Research is First to Describe How Neurons Interpret Different Words

You might be able to hear the difference, but to many children and adults, these words sound exactly the same. The problem isn’t that they can’t hear the sounds. The problem is that they can’t tell them apart.

One in 20 children in kindergarten has difficulties understanding speech that are not related to hearing or problems with their ears. The reason is that speech discrimination is a problem solved in the brain, not in the ear. How does the brain process speech sounds? Very little was known, until now.

Enter Dr. Michael Kilgard and Crystal Engineer. Kilgard is a neuroscientist in the School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas. His lab is one of the few in the world that studies how individual neurons process speech stimuli. Engineer is one of Professor Kilgard’s doctoral students. Together they conducted a study to provide the first-ever description of how speech sounds are processed by neurons in the brain. This insight may offer a new approach to treating children with speech processing disorders.

“Now that we’ve cracked the door on this important problem, we should be able to understand the neural basis of many common speech processing disorders and use this information to develop new treatments,” said Dr. Kilgard.

The study is part of Engineer’s dissertation, “Cortical activity patterns predict speech discrimination ability,” and will be published in the May issue of Nature Neuroscience, the top research journal in the field of neuroscience. The advance, online publication of the study is now available on the Nature Neuroscience Web site.

This research is groundbreaking for a number of reasons. Prior studies have used a synthetic voice and tested the response to only a few words. Engineer and Kilgard had a much broader scope. They tested all the consonant sounds in the English language using a human voice. Microelectrodes inserted into a rat’s auditory cortex enabled the researchers to capture the patterns of neural activity generated by each consonant with incredible precision. Recording techniques that can be used with human subjects (such as MRI and EEG) lack the precision to track the activity of individual neurons.

The recordings showed that contrary to prior belief it’s not the quantity of neurons that fire in response to a speech sound that is important. It is which neurons are firing and exactly when they are firing – down to the millisecond – that is critical.

Based on the patterns of activity shown in the neural recordings, Kilgard and Engineer believed they could predict the rats’ ability to discriminate the speech sounds. They hypothesized that speech sounds that generate similar patterns of neural activity would be impossible for the brain, and thus the rat, to tell apart. In contrast, speech sounds that generate dissimilar patterns would be easy for rats to tell apart.

To test their theory, they trained rats to press a lever in response to some speech sounds and not others. Although rats can’t talk and certainly don’t have language, the new study reveals that rats can easily hear the difference between most speech sounds. The auditory system in rats and many other animals are surprisingly similar to humans’.

For example, the neural responses for the words dad and sad are very different. (See video.) As expected, rats can easily distinguish between these two words. The neural responses for the words rad and lad are very similar. Not surprisingly, rats, like many children, find it very difficult to differentiate between these two words.

The neural patterns explain the rats’ ability to differentiate between different speech sounds. “Our study is the first to tie the perception of speech sounds to the neural response of the same sounds,” said Engineer.

So, they’ve cracked the code, now what? The implications are huge. The perception of speech sounds is important because these are the acoustic building blocks of language. Scientists couldn’t begin to isolate the problems with speech and hearing disorders until they understood how speech sounds are normally processed in the brain.

Already, one of the most cited researchers in the world on neuroplasticity, the brain’s ability to change, Kilgard has big plans for his UT Dallas students and lab. He not only tackles ambitious topics in neuroscience, but in the process, he creates hands-on opportunities for his students at every level to get involved. This is what inspired Engineer to pursue her Ph.D.

“Dr. Kilgard encourages undergraduates to follow their interests. They have the rare opportunity to initiate and run their own projects and publish in prestigious journals. If it weren’t for these opportunities, I wouldn’t have gone on to graduate school,” said Engineer. She has worked with Kilgard since 2003, as an undergraduate, and expects to complete her Ph.D in August.

The emphasis on student involvement is illustrated by the number and diversity of the authors listed on the Nature Neuroscience study. Engineer and Kilgard’s research team included master’s students Claudia Perez and Helen Chen; undergraduates Ryan Carraway and Kevin Chang; and Ph.D. students Amanda Reed, Jai Shetake and Vikram Jakkamsetti.

“This paper in Nature Neuroscience is a great testimony to the level of graduate education students receive at UT Dallas. Dr. Kilgard is a wonderful mentor who helps students develop into independent researchers,” said Dr. Bert Moore, dean of the School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. “We are proud of both Crystal and Mike for this exciting research.”

Source: University of Texas at Dallas, TX
http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2008/04/23-001.php

The kiwi classroom of the future could look a little like this, if American educationalist Dr Leonard Sax has any influence.

A room is filled with 7-year-old boys, none of whom is sitting - in fact there are no chairs on offer.

There is noise, cooler light and the temperature has been turned down. This, says Sax, is the environment in which boys learn best.

The Maryland-based executive director of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, is in New Zealand next month to speak at several single sex schools including Auckland’s St Cuthbert’s College and Dilworth School, and at Iona College, Lindisfarne College and Woodford House, Hawke’s Bay.

Citing research from Harvard Medical School, the US National Institute of Health and various European studies, Sax argues that no one-size-fits-all education programme can be successfully applied across the sex divide, that both girls and boys will flourish in environments tailored to their gender-specific requirements.

Traditional arguments for sex-segregated schools are often based broadly on the management of teenage hormones. The theory was there would be less distraction for everyone if the girls and boys were educated separately. But hormones have no part in today’s rationale for single-sex classes.

“There’s been a pretty fundamental shift in the way people think about single-sex education, at least in North America, over the last 20 years or so,” says Sax. “That’s what’s new: the idea that the single-sex format may be most beneficial for children who are 5, 6, 7 years old. This is the empirical finding.”

Of the 367 public schools in the US that have adopted the single-sex format in the past few years, Sax says that all but about 20 are primary schools.

“[I’m] not saying that there are not benefits at the high school level; there certainly are. But the benefits in the early primary years are much greater.”

He says advanced imaging techniques have offered neuroscientists fresh insights into brain development.

“When you compare a six-year-old girl with a six-year-old boy, you find quite staggering differences in the brain,” says Sax.

Regions of the brain develop in a different sequence in the genders, he says.

The areas of the brain associated with language and fine motor skills mature about six years earlier in girls than boys. The areas of the brain associated with maths and geometry mature about four years earlier in boys than girls. This finding may help explain why some girls find maths “hard”, he says, while some boys think poetry is for “sissies”.

According to Sax, understanding and exploiting these nuances allow educators to adapt lessons and classrooms to suit the all-girl or all-boy population.

One “very reliable difference” between 6-year-old boys and 6-year-old girls is in their ability to sit still and be quiet. The average girl can sit still for longer than the average boy, with implications for the duration of lessons and the structure of the day, says Sax. Girls can have longer, uninterrupted classes, but boys will do best with 20-minute lessons followed by a run around outside.

Some US schools have taken this finding a step further. At both Cunningham School for Excellence, Iowa, and Foley Intermediate, Alabama, sitting is optional in the all-boys classes. And Chicago’s Hardey Prep doesn’t even supply chairs to their 6 and 7-year-old boys.

“As one teacher said to me: when that boy sits down his brain shuts off,” says Sax. “So the boys stand for many of the classes.

“In the mixed classroom, every choice you make is going to advantage the girls at the expense of boys or advantage the boys at the expense of girls,” he says. “The lack of awareness of gender differences often has the unintended consequence of disadvantaging both the girls and the boys.”

But Sax’s theories relate not only to the type of lesson, but to the environment the students work best in.

He says studies of young people of normal weight have shown that the ideal room temperature for boys to learn is about 20C; for girls it’s about 3 degrees higher. With classroom thermostats typically set at somewhere between 21C and 22C, Sax says that both genders will be outside their ideal comfort zone.

Evidence that tailoring the learning experience rather than simply splitting up boys and girls enhances academic performance is mounting, with research showing improved grades and test results in both sexes.

Sax advocates the introduction of single-sex classes into co-ed schools as some New Zealand schools are already doing. In Auckland’s Mt Albert Grammar, most of the junior classes are gender segregated while Long Bay College in Auckland last year introduced single-sex classes.

Sax says he wasn’t always a devotee of single-sex education, believing that “we live in a co-ed world… schools should prepare kids for the real world”. And there are still many critics of the single-sex education model, notably the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organisation for Women, who see it as a discriminatory anachronism. Under the old model that prevailed in the US until around the 1960s, boys’ schools typically received the bulk of the resources while girls’ schools made do with their leftovers and hand-me-downs.

But Sax has no intention of returning to what he describes as “the bad old days”. He was educated in an era when “they pushed girls and boys into pink and blue cubby holes” - boys had compulsory woodwork, girls had home economics. The new world order he favours aims to “expand educational horizons, to get more girls excited about computer science and physics and engineering - and to get more boys excited about art and poetry and creative writing and foreign languages“.

“The irony is that we’ve had roughly three decades throughout the English-speaking world of ignoring gender, pretending that gender doesn’t matter,” he says.

“There are substantially fewer young women studying computer science, physics and engineering than there were 20 years ago - and fewer men who regard creative writing, or writing at all, as something that boys do. So we’ve ignored gender and the result of ignoring gender has been not to eliminate gender stereotypes; it has been a hardening of gender stereotypes.”

New Zealand Herald, New Zealand
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10505122

Why people continue to blame vaccines, despite evidence to the contrary.

As the brother of an autistic person and a brain scientist, I have been hoping that the increased focus on autism in the news would lead to a greater public understanding of this disorder. Instead, I am angry that this coverage is spreading dangerous myths.

My sister, Karen, is autistic. In the 1970s, my parents wondered why she behaved so differently. At the time, a prevalent idea was that an emotionally distant mother could somehow prevent a child from understanding emotions or relating normally to others. Our parents had a simpler idea, that they might have hurt Karen’s head during a bath.

Both these ideas are wrong. Autism is a neurological disorder, and its signs appear by the age of 1 or even earlier. It is highly inheritable. In identical twins where one is autistic, the chance that both are autistic is greater than 50-50. Even non-identical twins and siblings are at increased risk. In short, I dodged a genetic bullet. Now I worry about my daughter.

A link that isn’t there

Recently, celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy and other activists have taken to the airwaves to repeat the myth that autism is linked to vaccination. Although peer-reviewed scientific evidence overwhelmingly opposes their views, they have attracted attention. In a recent discussion on Larry King Live, three pediatricians invited to make the case for science were no match for McCarthy’s star power. Situations like this could mistakenly persuade parents to leave their children unvaccinated and vulnerable to contagious diseases.

Speculation about a vaccine-autism link began with a 1998 uncontrolled study of a few autistic children. But the conclusions were later retracted. Subsequent speculation focused on the compound thimerosal. But removing it from all routine childhood vaccines in the USA, Denmark, Sweden and Canada has not decreased autism rates.

What are McCarthy’s credentials? She is an actress and comedienne — with an autistic son. Her career took on new life after she wrote a best-selling pregnancy guide. Like all parents of autistic children, she wrestled with the question of what caused his disorder. She recalled that her son was vaccinated about the time his symptoms first appeared. Aha! That’s it. Here is an example of her reasoning: “I believe that parents’ anecdotal information is science-based information.”

How we’re wired

Although her concept of evidence is flawed, I don’t blame her. The error highlights how our brains are wired to think. Like the authors of the 1998 study, she concluded that two events happening around the same time must be linked. They used the principle that coincidence implies a causal link. But there was no coincidence for her son: He was born in 2002, after thimerosal was removed from vaccines.

The problem is compounded by “source amnesia,” in which people are prone to remember a statement without recalling where they heard it or whether the source was reliable. Presidential candidate John McCain might have fallen prey to source amnesia when he repeated the vaccine-autism myth last month. Recollection is more likely when the “fact” fits previously held views; parents might already dislike vaccinations based on their kids’ reaction to shots. But when it comes to a complex issue such as autism, such errors of reasoning hinder us from distinguishing real causes from coincidences.

Out of sight of the cameras, increased research funding is spurring efforts to find autism’s causes. Scientists are vitally interested in possible environmental influences. But the vaccine story is a dry well. Working on it further wastes valuable time and resources. It’s time to dig elsewhere.

As I watch my beautiful 10-month-old daughter grow, I wish that preventing autism were as simple as withholding a few injections. But along with my wife, a physician, I understand the vital importance of vaccination, not only for maintaining our baby’s health but also protecting our community from infectious diseases. Our daughter’s next shots are in two months.

Sam Wang is an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton University. He is a co-author of Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys But Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life.

Source: USA Today
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/autism-myth-liv.html

A new project to study the brains of people with autism in unprecedented detail could finally pinpoint subtle neurological changes that underlie the disorder. Researchers will use an innovative set of tools developed to study gene expression to analyze exactly where early brain development goes awry.

“The technology now exists to be able to examine in fine detail the organization of brain cells–for example, whether brain cells have their proper number and position,” says Eric Courchesne, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Diego, who is leading the project. “This could provide a major insight into the cause of autism.”

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by deficits in language and social behavior. While the brains of people with autism appear broadly normal, previous brain-imaging studies have revealed unusual growth patterns in very young children with the disorder. “It’s clear that in the first two years of life, the brain grows too large, too fast,” says Courchesne.

Scientists don’t yet understand the reason for the strange growth spurt–whether it’s caused by too many neurons in a particular part of the brain or a failure to prune extraneous neurons, a common occurrence in normal development. They hope that an unusual set of tools developed for the Allen Brain Atlas, a database of gene expression in the mouse brain, could finally yield clues.

To create the map, researchers at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, WA, painstakingly created a comprehensive set of DNA probes that highlight the expression patterns of individual genes. While previous studies have only been able to look at the expression of a handful of genes at a time, these probes can provide a wealth of information by revealing the expression of many genes simultaneously.

Researchers at the Allen Institute have been sifting through the toolbox for probes that can identify different cell types in the human cortex–the most recently evolved part of the brain. The team will use them to study the expression of approximately 25 genes in samples of postmortem brain tissue collected from very young children with autism. “This will give us a much clearer look at how things are disorganized, rather than just saying they are disorganized,” says Ed Lein, director of neuroscience at the Allen Institute.

The researchers will focus on the prefrontal cortex, an area in the frontal lobes involved in higher-order social and emotional communication, and one of the brain regions most affected by abnormal early overgrowth. The DNA probes will allow researchers to compare the location and organization of specific cell types, such as excitatory neurons that connect to brain areas outside of the cortex and inhibitory neurons that form local cortical circuits.

“It’s fundamentally important to identify the cause of that overgrowth,” says Courchesne. “It may help us understand how best to tailor interventions for autism, not just behaviorally, but for medical and chemical interventions down the road.”

The project will be the first to use the tools developed at the Allen Institute to study the neurobiology of human disease. The data will be made publicly available via the Web for other scientists to study, as data from the mouse brain study is now.

Source: MIT Technology Review, MA
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/20557/

A study of a research team of the State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, The University of Hong Kong (HKU), demonstrated for the first time that brains of dyslexics differ in readers of different languages.

The study, which compared dyslexic children who are readers of Chinese to those of English, indicated structural and functional differences between both groups. The findings implied that dyslexia may be different neurological conditions in readers of different languages. This research may help tailor-making therapies for children who grow up in different cultures.

The work “A structural-functional basis for dyslexia in the cortex of Chinese readers” by Dr Siok Wai Ting and her colleagues in HKU was published in April 2008 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) of the United States of America, a prestigious international multi-disciplinary scientific journal. Dr Siok is Principal Investigator of the State Key Laboratory and Assistant Professor of Linguistics.

Developmental dyslexia affects 7% to 9% of children in Hong Kong, and up to 17% throughout the world. It results in a severe learning disability in acquiring reading skills.

Previous neuroimaging studies have revealed that dyslexic readers of alphabetic languages like English have decreased gray-matter volume in posterior brain systems, and have weak reading-related activity in the left temporoparietal and occipitotemporal regions of the brain.

In order to assess whether these abnormalities were universal, or culture-dependent, Dr Siok said her team had been studying dyslexic Chinese children. She explained that while alphabetic languages like English were learnt using letter-to-sound conversion rules, pronunciations in a non-alphabetic language like written Chinese, which is composed of square-shaped or picture-like characters, must be memorized by rote.

In this latest study, the team used two brain imaging techniques.

Firstly, voxel-based morphometry, an established whole-brain gray-matter assessment technique, was used to analyze the high-resolution 3D anatomical images acquired with magnetic resonance images (MRIs) from 16 Chinese dyslexic subjects and 16 age-matched normal children as controls. The children, who were studying in Beijing primary schools, were all native speakers of Putonghua, on average aged 11, and all strongly right-handed.

It was found that the gray-matter volume in the left middle frontal gyrus region, which is important for the coordination of cognitive resources in working memory and previously has been shown to play a role in Chinese reading and writing, was significantly smaller in dyslexic children than in normal subjects. But at the same time, their more posterior brain systems remained unaffected. Previous studies have revealed that dyslexic English readers have decreased gray-matter volume in their posterior regions.

Secondly, a functional MRI experiment was conducted on a subset of 12 of each of the dyslexics and control groups. They were asked to decide whether two Chinese characters viewed simultaneously rhymed with each other. The rhyme judgment task involves phonological processing which would reflect in activation of some regions in the brain. It was found that the normal subjects had much stronger activation of the left middle frontal gyrus region during the task than the dyslexic group. The dyslexic Chinese readers demonstrated little activation in the posterior brain regions related to reading-related activity in English readers.

The fact that Chinese and Western dyslexics show structural abnormalities in different brain regions suggests that dyslexia may even be two different brain disorders in the two streams of culture.

“What causes brain structure abnormalities for dyslexia is currently unknown. Previous genetic studies suggest that malformations of brain development are associated with mutations of several genes and that developmental dyslexia has a genetic basis. Our brain imaging findings may well provide useful clues for further genetic studies in dyslexia,” said HKU’s Professor of Linguistics Tan Li-Hai, who is also Principal Investigator of the State Key Laboratory.

Dr Siok, lead author of the study, said the study would certainly help in the development of more efficient tests for early identification of Chinese children with reading disabilities, and more effective strategies to remediate dyslexia, tailored made for Chinese.

Dr Siok explained that the left middle frontal gyrus is responsible for working memory and is spatially close to the motor cortex, whereas the left posterior brain areas are involved in letter-to-sound mappings and are spatially close to the auditory cortex. “Our findings suggest that educational intervention for Chinese dyslexia may involve working memory and sensorimotor tasks. Current treatments of English dyslexia already use the aspects of letter-sound conversions and phonological awareness“, she said. (…)

Source: ScienceBlog.com, CA
http://tinyurl.com/5v8wpr

Uncover how the brains of infants distinguish differences in sounds and it may become possible to correct language problems even before children start to speak, sparing them the difficulties that come from struggling with language.

New studies conducted by Professor of Neuroscience April Benasich and her Infancy Studies Laboratory at Rutgers University in Newark are revealing new and exciting clues about how infant brains begin to acquire language and paving the way for correcting language difficulties at a time when the brain is most able to change.

Benasich and her lab were the first to determine that how efficiently a baby processes differences between rapidly occurring sounds is the best predictor of future language problems. Using methods developed by Benasich and her lab, it can be determined as early as three to six months whether a baby will struggle with language development.

Benasich’s research is now focused on uncovering in specific detail how the developing brain processes and distinguishes acoustic differences that arrive in rapid succession. The ability to differentiate those sounds, such as the difference between “ba” and “da,” is critically important because decoding language requires us to process tiny auditory differences occurring as quickly as 40 milliseconds. During the first months of life, the baby’s developing brain also is involved in constructing an acoustic map of the sounds of his or her native language. That map allows the baby to efficiently acquire language. Apparently, however, in some infants the process seems to go awry.

About 5 to 10 percent of all children beginning school are estimated to have language-learning impairments (LLI) leading to reading, speaking and comprehension problems, according to Benasich. In families with a history of LLI, 40 to 50 percent of children are likely to have a similar problem. Many of these children go on to develop dyslexia.

Using several novel methods, including dense array EEG/ERP recordings, Benasich and her lab are able to analyze EEG, ERPs and the proportion of gamma power in infant brains. The dense sensor array allows the researchers to gently measure a full range of brain activity. Those measurements are obtained by placing a soft bonnet of sensors, resembling a hairnet with lots of little sponges, on a baby’s head and then having the infant listen to different series of rapid tone sequences.

“We are finding that children who have difficulty processing rapid auditory input are not just showing a simple maturational lag, but are actually processing incoming acoustic information differently,” says Benasich.

Specifically, the research shows that babies who struggle with rapid auditory processing appear to be using different brain areas (as shown by neural patterns) and perhaps different analysis strategies to accomplish that task than children who do not have such difficulties. Included among their initial findings, the researchers have found less left hemisphere activity in the brains of children who struggle with rapid auditory processing as compared with matched control children. By pinpointing the exact differences in how the brain handles incoming acoustic information, it may become possible to guide the brains of babies at risk of developing language problems to work more efficiently before the children even begin to speak.

“We can predict with about 90 percent accuracy what a baby’s language capabilities will be just by their response to tones,” says Benasich. “Our hope now is that we will be able to gently guide the brains of infants who are at the highest risk for language learning impairments to be more efficient processors so they can avoid the difficulties that result from struggling with language.”

To shed additional light on how inefficiencies in rapid auditory processing might be corrected, Benasich and her team have developed a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) protocol for scanning naturally sleeping healthy babies. This technique will allow better localization of active brain areas. To solve the challenge of imaging the brains of young children who typically are unable to lie still for extended periods in a scanner, Benasich’s team conducts the scans in the evening and asks the parents to go through their child’s normal bedtime routine, such as reading their infant a story, nursing them, rocking and snuggling. Once the child is asleep, headphones providing a steady stream of lullabies and an acoustic foam bonnet are placed on the baby’s head to reduce the sound of the MRI.

“Our goal is not only to develop training techniques to correct rapid auditory processing problems, but to identify the period during infant development when the brain is most “plastic,” or most able to change through learning,” explains Benasich.

The lab’s work is funded by several sources, including grants from the Solomon Center for Neurodevelopmental Research, the Don and Linda Carter Foundation, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and a new $460,000 grant from the Ellison Medical Foundation.

Source: Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080410153652.htm

They are age-old questions, from the moment of birth: What’s your baby thinking? How much does your child really understand?

“They’re not just wailing away. There’s something going on that’s important to their development, right from the very beginning,” said speech professor Patricia Kuhl of the University of Washington.

Researchers at the UW are now using baby caps that can detect the most minute electrical current being sent out by a baby’s brain.

Little Isabella is listening to a very unusual audio tape.

To most adults the syllables all sound alike, but in fact they are just slightly different. Believe it or not, Isabella, who isn’t even yet talking, can tell the difference and her brain waves prove it.

“Their brains are set automatically to capture this information in ways that are completely surprising,” said Kuhl.

Kuhl and her husband, psychology professor Andy Meltzoff, are two of the world’s top scientists in the growing field of early learning.

Their research has shown up in every major magazine. Their book, The Scientist in the Crib, is now published in French, German, Chinese - more than 10 languages in all.

Several years ago, they started the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences, bringing together 50 scientists at the UW, studying both the brain and behavior, and discovering that babies understand far more than parents or scientists ever thought possible.

“Babies learn more in the first three years of life than we ever will again,” said Dr. Meltzoff.

What we know is they learn by copying us. In a very simple experiment, Dr. Meltzoff stuck out his tongue and found that even a two-week-old baby knows how to imitate.

“It shows that they’re born learning. Really, babies are born learning,” he said.

Perhaps more remarkable is what Dr. Meltzoff discovered with slightly older babies. If you show them how to play with a toy, even if you don’t let them imitate immediately, they will save it in their brain. They’ll imitate you when you give them the toy - up to four months later, demonstrating that babies have incredible memory.

“Often times, the parents would say, oh I know I’ve seen that toy before, but I can’t remember what to do with it. And the baby would do the right thing,” said Dr. Meltzoff.

“That’s what’s different about the brain of a baby,” said Dr. Kuhl.

Meanwhile, Dr. Kuhl has spent years focusing on language. What struck her is that all mothers have a special way of talking to a baby.

Kuhl calls it “motherese,” or “parentese,” because dads do it naturally too.

Why do we talk that way? Are babies getting anything out of it?

It turns out they are.

“The vowels, if you measure ee, ah and ooh, in words like sheep and shoe and keys, they’re much more distinct in motherese. They’re further apart acoustically. It’s like being able to show a baby, here’s what to listen for. Here are the components,” said Dr. Kuhl.

She discovered that babies learn about language long before they utter their first word.

In a speech lab, she took 9-month-old babies and exposed them to a second language, either Spanish or Mandarin. And after just 12 sessions over one month, the babies could detect subtle phonetic sounds in the foreign language.

“The babies in the United States, exposed in that way, are as good as the babies in Taiwan for example, at hearing the Chinese distinctions,” said Dr. Kuhl.

Isabella was exposed to Spanish for a month, which is why she now distinguishes sounds that most English-only speakers cannot.

In another lab, Dr. Meltzoff is studying the crucial moment when a baby learns not just to look at mom, but to follow where mom’s eyes are focused.

He said 10-month-old babies, who are good at following where an adult is gazing, had about twice as many words in their speech eight months later.

“So when she’s around in the living room and says, ‘here’s a rattle, look at the rattle,’ the babies need to know to follow where she’s looking and that’s what the word refers to,” he said.

All these studies suggest that babies are learning an incredible amount that first year, and yet scientists cannot explain why we as adults have no specific memories of our time as babies.

We’re tempted to think maybe there isn’t that much going on in their brains, but Kuhl and Meltzoff say it’s just the opposite, that babies absorb culture, language, social interaction, emotions - the most basic building blocks of who they’ll become some day.

“The news is that babies are even learning from their peers at day-care centers, and learning from us so we’re role models right from the beginning,” said Dr. Kuhl.

“It is lasting learning. It’s the kind of learning that makes a profound effect on the baby’s brain and mental operations, and that sets them up for later.”

Source: KING5.com, WA
http://tinyurl.com/6a7zh6

Dyslexia affects different parts of children’s brains depending on whether they are raised reading English or Chinese. That finding, reported in Monday’s online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, means that therapists may need to seek different methods of assisting dyslexic children from different cultures.

“This finding was very surprising to us. We had not ever thought that dyslexics’ brains are different for children who read in English and Chinese,” said lead author Li-Hai Tan, a professor of linguistics and brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Hong Kong. “Our finding yields neurobiological clues to the cause of dyslexia.”

Millions of children worldwide are affected by dyslexia, a language-based learning disability that can include problems in reading, spelling, writing and pronouncing words. The International Dyslexia Association says there is no consensus on the exact number because not all children are screened, but estimates range from 8 percent to 15 percent of students.

Reading an alphabetic language like English requires different skills than reading Chinese, which relies less on sound representation, instead using symbols to represent words.

Past studies have suggested that the brain may use different networks of neurons in different languages, but none has suggested a difference in the structural parts of the brain involved, Tan explained.

Tan’s research group studied the brains of students raised reading Chinese, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. They then compared those findings with similar studies of the brains of students raised reading English.

Guinevere F. Eden, director of the Center for the Study of Learning at Georgetown University in Washington, said the process of becoming a skilled reader changes the brain.

“Becoming a reader is a fairly dramatic process for the brain,” explained Eden, who was not part of Tan’s research team on this paper.

For children, learning to read is culturally important but is not really natural, Eden said, so when the brain orients toward a different writing system it copes with it differently.

For example, English-speaking children learn the sounds of letters and how to combine them into words, while Chinese youngsters memorize hundreds of symbols which represent words.

“The implication here is that when we see a reading disability, we see it in different parts of the brain depending on the writing system that the child is born into,” Eden said.

That means, “we cannot just assume that any dyslexic child is going to be helped by the same kind of intervention,” she said in a telephone interview.

Tan said the new findings suggest that treating Chinese speakers with dyslexia may use working memory tasks and tests relating to sensor-motor skills, while current treatments of English dyslexia focus on letter-sound conversions and sound awareness.

He said the underlying cause of brain structure abnormalities in dyslexia is currently unknown.

“Previous genetic studies suggest that malformations of brain development are associated with mutations of several genes and that developmental dyslexia has a genetic basis,” he said in an interview via e-mail.

“We speculate that different genes may be involved in dyslexia in Chinese and English readers. In this respect, our brain-mapping findings can assist in the search for candidate genes that cause dyslexia,” Tan said.

In their paper, the researchers noted that imaging studies of the brains of dyslexic children using alphabetic languages like English have identified unusual function and structure in the left temporo-parietal areas, thought to be involved in letter-to-sound conversions in reading; left middle-superior temporal cortex, thought to be involved in speech sound analysis, and the left inferior temporo-occipital gyrus, which may function as a quick word-form recognition system.

When they performed similar imaging studies on dyslexic Chinese youngsters, on the other hand, they found disruption in a different area, the left middle frontal gyrus region.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the Hong Kong Research Grants Council and the University of Hong Kong.

In a separate paper, published two years ago, University of Michigan researchers reported that Asians and North Americans see the world differently.

Shown a photograph, North American students of European background paid more attention to the object in the foreground of a scene, while students from China spent more time studying the background and taking in the whole scene.

Source: The Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hobiJ-tiOnp79R-0onuBx8oMn2CwD8VT8R1G1

Perhaps the government confused fantasy with reality the day it endorsed Brain Gym

Man the lifeboats. The idiots are winning. Last week I watched, open-mouthed, a Newsnight piece on the spread of “Brain Gym” in British schools. I’d read about Brain Gym before - a few years back, in Ben Goldacre’s excellent Bad Science column for this newspaper - but seeing it in action really twisted my rage dial.

Brain Gym, y’see, is an “educational kinesiology” programme designed to improve kiddywink performance. It’s essentially a series of simple exercises lumbered with names that make you want to steer a barbed wire bus into its creator’s face. One manoeuvre, in which you massage the muscles round the jaw, is called the “energy yawn”. Another involves activating your “brain buttons” by forming a “C” shape with one hand and pressing it either side of the collarbone while simultaneously touching your stomach with the other hand.

Throughout the report I was grinding my teeth and shaking my head - a movement I call a “dismay churn”. Not because of the sickening cutesy-poo language, nor because I’m opposed to the nation’s kids being forced to exercise (make them box at gunpoint if you want) but because I care about the difference between fantasy and reality, both of which are great in isolation, but, like chalk and cheese or church and state, are best kept separate.

Confuse fantasy with reality and you might find yourself doing crazy things, like trying to wave hello to Ian Beale each time you see him on the telly, or buying homeopathic remedies - both of which are equally boneheaded pursuits. (Incidentally, if anyone disagrees with this assessment and wants to write in defending homeopathy, please address your letters to myself c/o the Kingdom of Narnia.)

Perhaps the Department for Children, Schools and Families confused fantasy with reality the day it endorsed Brain Gym. Because while Brain Gym’s coochy-coo exercises may well be fun or relaxing, what they’re definitely good at is increasing the flow of bullshit into children’s heads.

For instance, according to the Brain Gym teacher’s manual, performing the “brain button” exercise increases the flow of “electromagnetic energy” and helps the brain send messages from the right hemisphere to the left. Brain Gym can also “connect the circuits of the brain”, “clear blockages” and activate “emotional centering”. Other Brain Gym material contains the startling claim that “all liquids [other than water] are processed in the body as food, and do not serve the body’s water needs … processed foods do not contain water.”

All of which sounds like hooey to me. And also to the British Neuroscience Association, the Physiological Society and the charity Sense About Science, who have written to every local education authority in the land to complain about Brain Gym’s misrepresentation of, um, reality.

Look at the accredited practitioners of the art: top of their list of qualified Brain Gym “instructor/consultants” is a woman who is apparently also a “chiropractor for humans and animals”. That’s nothing: I read tarot cards for fish.

And check out the linked bookshop, Body Balance Books. Alongside Brain Gym guides and wallcharts, it stocks titles such as Awakening the Child Heart and Resonance Kinesiology, which, apparently, “holds information on how to move forward with truth, without the overlays of people’s beliefs and ideas about what is best for themselves and others”. Huh?

If we mistrust the real world so much that we’re prepared to fill the next generation’s heads with a load of gibbering crap about “brain buttons”, why stop there? Why not spice up maths by telling kids the number five was born in Greece and invented biscuits? Replace history lessons with screenings of the Star Wars trilogy? Teach them how to whistle in French? Let’s just issue the kids with blinkers.

Because we, the adults, don’t just gleefully pull the wool over our own eyes - we knit permanent blindfolds. We’ve decided we hate facts. Hate, hate, hate them. Everywhere you look, we’re down on our knees, gleefully lapping up neckful after neckful of steaming, cloddish bullshit in all its forms. From crackpot conspiracy theories to fairytale nutritional advice, from alternative medicine to energy yawns - we just can’t get enough of that musky, mudlike taste. Brain Gym is just one small tile in an immense and frightening mosaic of fantasy.

Still, that’s just my opinion. Lots of people clearly think Brain Gym is worthwhile, or they wouldn’t be prepared to pay through the nose for it. If you’re one of them, here’s an exciting new kinesiological exercise that should dramatically increase your self-awareness - and I’m giving it away free of charge. Ready? OK. Curl the fingers of your right hand inward, meeting the thumb to form a circle. Jerk it rhythmically up and down in front of your face. Repeat for six hours. Then piss off.

Source: Guardian Unlimited, UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/07/education

We are drawn to a baby face, whether or not we claim to like children. Our brain can’t help itself. Our neurons reflexively respond to an infant’s big eyes, broad forehead, button nose and tiny chin, University of Oxford researchers recently reported in the online journal PLoS One.

Using a technique called magneto-encephalography that measures brain signals, the Oxford researchers found that a baby’s face can seize our attention in milliseconds, activating an unusual mental organ called the fusiform gyrus that responds to human faces. Moreover, these distinctive infant features, unlike the mature features of an adult, trigger a sense of reward and good feeling in a seventh of a second. Picture Bambi’s saucer-size eyes or those of Mickey Mouse.

The researchers concluded that the parental instinct is present in all of us. “It suggests we are probably all hard-wired to respond and care for babies, to help us perpetuate the species,” said Oxford child psychiatrist Alan Stein, who helped conduct the experiment. “The response to an infant face is too fast to be under conscious control.”

If so, where did brain cells and synapses learn anything about a face? The question goes deeper than surface appearances. Our ability to distinguish faces deftly is central to a debate about the anatomy of knowledge.

“Why do we have special regions of the brain for some higher-level abilities but not for others?” asked neuroscientist Nancy Kanwisher, who studies visual perception and cognition at MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research. “Are they innate? Are they learned?”

Many scientists, in fact, remain convinced that the brain’s intimate knowledge of faces is a byproduct of its ability to capture the visual essence of any object. “You can show that parts of the brain most selective for faces are also responsive to cars in a car expert and birds in a bird expert,” said psychologist Isabel Gauthier at Vanderbilt University.

To our eyes, every face is a unique volume in the library of human nature. We read its language of expressions at a glance, fluently translating a curled lip, raised eyebrow or averted gaze. “There are billions of faces in the world, and we can recognize them all and tell them all apart,” said UCLA neuropsychologist Susan Bookheimer.

On average, the brain takes only 200 milliseconds to tell one face from another, responding swiftly and selectively to cues of gender, ethnicity and identity, University of Southern California scientists reported recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So attuned are we to the pattern of eyes, nose and mouth that we can see faces where none exist: in cloud banks or rock formations on Mars, and even in the shape of a cinnamon bun said to resemble Mother Teresa. When that neural ability falters, as in autism, we can find friendly faces threatening. In a rare disorder called prosopagnosia, we can’t recognize faces at all.

Through brain-scanning experiments, researchers have located the neurochemical essence of our face expertise in a strip of temporal-lobe tissue about two inches long and three-quarters of an inch wide. Studying this face recognition area in macaque monkeys, neurobiologist Doris Tsao at the University of Bremen, Germany, reported in Science that the tissue consisted almost entirely of neurons that responded just to faces.

To understand how the tissue develops, Yoichi Sugita at Japan’s Neuroscience Research Institute raised infant monkeys for two years without ever showing them a face. Lab workers wore hoods. When faces were finally revealed to them, the monkeys could readily tell them apart, Dr. Sugita reported in January in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It is mind-blowing,” Dr. Kanwisher said. “If you had to bet, you would bet it is innate.”

Source: WSBT-TV, IN
http://www.wsbt.com/news/health/17316199.html