1-1 Discussion: History and Development of Cognitive Neuropsychology

1-1 Discussion: History and Development of Cognitive Neuropsychology

The field of cognitive neuroscience includes a wide array of disciplines and professions, such as the research neuroscientist who focuses on non-human primate translational work or the clinical neuropsychologist who conducts assessment with patients at a medical center. How do you see cognitive neuroscience benefiting the field of psychology, the patients who seek mental health services, and society at large? How do you think cognitive neuroscience could affect primary and secondary education of children and adolescents? What historical developments in neuroscience have had the greatest effect on the larger field of psychology? Provide examples to support your thinking. When responding to your peers, compare your views of neuroscience and its effects.To complete this assignment, review the Discussion Rubric document.https://www.div40-anst.com/index.htmlAFTER COMPLETING THE INITLA POST, PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING TWO STUDENTS REGARDING THE SAME TOPIC!STUDENT ONE:I have always been fascinated with neuroscience. I worked as a research study coordinator in psychiatry and worked primarily with bipolar patients. We used numerous diagnostic tools, such as interviews and questionnaires but it always floored me that we did not have something simple like a blood test or brain scan that could diagnose people with bipolar. It was actually frustrating to me because using the diagnostic tools of interviewing and the questionnaire seemed so subjective to me. I hope someday we can use a PET scan or some sort of brain imaging to diagnose people with mental disorders.Mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorders are formed in the brain. Much of the evidence for the role of specific brain areas in psychiatry comes from “brain imaging,” which involves various ways of looking at the brain. Some technologies like PET imaging and functional MRI can determine the activity of the brain either at rest or while a person does specific tasks. Other technologies, like the long-established MRI, assess the brain’s structure, size and shape (Gillman, 2016).Even though scientists have gained a lot of knowledge about the brain through imaging it is unfortunate that mental illness cannot be diagnosed by examining an individual’s brain. There are numerous reasons why this is the case:Variation in brain activity among people with the same diagnosisPsychiatric conditions can look different in different individualsDifferent psychiatric conditions can share similar symptomsSimilar brain areas are involved in different psychiatric conditionsAs of now, brain imaging cannot be used for psychiatric diagnosis but imaging is still useful. It can be valuable in understanding the areas involved in a psychiatric condition, allowing innovative ideas such as deep brain stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of depression. Brain imaging can also rule out a direct physical cause (like a tumor or a brain bleed) of psychiatric symptoms (Gillman, 2016)( Habibi & Curran, 2012).Education is about improving learning, and neuroscience is about understanding the mental processes involved in learning. Neuroscience research suggests that learning outcomes are not solely determined by the environment (Woollett et al., 2009). Biological factors play an important role in accounting for differences in learning ability between individuals. By studying biological factors, research has advanced the understanding of specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia and dyscalculia. Likewise, neuroscience is discovering why certain types of learning are more rewarding than others (Woollett et al., 2009).• The brain changes constantly as a result of learning and remains ‘plastic’ throughout life. Neuroscience has shown that learning a skill changes the brain and that these changes regress when practice of the skill ceases. This is why ‘use it or lose it’ is an important principle for lifelong learning.• Resilience, our adaptive response to stress and adversity, can be built up through education with lifelong effects into old age. • Some insights from neuroscience are important for the development and use of adaptive digital technologies. These technologies have the potential to create more learning opportunities inside and outside the classroom and throughout life. These technologies could also have an effect on wellbeing, health, employment and the economy.• The budding field of educational neuroscience presents opportunities as well as challenges for education. It provides ways to develop a common language and bridge the gap between educators, psychologists, and neuroscientists (Woollett et al., 2009).References:Gillman, S. (2016). Using brain scans to diagnose mental disorders. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.comHabibi, M. & Curran, S. (2012) Neuroimaging and depression. GM Journal. Retrieved from https://www.gmjournal.co.uk/neuroimaging-and-depressionWoollett, K., Spiers, H. & Maguire, E. (2009). Talent in the taxi: a model system forexploring expertise. Phil Trans R Soc B 364(1522), 1407–1416.)STUDENT TWO:PSY 634 Module 1-1 Discussion: History and Development of Cognitive NeuropsychologyTenisha M SimmsJanuary 21, 2020Cognitive neuroscience is the scientific field that studies the biological processes of cognition with a specific focus on the neural connections within the brain that are involved in mental processes (Kosslyn & Andersen R., 1992). These processes include how people think, speak, learn, perceive, and recall information. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both psychology and neuroscience with overlapping disciplines in affective neuroscience, behavioral neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and physiological psychology (Kosslyn & Andersen R., 1992). Neuropsychology investigates the relationship between basic neurophysiological processes and mental functions or behaviors, i.e. language, memory, and perception (JoVe, 2020). It helps scientists understand how human thought works and provides insight into disorders relating to the nervous system (JoVe, 2020). Neuroscience affects almost all human functions and can help understand neurological conditions such as Down Syndrome, attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Epilepsy, and addiction.The study of the human brain can be traced back to the ancient Greeks who were among the first people to study the human brain. The Greek philosopher, Aristotle theorized that the brain was a blood-cooling mechanism, however Pierre Paul Broca, a French anatomist, physician, and surgeon who worked with brain damaged patients found that different areas of the brain were involved in specific functions (Crivellato & Ribatti, 2007). In the 19th century, von Hemholtz, a German physician and physicist measured the speed of the electrical impulses produced by nerve cells and Golgi, an Italian pathologist, physician, and scientist used silver chromate salt to see what neurons looked like (JoVe, 2020). In the 20th century more research uncovered the importance of the brain and its functions. These developments have allowed scientists and physicians the ability to diagnose and treat several conditions and shed light on the complexities of the human brain.Neuroscience benefits psychology by highlighting the origin of behavior within certain areas of the mind. For example, the area of the brain responsible for speech and a few other functions is known as Broca’s area, named after Dr. Pierre Paul Broca. Damage in this area of the brain can cause Broca’s aphasia, a condition in which a person can no longer produce coherent or accurate speech (Kosslyn & Andersen R., 1992). When looking at education, cognitive neuroscience has been instrumental in using its understanding of cognitive functioning to aid children in their learning processes, especially those with learning disabilities. Cognitive assessment tools that focus on evaluating networks of core neurocognitive deficits have the potential to lead to more precise diagnosis and provide the basis for designing specific intervention programs tailored to the deficits exhibited by the child (Rubinsten, 2015).The identification of the various areas of the brain and how these areas are specific for different functions would be considered one of the greatest effects on psychology. It has allowed neuroscience research to expand from looking at the brain area(s) specific functions with the usage of single technology to studies exploring the interactions between different brain areas, using multiple technologies and approaches to understand brain functions. Advances in non-invasive functional neuroimaging and data analysis methods have allowed for the use of highly naturalistic stimuli and tasks such as feature films depicting social interactions in cognitive neuroscience studies (Hasson, Nir, Levy, Fuhrmann, & Malach, 2004).ReferencesCrivellato, E., & Ribatti, D. (2007). Soul, mind, brain: Greek philosophy and the birth of neuroscience. Brain Research Bulletin, 327-336.Hasson, U., Nir, Y., Levy, I., Fuhrmann, G., & Malach, R. (2004). Intersubject Synchronization of Cortical Activity During Natural Vision. Science, 1634-1640.JoVe. (2020). Neuroscience. An Introduction to Neurophysiology. Retrieved from JoVE Science Education Database: https://www.jove.com/science-education/5201/an-int…Kosslyn, S. M., & Andersen R., A. (1992). Frontiers in cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Rubinsten, O. (2015). Link between cognitive neuroscience and education: the case of clinical assessment of developmental dyscalculia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
nanpositiondefneuro.pdf

contentserver__3_.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

NAN DEFINITION OF A CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST
2001
Official Position of the National Academy of Neuropsychology
Approved by the Board of Directors 05/05/2001
This 2001 definition expands upon and modifies the 1989 definition by Division 40 of the American
Psychological Association, which was used as the foundation for this updated document.
A clinical neuropsychologist is a professional within the field of psychology with special expertise in the
applied science of brain-behavior relationships. Clinical neuropsychologists use this knowledge in the
assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and/or rehabilitation of patients across the lifespan with neurological,
medical, neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, as well as other cognitive and learning
disorders. The clinical neuropsychologist uses psychological, neurological, cognitive, behavioral, and
physiological principles, techniques and tests to evaluate patients’ neurocognitive, behavioral, and
emotional strengths and weaknesses and their relationship to normal and abnormal central nervous system
functioning. The clinical neuropsychologist uses this information and information provided by other
medical/healthcare providers to identify and diagnose neurobehavioral disorders, and plan and implement
intervention strategies. The specialty of clinical neuropsychology is recognized by the American
Psychological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association. Clinical neuropsychologists are
independent practitioners (healthcare providers) of clinical neuropsychology and psychology.
The clinical neuropsychologist (minimal criteria) has:

1. A doctoral degree in psychology from an accredited university training program.
2. An internship, or its equivalent, in a clinically relevant area of professional psychology.
3. The equivalent of two (fulltime) years of experience and specialized training, at least one
   of which is at the post-doctoral level, in the study and practice of clinical
   neuropsychology and related neurosciences. These two years include supervision by a
   clinical neuropsychologist1.
4. A license in his or her state or province to practice psychology and/or clinical
   neuropsychology independently, or is employed as a neuropsychologist by an exempt
   agency.
   At present, board certification is not required for practice in clinical neuropsychology. Board certification
   (through formal credential verification, written and oral examination, and peer review) in the specialty of
   clinical neuropsychology is further evidence of the above advanced training, supervision, and applied
   fund of knowledge in clinical neuropsychology.
   References
   Report of the Division 40/INS Joint Task Force on Education, Accreditation,
   and Credentialing (1984). Division 40 Newsletter, Vol.2, no. 2, pp. 3-8.
   Definition of a Clinical Neuropsychologist, The Clinical Neuropsychologist 1989, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.22
   1
   Individuals receiving training in clinical neuropsychology prior to this 2001 definition should be subject to the
   educational and experiential guidelines published by Division 40 of the American Psychological Association (APA,
   1984; 1989). The 2001 definition should not be interpreted as negating the credentials of individuals whose
   education and experience predates the Division 40-APA definitions. Individuals meeting these prior criteria are and
   continue to be clinical neuropsychologists under this 2001 definition.
   Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50:1-2 (2009), pp 72–78
   doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01977.x
   How neuropsychology informs our
   understanding of developmental disorders
   Bruce F. Pennington
   University of Denver, USA
   This review includes 1) an explanation of what neuropsychology is, 2) a brief history of how developmental cognitive neuroscience emerged from earlier neuropsychological approaches to understanding
   atypical development, 3) three recent examples that illustrate the benefits of this approach, 4) issues
   and challenges this approach must face, and 5) a forecast for the future of this approach. Keywords:
   Developmental cognitive neuroscience, plasticity, molecular genetics, neural network models, dyslexia,
   neuropsychology.
   This paper will present neuropsychology as a method
   for understanding childhood disorders. Very simply
   put, neuropsychology is the study of brain–behavior
   relations, and developmental neuropsychology is the
   study of how those relations develop in both typical
   and atypical cases. More recently, with advances in
   neural network models, neuroimaging, and genetics,
   a field of developmental cognitive neuroscience has
   emerged that tests links across several levels of
   analysis: etiology, brain development, neuropsychology, and behavioral symptoms. So, I will argue
   that neuropsychology provides an important bridge
   across these levels and thus among the other
   methods described in other articles in this Annual
   Research Review. As it interacts with these other
   methods, neuropsychology itself is being transformed,
   and will eventually merge into the wider interdiscipline of developmental cognitive neuroscience.
   This review includes 1) an explanation of what
   neuropsychology is, 2) a brief history of how developmental cognitive neuroscience emerged from
   earlier neuropsychological approaches to understanding atypical development, 3) three recent
   examples that illustrate the benefits of this approach,
   4) issues and challenges this approach must face,
   and 5) a forecast for the future of this approach.
   What is neuropsychology?
   Since the traditional role of neuropsychology has
   mainly been to understand the behavioral effects of
   acquired lesions in adults, it has always been a
   clinical science that has attempted to explain
   behavioral symptoms in terms of theories of normal
   brain function. So neuropsychology illustrates well
   the reciprocal relation that exists between basic and
   clinical science. We cannot understand clinical
   phenomena without a theory of normal function, but
   clinical phenomena sometimes force revisions in our
   theories of normal function. The history of neuroConflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.
   psychology provides many noteworthy examples
   of both parts of this dialectic: how basic cognitive
   theory has been revised in response to unexpected
   clinical data and how advances in basic cognitive
   theory have changed the constructs and measures
   clinical neuropsychologists use to understand
   patients. Patient data have led to theoretical revisions in virtually every domain of cognition: vision,
   attention, long-term memory, short-term memory,
   language, and reading (McCarthy & Warrington,
   1990; Shallice, 1988; Squire, 1987). In each case,
   the observation of a surprising set of symptoms in a
   patient leads to much more detailed experimental
   investigations, and then to revisions of basic theory.
   Modern cognitive science would surely be quite
   different without the data provided by patients with
   acquired lesions, yet modern neuropsychology
   would not exist without modern cognitive science.
   For instance, contemporary clinical neuropsychologists, unlike those of a few decades ago, think in
   terms of interacting neural systems and are much
   more cognizant of the brain’s plasticity in the face of
   damage.
   More recently, the application of neuropsychology
   to adult and child psychopathology has expanded
   the scope of neuropsychological theory to include
   domains like affective decision-making, inhibition,
   social cognition, imitation, emotion regulation,
   source-monitoring of thoughts and actions, and even
   the self. So there is no sharp line between neuropsychological and psychological explanations of
   behavior. Neuropsychology just adds the additional
   requirement that we try to understand psychological
   processes in terms of how the brain works. Hence,
   neuropsychologists mainly use behavioral measures
   in their work, but they often relate such measures to
   measures of brain structure or function, or even to
   genetic measures.
   So neuropsychology, like the rest of science, is
   solidly committed to materialism – behavioral phenomena result from complex physical interactions in
   the brain – but not necessarily to reductive materialism. That is, it is unlikely that we can reduce
    2008 The Author
   Journal compilation  2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
   Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
   How neuropsychology informs our understanding of developmental disorders
   phenomena like attention or memory to the behavior
   of individual neurons; instead, neuropsychology
   holds that such phenomena are an emergent property of the interactions among many neurons, and
   among networks of neurons. So we could say that
   neuropsychology is characterized by a commitment
   to ‘emergent materialism’ and is consequently committed to interdisciplinary integration.
   History
   As is true in psychiatry and neurology generally,
   child neuropsychology began as the somewhat
   neglected stepchild of adult neuropsychology.
   Although interest in individual differences in brain–
   behavior relations has been part of neuropsychology since its beginnings in the early 19th century
   (Gall & Spurzheim, 1809), for the most part, classical neuropsychology focused on the consequences
   of acquired lesions in adults and developed ‘box
   and arrow’ models of normal adult brain functions
   based on those findings. Only occasionally did
   these researchers consider childhood disorders.
   Freud (1897) wrote a monograph on cerebral palsy
   and Pringle-Morgan (1896) described developmental dyslexia with the term ‘congenital word blindness.’ Hinshelwood (1917) elaborated this construct
   in a monograph with the same name. Based on
   cases of acquired dyslexia with similar symptoms,
   apparently caused by damage to, or disconnection
   from, the left angular gyrus (e.g., Dejerine, 1891),
   Hinshelwood (1917) speculated that a congenital
   problem in the angular gyrus caused developmental
   dyslexia. Hinshelwood thought of the angular gyrus
   as a memory center for visual word forms, a concept not too different from the construct of the
   fusiform word area identified by modern neuroimaging, with the key difference that activity in the
   fusiform word area only emerges with increasing
   expertise in reading. Obviously, an innate center for
   reading per se would not make much evolutionary
   sense.
   We can see in Hinshelwood’s theory of developmental dyslexia an example of a recurring problem in
   the application of neuropsychology to atypical
   development. Theories of brain–behavior relations
   based on discoveries in adults with acquired lesions
   were applied in a wholesale fashion to children. It did
   not occur to these early thinkers that brain–behavior
   relations might change over the course of development, as is true for the functions of the fusiform
   word area.
   Since this belief in invariant brain–behavior relations persisted for many decades after Hinshelwood,
   and is still present today in some debates today
   about innate brain modules, one can ask what discoveries have challenged it. Answering this question
   will also provide an understanding of the emergence
   of the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience.
   73
   A classic issue in developmental neuropsychology
   concerned whether the lateralization of language
   functions to the left hemisphere was innate or
   emerged as a result of a developmental process. Two
   developmental scientists made seminal discoveries in
   atypical children that strongly challenged the innate
   view. One of these scientists was the late Elizabeth
   Bates and the other was Helen Neville. Bates and
   colleagues (Bates et al., 2001; Bates & Roe, 2001)
   prospectively studied infants with unilateral brain
   lesions acquired before six months of age and found
   that early lesions to either hemisphere disrupted
   language development temporarily, but that language outcome by ages 5–7 years was within normal
   limits and quite similar in both hemisphere groups. If
   language lateralization to the left hemisphere were
   innate, then the early left hemisphere lesion group
   should have had both a persisting deficit and a worse
   outcome than the right hemisphere group.
   Neville and colleagues (Neville et al., 1997) demonstrated that in congenitally deaf children a visual
   language (American Sign Language) comes to be
   represented in the left hemisphere auditory cortex,
   again indicating considerable plasticity in the classical language areas. These results and others lead
   to an emergentist perspective on brain–behavior
   relations, namely that the localizations of functions
   inferred from lesion studies in adults are the product of acquiring a skill and that there is room for
   considerable plasticity in which functions are
   localized where. These discoveries made it clear that
   we could only understand brain–behavior relations
   in the mature brain by understanding how they
   develop.
   Another major impetus for the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience was a new interest in
   brain–behavior relations within the field of cognitive
   psychology. In the mid-1980s, the field of cognitive
   neuroscience was born, spurred in equal parts by
   advances in neuroimaging technology and by growing dissatisfaction among cognitive scientists about
   the ability of behavioral methods alone to resolve
   fundamental theoretical issues about underlying
   cognitive mechanisms – the well-known identifiability problem described by Anderson (1978).
   Although there was already a rich subfield of cognitive neuropsychology which used cognitive
   methods to study patients with acquired brain lesions
   (e.g., Shallice, 1988) and which, as mentioned earlier, had produced some surprising and fundamental
   insights, lesion studies by themselves had inherent
   limitations and the vast majority of cognitive psychologists did not use this method. It was only with
   the advent of structural and functional neuroimaging technologies like computed topography (CT),
   positron emission tomography (PET), and structural
   and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
   that most cognitive psychologists became interested
   in the brain, leading to the rapid emergence of the
   field of cognitive neuroscience.
    2008 The Author
   Journal compilation  2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
   74
   Bruce F. Pennington
   The beginnings of the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience can be traced to Lenneberg’s
   seminal book, Biological Foundations of Language
   (1967) and subsequent work, such as the work of
   Bates and Neville discussed earlier, on whether the
   specialization of the left hemisphere for language
   was innate. Inspired by Lenneberg’s book, considerable research in the 1970s and 1980s was conducted to test whether hemispheric specialization for
   language was invariant across development. Many of
   these studies used a relatively weak method, dichotic listening, to answer this question. Since they
   failed to find developmental increases in hemispheric specialization, they often accepted the innate
   (null) hypothesis. The classic studies of Bates and
   Neville using more powerful methods eventually
   made it clear that the answer to this fundamental
   question was ‘no’, consistent with Lenneberg’s original hypothesis of progressive specialization.
   There were other advances in the mid-1980s in our
   understanding of the development of brain–behavior
   relations. Some of these were contained in a special
   section in Child Development titled ‘Developmental
   Psychology and the Neurosciences: Building a
   Bridge’ (Crnic & Pennington, 1987). This special
   section contained Greenough, Black, and Wallace’s
   (1987) now classic article on experience-dependent
   and experience-expectant synaptogenesis, as well as
   a review by the late Patricia Goldman-Rakic (1987)
   on her seminal work on the development and functions of the prefrontal cortex. Greenough and
   colleagues elegantly demonstrated that experience
   shapes the brain and Goldman-Rakic demonstrated
   that a classic developmental milestone, object
   permanence, depended on the development of the
   prefrontal cortex.
   So, the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience was rapidly emerging by the mid-1980s,
   although its name came somewhat later. I first
   encountered this term in a grant that Liz Bates had
   written, seeking funding for her pioneering studies of
   children with early unilateral lesions. By adding the
   adjective ‘developmental’ to the term ‘cognitive
   neuroscience,’ Liz and other pioneers in this field
   who used this term, like Mark Johnson (Johnson,
   1997, 2005) and Chuck Nelson (Nelson & Luciana,
   2001), were doing more than saying we ought to
   study brain–behavior relations in children as well as
   adults. Instead, this addition signaled a bold theoretical claim, that cognitive neuroscience would be
   fundamentally incomplete without an understanding of how brain–behavior relations develop. In other
   words, we cannot understand how the mature brain
   functions without understanding how it develops.
   This claim rested in part on dramatic advances in
   developmental neurobiology made by Hubel and
   Wiesel (1963), Hubel, Wiesel, and Stryker (1977),
   Greenough (Greenough et al., 1987), Shatz (1992)
   and others. These advances made it clear that plasticity was an intrinsic and necessary property of
   normal brain development, and that instead of being
   ‘hardwired’ at birth, neural circuits (and the mental
   structures they mediate) emerge as a result of interactions among neurons, whose activity is initially
   endogenous and then increasingly responsive to
   environmental stimulation.
   So mental structures are a product of probabilistic
   epigenesis (Gottlieb, 1992) or neural constructivism
   (Quartz & Sejnowski, 1997). Hence, Piaget’s emergentist theory about the ontogeny of a child’s concepts
   and mental operations could be potentially grounded
   in the materialist details of interactions among
   neurons in neural networks. Hence, the cognitive
   architecture of a ‘typical’ adult is the product of a
   developmental process, just as is cognitive devolution in aging, and we cannot full understand that
   cognitive architecture without understanding how it
   developed (and keeps developing, because plasticity
   also characterizes the adult brain).
   Another important scientific breakthrough contributed to this perspective, namely the development
   of connectionist or neural network models (O’Reilly &
   Munakata, 2000; Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986).
   These networks modeled the emergence of mental
   structures from the interactions of artificial neurons
   exposed to a particular learning history, and became
   an extremely powerful tool for studying typical and
   atypical development.
   The fact that a given individual’s cognitive
   architecture is a product of their own developmental and learning history leads to an important
   corollary: the study of individual differences will
   provide important insights about what is constrained and what can vary in brain and behavior
   development. Atypical development provides an
   important test of the universality of developmental
   processes and sequences. As Neville’s work with the
   congenitally deaf demonstrated, differences in
   experience will change brain development and the
   localization of functions. We now have many more
   examples of this phenomenon, from musicians,
   blind readers of Braille, and others (e.g., Galaburda
   & Pascual-Leone, 2003). These examples make one
   wonder how many individuals actually have typical
   development or whether typical development is
   more of an average across diverse developmental
   trajectories.
   But individual differences also arise from genetic
   differences and the interaction of genes and environment. So, another important component of
   developmental cognitive neuroscience is behavioral
   and molecular genetics. We are beginning to
   understand how the typical chemistry and wiring of
   the brain is influenced by genes, how genetic variations alter this chemistry and wiring, and how
   these genetic variations interact with environmental
   factor …
   Purchase answer to see full
   attachment
   We offer the best custom paper writing services. We have done this question before, we can also do it for you.

1-1 Discussion: History and Development of Cognitive Neuropsychology