allows some to take mankind to a new level. Windows, the Ipad, artists and the most exciting theories in science, arise when someone is able to break the model and make something new, call it mental flexibility.

This applies to humans but also to other species. Studies with dogs have shown that more domestication, major adaptive social responses and when we are looking in species that have not had household contacts, as studies with squirrels or prairie dogs, even they, are able to learn and reply in a flexible way to adapt to the  environment. However, like the school learning, domestication makes dependent to the species.

Hence, a question arises: is intelligence inherited?, evidence shows the answer is not, nature won’t  convey skills that were functional for a generation but will not be for another. Many people who were born before generation X are bogged down with new technologies. New generations on the other hand, adapt to continuous changes, the exception is language, reading, writing and numbers.

This applies to brain and artificial neural networks, too-rigid algorithms are not successful, there must be room for adaptation.

That’s why intelligence arises my mental itching when all educational models decide that ALL persons must know the same, and intelligence tests determine the success of children. This simplistic classification of intelligent and non intelligent is absurd in the light of the evidence and how have shown different investigations, only increase the level of stress in children, since it is  found high correlations between low self esteem and depression among children labeled as gifted.

It was Jean Piaget who said the most important thing was not the response of the child, but the logic used by the child to reach it. If Steve Jobs had applied a test about how a computer works, not doubt his teacher would had crucified him, because he was able to see beyond his teachers were able to see.

So far, none expensive school that assure increase children's intelligence is a factory of geniuses. So far, regardless of the level of intelligence of our parents, nobody can sit back comfortably and see how birds fly. All of us must find our way, design it, create it and make it something worthwhile.

So in response to all my friends who ask me, share and comment on the subject of intelligence, here is my answer: no one has sucessfully demonstrate that it is a unique process and I can not convince them that we should exploit the creativity, thinking, convergent and divergent in schools, because no one knows how the future will be and so hold, I have not seen a case where learning depend on intelligence, nor in humans or other species.

References

Deary, I.J. (2012) Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology. 63. 453-482.

Dzib Goodin, A. (2013) Animal models for the study of learning. Available at: http://talkingaboutneurocognitionandlearning.blogspot.com/2013/09/animal-models-for-study-of-learning.html

Eliasmith, C., Trujillo, O. (2014) The use and abuse of large-scale brain models. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 25. 1-6.

Guignard, JH., Jacquet, AT., & Lubart, TI. (2012) Perfectionism and anxiety: A paradox in intellectual giftedness? Plos One. 7 (7) e1043. Available on line: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041043&representation=PDF

Kan, KJ., Wicherts, JM. Dolan, CV., and Van der Maas, HJL. (2013) On the nature and nurture of intelligence and specific cognitive abilities: The more heritable, the more culture dependent. Psychological Science. In press.

Kovas, Y., Voronin, I., Malykh, SB., Dale, PS., Plomin, R. (2013) Literacy and numeracy are more heritable than intelligence in primary school. Psychological Science. 24 (10) 2048-2056.

Lee, CS., & Therriault, DJ. (2013) The cognitive underpinnings of creative thought: A latent variable analysis exploring the roles of intelligence and working memory in three creative thinking process. Intelligence. 41 (5) 306-320.

Lynn, R.,  and Vanhanen, T. (2012) Intelligence: A unifying construct for the social science. Ulster Institrute for Social Research. London, UK.

The importance of the environment in brain development

If we stops the study of learning stops only on genetic researches, thinking that we born born with immutable physical and cognitive structures, given from the moment of conception, we can believe environment is not so important, however, contemporary genetics and studies on the human genome, provide novel approaches to the source, and explain many pathologies, giving  more and more place to the experience of the individual and corners to a very precise place to initial genetic determinism that held  few years ago.

 

This suggests the possibility that brain superior functions are based on a biological substrate clearly designed by the genome, but the deployment and development of such capabilities of cognitive abilities need essentially the influence of the environment so much so that, without it, these functions may be severely truncated.

In this sense, it is known some regulatory genes susceptible to light only if they receive certain environmental signals, thereby greatly the generation of synaptic connections and neural routes are not provided in the basic design that are unique to each individual in relation to the experience.

But how does this relate with our brain?, well, as already mentioned, the human nervous system perceives, processes, stores and create behavior in response to information received from the environment, internal and external with the ultimate aim of ensuring the conservation of the species, that learning is as important as a means of stability, since the key brain capabilities level to develop skills for individual survival (Avaria, 2005).

At the end, our nervous system is the supporting material for knowledge, affection and behavior, along with genetics, and skills will be developed for adaptation in the middle which will make us more or less able to respond to the needs of the environment.

Of course is not possible to forget the role of our genetics heritage from parents, so there is something called genetic imprinting which is a phenomenon where certain genes are expressed in a way specific, for example, if a parent inherits more genes with certain features that the other is put in risk the brain and behavior of children, resulting in several possible syndromes.

 

Some research found out that gene expression plays an important role in brain development, in a way such that certain regions of the brain are almost entirely controlled by the genes of the mother and other regions, by the father (Wenner, 2009).

But once the environment comes in the sequential and orderly development of the nervous system gives rise to a fundamental concept, known as either critical periods and sensitive periods . 

This concept refers to the existence of determined moments in the maturation of the nervous system that establishes the conditions to achieve a particular function, what is really important in this aspect is that if the structures related to a function remain deprived of the necessary environmental influences for its development, this not will develop properly, even if these influences can exert their action at a later period. 

This knowledge came thanks to classical studies which showed that if it was blocking an eye of a kitten during their first weeks of life, this caused irreversible loss of vision in that eye due to the decrease in synaptic inputs to cortical neurons from thalamus (Hubel & Wiesel, 1970). 

These studies led to think that childhood was the only time critical development, but further investigations, particularly those carried out through neuroimaging, for example some at the University of California in los Angeles and at the National Institute of Mental Health in Maryland, allowed to observe a second stage of growth of gray matter just before puberty during which, our brain develops different to early adulthood. Analyses show that the maturity of the grey matter, is not signal the end of mental changes, but the ability to re settle and rearrange if same and that this occurs during adulthood as a signal of the continuing brain development for several years, being a reflection of the environmental interactions (Shreeve, 2005).  

This topic has received great attention, not only from the scientific community, but also on the part of the media and the community in general, developing related term of windows of opportunity, with important implications from the point of view of education, especially preschool. 

A well-studied aspect in this regard relates to the acquisition of language, since it is thought that learning a foreign language is only possible prior to puberty. However, studies with bilingual populations have shown that learning is possible, but it is  acquired with some grammatical errors and a notorious difficulty in the structuring of phrases, as well as an accent.

Positron Emission Tomography (PET) have shown that if a baby learns a second language, all linguistic activity is located in the same area of the brain, while those children who learn a second language later show two focuses of activity. Some studies in this respect have found in English speakers a curious decodification if the sounds R and L in separate parts of the brain, but these sounds are processed in the same part of the brain in those whose mother tongue is Asian because these languages do not distinguish between these phonemes (Kim, Relkin, Lee. Et all., 1997; Chugani, Phelp & Mazziotta, 1987).

 

In this sense, the possibility of inducing a greater number of connections and synapses through stimulation techniques has been subject of much debate.

One of the attempts that has received a lot of attention  called Mozart effect,  citing positive effects on cognitive abilities and therefore a better overall performance of the individual against multiple tasks. 

However, a recent review concluded that there is a specific improvement in the performance of visuospatial abilities after hearing some pieces by Mozart, but this effect has a short duration, no more than 10 to 15 minutes, which minimizes management commercial that promotes the rapid achievement of higher child intelligence (Avaria, 2005;  Rauscher & Shaw, 1995; Chanda, Levitin, 2013).

 

Other studies analyze the influence of the environment  and have focused on the development of gross motor skills, and what has been found is that this does not require so much stimulation from the environment, so the delay is usually due to biological causes, making it the exception to the idea of the environmental stimulation. 

While there is a normal variation in the acquisition of the development in gross motor development milestones, and the acquisition of the walking skills, this variation is lower than in other areas. This was demonstrated in a study in 404 children with retardation motor, at 18 months, a third of them children had failed to take 5 steps independently, and eventually presented a pathology (Avaria, 2005)

Studies of children with cerebral palsy, have allowed to observe the delay engine in any of its forms, while infants show cognitive delay, thus found with gross motor development within expected is not guarantee of normal cognitive development in the future.

Against, children with mental retardation, in general acquire progress independently at later ages that children with normal intelligence, but within each level of mental retardation, there are children walking to comparable to normal ages. In this sense, a study reported that only 62.2% of children with severe mental retardation and 38% of those who have moderate deficiency, walking after 12 months, showing that motor development may be apparently normal the first year of life, but cognitive retardation will be significant later in this population (Avaria, 2005).  

So we can say, different motor behaviors allow to relate the maturation of cognitive process and the brain connections product of environmental interaction, for example the use which makes the child's hands in relation to the exploration of the environment. 

The analyses that are made about the disappearance of primitive reflexes and maturation of visual function, when the nearby can be focused and achieved simultaneous information on the sight and touch, which establishes the basis of future skills visomotoras which gives opportunity that infant use your hands around three months together. It is so from the 3 to the 6 months baby gradually accomplished prehension voluntary and visually guided, first on the flat side and then in the middle line.

The acquisition of this skill, allows the study of the inter hemisferic-dominance (being right-handed or left-handed) which is not developed until after the first year, and is defined until after 2 years.

Therefore, the handling of objects reflects a progressive understanding of the world that surrounds the infant. At 9 months the child examines the objects in a systematic way, thanks to the ability to process non-sequential and simultaneous information how did before developing this skill.

 Of course this is very important as cognitive development, since around 9 months  will be handling the sense of permanence of objects that demonstrates the symbolic objects representation and causation from the Piagetian point of view, but confirm the consolidation of brain connections that allow such processing (Avaria, 2005;  Bloom, Beal & Kupfer, 2006).  

In regards to the development of the communication and language, this area is where the debate on the relative importance of biological and environmental mechanisms in its development has received greater attention. The question if cognitive abilities such as language are the result of structures and genetically coded and specific predispositions?. 

It is thus that the abilities that children acquire during the development are not only of maturation at the neurological level, but are largely the result of the interaction with the environment. The greater the stimulation that receives, more complete is the neurological organization and better expectations for cognitive skills. In that sense, importance early stimulation in early childhood (Ginarte, 2007).

But those who defend the genetic position can add one more aspect to the discussion,  and it is the role of the genetic influence, particularly the studies on the genetic imprint, since these studies are that the influence of paternal genetics plays a greater role in instinctive as feeding behaviors or look for couple, while the maternal genes are concentrated in the development of cognitive processes such as language and social behaviours (Wenner, 2009). 

The main response in this regard says: if the brains of children are innately predisposed to learn the language, with the proper exposure all children with normal brains must, without instruction, learning the language in a relatively uniform manner. 

If this hypothesis is correct, the capacity to acquire language should be both anatomically and functionally autonomous of other capabilities, and developing lesions or acquired can deteriorate, but does not stop the process of acquisition, on the other hand specifically preserve the ability to learn language. 

If we accept the position that learning of language ability is not innate, instruction should be required to learn it, the course of the acquisition should vary considerably in each person (perhaps depending on the quality of the instruction), and therefore there should be no critical period for the acquisition, or the functional or anatomical specificity of the language (Stromswold, 1995).

At this point, I can't avoid mention a classic study in  conducted around 1960 by Diamond, this experiment analyzed the changes in the structure of the nerve cells in the cerebral cortex of rats when they are exposed to what she calls an enriched environment or an environment depleted . 

 Rosenzweig (cited in Aguilar, 2003) conducted experimental studies in animals, with an idea of possible applications in human rehabilitation field. He proposed enriched environments in a model with rats, living in cages with a number of toys and other stimuli induce changes morphological, physiological, neurochemical and behavioral.

 This  was named as enriched environment if the rat had a large cage and access to objects with that play and explore and also socialize with other 12 rats. The objects had to be changed periodically so that the challenge was greater. The impoverished environment was a small cage with a single rat, without friends or toys (Diamond, 2001).

This experiment found out that animals exposed to the enriched environment had developed cerebral cortex thicker than rats that were in the impoverished environment. The dendritic branches in cerebral cortex had grown as a result of interacting with other rats and explore and play with objects, changes were observed primarily in visual, motor and the frontal area, associated with socializing. They also found low levels of neurochemicals associated with stress.

This study concludes that when nerve cells are stimulated by new experiences and exposure to the incoming information from the senses, it’s possible to grow dendritic branches. If rats continue in a rich in the right environment, the branches grow and this creates greater learning, while in an impoverished environment, these ramifications are pruning  to be lost. 

Diamond (2001) also found something that was not part of the original study, these same rats if were caressed, showed even larger number of neural connections in the area of the limbic system, which is associated with emotions, but also memory. 

They are such situations that make me think that genetics is so important when analyzing a learning problem, what should be the position to a child with Down Syndrome or a child with autism when they have a learning disability?, should we accept the idea of a genetic destiny?, can they learn?. should we believe the theory of enriched environment and say that genetics doesn't matter?. The function of the experience would be, in short, the alter of locally and selective gene expression pattern in charge of the organization and the functioning of a given brain region (Benitez - Burraco, 2006).

Some years ago I learned how to find the right medium of this dilemma. Someone asked during a conference: what is the difference between one and another position at the social level?.

 The answer is that if we accept the genetics, and I think most that most of people accept it, since we change our faces and our voices when we see a child adding a poor boy, he has Down syndrome. Only few persons will  see what this individual is, instead of seeing how this person can be, so we accept the genetic influence as important. 

But if we accept his Down's Syndrome but also this boy has capabilities that can come to be exploited, is to accept the position of the enriched environment.

My question is: How do I know if I have the skills to be high-level pianist if I've never have had the opportunity to be near a piano?. So we should ask: what can I do for this child? Instead of asking: what can this kid do?. It is seeing infants as human beings capable to grow and create and think, and not to fall into the Protocol of applying tons of tests to verify in a scientific way that children have a language problem, or which are not suitable for math or the arts. 

Therefore the vision of the neuroscientific posture is appealing to the brain and its ability to achieve neural connections, based on the skills that you already own to this meet that cost work or is even dreaming of having. Who was found with a good math teacher who managed, that for a moment, we thought that numbers were simple, even to me?. Neuroscience appeals to the principle of flexibility which is called plasticity, to develop skills from strategies that enable each individual better understand reality. 

Each brain develops, grows, learns, observes, understands differently. Some are based on visual clues, others are excellent for understanding the logical way to world mathematics. Some are good to be located geographically, while to others, we have the broken GPS. This is what makes wonderful brain, can be molded plus enjoy this learning, and learning in many ways. The children not only learn by repeating, learn again and again playing with a Nintendo game. Even if adults like or not, children's brains generate neural networks faster than us, take advantage of this window of opportunity is the difference between suffering in school and enjoy school. 

Some lessons require repetition, others require understanding of its usefulness, while others are based on direct experimentation. Cognitive goal tasks needs to recognize and apply the necessary strategies is perhaps the differences between this child cannot learn and this child learns differently .

References:

Aguilar, F. (2003) Plasticidad cerebral: parte 2. Revista  Médica  IMSS. 41 (2) 133-142.

Avaria, M. A. (2005)  Aspectos biológicos del desarrollo psicomotor.  Revista de Pediatría. Electrónica. 2 (1). Disponible en red: http://www.revistapediatria.cl/vol2num1/pdf/6_dsm.pdf 

Benítez – Burraco, A. (2006) Genes y lenguaje. Teorema XXVI (1) 37-71.

Bloom, F: Beal, M & Kupfer, D. (2006) The Dana guide to brain health. Dana Press. Estados Unidos.

Chanda, ML., & Levitin, DJ. (2013) The neurochemistry of music. Trends in Cognitive Science. 17 (4) 179-193.

Chugani, HT., Phelps, ME, & Mazziota, JC. (1987) Positron emission tomography study of human brain functional development. Annals of Neurology. 22 (4) 487-497.

Diamond, M. (2001) Response of the Brain to Enrichment. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias. 73 (2). 39-45.

Ginarte Arias, Y. (2007) La neuroplasticidad como base biológica de la rehabilitación cognitiva. Geroinfo: Publicación de Gerontología y Geriatría 2 (1) 1-15.

Hensch, TK., and Billimoria, PM. (2012) Re-opening windows: Manipulating critical periods for brain development. The Dana Foundation. Disponible en red: http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=39360

 

Hubel D., Wiesel T. (1970) The period of susceptibility to the physiological effects of unilateral eye closure in kittens. Journal of  Physiology. 30 (4) 206- 212.

Kim K., Relkin N., Lee K. et al. (1997) Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature. 388: 171–174.

Rauscher F., Shaw G., Ky K. (1995) Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-temporal reasoning: towards a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscience Letters. 185 (1) 44-47.

Shreeve, J. (2005) Cornina’s brain: all she is… is here. National Geographic. 207  (3)  6-12.

Silverman, C. (2008) The Search for Intelligence. Scientific American.  299  (4) 13-19.

Stromswold, K. (1995) The cognitive and neural bases of language acquisition: The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wenner, M. (2009) A patchwork Mind. Scientific American Mind. Vol. 20. num. 4. 52-59.