Localisation of function 16 marker
Localisation of function refers to the fact that different parts of the brain are responsible for
different actions, behaviours and processes. This can be seen by research conducted by
Broca in 1985 studied the patient Tan who could understand language but was unable to
speak it, he found that Tan and people with similar language defects had lesions in their
prefrontal lobe. Which led to the proposition that the speech centres were situated in this
area later called Brocas area and damage in this area was called Brocas aphasia.
In addition, research conducted by Wernicke, where his patients could speak but not
understand language, due to damage in their posterior left hemisphere and damage to this
can lead to Wernicke’s aphasia. Which suggests that sensory and motor language regions
are separate in the brain, supporting the idea that different areas of the brain have different
functions.
One limitation of localisation of function is that we are reducing specific functions such as
language to specific areas. This may lead to missed information regarding an impairment of
language for example as it may be better to take a holistic approach. This is supported by
research conducted by Dronkers in 2007 as he looked at some of Brocas patients in an MRI
and found other areas could have contributed to their impairments and that Brocas area is
temporary speech delay not usually severe disruptions (such as Brocas patients).This
decreases validity of localisation of function as research has proven that cognition is more
complex then assigning actions to different parts of the brain.
Another argument against localisation of function is plasticity. As research has shown that
when the brain is damaged function can be rebuilt to regain psychological functioning by
creating alternate pathways. Which suggests that the brain doesn’t have localised functions
and that it can adapt after injury and shows that the brain involves networks which are not
localised.
Localisation of function ignores that nurture side of the nature nurture debate arguing that
we are determined by prefixed biology. However, research has shown that new synaptic
pathways are built throughout our lives. Proving that nurture is also important brain
development, this decreases the validity of localisation of function. Therefore, both the
sides of the debate should be considered by taking an interactionist approach so prevent
missing out anything.
Localisation of function refers to the fact that different parts of the brain are responsible for
different actions, behaviours and processes. This can be seen by research conducted by
Broca in 1985 studied the patient Tan who could understand language but was unable to
speak it, he found that Tan and people with similar language defects had lesions in their
prefrontal lobe. Which led to the proposition that the speech centres were situated in this
area later called Brocas area and damage in this area was called Brocas aphasia.
In addition, research conducted by Wernicke, where his patients could speak but not
understand language, due to damage in their posterior left hemisphere and damage to this
can lead to Wernicke’s aphasia. Which suggests that sensory and motor language regions
are separate in the brain, supporting the idea that different areas of the brain have different
functions.
One limitation of localisation of function is that we are reducing specific functions such as
language to specific areas. This may lead to missed information regarding an impairment of
language for example as it may be better to take a holistic approach. This is supported by
research conducted by Dronkers in 2007 as he looked at some of Brocas patients in an MRI
and found other areas could have contributed to their impairments and that Brocas area is
temporary speech delay not usually severe disruptions (such as Brocas patients).This
decreases validity of localisation of function as research has proven that cognition is more
complex then assigning actions to different parts of the brain.
Another argument against localisation of function is plasticity. As research has shown that
when the brain is damaged function can be rebuilt to regain psychological functioning by
creating alternate pathways. Which suggests that the brain doesn’t have localised functions
and that it can adapt after injury and shows that the brain involves networks which are not
localised.
Localisation of function ignores that nurture side of the nature nurture debate arguing that
we are determined by prefixed biology. However, research has shown that new synaptic
pathways are built throughout our lives. Proving that nurture is also important brain
development, this decreases the validity of localisation of function. Therefore, both the
sides of the debate should be considered by taking an interactionist approach so prevent
missing out anything.
