Localisation of Function in the brain and Hemispheric

Lateralisation: motor, somatosensory, visual, auditory and

language centres; Broca's and Wernicke's areas, split brain
research. Plasticity and Functional Recovery of the brain after
trauma.
March 16, 2021 - Paper 2 Psychology in Context | Biopsychology

 Back to Paper 2 - Biopsychology

Localisation of Function in the Brain and Hemispheric Lateralisation

AO1: Description of Localisation of Function in the Brain and Hemispheric Lateralisation:

Localisation of functions refers to the principle that specific functions (language, memory, hearing
etc ) have specific locations within the brain.

AO1: Hemispheric Lateralisation:

The brain is contralateral (opposite sides) in most people; this means that parts of the left
hemisphere deal with the right side of the body and parts of the right hemisphere deal with the left
side of the body. This means that if a person has a stroke in the motor areas of their right
hemisphere, this will affect the functioning of the left side of their body.
In addition, what you see in your right visual field is processed in your left hemisphere and although
you gather auditory information from both ears, the information gather by the left ear is
predominately processed by your right hemisphere.
AO3: Evaluation of Localisation of Function in the Brain and Hemispheric Lateralisation
Strength:

(1) Point: A strength of the research conducted in the localisation of function of the brain and
hemispheric lateralisation is that it has been conducted in the controlled setting of the
laboratory. Example/Evidence: For example, research aiming to identify which areas of the brain are
responsible for specific behaviours (e.g. language) have used methods such as fMRI scanning, EEG
machines and post-mortem examinations.
Elaboration: This is a strength because, such research can be praised for being scientific and
objective allowing researchers and psychologists to draw firm conclusions as regards to what parts
of the brain are responsible for specific behaviours/activity thus increasing the internal validity of
the research.

Weaknesses:

(1) Point: However, there are a number of problems with this research.
Additional research carried out has highlighted that there are individual differences in language
areas. Example/Evidence: For example, in a study on silent reading, Bavelier et al (1997) found a
large variability in individual patterns of activation of the brain across different individuals. They
observed activity in the right temporal lobe as well as the left frontal temporal and occipital
lobes.Elaboration: This is a weakness as it shows that brain functioning can differ across individuals
suggesting that research into the structure of the brain does not consider individual differences.

(2) Point: In addition, gender differences have been identified in the size of the areas of the brain
associated with language. Example/Evidence: For example, Harasty et al (1997) found that women
have proportionally larger Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas than men, resulting in a women’s greater use
of language. Elaboration:This is a weakness because it suggests that female and male brains
operate in a different manner and don’t always follow the initial theories of brain structure as
suggested by early research.

AO1: Lateralisation and Split Brain Research:

The idea that different areas of the brain might have different specialisms was put forward by Marz
Dax. Through investigating brain damaged patients, Dax observed that in every case damage to the
left hemisphere of the brain led to deficits in language (none of the patients had suffered right
hemisphere damage). This suggested to Dax that it was the left hemisphere of the brain that was
responsible for language and thus, this assumption has been further investigated using split-brain
research.

Hemispheric Lateralisation
The term ‘brain lateralisation’ refers to the fact that two halves of the brain are not exactly alike.
Each hemisphere has a functional specialism (e.g. left hemisphere responsible for language, right
for visual-motor tasks). Paul Broca established that damage to certain areas of the left side of the
brain led to a deficit in language, damage to the same area of the right hemisphere did not have the
same consequences. This raised an important question, if language is associated with the left
hemisphere, how is it that we can talk about things that we experience in the right hemisphere (e.g.
face recognition)? The answer is that the two hemispheres must be connected. Information
received in one hemisphere can be sent to the other through the connect bundles of nerve fibres
such as the corpus callosum.
Sperry (1968) Split Brain Research with Split Brain Patients
Split brain patients individuals who have had their connecting corpus callosum cut (usually patients
with severe epilepsy in an attempt to prevent seizures passing from one area of the brain to the
other).
Aim to test the capabilities of the separated hemispheres.
Procedure
Ӣ Patients were asked to fixate on a dot in the centre of a screen whilst information was presented
to wither the left or right visual field.
Ӣ Patients were asked to make responses with either their left hand (controlled by the right
hemisphere), their right hand (controlled by their left hemisphere) or verbally (controlled by the left
hemisphere) without being able to see what their hands were doing.
Ӣ For example, if the patient was flashed a picture of a dog to the right visual field and asked what
they had seen, they would answer ‘dog.’ If the patient was flashed a picture in the left visual field
they would answer that they saw nothing. The reason for this is the information in the left visual field
is processed by the right hemisphere, which can see the picture but does not have a language centre
cannot respond verbally.
Ӣ The left hemisphere (which does have a language centre) does not receive information about
seeing the picture, therefore cannot say that it has seen it.
Conclusion: Due to the corpus callosum being cut in split-brain patients, the information presented
to one hemisphere has no way of travelling to the other hemisphere and can only be processed in
the hemisphere that received it.

AO3: Lateralisation and Split Brain Research Evaluation

Strengths:

(1) Point: A strength of split brain research is that it has led to the understanding the brain
lateralisation can increase neural processing capacity. Example/Evidence: For example, by using
only one hemisphere to engage in a particular task (e.g. language, mathematical ability), this would
leave the other hemisphere free to engage in another function. Elaboration: This is a strength
because, such research does provide evidence that brain lateralisation enhances brain efficiency in
cognitive tasks that demand the simultaneous but different use of both hemispheres. This therefore
highlights that split brain research has been useful in helping individuals to understand more clearly
the role of the brain/different hemispheres of the brain.

Weaknesses:

(1) Point: However, there are a number of problems with this research:
Additional research has suggested that language may not be restricted to the left
hemisphere. Evidence/Example: For example, Gazzinga (1998) suggests that some of the early
discoveries from split-brain research have been disconfirmed by more recent discoveries. The case
study of JW demonstrated that the right hemisphere may play some part in language like the left
hemisphere as he developed the capacity to speak out of the right hemisphere (Turk et al
2002). Elaboration: This is a weakness because, it suggests that there are inconsistent findings
across split brain research making it difficult to from firm conclusions.

(2) Point: In addition, there are limitations in carrying our split-brain research due to the fact that in
the current day and age split-brain patients are very rare.
Example/Evidence: For example, Andrews (2001) argues that many studies are presented with as
few as three participants, some studies have only a single participant making up the
sample. Elaboration: This is a weakness because, Andrews argues that those patients seemingly
making split-brain processing possible are based on small samples that are not representative of
the wider population, therefore such research lacks population validity. In addition, Andrews states
that such findings are very rarely replicated/consistency isn’t always obtained.
AO1: Plasticity of the Brain

Brain plasticity refers to the brain’s ability to change and adapt as a result of experience. This ability
to change plays an important role in brain development and behaviour. Researchers used to believe
that changes to the brain took place only in infancy and childhood, but more recent research has
demonstrated that the brain continues to create new neural pathways and alter existing ones to
adapt to new experiences as a result of learning. The brain also appears to show evidence of
functional recovery, moving functions from a damaged area of the brain (after trauma) to an
undamaged area.

Increased Brain Stimulation

Photo by David Cassolato on Pexels.com

As neurons are damaged there is an effect on the neighbouring neurons as they no longer have
input. This happens with the hemispheres too. Although damage may only be on one side, the other
hemisphere functions at a lower level too, as it has reduced input. Takatsura et al (2009)
demonstrated that if the undamaged hemisphere is stimulated, recovery from a stroke can be
improved.

Life Experience
Ӣ As people gain new experiences, nerve pathways that are used frequently develop stronger
connections, whereas those used rarely eventually die.
Ӣ By developing new connections and pruning away old weaker ones the brain is able to adapt to
the changing environment.
Ӣ There is a natural decline in cognitive functioning with age which can be attributed to the
changing brain researchers are therefore looking for ways in which new connections can be made in
order to reverse this effect.
Denervation Supersensitivity
This occurs when axons that do a similar job become aroused to a higher level to compensate for
the ones that are lost. However, it can have the unfortunate consequence of over-sensitivity to
messages such as pain. This increases the pain levels in individuals.

Axon Sprouting
When an axon is damaged its connection with neighbouring neurons is lost. In some cases, other
axons that already connect with that neuron will sprout extra connections to the neuron, replacing
the ones that have been destroyed. It is compensating for the loss of a neighbour. This occurs for
the most part two weeks after the damage has happened. It helps replace function, but only if the
damaged axon and the compensatory axons do a similar job. If not, problems can occur with
function.

AO3: Plasticity of the Brain Evaluation

Strength:

(1) Point: There is research from animal studies to support the idea that the brain has the ability to
change as a result of experience. Example/Evidence: For example, Kempermann et al (1998)
investigated whether an enriched environment could alter the number of neurons in the brain. They
found evidence of an increased number of new neurons in the brains of rats housed in complex
environments in comparison to rats housed in lab cages. Elaboration: This is a strength because, in
particular, the rats housed in complex environments showed an increase in neurons in the
hippocampus (a part of the brain associated with the formation of new memories) which supports
the idea that as individuals gain new experiences, nerve pathways that are used frequently develop
stronger connections, whereas those used rarely eventually die.

Weakness:

(1) Point: However, this research can be criticised for extrapolation.

Example/Evidence: For example, Kempermann’s research used a sample of rats. Rats and humans
are physiologically different and it can be assumed that the brain functioning of rats is possibly very
different to the way in which a human brain functions. Elaboration: This is a weakness because,
findings from research conducted on non-human animals cannot be generalised to humans, thus
making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about human brain functioning.

Counter acting strength:

(2) Point: However, there has been research conducted on humans which has supported the idea
that the brain has the ability to change as a result of experience/exposure to enriched
environments. Evidence/Example: For example, Maguire et al (2000) studied London taxi drivers to
discover whether changes in the brain could be detected as a result of their extensive experience of
spatial navigation. Using MRI scans, the researchers calculated the amount of grey matter in the
brains of the taxi drivers and a set of control participants. The hippocampus of the taxi drivers was
significantly larger in comparison to the control group. Furthermore, there was a positive correlation
between the length of time they had been a taxi driver and the volume of their brain.
Elaboration: This is a strength because, this research supports the idea that the more an area of the
brain is used, the stronger that area of the brain becomes (i.e. nerve pathways that are used
frequently develop stronger connections, whereas those used rarely eventually die).
AO1: Functional Recovery of the Brain after Trauma

Functional Recovery Much recovery after trauma is due to anatomical compensation brought about
by intensive rehabilitation. The brain learns to compensate for the function. The brain can be taught
to learn how to use the working faculties and function to compensate for the ones that are lost
forever. In the 1960s, researchers studied cases in which stroke victims were able to regain
functioning. They discovered that when brain cells are damaged or destroyed, as they are during a
stroke, the brain re-wires itself over time so that some level of function can be regained. Although
parts of the brain may be damaged or even destroyed as a result of trauma, other parts appear able
to take over the functions that were lost. Neurons next to damaged brain areas can form new
circuits that resume some of the lost function.

Regenerative developments in brain function arise from them brain’s plasticity, its ability to change
structurally and functionally following trauma. Two ways in which the brain is able to do this is:

(1) Neuronal Unmasking:

Wall (1977) first identified what he called ‘dormant synapses’ in the brain. These are synaptic
connections that exist anatomically but their function is blocked.

Under normal circumstances these synapse may be ineffective because the rate of neural input to
them is too low for them to be activated. However, increasing the rate of input to these synapses, as
would happened when a surrounding brain area becomes damaged, can then open (or ‘unmask’)
these dormant synapses. The unmasking of dormant synapses can open connections to regions of
the brain that are not normally activated, creating a lateral spread of activation which, in time, gives
way to the development of new structures.

(2) Stem Cells

Stem cells are unspecified cells that have the potential to give rise to different cell types that carry
out different functions, including taking on the characteristics of nerve cells.

There are a number of views on how stem cells might work to provide treatments for brain damage
caused by injury or neurodegenerative disorders.
The first view is that stem cells implanted into the brain would directly replace dead or dying cells.
A second possibility is that the transplanted stem cells secrete growth factors that somehow
‘rescue’ the injured cells.
A third possibility is that the transplanted cells form a neural network, which links an uninjured brain
site, where new stem cells are made, with the damaged region of the brain.

AO3: Functional Recovery of the Brain after Trauma Evaluation

Strengths:

(1) Point: There is research from animal studies to support the idea that the brain has the ability to
recover after trauma. Example/Evidence: For example, Tajiri et al (2013) provided evidence for the
role of stem cells in recovery from brain injury. They randomly assigned rats with traumatic brain
injury to one of two groups. One group received transplants of stem cells into the region of the brain
effected by the traumatic injury. The control group received a solution infused into the brain
containing no stem cells. Three months later the brains of the stem cell rats showed clear
development of neuron-like cells migrating into the brain’s site of injury. This was not the case with
the control group. Elaboration: This is a strength because, in particular, this shows that with the help
of stem cells, the brain is able to undergo functional recovery after injury.
(2) Point: There is research to suggested that functional recovery of the brain is affected by
age. Example/Evidence: For example, Huttenlocher (2002) suggested that the only option following
traumatic brain injury after childhood is to develop compensatory behavioural strategies to work
around the deficit that older ages poses (such as seeking social support or developing strategies to
deal with cognitive deficits). Elaboration: This is a strength because, Huttenlocher’s research
confirms scientific and objective findings from research suggesting that with age, the brain’s ability
the functionally recovery declines.

Weakness:

(1) Point: However, this research can be criticised for extrapolation. Evidence/Example: For example,
Tajiri et al (2013) research used a sample of rats. Rats and humans are physiologically different and
it can be assumed that the effects of stem cells on the brains of rats may not be the same as the
effects of stem cells on the brains of humans. Elaboration: This is a weakness because, it means
that research based on non-human animals cannot be generalised to humans and therefore it is
difficult to draw firm conclusions.

Cookie Policy - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy