Behavioral Relationships Their Time Course -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Behavioral Relationships Their Time Course? Answer: Introduction There are two most important capabilities of the brain, memory and learning. Learning is the biological process of knowledge acquisition while the memory is the knowledge retention and reconstruction process that takes place over time (Kandel, Dudai, Mayford, 2014). As such, the brain determines who we are regarding what we learn and what we can remember or forget. There are some ways to investigate the exact part of the brain where accounting and perpetual processes take place. Various tests and tasks can be designed to determine the motor, sensory and cognitive capacities of the test subject. Results of the trials and assignments typically correlate with physiological functions, and the results ascribed to particular parts of the brain. This paper reviews brain lesion examinations underlying the making, storage, retrieval and loss of memories. Case Study Review The cadaver approach to the study of the brain is safer; but, the minds are inactive and therefore disadvantageous. However, living brains can be studied under strict regulations. Living brains of men can be damaged, for example, because of falls, stroke, tumours, gunshots or accidents. The brain damages are biologically referred to as lesions. In experiments, lesions may be intentionally induced through surgical procedures like during the removal of brain tumours, or reduction of epileptic effects in split-brain patients. Furthermore, psychologists may deliberately produce a lesion in an animal to understand cognitive behaviours. By doing so, the research psychologists hope to draw inferences concerning the possible functions of the human brain in relation to the effects observed in animals. Example One In example one, a small electrode is inserted into B, and then an electrical current is passed over the electrode to lesion B. This method is known as the invasive electrical stimulation of the brain (ESB). ESB is an effective way of demonstrating functional neural connections between brain regions. In case an ESB of one part evokes an electrical response in another part then axons must be involved. However, in the case study in example 1, the ESB conducted in region B does not evoke an electrical response in the other regions. The cases study explains the reason behind the failure of the rat to recognise the smell of cheese as possible damage to the axons connecting region B to other regions during the ESB. This review agrees with that ESB may affect more extensive areas than intended. The problem of invasive stimulation is that stimulations are delivered at varying intensities depending on the level of the spontaneous activity taking place in the brain and determining the particular structures affected by the stimulus. This paper, therefore, recommends the use of an alternative approach known as magnetic stimulation or non-invasive stimulation to determine whether other regions are affected by a process known as equipotentiality. Under magnetic stimulation, the procedure stimulates the neurons connecting the different regions A, B, and C. The procedure involves financialg magnetic fields instead of electrical current. A coil is placed against the scalp, at the surface, and generating a focused magnetic field. The field excites the underlying regions of the brain and induces electrical discharges from the tissue involved (Sliwinska, Vitello, Devlin, 2014). This way, the experiment can determine the functional activity of the brain without surgery that could have l esioned the fibres of passage and caused the rat to recognise the smell of cheese. Still, noninvasive stimulation is limited in the sense that only parts of the brain that are near the surface are usually stimulated. Example Two In the case study, example two, a cytotoxic chemical is injected into the brain using a small needle to destroy region B. The results indicate that the rat shows no fear responses when exposed to a predator showing leading to the conclusion that b is responsible for stimulating fear. However, the cytotoxin does not only lesion B but also region A. This extensive damage could have interfered with equipotentiality of the brain since A could have the potential to respond to fear when B is impaired. Consequently, a more precise experiment should be conducted to establish if B is actually responsible for the fear response. This review recommends using a smaller needle that is more precise and is capable of stimulating a single nerve cell with chemical agents. The smaller needle to be used is referred to as a microiontophoretic (Windhorst Johansson, 2012).In this alternative method, a cluster of micropipettes is utilised. One other pipette is used as a microelectrode to record electrical activities of the targeted region. The different pipettes are filled with particular solutions of the chemicals being tested. The solutions are either charged electrically or ionised. A small electrical current is then passed through the pipette containing the ionised solution allowing the molecules of the substance to be released from the pipette to the target region. According to Windhorst and Johansson (2012, p. 194), microiontophoresis is the most precise form of chemical stimulation of the brain that exists currently. Example Three In example three of the case study, a human brain is used. Region A of the brain is said to be responsible for working memory. To test the hypothesis, the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) method is used to knock out region A to damage it and prevent it from functioning normally. The research finds that application of TMS affects the working memory and concludes that A is critical I normal functioning of the working memory. However, there is a possibility that the TMS could have affected the axons connecting A to B where synapses are made. Therefore, an alternative explanation for the phenomenon is necessary. According to Sliwinska et al. (2014), TMS is a brain imaging technique in which a living persons brain is exposed to magnetic impulses with the aim to temporarily and safely deactivate a small region of the brain. The performance of the participant to a given task is then assessed during the stimulation. If the ability of the participant to perform the assigned function is affected by the stimulation, then the research can conclude that the given brain region is vital for the particular task. Still, TMS is limited in the sense that concurrent somatosensory stimulation may be experienced, disrupting the performance. Moreover, there are some free parameters requiring optimisation for the experiment to be practical. Nonetheless, Sliwinska et al. (2014) recommend using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine to determine the specific region of the brain to be tested before applying the TMS. Failure to use the fMRI could have led the researcher to induce TMS to the other areas of the brain adjacent to the area under study. Integrating the two mechanisms improves the spatial-temporal precision of TMS disruption effect as an essential non-invasive tool of cognitive neuroscience. The first step of preparing a TMS assessment is to identify a stimulation procedure and selecting a method of localisation. Parameters used in stimulation range from frequency, intensity and time duration; but, they are regulated by international safety requirements. A TMS experiment will require a suitable localisation method to accurately position and orient the coil over the site of stimulation. Standard base coordinators are best suited for localisation, but individual customisation is necessary for each participant. Customization can be achieved through several options including targeted stimulation based on the participants anatomy, localisation through fMRI or TMS functional localisation. The procedure presented here has been approved for non-invasive brain stimulation of healthy human volunteers. To increase the effectiveness of the protocol, the experiment can be split into separate sessions each testing a different stimulation site on a different day; although, localisation and site testing must be done on the same meeting. This way accuracy is increased, and experimental variance is decreased. However, for safety reasons, the number of sessions per participant should not be limited to a manageable number that guarantees safety per session. Conclusion The biological process of learning and memory is an essential aspect of neuroscience. Simple experiments to control behaviour using molecular and cellular biological tools have shown that specific neurons and molecular pathways are influenced by learning. Synaptic changes introduced by patterns of electrical or chemical modulators can alter the process of information and control individual behaviours. Both memory and synapse have different phases that are temporary in natures and can be influenced to change actions. These induced influences can either be invasive or non-invasive; but, they have their limitation and should be practised safely. This paper has successfully uncovered the constraints and complexities of some of the protocols in neuroscience experiments. References Kandel, E. R., Dudai, Y., Mayford, management. R. (2014). The Molecular and Systems Biology of Memory. Cell, 157(1), 163186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.001 Sliwinska, M. W., Vitello, S., Devlin, J. T. (2014). Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Investigating Causal Brain-behavioral Relationships and their Time Course. Journal of Visualized Experiments?: JoVE, (89). https://doi.org/10.3791/51735 Windhorst, U., Johansson, H. (2012). Modern Techniques in Neuroscience Research. Springer Science Business Media.