Brain differences between poor and rich kids

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
1
0
In the laboratory.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/12/02_cortex.shtml

EEGs show brain differences between poor and rich kids
By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 02 December 2008

BERKELEY —
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 by 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 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.
 

stinkynuts

Super
Jan 4, 2005
7,681
2,307
113
How do they know that the differences are not genetic.? That is, children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds have parents who are healthier genetically and are naturally more intelligent, and pass these genes on to their children. I think genetics and environment are both at play here, so it's hard to tell how much effect each has.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
stinkynuts said:
How do they know that the differences are not genetic.? That is, children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds have parents who are healthier genetically and are naturally more intelligent, and pass these genes on to their children. I think genetics and environment are both at play here, so it's hard to tell how much effect each has.
That was my question as well.

This study doesn't seem to have a particularly good control group.
Rather it somewhat seems to be the researchers saying "oh thank goodness the result we wanted."
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Are you looking at the cause or effect?

OTB
 

C Dick

Banned
Feb 2, 2002
4,219
2
0
Ontario
stinkynuts said:
How do they know that the differences are not genetic.? That is, children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds have parents who are healthier genetically and are naturally more intelligent, and pass these genes on to their children. I think genetics and environment are both at play here, so it's hard to tell how much effect each has.
Yes, I totally agree.
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,972
2
0
63
way out in left field
This isn't the first study of this "phenomena" I read a report quite a few years ago that found kids from lower income families to have lower or slower brain functions and at the time, they attributed to diet. Lower income families generally have less healthier diets.

I forget what chemical it was that plays a crucial role in toddler brain developement.
 

Sexy_Dave

New member
Feb 27, 2006
664
0
0
"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."

This statement sums up this article on this research adequately I think. There are just too many problems with this research as it is reported in this article to address.
Always a danger to critique research based on the report of a news agency.
 

dance

New member
Sep 5, 2008
6
0
1
Aardvark154 said:
That was my question as well.

This study doesn't seem to have a particularly good control group.
Rather it somewhat seems to be the researchers saying "oh thank goodness the result we wanted."
.

Study basically found differences between group means in intelligence, and then found simple envir. manipulation could change the outcome. If genetics contributed more to this group difference (as it does in hair color or height), wouldn't it take more more prolonged, intensive intervention to overcome the genetic contribution?

Let me ask MY question. Given that the richer kids have so many advantages in their homes - better diets, more dialogue, probably more books, - and yet their advantage is so easily diminshed by a quick and dirty environmental. intervention, could it be that their genes are actually inferior????:)

Anyone read The Bell Curve? (not an easy book to plow through). Tried to interpret the research about intellectual differences in racial groups. Anyone read the "wealth" of arguements contradicting the interpretations of The Bell Curve?

Best way to stay ahead of the curve will always be to READ.
 

Sexy_Dave

New member
Feb 27, 2006
664
0
0
dance said:
.

Study basically found differences between group means in intelligence, and then found simple envir. manipulation could change the outcome. .
Where did you get this idea.
From what the article presented, this study did not investigate intelligence. Rather, it studied brain function in the prefrontal cortex. Specifically, response times to a stimulus.

I have not read the study, only the article above, but any conclusions the authors make regarding intelligence (if they do) are merely supposition, and conjecture. Additionally, the major problem with this study, although as I said I have not actually read the paper or Method, is the seemingly small sample size.
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,972
2
0
63
way out in left field
And also, how do they measure "intelligence"? General knowledge? Ability to do complex math? Reading ability?

Most typical IQ tests require some form of education and just because someone isn't educated, doesn't mean they aren't intelligent.

For eg: I did an IQ test that had one of those "what's different in these two pictures". There was supposed to be (I seem to recall) 8 things different but I only found 6. The problem was I am blue/green colour blind and the two items I missed were green with grey shadows behind them (thereby making them invisible to me). That has nothing to do with intelligence because I have damaged colour cones at the base of my noodle.
 

dance

New member
Sep 5, 2008
6
0
1
Sexy_Dave said:
Where did you get this idea.
From what the article presented, this study did not investigate intelligence. Rather, it studied brain function in the prefrontal cortex. Specifically, response times to a stimulus.

I have not read the study, only the article above, but any conclusions the authors make regarding intelligence (if they do) are merely supposition, and conjecture. Additionally, the major problem with this study, although as I said I have not actually read the paper or Method, is the seemingly small sample size.
You're right! Didn't READ well. Was sort of looking at measured brain response times, and thinking of infant memory tests (habituation/novelty) that are well known to predict childhood intelligence. But brain response is not the the same as infants' response, nor synonymous with intelligence.

Let me restate my question: How do we know that higher SES kids aren't cursed with less healthy genes given how easily brain function in lower SES kids can be manipulated with simple intervention?
Same idea.

Sample size is small, but too small? What size is needed for statistical power? Also, while probably is too small, the finding is interesting nonetheless, and could be noteworthy if sample size is sufficiently increased.


BTW, T...
A well planned assessment of intelligence is often done with more than one measure, and the measures are selected by a psychologist aware of many factors. That psychologist would note questions of validity if special circumstances (i.e., impaired sensory processing, like color vision) affected results, or would avoid an inappropriate test altogether. If you did an online test, you got what you paid for.

OK, back to work...
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,972
2
0
63
way out in left field
The one test I was referring to was the CBC's national IQ test that was on TV and the Net.

I have also done them for various companies I've worked for and were administered via HR, not a pschologist. I think I've done....6 live ones so far? (guess the companies thought I was dumb as a post lol). Funny though, the online ones I've done aren't that far off from the live ones.

One of the most interesting ones I have ever come across was put out by OMNI magazine. The true test wasn't whether one knew the answers but where and how to find the answers (this was before the net). The questions were quite fricken complex but the answers could easily be found at the library etc.
 

C Dick

Banned
Feb 2, 2002
4,219
2
0
Ontario
dance said:
.Anyone read The Bell Curve? (not an easy book to plow through). Tried to interpret the research about intellectual differences in racial groups. Anyone read the "wealth" of arguements contradicting the interpretations of The Bell Curve?
I loved The Bell Curve, it explains so much of what I had observed in the world, but did not understand the reasons. People put so much effort into disputing its conclusions, but it always seems to be because they do not want it to be true, not because they actually have any facts or evidence that supports their position.

And most of what people react to is not even stated or implied in The Bell Curve, they are pretty careful not to make unsupportable statements, but then the critics read it, and try and debunk the statements that the book did not actually make.

I tell my kids, that if they are going to only read three books in their lives (even that is optimistic at the rate they are going), Bell Curve should be one of them.
 

themexi

Eat the Weak
Jun 12, 2006
1,272
27
48
The great George Carlin put it best:

Children are just like Any other group; a few winners & a whole lot of losers.
 

binderman

New member
Mar 20, 2008
365
1
0
It can't be genetic if it affects an entire group of people, in development, nurture beats nature
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
binderman said:
It can't be genetic if it affects an entire group of people, in development, nurture beats nature
I'm not sure that's entirely true. It depends on the group.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts