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

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."

Comments

Any other variables..?

[cayenne8]

Were both children same sex, race....other variables with genetic implications?

Re:Any other variables..?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. How big a role has NUTRITION played in the two images? It would stand to reason that a 'severely neglected' child would also eat lower quality food.
So let's skip the "lovey dovey" story for a moment and make sure we're not drawing the wrong conclusions here.

Re:Any other variables..?

[timeOday]

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 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.

Re:Any other variables..?

[Kielistic]

Which was exactly what the AC said. The neglected child would also probably not get the recommended nutrition. The issue was not that parents perform a necessary service. The issue was that nutrition was probably a larger contributor to poor development than how the infant was "treated by their mothers".

It is misleading to say that "this study shows that children need momma's love more than anything else in the world" when it most likely boils down to "nutrition starved brain develops poorly". Probably get more attention from the former though- even Slashdot picked it up despite being hardly relevant and having no scientific merit.

Re:Any other variables..?

[DesertJazz]

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.

Re:Sample size?

[Eil]

Not sure why anybody thought this was news, I remember reading about it in my Pschology 101 textbook. Nearly any mammal (not just humans) deprived of external stimulus when young will end up with a less developed brain than their otherwise normal peers.

This doesn't apply only to babies and toddlers either. There was a study awhile back trying to figure out why certain groups of inner-city teens don't learn in school. As in, they were taught the same material, given the same homework, spent the same amount of time in class. The study controlled for things like truants and habitual trouble-makers. It turned out that all of them were dealing with at least major parental crisis. For example, their parents were severe alcoholics, beat them, sexually abused them, or died recently. When stuff like that happens, the kids' brains switched into survival mode and were then completely incapable of the kind of in-depth learning that normal kids enjoy. Remove the crisis, and the kid can learn at a normal capacity again. (Depending on the extent/length of the trauma.)

Re:What about teh gayz?!

[spazdor]

Sorry, is this Slashdot, or Yahoo! Answers? I think I'm lost.