Poor Children's Brain Activity Resembles That Of Stroke Victims, EEG Shows

Nevyn

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

ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2008) — University of California, Berkeley, researchers have shown for the first time that the brains of low-income children function differently from the brains of high-income kids.

In a study recently accepted for publication in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, scientists at UC Berkeley's Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and the School of Public Health report that normal 9- and 10-year-olds differing only in socioeconomic status have detectable differences in the response of their prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that is critical for problem solving and creativity.

Brain function was measured by means of an electroencephalograph (EEG) – basically, a cap fitted with electrodes to measure electrical activity in the brain – like that used to assess epilepsy, sleep disorders and brain tumors.

"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."

Co-author W. Thomas Boyce, UC Berkeley professor emeritus of public health who currently is the British Columbia Leadership Chair of Child Development at the University of British Columbia (UBC), is not surprised by the results. "We know kids growing up in resource-poor environments have more trouble with the kinds of behavioral control that the prefrontal cortex is involved in regulating. But the fact that we see functional differences in prefrontal cortex response in lower socioeconomic status kids is definitive."

Boyce, a pediatrician and developmental psychobiologist, heads a joint UC Berkeley/UBC research program called WINKS – Wellness in Kids – that looks at how the disadvantages of growing up in low socioeconomic circumstances change children's basic neural development over the first several years of life.

"This is a wake-up call," Knight said. "It's not just that these kids are poor and more likely to have health problems, but they might actually not be getting full brain development from the stressful and relatively impoverished environment associated with low socioeconomic status: fewer books, less reading, fewer games, fewer visits to museums."

Kishiyama, Knight and Boyce suspect that the brain differences can be eliminated by proper training. They are collaborating with UC Berkeley neuroscientists who use games to improve the prefrontal cortex function, and thus the reasoning ability, of school-age children.

"It's not a life sentence," Knight emphasized. "We think that with proper intervention and training, you could get improvement in both behavioral and physiological indices."

Kishiyama, Knight, Boyce and their colleagues selected 26 children ages 9 and 10 from a group of children in the WINKS study. Half were from families with low incomes and half from families with high incomes. For each child, the researchers measured brain activity while he or she was engaged in a simple task: watching a sequence of triangles projected on a screen. The subjects were instructed to click a button when a slightly skewed triangle flashed on the screen.

The researchers were interested in the brain's very early response – within as little as 200 milliseconds, or a fifth of a second – after a novel picture was flashed on the screen, such as a photo of a puppy or of Mickey and Minnie Mouse.

"An EEG allows us to measure very fast brain responses with millisecond accuracy," Kishiyama said.

The researchers discovered a dramatic difference in the response of the prefrontal cortex not only when an unexpected image flashed on the screen, but also when children were merely watching the upright triangles waiting for a skewed triangle to appear. Those from low socioeconomic environments showed a lower response to the unexpected novel stimuli in the prefrontal cortex that was similar, Kishiyama said, to the response of people who have had a portion of their frontal lobe destroyed by a stroke.

"When paying attention to the triangles, the prefrontal cortex helps you process the visual stimuli better. And the prefrontal cortex is even more involved in detecting novelty, like the unexpected photographs," he said. But in both cases, "the low socioeconomic kids were not detecting or processing the visual stimuli as well. They were not getting that extra boost from the prefrontal cortex."

"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.

"In work that we and others have done, it really looks like something as simple and easily done as talking to your kids" can boost prefrontal cortex performance, Boyce said.

"We are certainly not blaming lower socioeconomic families for not talking to their kids – there are probably a zillion reasons why that happens," he said. "But changing developmental outcomes might involve something as accessible as helping parents to understand that it is important that kids sit down to dinner with their parents, and that over the course of that dinner it would be good for there to be a conversation and people saying things to each other."

"The study is suggestive and a little bit frightening that environmental conditions have such a strong impact on brain development," said Silvia Bunge, UC Berkeley assistant professor of psychology who is leading the intervention studies on prefrontal cortex development in teenagers by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Boyce's UBC colleague, Adele Diamond, showed last year that 5- and 6-year-olds with impaired executive functioning, that is, poor problem solving and reasoning abilities, can improve their academic performance with the help of special activities, including dramatic play.

Bunge hopes that, with fMRI, she can show improvements in academic performance as a result of these games, actually boosting the activity of the prefrontal cortex.

"People have tried for a long time to train reasoning, largely unsuccessfully," Bunge said. "Our question is, 'Can we replicate these initial findings and at the same time give kids the tools to succeed?'"

This research is supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health.

I found this to be a pretty intresting article and it seems to say that talking with your kids, reading to them and making the time to go to musems, galleries and libraries can make a big difference to them.

Mr. Presentable

Thaedydal wrote: »

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



I found this to be a pretty intresting article and it seems to say that talking with your kids, reading to them and making the time to go to musems, galleries and libraries can make a big difference to them.

Not to be unkind to Sciencedaily, but isn't that stating the bleedin' obvious?

Nevyn

Do you have anything to actually add to the disscussion ?

Mr. Presentable

You know, if they spent that money on improving the lot of poorer children, rather than on researching what the world and their mother already knew, there'd be kudos all round.

BTW, one post does not a discussion make

Nevyn

Well the report it's self and it's publication will high light the matter and maybe make some people who were not aware take steps to improve thier child's lot in the world and that can only be a good thing.

Esp as it's not just poor kids these days who suffer from lack of interaction with thier time poor and working parents, some of which will happily let thier child sit with thier nose stuck in a ds rather then a book or talk to them.

littlebug

nipplenuts wrote: »

You know, if they spent that money on improving the lot of poorer children, rather than on researching what the world and their mother already knew, there'd be kudos all round.

BTW, one post does not a discussion make

The powers that be will not spend money on things that seem obvious, only on things where there is scientific evidence to prove that there is a need to spend the money. So it's very much worthwhile spending some money on research if the results give them the proof they need to spend more money on fixing the problem.

metrovelvet

littlebug wrote: »

The powers that be will not spend money on things that seem obvious, only on things where there is scientific evidence to prove that there is a need to spend the money. So it's very much worthwhile spending some money on research if the results give them the proof they need to spend more money on fixing the problem.

In the US a lot of museums are free and there are many reading programmes which give out free books to children in school and we have libraries. It does not take money to do this, just a little effort. As part of the curriculum in NYC, I have no idea about California, where the study took place, class trips to museums and other historical sites are a regular part of the educational process. So, no, I don't agree that it is necessary to spend money, unless you think $4 roundtrip subway fare is costing money. I regularly take my 18 month old to museums as well as library programmes. Doesn't cost much, just takes effort, and a huge amount of energy on the part of the parent.

littlebug

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the US a lot of museums are free and there are many reading programmes which give out free books to children in school and we have libraries. It does not take money to do this, just a little effort. As part of the curriculum in NYC, I have no idea about California, where the study took place, class trips to museums and other historical sites are a regular part of the educational process. So, no, I don't agree that it is necessary to spend money, unless you think $4 roundtrip subway fare is costing money. I regularly take my 18 month old to museums as well as library programmes. Doesn't cost much, just takes effort, and a huge amount of energy on the part of the parent.

Absolutely metrovelvet you're right it doesn't cost money. What I meant was for money to be put into educating the parents/ providing more opportunities / facilities for those in disadvantaged areas or increased access through schools.

metrovelvet

littlebug wrote: »

Absolutely metrovelvet you're right it doesn't cost money. What I meant was for money to be put into educating the parents/ providing more opportunities / facilities for those in disadvantaged areas or increased access through schools.

Those types of programmes are already in place. But if the parent isnt going teach the child how to appreciate their education then it's a lost cause. The ethic starts at home.

Rev Hellfire

Its an interesting study which will probably be of great help to 'middle class' children and of no benefit what so ever to 'poor' children.

Because simply it's unlikely their parents will be reading ScienceDaily and even if they do they're unlikely to be motivated to do anything about it if they haven't done so all ready.

That said its a nice confirmation to parents who do attempt to keep their kids active and engaged that their efforts are having a positive and provable benefit.

lostinnappies

But surly that should be a project within schools... cos lets face it some parents couldnt give a monkeys. Extra curricular reading/outings on a more regular basis then the once or twice a year that they have now. Bringing the children out to the REAL world and getting them traveling and actually seeing what they are learning is imho the best education. It also serves to keep them interested motivated and in school. Perhaps the funds to help would be better spent through the educational system rather then through the parents. Cos lets face it, if a parent really does give a toss they would be doing it already.

littlebug

Maybe i'm being naive:( but I do think there's scope for working with parents. i'm thinking of young parents who were brought up in poverty themselves who were never brought to a libray or museum or read a book, or have literacy problems.

The community mothers programme was shown to have long term positive effects, including on likelihood of mothers reading with their babies.

BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1449-52.
Johnson Z, Howell F, Molloy B.
Eastern Health Board, Health Information Unit, Dr Steevens Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.


Community mothers' programme: randomised controlled trial of non-professional intervention in parenting.

OBJECTIVE--To see whether non-professional volunteer community mothers could deliver a child development programme to disadvantaged first time mothers for children aged up to 1 year. DESIGN--Randomised controlled trial. SETTING--A regional health authority in Dublin. SUBJECTS--262 first time mothers who were delivered during six months in 1989 and who lived in a deprived area of Dublin; 30 experienced mothers from the same community recruited as community mothers. INTERVENTIONS--All the first time mothers received standard support from the public health nurse. In addition, those in the intervention group received the services of a community mother, who was scheduled to visit monthly during the first year of the child's life. RESULTS--232 (89%) first time mothers completed the study--127 in the intervention group, 105 controls. At the end of the study children in the intervention group were more likely to have received all of their primary immunisations, to be read to, and to be read to daily, played more cognitive games; and were exposed to more nursery rhymes. They were less likely to begin cows' milk before 26 weeks and to receive an inappropriate energy intake and inappropriate amounts of animal protein, non-animal protein, wholefoods, vegetables, fruit, and milk. Mothers in the intervention group also had a better diet than controls. At the end of the study they were less likely to be tired, feel miserable, and want to stay indoors; had more positive feelings; and were less likely to display negative feelings. CONCLUSION--Non-professionals can deliver a health promotion programme on child development effectively. Whether they can do so as effectively as professionals requires further study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8518642

metrovelvet

I question this study because it seems to point to activity, like trips and books as the cause when there are other associative circumstances to poverty, like diet.

littlebug

I thought that originally Metrovelvet but it says

"normal 9- and 10-year-olds differing only in socioeconomic status "

so presumably they've controlled for the other obvious factors. That doesn't mean that there isn't something else going on that they haven't thought of and controlled for.

metrovelvet

^hmnnn.... so they kept the race and gender the same?

I think we need to know more.

littlebug

metrovelvet wrote: »

^hmnnn.... so they kept the race and gender the same?

I think we need to know more.

They'll have done their best to control for all the obvious factors. That doesn't mean they'll have kept the race and gender the same but that the overall profile of both groups will be the same apart from socioeconomic status.

I agree we need to know more. It's been accepted for publication so I'll be keeping an eye out for the full paper when it's published.