brains of children from low-income families process information differently to those of their wealthier counterparts

[Amby 490]

The brains of children from low-income families process information differently to those of their wealthier counterparts, US research suggests.

Normal nine and 10-year-olds from rich and poor backgrounds had differing electrical activity in a part of the brain linked to problem solving.

The Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience study was described as a "wake-up call" about the impact of deprivation.

A UK researcher said it could shed light on early brain development.

The 26 children in the study, conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, were measured using an electroencephalograph (EEG), which measured activity in the "prefrontal cortex" of the brain.

Half were from low income homes, and half from high income families.

During the test, an image the children had not been briefed to expect was flashed onto a screen, and their brain responses were measured. Those from lower income families showed a lower prefrontal cortex response to it than those from wealthier households.

Dr Mark Kishiyama, one of the researchers, said: "The low socioeconomic kids were not detecting or processing the visual stimuli as well - they were not getting that extra boost from the prefrontal cortex."

Since the children were, in health terms, normal in every way, the researchers suspected that "stressful environments" created by low socioeconomic status might be to blame.

Previous studies have suggested that children in low-income families are spoken to far less - on average hearing 30 million fewer words by the age of four.

Talking boost

Professor Thomas Boyce, another of the researchers, said that talking more to children could boost prefrontal cortex development.

"We are certainly not blaming lower socioeconomic families for not talking to their kids - there are probably a zillion reasons why that happens."

His colleague, Professor Robert Knight, added: "This is a wake-up call - it's not just that these kids are poor and more likely to have health problems, but they might actually not be getting full brain development from the stressful and relatively impoverished environment associated with low socioeconomic status."

He said that with "proper intervention and training", improvements could be made, even in older children.

Dr Emese Nagy, from the University of Dundee, said that it was a "pioneering" study which could aid understanding of how environment could affect brain development.

She said: "Children who grow up in a different environment may have very different early experiences, and may process information differently than children from a different environment. "The study showed that low socioeconomic status children behaved exactly the same way as high socioeconomic status children, but their brain processed the information differently."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7762492.stm

[rebeccajo 14]

That kind of doesn't make sense..........

"The study showed that low socioeconomic status children behaved exactly the same way as high socioeconomic status children, but their brain processed the information differently."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd like to know what they define as rich and poor. It's one thing to be deprived of essential nutrition and another thing to be deprived from Daddy buying you a Beamer.

[Ling Ling 22]

I'd like to know what they define as rich and poor. It's one thing to be deprived of essential nutrition and another thing to be deprived from Daddy buying you a Beamer.

Great point.

I wonder what the difference in processing information is from the child of a low-income family that shows love and attention,

versus a high-income family that does not show love and attention, or is otherwise dysfunctional?

I think to have occasion to the random circumstance of being born to a wealthy family or lineage is nice,

but nothing to be proud of or to be an expectation of future success based solely on any notion that such a random circumstance

out weighs all other factors in success or in defining a person as good or bad.

Likewise, being the product of the random circumstance of being born to a low-income family is not an indicator of impending failure,

and nothing to be ashamed of.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Ling Ling

[jundp 191]

I think this study is #######.

I've taught plenty of low income students who have as much of, or more of, a desire to learn and be challenged. So their brains didn't respond the same? Maybe because kids with more stressful lives tend to not react as strongly? I don't know. I think somebody wasted a lot of money.

There is a difference between lacking proper nutrition and care and being low income...

[reeses16 8]

Thanks for the post OP. I disagree with the article. I think often some researchers are not responsible when the publish their results and even worse (and more frequent), when the media covers the "latest research" story, they don't put it into context and explain to flaws in the study and the types of conclusion that can be reasonably drawn.

[Ling Ling 22]

Thanks for the post OP. I disagree with the article. I think often some researchers are not responsible when the publish their results and even worse (and more frequent), when the media covers the "latest research" story, they don't put it into context and explain to flaws in the study and the types of conclusion that can be reasonably drawn.

Bravo!

This article only propagates the myth that bodily waste of the wealthy is without odor.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The study seems to have a clear focus on the effects of deprivation on brain function. Why are we acting all indignant about that?

[rebeccajo 14]

The study seems to have a clear focus on the effects of deprivation on brain function. Why are we acting all indignant about that?

Well, I don't think I'm indignant. I'm just confused about the findings. If the behaviors were the same (as the sentence I quoted indicates) what does it matter if the brain processes the information differently? No two people react exactly the same way to the same stimuli.....

Or maybe it's just because I'm from a blue-collar background that my brain isn't processing the information...

Edited December 6, 2008 by rebeccajo

[jundp 191]

but low-income doesn't automatically equate deprivation....

In fact, if we're talking about sensory development, being spoken to etc, well I know many high income kids who spend more time alone...because their parents are off traveling, etc. The kids from lower income families tend to be more social.

This is a UK study right? Maybe there are differences because of that? I don't know. I just don't think you can say low income = deprivation = slower brain.

Edited December 6, 2008 by jundp

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The study sounds like it is focused on deprivation. I don't have access to journals so maybe someone in college can pull this up but I'm willing to bet the income angle was introduced by the reporter.

[Ling Ling 22]

I'm displeased, offended and otherwise insulted that someone would spend time, money, and effort to publish

a finding that people with less money respond differently to certain stimuli.

I could've told them that for free.

Further, I'm displeased, offended and otherwise insulted that there are people who think their bodily waste is without odor.

[Amby 490]

The study sounds like it is focused on deprivation. I don't have access to journals so maybe someone in college can pull this up but I'm willing to bet the income angle was introduced by the reporter.

I'll look it up.

I can't believe people are getting upset about this. It's not saying their not as smart or that they're stupid. It's saying the way they process information is different. It doesn't say different in a bad way, just different.

[Ling Ling 22]

The study sounds like it is focused on deprivation. I don't have access to journals so maybe someone in college can pull this up but I'm willing to bet the income angle was introduced by the reporter.

I'll look it up.

I can't believe people are getting upset about this. It's not saying their not as smart or that they're stupid. It's saying the way they process information is different. It doesn't say different in a bad way, just different.

I'm pissed that they haven't done a study on why there aren't any purple M&Ms (or are those Smarties) in your hand.

[Amby 490]

Maybe I don't understand why people are mad because I'm one of the wealthy kids