"Poor Children's Brain Activity Resembles That Of Stroke Victims"

Tsukasa Buddha

Other (please write in)
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
15,302
Kids from lower socioeconomic levels show brain physiology patterns similar to someone who actually had damage in the frontal lobe as an adult," said Robert Knight, director of the institute and a UC Berkeley professor of psychology. "We found that kids are more likely to have a low response if they have low socioeconomic status, though not everyone who is poor has low frontal lobe response." Previous studies have shown a possible link between frontal lobe function and behavioral differences in children from low and high socioeconomic levels, but according to cognitive psychologist Mark Kishiyama, first author of the new paper, "those studies were only indirect measures of brain function and could not disentangle the effects of intelligence, language proficiency and other factors that tend to be associated with low socioeconomic status. Our study is the first with direct measure of brain activity where there is no issue of task complexity."

"These kids have no neural damage, no prenatal exposure to drugs and alcohol, no neurological damage," Kishiyama said. "Yet, the prefrontal cortex is not functioning as efficiently as it should be. This difference may manifest itself in problem solving and school performance." The researchers suspect that stressful environments and cognitive impoverishment are to blame, since in animals, stress and environmental deprivation have been shown to affect the prefrontal cortex. UC Berkeley's Marian Diamond, professor emeritus of integrative biology, showed nearly 20 years ago in rats that enrichment thickens the cerebral cortex as it improves test performance. And as Boyce noted, previous studies have shown that children from poor families hear 30 million fewer words by the time they are four than do kids from middle-class families.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081203092429.htm

Ah, yes, but socioeconomic status is just a cop out and really doesn't effect education at all :rolleyes: .

Okay, to not be coy about it, this is a really interesting study. Dare I say that it supports the need for extra programs and funding for lower-income students?
 
I guess a counterargument would be that intelligence is hereditary, and if the parents were that bright they'd have achieved more success and a better environment for the kids. You still can't tell whether it's nature or nuture. The only way to test it would be to take kids from different economic backgrounds and switch them immediately after birth...but that still wouldn't rule out prenatal environmental influences like the mother's nutrition, chemical exposure, etc.
 
SES, intelligence and education are a complicated web. Extra funding for low income students? I wonder how many millions (billions?) of dollars have been spent on that without much success (in terms of raising iq, or even making their brains resemble rich kids').
 
I guess a counterargument would be that intelligence is hereditary, and if the parents were that bright they'd have achieved more success and a better environment for the kids. You still can't tell whether it's nature or nuture. The only way to test it would be to take kids from different economic backgrounds and switch them immediately after birth...but that still wouldn't rule out prenatal environmental influences like the mother's nutrition, chemical exposure, etc.

I believe the study had more to do with measuring brain develpment of the prefrontal cortex and finding inefficiencies than measuring innate intelligence.

If you read further down (I didn't want to quote too much), they discuss enrichment in the environment and other methods of influencing the performance of the prefrontal cortex, which I don't believe would be possible if they were discussing innate intelligence.

But I am trying to find the actual study to be sure. Obviously, this is just preliminary research, but it may have a lot of implications.
 
Last edited:
So poor kids don't get the mental stimulation that is required for brain growth? At a young enough age to do some good?
 
SES, intelligence and education are a complicated web. Extra funding for low income students? I wonder how many millions (billions?) of dollars have been spent on that without much success (in terms of raising iq, or even making their brains resemble rich kids').
Mostly because of how and when it is spent. The point is, if the kid is four or five before he/she has any contact with data rich/input rich /variety rich situations/systems then further development is impaired and has low likelihood of occurring.

The problem is not that we do not know where and how it is best spent, it is that most politicians do not wish the risks of doing it correctly since some of what must be done would give the appearance of political incorrectness.
 
The amount of mental stimulation a young child gets has proven to be a big factor in how intelligent they are, and thus how well they cope with work as they go through school.

From an article called: Nurture Helps Mold Able Minds:

... Studies of how the environment influences one ability often measured by IQ tests, namely language, have provided some of the new evidence. Vocabulary, in particular, is a common component of IQ tests. Until the early 1990s, the wide variation in people's vocabularies was largely attributed to differences in people's inborn abilities to learn language. But then Huttenlocher and her colleagues decided to systematically study what role an environmental input--speech by a young child's mother--might play in building the child's vocabulary. To test this, Huttenlocher's team taped many hours of chatter between 22 toddlers and their mothers during the children's typical daily activities.

The researchers did the tapings every 2 to 4 months when the children's language skills were developing most rapidly, between 16 and 26 months of age. From the tapes, the researchers detected a remarkable parallel between the size of a child's vocabulary at 26 months and the talkativeness of his or her mother. At the extremes, the mothers varied 10-fold in how much they talked, and the toddler of the most talkative mother had a vocabulary more than four times the size of the vocabulary of the child of the quietest mother.

Of course, the correlation might result at least partly from genes for verbal ability shared by mother and child. But that's unlikely to be the primary cause, says Huttenlocher, because the moms in the study did not differ much in verbal IQ. What's more, the children were clearly picking up their vocabularies from their mothers, because the words each child used the most frequently mirrored those favored by the mother, and the mothers differed very little in the relative frequency with which they used various words. ...

In 1972, Ramey, his wife Sharon, and their colleagues started the Abecedarian preschool intervention program at UNC, which began at infancy and lasted 5 years. For the project, the researchers randomly assigned 111 children from poor and uneducated families in the surrounding community to either an intervention group, which received full-time, year-round day care along with medical and social-work services, or a control group getting medical and social benefits but no day care. ...

The success of the endeavor, and its ability to mold IQ, was evident by the time the children were 3 years old. The toddlers in the program showed normal IQs averaging 101, a whopping 17-point advantage over the average IQs of the controls. Follow-up results, to be reported in an upcoming issue of Applied Developmental Science, demonstrate that the effects are long-lasting. More than a decade later, at age 15, children from the intervention group still maintained an IQ advantage of five points over controls, with respective averages of 97.7 and 92.6. They also did better on standardized tests of reading and math and were less likely, by nearly a factor of 2, to have been held in the same grade in school for a second year. ...

... For now, the evidence strongly suggests that quality preschooling by any standard would provide an important safety net for children who might otherwise not get the mental stimulation they need. The price tag is steep--more than $10,000 per child per year. But the payback in productivity, and in reduced social support programs later in life, may be even greater, if national preschool programs accrue a benefit similar to that seen in North Carolina--something now being tested by a 200-site, Early Head Start program in which infants are enrolled right after birth. ...
 
Correlation isn't causation. I wouldn't be so quick to say that lower brain activity among lower income kids is necessarily a direct cause of their parent's income, and can be easily solved by throwing money at the discrepancy.

I thought this was interesting, and telling:

And as Boyce noted, previous studies have shown that children from poor families hear 30 million fewer words by the time they are four than do kids from middle-class families.

It's not surprising that families that place more value on education would have higher incomes. What government program is going to expand the vocabularies of parents who are indifferent to books and learning?
 
Vocab is a good measure of IQ, but it's backwards-- people with high iq tend to have big vocabs. I'd bet improving SES could improve vocab scores.

The purer measures of IQ, imo, are forward measures like reaction time / inspection time and memory capacity. I suspect improving SES will do very little here to the rank ordering of people on these dimensions (though interventions might change scores; I don't think they can change the rank orderings of people much).

I'm skeptical that taking pictures of frontal lobes (at this gross a level) will add much to what we know about IQ, or is a good way to test whether environments affect intelligence.

Neuro-psychologists tend to do a lot of wheel re-inventing because they get to redo anything as long as they also have pictures of brains in action. This by default is assumed to be better science (I have no idea why).

All jmo.
 
Me said:
The success of the endeavor, and its ability to mold IQ, was evident by the time the children were 3 years old. The toddlers in the program showed normal IQs averaging 101, a whopping 17-point advantage over the average IQs of the controls. Follow-up results, to be reported in an upcoming issue of Applied Developmental Science, demonstrate that the effects are long-lasting. More than a decade later, at age 15, children from the intervention group still maintained an IQ advantage of five points over controls, with respective averages of 97.7 and 92.6. They also did better on standardized tests of reading and math
and were less likely, by nearly a factor of 2, to have been held in the same grade in school for a second year. ...

More homework clubs could help sustain improvements in children's IQ made by pre-school programs. There might be a good number of parents who have no interest in listening to their children read or encouraging them to do homework, who would nevertheless be happy for them to attend homework clubs run by their schools, where trusted older students supervise younger ones sitting together in a library or somewhere doing their work.

From the article I linked to before:

... In a similar vein, Huttenlocher, along with Chicago colleague Susan Levine and UNC's Jack Vevea, measured the rate of IQ growth in a national sample of 1500 children over 6-month periods that vary in the amount of schooling children receive. In work published this past August in Child Development, they found that the children's language, spatial, and conceptual skills improved much more sharply during the school-packed October-April period than in the April-October interval, which includes summer break and the less intense beginning and end of the school year. ...

I find it difficult to believe that my own school increased my IQ, but maybe it did. ;)

So if disadvantaged kids were in the school environment long enough to do homework in it so they had a chance of keeping up with their fellow students, it might often make a difference.
 
SES, intelligence and education are a complicated web. Extra funding for low income students? I wonder how many millions (billions?) of dollars have been spent on that without much success (in terms of raising iq, or even making their brains resemble rich kids').

Very little, other than the food programs and Head Start.

But if both your parents work and they have split shifts and second jobs, who is there to help with the homework?

I can't say that lots of money is spent helping kids, we don't even have decent day care, or after schools programs. Much less equity in education funding.

Then you look at the fact that the vast majority of the population that would need assistance to succeed doesn't get any assistance at all (kids with innate IQ 90-70) and that at least in Illinois dyslexia does not automatically qualify you for any services. We have a population between 10%-30% that will not succeed without help that are not getting it at all.
 
Vocab is a good measure of IQ, but it's backwards-- people with high iq tend to have big vocabs. I'd bet improving SES could improve vocab scores.
Word exposure levels are related to SES, in that higher SES is associated with exposure to higher levels of vocabulary diversity.

Recently there was a small study that even showed the level of positive language vs. negative language varied with SES.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom