<aside> 💻

Alternative study since Maguire and Draganski go together: Luby Et Al (Luby can also be used for MRI and brain imaging)

3. Luby et al. (2013) – Early Childhood Poverty, Stress, and Brain Development

Aim:

To investigate the relationship between early childhood poverty, stressful life events, caregiving, and the development of the hippocampus and amygdala.

Procedure:

• The study involved 145 children aged 3 to 6 years old who were followed over a five-year period.
• MRI scans were used to measure the brain structures of the children.
• The study also measured stress levels through interviews and observed parenting styles to assess whether the caregiving environment played a role in brain development.

Results:

• Poverty was found to correlate with smaller hippocampal and amygdala volumes.
• However, the negative effects of poverty on brain development were moderated by supportive caregiving. Children from low-income families but with nurturing parents had larger hippocampi than those from impoverished backgrounds with less supportive parenting.

Conclusion:

The findings suggest that while poverty and stress can negatively affect brain development (specifically in areas linked to memory and emotional regulation), positive caregiving can act as a protective factor. This study shows that the brain’s development can be influenced by environmental factors, further supporting the concept of neuroplasticity.

</aside>

• Rosenzweig, Bennet, and Diamond conducted an experiment on this where they placed rats into one of two different environments to measures how environments of enrichment or deprivation would affect the development and dendritic branching of neurons in the cerebral cortex. In the enrichment environment, the rats had stimulus objects, 11 companions and maze training. In the deprivation environment, one rat was all alone with no stimulation. After spending 30-60 days in their respective environment, the rats were killed to measure the effect of the environment on the brain structures. It was found that those who had been in the stimulating environment had increased thickness in the cerebral cortex as a result of increased dendritic branching in comparison to the rat in the deprivation environments. Parts of the brain associated with thinking, planning, and decision making (not that a rat really needs those) were significantly more developed - The combination of stimuli and having companions created the best condition for development of cerebral thickness.
• Three male rats from the same litter were taken and placed in one of three conditions - DEPRIVATION, ENRICHMENT, and the CONTROL
• The control just had 3 rats in a cage with access to food and water
• The ENRICHED condition had 11 other rat companions, and access to stimulus material and objects that they could play with and use
• Finally, the DEPRIVATION condition had a singular rat in it’s environment with no access to any stimulus material
• All groups had access to food and water (ethical)
• The rats spent 30 to 60 days in their respective environments before they were killed to investigate the changes that took place in their brain
• It was found that rats in the enriched condition had far higher levels of dendritic branching in areas of the brain that involved planning, decision making, and more.
• The conclusion was that since animal and human brain plasticity is assumed to follow the same pattern, we can safely say that like these rats, we too need social stimulation and intellectual stimulation to increase dendritic branching.
• The limits however is the fact that we don’t know which variable truly caused increased dendritic branching - The social stimulation, or external stimulation
• Highly controlled lab experiment that we can say was cause and effect
• ETHICAL CONCERNS - Undue stress to the animals and harming them by killing them
• High replicability due to it’s highly controlled nature