Biopsych Flashcards
(13 cards)
Negative consequences of the fight/ flight response ( AO3)
LOCALISATION OF FUNCTION (AO3)
Case study evidence ( STRENGTH)
P= one strength for localisation of function in the brain is that there is evidence from neurological damage case study
E= For example, phineas gage a 25 year old railway worker had a meter pole hurl through his left cheek, behind his left eye and exiting his skull, taking a portion of his left frontal lobe. Gage survived this incident, however the brain damage changed his personality. He went from a calm and well mannered man to a rude and quick tempered.
Ex= This suggests that the frontal lobe could be associated with personality.
L= Therefore the case study of phineas gage has enabled psychologists to understand different functions of the frontal lobe.
LOCALISATION OF FUNCTION ( AO3)
Evidence from neurosurgery ( strength)
P= A strength for localisation of function in the brain is that there is supporting evidence from neurosurgery.
E=For example, Doughtery et al reported 44 people with OCD who had undergone cingulotomy. After 32 weeks on post surgery, about 30% met the criteria for successful response to the surgery, and about 14% for partial response.
Ex= This suggests that the cingulate gyrus is localised to the symptoms of OCD, when analysing the sucsess rate.
L= Therefore, understanding the localisations of functions within the brain can result in the development of successful treatments for individuals suffering from disorders.
LOCALISATION OF FUNCTION (AO3)
Holistic vs Localisation (limitation )
P= One limitation is that there is evidence contradicting the notion of localisation of function in the brain.
E=For example, lashley removed areas of the cortex (between 10% to 50%) in rats that were learning a route through a maze.
Ex= This suggests that the process of learning seemed to require every part of the cortex, rather than being confined to a particular area.
L= This is a limitation because it implies that the brain views holistically rather than functions being localised.
HEMISPHERIC LATERALISATION ( AO3)
Brain scan evidence ( strength)
P= One strength is that brain scan research indicates that even in connected brains the two hemispheres process information differently, supporting hemispheric lateralisation.
E= For example, Fink et al used PET scans to identify which areas were active during a visual processing task. Participants with connected brains were asked to attend to global elements of an image, they found that regions of the RH were more active. When required to focus on finer details, specific areas of the LH tended to be more active.
Ex= This suggests that the RH was synthesising the global elements in the image. Similarly the LH was analysing the detailed images. This corroborates the notion that the left and the right hemisphere are functionally different.
L= This is a strength because brain scan research provides objective and empirical evidence of hemispheric lateralisation. The use of PET scans allows researchers to measure brain activity directly, offering reliable data that is less influenced by subjective interpretation.
HEMISPHERIC LATERALISATION (AO3)
Research support - split brain (strength)
P= One strength is that there is objective research corroborating Sperrys findings on split brain research.
E=for example,Luck et al. found that people with split brains did better than those with typical brain connections on certain tasks. For example, they were quicker at spotting the odd one out in a group of similar objects. In a typical brain, the left hemisphere (which is usually better at problem-solving) gets slowed down by the right hemisphere, which isn’t as strong at those tasks.
Ex= Research suggests that people with split brains do better on tasks that need each side of the brain to work separately. This is because their two hemispheres don’t interfere with each other. It supports the idea that the left side of the brain is better at problem-solving and analysis, while the right side isn’t as strong in those areas.
L= Therefore, this strengthens the validity of sperrys conclusions and provides further evidence that hemispheres have specialised, distinct functions.
HEMISPHERIC LATERALISATION (AO3)
Generalisation issues ( limitation)
P= One limitation of sperrys research is that casual relationships are hard to establish.
E=For example, Sperry, split brain participants were compared to a neurological control group. An issue is that none of the participants in the control group had epilepsy.
Ex= This highlights an issue, as epilepsy itself may have affected the brain function independently of the split brain procedure. This introduces a cofounding variable as any differences observed between the groups could be attributed to the effects of epilepsy rather than the split brain surgery.
L= Therefore, a more appropriate control group would have included individuals with epilepsy who had not undergone split brain surgery. This would help isolate the effects of split brain procedure from the potential influence of epilepsy or its treatment , providing more strong conclusions.
