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.

Parental models in birds

It’s very usual to hear the term school for parents, under the idea that humans require a specific training, determined to carry out actions on the environment.

Also said that no one is born knowing how to be a father and it is important to recognize behavior patterns key to regulate the children behavior. However, when other species are analyzed  it’s hard to find truly patterns of behavior that are not evolutionarily designed in order to take a good course to the species.

This time I present two completely different parental models, both from birds in natural environment, without domestication and therefore without cultural ballasts in a semi natural environment, since they live among people who don't annoy them, but they must deal with their natural predators like foxes, coyotes, owls, herons and hawks.

On this occasion, I present a behavior model focused on the Canada Goose (Branta Canadensis) which is of the Anatidae family, of the order of the Anseriformes and the super order of the Galloanserae. 

There are documents that show that these birds have inhabited this planet  since at least 10 million years.

The other observed specie is the Mallard Duck or wild duck (Anas Superciliosa) of the order of the Anseriformes, family Anatidae, of the species A. Platyrhynchos. It is believed that they lived at least since the Pleistocene so tha menas they have been at least been on the face of the Earth since 11 700 years ago.

While both species inhabit the same space, they show different parental behaviors.

In the case of the Canada goose, both parents are responsible for taking care of the chicks, so it is common to see both parents watching and directing their babies. In case of detecting any type of danger, they tend to show behaviour of attack orif it’s necessary they attack. 

From a very young babies them goose begins to modulate behavioral responses by imitating their parents, when very small they tend to stay in places where there is water, but as the chicks grow, they begin to explore territory. Geese fly, walk, run, and prepare to emigrate during the winter.

Babies are born in early spring and its territory is confined to the space where they nest, however these places are not always the same, these can vary year to year, this is the reason it was not possible to follow more families.

Families do not have too much intreraction with other gesse, until the hatchlings begin to move into the environment, however, parents are always caring for their own children, that must learn to fly, fishing, and attack. 

They show intense attack behaviors when the chicks are more vulnerable, especially because couples usually have between 4 to 7 chicks.

Swim classes are always led by mother and closely observed by the father. My impression is that the father is at the point where the family is more vulnerable. Usually if you see a wounded member, it is the father.

Chicks change plumage after few weeks and leave her yellow pajamas for a grey plumage which is replaced by the natural color of adults.

On the other hand, the wild duck, shows much less rigidity on behaviors of care. First, males and females coexist in the same space,  usually in  groups, until the time of mating. It is common to see the ducks resting while mothers care for, protect and teach fledglings how to survive.

The offspring per litter can be 2 to 6, no more than this, in part since the mother can not probably care one more baby.

These birds live in group, but every mother observe their children. The chicks, begin to swim near the mother and mimic their behavior. In case of danger come to her to seek shelter.

Once the baby duckscan care themselves they join the group, and then be ready to wait for winter, survive, with the promise of spring.

It is so the rest of the species search mechanisms of child care, serving the same natural pattern that keeps everyone on the face of the Earth.

References: 

Buntin, JD. (1996) Neural and Hormonal Control of parental behavior in birds. Advances in the Study of Behavior. 25. 161-213.

Ghalambor, CK., Peluz, SI., and Martín, TE. (2013) Plasticity of parental care under the risk of predation: how much should parents reduce care?. Biology Letters. 9 (4) doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0154

Martin, TE., Martin, PR., Olson, CR., Heidinger, BJ., & Fountaine, JJ. (2000) Parental care and clutch size in North and South American birds. Science. 287 (5457) 1482-1485.

Animal models for the study of learning

It's very weird but when I mention that  I do study the learning process, people think I know a lot about education. In different forums, I have explained that school learning is a fully human model, and for some strange reason, we are the only specie that thinks we must spend in a school the greater part of our lives, answering tests about things that many times we won't use anywhere else.

The rest of the species, provide modeling only to more basic skills, usually in the contexts through games, and the main tests  will be surviving in the hostile world, and have offspring in order to help their species. In some cases, creautures will make adaptive changes from the needs of the environment, as an example, I can mention the European birds who have learned to measure road speed limits, to determine its speed and successfully cross roads (Legagneux, & Ducatez, 2013). No need to say that a  miscalculation let them see their brains on the windshields of cars that cross at a higher rate.

With a large number of examples presented by other species, and understanding that learning can be defined as the ability to respond to the environment, modifying behaviors depending on the needs, in my search for answers on how learning develops, I began to use plant and animal models, because once I am clear that the learning takes place in the brain, the next question was: how hell did it get there?.

The big problem following  the line of the analysis of neuroscience, it’s the difficulty to explain a system as complex as the brain. On the basis of the principle in science that it is not possible to explain something from itself (Russell’s paradox), then is complicated explain many of the brain principles only with the accumulation of data obtained from neuroimaging studies, since it is known that our connectome is modified and it is also a custom process.

Hence, as you know, I've used protein models (Dzib Goodin, 2013) and here I present an animal model.

One of the greatest challenges of understanding complex models is to make them simple, it seems to me that the problem of the study of the brain is the cultural human creates from its own evolution, same that observed in other species.

The majority of studies, including the classic Pavlovian studies, have used dogs or lab rats. The problem of canine cognition is that it develops with greater complexity through domestication. Some studies suggest that higher level of domestication, greater social and cognitive functioning of the  domestic dog (Canis familiaris), in this sense social competence as notion evolutionary guarantees social competence development (Miklós, & Topal, 2013;) Cook, 2013), but this was exactly the component that I wished to avoid in my research.

 

The main problem to understand the complexity or diverses forms of cognition called Advanced and compared among species for studies of evolution, is to considered the computational neural mechanisms that may be involved, and identify the genetic changes that are needed to mediate changes in cognitive functions (Green, McCormick, 2013; Heyes, 2012).

As explained Chittka, Rossiter, Skorupski and Fernando (2012), the same cognitive capacity could be mediated by different neural circuits in different species, with a relationship between routines of behavior and its neural implementations. By what the comparative behavior research must be complemented with a bottom-up approach in which neurobiological analyses and molecular allow to observe the genetic and neural bases that limit the cognitive variation (Dickinson, 2012). This idea made me renounce the canine models.

However, when I moved to Chicago several years ago, I found several species, almost wild that allowed me to make them my models of cognitive resources, even if they have an inherited component, they are capable of modifying behavior through experience, which facilitates the recombination of the elements of an existing behavioral repertoire, and can thus see the innovation. 

This advantage, must be taken  with some reservations, as Shanahan (2012) explains,  on a system which massively includes many connections anatomically distributed neuronal environment, is not easy to know how sequences of responses are connected, so I began to observe other natural models.

It is true that in the great Darwinian struggle for existence, all the species are faced with the problems posed by varying environments, either the search and food processing, recognition and attraction of potential mates, avoid predators, competition between rivals or navigation back to the herd or nesting sites and that the mental processes by which different species deal with these problems are variedIt is clear that all animals share the fundamental problem of having to deal with the enormous amount of information in the environment, much of which is likely to be irrelevant to the task at hand. The first step, therefore, is to try to sift through the mass of data and attend what can inform decision making of adaptation. After acquiring the relevant data, animals can then benefit from establishing how the different pieces of information relate to each other.

In complex environments, it may be advantageous not only take into account statistical co-occurrence of different stimuli, but also to extract general rules, so it is possible to act flexibly and solve a variety of problems in different contexts.

This allows to believe that some animal species can also form mental representations or models of the way the world works. These internal representations can be used to reason about the appropriateness of actions or scenarios, based on alternative its probable outcome expectations, thus guiding the behaviour of the individual. Thus, for example, an animal with a mental representation of the action of gravity on objects could use it to reason that food is going to fall out of his reach when it is pressed toward a precipice. The possibility that animals can employ this human reasoning has puzzled observers over the centuries (Thornton, Clayton and Grozinski, 2012).

It is then that I decide to watch the squirrels especially those known as Fox Squirrel and Chipmunks which is common in the suburbs of Chicago. Both are small rodents of the Sciuridae family. These rodents live virtually worldwide, except for Australia, which allows to observe its capacity of adaptation to the environment. Both species live in virtually natural environments, whose main predators are hawks, and owls. 

Their natural diet is based on acorns and fruit of the trees of the region, but that with the arrival of the human species to their environment, they learned to eat corn and various seeds that neighbors provide freely as food for the birds.

It is thus that the trough of the birds was what attracted them, it is curious that all bird feeders have a legend: squirrels proof, which remainds me the objects that presumed to be child-resistant (remember that neither squirrels nor babies know to read).

Their mission, if they  want  to eat some seeds, is to climb up to the balcony 6.8 foot from the ground, in the case of squirrels, have a pine tree near that they use as a trampoline, they have the ability to climb trees without problem and jumping from branch to branch. 

In contrast, chipmunks, do not usually climb to trees, so they use their small claws to climb by wood and climb up to where the food is.

Initially both species were very scary, seems an key issue to adaptation and issuance of behaviors is the confidence (the same is observed with children with learning difficulties), This is because they can be food of predators so it’s very important to behave thinking their environments, and it’s easy to see they feel really scare about rapid movements, principle shared by humans since we are easy prey in hostile environments so that the observation requires they feeling in confidence to allow me to take photographs and watch them.

The next aspect is in general they do not have designed new behaviors that they use those preset systematically looking for that they are as effective as possible, creating adaptive behaviors to the middle.

Step one was to separate the squirrels of the birds. Those who think that birds are helpless before the squirrels are wrong. On two occasions I have seen attacks of birds to squirrels, given this, it gives the impression that adjusted schedules, squirrels can eat the birds in the morning and afternoon and feeder belongs to them during the day. It is a very interesting Pact of non-aggression.

Their diet changed fruits for seeds, specially corn, oats, rice and sunflower, same which is its maximum delicacy. Despite this, they did not affect their predisposition to store food, burying it in pots or on the yard, same as at times it flowed and if they smell the sunflower seeds, they do not prevent unearth them, so I said goodbye to a garden with sunflowers.

In the interest of keeping separate the species, I decided to use special bowls, same that they broke on two occasions, but in a couple of days they learned that they could eat of it, and even allowed to share it with the birds at the established times.

When there was no food in the feeder or bowl, they learned to beg for it, standing at front of the kitchen window at the time they know that I'm around, and who  would deny  something to this beauty?.

Both species hibernate, so during the first winter, which also was the classic winter in the Midwest in the United States with snow from early December until may, only squirrels occasionally ventured out of the burrows, but the two following winters, knowing that there is a permanent food in feeders, they  broke their habits and sent the youngers in search of food, even at the expense of both  hawks and owls can see them easier running on the whiteness of the snow, and no leaves on the branches of trees to protect them. Their meal schedules were modified and were limited to no more than 20 minutes at noon.

As soon as the winter gave truce, even older squirrels came out to ask for food, in this case, is not a sick squirrel, but  a squirrel that remained in hibernation and suffered from alopecy for a couple of weeks.

Achieved their confidence and clearly that accepting the food place, whose sole variation was the feeder or bowl, made one more change, their type of feeder was changed by one swearing to be squirrel-proof. It was intended to observe the behavior before the food that would not be easy to obtain. However, using the answers used in other environments, this specimen emulating Tom Cruise in mission impossible, managed to prove that Adaptive responses do not require departmental tests.

Chipmunks had always been in the vicinity, but squirrels had lousy food habits, ate and at the same time they pour food everywhere, this behavior is a way to share with other squirrels who are unable to climb to the balcony, it’s a kind of social support, sharing the treasure. 

This was not a problem, until we discovered a mouse near the house, the food was being sharing by the own squirrels, birds, rabbits, chipmunks and mice, making our environment in a perfect space so the hawks and owls would have food, don't forget that the environment continues to be hostile to them. From one year to another was notorious the increase in the population of hawks and owls and the decrease in the population of rabbits, squirrels and chipmunks.

Watching this, I change the bowl and the feeder by a transparent box that would allow them to eat in it without throwing the food everywhere.

Once installed the box, the squirrels took a couple of weeks in approach, being a closed environment, they understood this as a trap. Little by little they came until one entered, but with the sound of the camera it ran out. It returned a few hours and tried again, so I decided to avoid the camera to gain confidence.

It was clear that the chipmunks had no need to go up to the balcony to then, they collected the food that the squirrels and birds poured, but when this restaurant was closed, they had to find food, climbing over the balcony, observing all the environment and responding to the slightest movement, since they are very timid creatures, it was not an easy work,  but one day one stayed long enough and climbed inside the box, it learned that there was food there.

This animal model allows to observe innovation and adaptive responses in environments where they are needed, these are displayed to get what they wanted and learning depends on the level of dissonance that the environment offers. Unnecessary skills, are not used unless required by the measurement of the complexity of the task, we must not forget that these specimens are not domesticated and their only motivation is the food.

In future posts, I will share other models such as observed by slugs and snails and plants, especially the dandelion.

References:

Chittka, L., Rossiter, SJ., Skorupski, P., and Fernando, C. (2012) What is comparable in comparative cognition? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2677-2685.

Cook, G. (2013) Inside the Dog Mind. Scientific American Mind. 24. 28-29.

Dickinson, A. (2012) Associative learning and animal cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2733-2742.

Dzib Goodin, A. (2013) La evolución del aprendizaje: más allá de las redes neuroanales. Revista Chilena de Neuropsicología.  8 (1) 20-25.

Heyes, C.  (2012) Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2695-2703.

Green, MR., McCormick , CM. ( 2013) Effects of stressors in adolescence on learning and memory rodent models. Hormones and behavior. 64 (2) 364-379.

Legagneux, P., & Ducatez, S. (2013) European birds adjust their flight initiation distance to road speed limits. Biology Letters. 9 (5) 417.

Miklós, Á. & Topál. J. (2013) What does it take to become “best friends”? Evolutionary  changes in canine social competence. Trends in Cognitive Science. 17 (6) 287-294.

Shanahan, M. (2012) The brain’s connective core and its role in animal cogntion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2704-2714.

Thornton, A., Clayton, NS., and Grodzinski, U. ( 2012) Animal minds:  from computation to Evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Science. 367 (1603) 2670-2676.

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.