Imaging Techniques
MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
● Definition: A non-invasive technique that uses magnetic fields and radio waves to generate detailed 3D structural images of the brain.
● Purpose: Shows brain anatomy, useful for identifying brain damage or structural abnormalities.
● Pros: High-resolution images, safe (no radiation), good for studying brain structure.
● Cons: Expensive, patients must stay still, no information about brain activity.
➤ fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
● Definition: Measures brain activity by detecting changes in blood oxygen levels (indicates neural activity).
● Purpose: Shows both structure and function of the brain in real time.
● Pros: Non-invasive, shows dynamic brain activity.
● Cons: Expensive, lower resolution than MRI, indirect measure of brain activity (via blood flow).
➤ Key Study: HM (Milner, 1966)
● Technique Used: MRI (later studies).
● Findings:
○ Damage to hippocampus led to anterograde amnesia (couldn’t form new memories).
○ Showed localization of memory to the hippocampus.
● Contribution: MRI revealed specific structural damage, supporting the role of the hippocampus in memory.
➤ Key Study: Maguire et al. (2000)
● Technique Used: MRI.
● Findings:
○ London taxi drivers had larger posterior hippocampi compared to controls.
○ Positive correlation between time as a taxi driver and hippocampal volume.
● Contribution: Used MRI to demonstrate neuroplasticity and localization of spatial memory.
🧠 2. Localization of Brain Function
➤ Definition
● Localization refers to the theory that specific areas of the brain are responsible for specific functions (e.g., memory, language, emotion).
➤ Arguments For Localization
● HM (Milner, 1966): Damage to hippocampus impaired memory → suggests memory is localized.
● Maguire et al. (2000): Spatial memory localized in posterior hippocampus.
● Broca’s Area: Left frontal lobe controls speech production (Broca’s aphasia).
● Wernicke’s Area: Temporal lobe involved in language comprehension.
➤ Arguments Against Strict Localization
● Brain functions are often distributed: Complex tasks like decision-making involve multiple areas.
● Equipotentiality (Lashley): After brain damage, other parts can take over lost functions.
● Neuroplasticity: Brain can reorganize itself, suggesting some flexibility in localization.
➤ Key Study: HM
● Damage to hippocampus impaired the ability to form new long-term memories, but short-term memory and procedural memory were intact.
● Supported localization of memory formation.
➤ Key Study: Maguire et al.
● Structural differences in hippocampus related to navigational experience → supports localization of spatial memory in the hippocampus.
🧠 3. Neuroplasticity
➤ Definition
● The brain’s ability to change its structure and function in response to experience or injury.
● Can occur through:
○ Dendritic branching
○ Synaptogenesis (forming new synapses)
○ Cortical remapping
➤ Relevant Vocabulary
● Cortical remapping: New brain areas take over functions of damaged ones.
● Synaptic pruning: Elimination of weak or unused synapses.
● Dendritic branching: Growth of dendrites to form new connections.
● Experience-dependent plasticity: Changes due to learning or environmental demands.
➤ Key Study: Rosenzweig, Bennett & Diamond (1972)
● Aim: Investigate effects of enriched vs. deprived environments on brain development in rats.
● Method:
○ Rats placed in enriched, standard, or deprived environments.
● Findings:
○ Enriched rats had thicker cerebral cortex, more dendritic branching, more acetylcholine (linked to learning).
● Conclusion: Environment can physically change the brain → evidence for neuroplasticity.
➤ Key Study: Maguire et al.
● London taxi drivers' hippocampi adapted due to navigational experience → showed experience-induced neuroplasticity.
🔁 Connections Between Topics
Topic HM Maguire Rosenzweig, Bennett & Diamond
Localization Hippocampus → memory Hippocampus → spatial memory Not primary focus
Neuroplasticity Limited (due to damage) Hippocampus changed with experience Enrichment changed brain anatomy
Imaging MRI used postmortem MRI used to assess structure Not applicable (animal study)
1. HM (Milner, 1966)
Topic: Localization, Imaging (MRI used later)
Design Type: Case Study
Aim:
To investigate the role of the hippocampus in the formation of long-term memory.
Procedure:
Henry Molaison (known as HM) underwent brain surgery in 1953 to treat severe epilepsy. Neurosurgeon William Scoville removed large portions of HM’s medial temporal lobes, including the hippocampus.
Following the surgery, psychologist Brenda Milner conducted longitudinal studies over several decades. These included a range of cognitive tests (e.g., IQ tests, memory recall), behavioral observations,
interviews with HM and his family, and tasks such as mirror-drawing to assess procedural memory. In the 1990s, brain imaging (MRI) was used to precisely map the brain areas that had been removed.
Findings:
HM developed profound anterograde amnesia—he could no longer form new long-term declarative memories. However, his short-term memory (working memory) remained intact, and his procedural memory
(such as motor skills) was unaffected. For instance, he could learn new skills like mirror-drawing, but would have no recollection of having done the task before. MRI scans later confirmed that the damage was
primarily localized to the hippocampus and surrounding areas.
Interpretation:
This study provided strong evidence for the localization of memory function, particularly the role of the hippocampus in converting short-term memories into long-term declarative memories. It also revealed
that memory is not unitary, but consists of distinct systems governed by different brain regions (e.g., procedural vs. declarative memory). The study was pivotal in establishing the biological basis of memory
processes.
Methodological Strengths:
● Rich, detailed longitudinal data
● Use of triangulation (interviews, tasks, and later MRI scans)
● High ecological validity (real-world relevance)
Limitations:
● Single case → limited generalizability
● Some early observations were made before brain imaging was available
● Retrospective aspects could limit accuracy
2. Maguire et al. (2000)
Topic: Localization, Neuroplasticity, Imaging (MRI)
Design Type: Quasi-experiment (natural groups)
Aim:
To examine whether the structure of the hippocampus differs in taxi drivers due to their navigational experience.
Procedure:
Maguire and her team used MRI to scan the brains of 16 right-handed male London taxi drivers who had all completed “The Knowledge” — a rigorous training process requiring memorization of London’s streets.
Their hippocampal volumes were compared to those of 50 right-handed male non-taxi drivers. Participants did not differ significantly in age or health. Voxel-based morphometry was used to analyze structural
differences.
Findings:
Taxi drivers had significantly larger posterior hippocampi compared to the control group, while the anterior hippocampi were smaller. A positive correlation was found between the number of years spent as a
taxi driver and the volume of the posterior hippocampus.
Interpretation:
These findings support both localization (the hippocampus is specialized for spatial navigation) and neuroplasticity(the brain can change structurally in response to environmental demands and learning). The
increase in hippocampal size suggests the brain can adapt to new challenges, especially involving spatial memory.
Methodological Strengths:
● Use of MRI provided objective, quantifiable data
● Matched control group for comparison
● Ecologically valid (real-world skill: navigation)
Limitations:
● Quasi-experimental design – no random assignment
● Only included male participants – limited generalizability
● Correlational – cannot confirm causation
3. Rosenzweig, Bennett & Diamond (1972)
Topic: Neuroplasticity
Design Type: Laboratory Experiment (Animal Study)
Aim:
To investigate the effects of enriched and deprived environments on brain development in rats.
Procedure:
Researchers randomly assigned rats to one of three conditions for 30 to 60 days:
● Enriched environment (EC): multiple rats, toys, and mazes for stimulation
● Standard environment (SC): several rats, but no toys or mazes
● Impoverished environment (IC): isolated rat with no stimulation
After the experiment, rats were euthanized, and their brains were analyzed post-mortem, focusing on weight and thickness of the cerebral cortex and neural development.
Findings:
Rats in the enriched environment had thicker cerebral cortices, greater dendritic branching, and higher levels of acetylcholine (important for learning and memory) compared to those in the deprived
condition. There was also increased synaptic density.
Interpretation:
This study provided compelling evidence for experience-dependent neuroplasticity—that the brain’s structure is not fixed and can be significantly shaped by environmental input and stimulation. Enrichment
leads to anatomical changes in the brain, even in adulthood.
Methodological Strengths:
● Controlled laboratory conditions allow for cause-effect conclusions
● Large sample size and replicability
● Pioneering research for the field of brain plasticity
Limitations:
● Generalizability to humans is limited (animal study)
● Ethical concerns over animal treatment
● Artificial setting may not reflect real-world complexity
1. HM (Milner, 1966)
Design: Case Study
Topic: Localization of function
Strengths:
● Rich, detailed data:
The longitudinal nature of the study allowed researchers to observe HM over decades. This depth provides valuable insights into memory processes that a single snapshot study wouldn’t. It allows
for strong internal validity because researchers could track consistent memory deficits over time.
● Triangulation:
Multiple methods were used—observations, memory tests, interviews, and later, MRI scans. This methodological triangulation strengthens the validity of the findings because it reduces the
likelihood that the results were due to a flaw in any one method.
● Ecological validity:
While the setting was clinical, the tasks and observations reflected real-world memory functioning. HM’s memory problems were not just experimental artifacts—they impacted his everyday life,
supporting the real-world relevance of the findings.
Limitations:
● Single case – limited generalizability:
Since HM is just one individual with unique surgical history and brain damage, it’s difficult to generalize findings to the broader population. Individual differences (e.g., age, education, pre-existing
conditions) could affect memory differently in others.
● Retrospective aspects:
Early data collection relied on observations made before standardized protocols or imaging tools were available. This may reduce reliability, as early observations might not be replicable or
objective.
● Ethical issues (consent and harm):
There’s debate about whether HM could give informed consent due to his amnesia. While he was treated respectfully, modern standards would demand ongoing consent processes for vulnerable
individuals.
2. Maguire et al. (2000)
Design: Quasi-Experiment
Topic: Localization and Neuroplasticity
Strengths:
● Non-invasive imaging (MRI):
Using MRI avoided harm and allowed researchers to objectively measure brain structure. This enhances both ethical integrity and internal validity, as data isn’t reliant on subjective measures.
● Matched control group:
By using controls matched for age, gender, and handedness, the researchers controlled for confounding variables that might influence brain structure. This strengthens the claim that observed
differences were due to navigational experience.
● High ecological validity:
The study used real-world expertise (taxi drivers who had passed “The Knowledge”) rather than artificial lab tasks. This enhances external validity, making findings more generalizable to how
memory functions in natural environments.
Limitations:
● Quasi-experimental – no random assignment:
Participants were not randomly assigned to be taxi drivers or controls, which limits causal inferences. It’s possible that individuals with naturally larger hippocampi were more likely to succeed as
taxi drivers, rather than driving experience changing the brain.
● Only males included:
The sample lacked gender diversity, which limits population validity. Findings may not generalize to female brains or people from different educational or cultural backgrounds.
● Correlational data:
The study identified a relationship between hippocampal size and driving experience, but not a cause-effect link. This weakens internal validity, as other variables (e.g., general intelligence,
stress levels) might also influence hippocampal volume.
3. Rosenzweig, Bennett & Diamond (1972)
Design: Laboratory Experiment (Animal Study)
Topic: Neuroplasticity
Strengths:
● Highly controlled environment:
Researchers controlled nearly all variables (diet, cage size, light exposure), isolating the effect of environmental stimulation on brain development. This provides strong internal validity and
supports cause-effect conclusions.
● Clear cause-effect relationship:
Because it was an experiment with random assignment and manipulation of the independent variable (environment type), the study supports the conclusion that environment causes brain
changes, a key claim in neuroplasticity.
● Replicable and consistent results:
The study has been repeated many times with similar findings, suggesting strong reliability. This strengthens its status as foundational evidence for neuroplasticity.
Limitations:
● Limited generalizability to humans:
Rats have different brains, environments, and social needs than humans. While the study suggests that enrichment influences brain development, applying these findings to human brains must be
done cautiously. This reduces external validity.
● Ethical concerns:
Rats in the deprived condition were isolated and denied stimulation, raising issues of animal welfare. Although ethical standards were different at the time, today such conditions would face
scrutiny, possibly impacting the ethical acceptability of the findings.
● Artificial setting:
The experimental conditions were not naturalistic. Rats do not normally live in either completely deprived or highly enriched cages. This may reduce the ecological validity of the
findings—real-world environments are more complex.
