The Brain Programmer

For all the parents, see below about the importance of input when it comes to your child's language development.

The first signs of communication occurs right after birth when the child learns that crying will bring food and comfort. Children also begin very early recognising important voices such as one of a primary caretaker (as soon as in the womb). As they grow, babies begin attempts to imitate the speech sounds of their language, and by before first year most babies will learn to recognise phonemes of their language. Although every child is different in the development of speech; however, they follow a natural progression for language development. The purpose of this document is to explore the evidence surrounding abnormal development in deaf children, as well as importance of quality of interaction and biological factors surrounding language development.
Between birth and their first year babies will rapidly progress through stages, beginning with recognising sounds, through learning to respond to simple words and recognising (and pointing to) familiar objects when named. Between the first and second year, the child will learn to use simple words, with a total capability of around 50 words at 18 months old (Gleason, 2013). By the time child turns two, there appears to take place a vocabulary spurt; a child will know around 250 words and will begin to progress to “telegraphic” (also known as stage 1) speech. Before a child turns four it usually is able to join two words in order to form simple sentences such as “Mommy, milk”. Following this age, an addition of more complex types of sentences occur, with the addition of linking phrases such as “and” (Gleason, 2013). These milestones enable health professionals determine if a child is on track when it comes to language development or if there is a need for intervention. Sometimes a delay may be caused by hearing loss, while other times it may be due to environmental factors or language disorder. One of the attempts to explain language development has been proposed by Skinner (1957), who suggested that humans develop language via environmental influence. Skinner argued that children develop language based on behaviour reinforcement principles by association of words with meanings. According to Skinner correct utterances are positively reinforced by adults when a child realises the value of words and phrases. The assumption is that child is making random sounds such as “hihi”, “aaa aa”, or say “mi”, the mother who hears it gets excited and wants to provide for the baby, she guesses what the child is trying to say, for example, “oh, you want milk?” and gives the child a milk. After a while the child will learn to ask “please can I have milk” to be rewarded with a bottle of milk. This operant conditioning process for the way language develops in humans is proposed by behaviourists as a form of reinforcement shaping language (Doherty & Hughes, 2014). Another approach to language development is the interactionism approach which emphasises the role of social interaction with parents or other adults. It is assumed that children develop language faster if parents speak to children in a way which matches a child’s understanding and knowledge (Doherty & Hughes, 2014). Social learning theory assumes that children learn indirectly through observational learning (Bandura, 1989) and that structures of language develop due to social needs and human relations. Tomasello (1992) argued that language learning is a particular kind of imitative learning which involved imitating words and phrases used by adults in order to communicate the purpose to which that word or phrase is put. Interactionism, as well as social learning theory, assume environment plays the main role in the way children develop language. Perhaps two of the biggest names in the Interactionist Theory of Language acquisition are Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner. Focus on the language learning environment is valuable if only because it tells us what the input to the language learning child is really like (Doherty & Hughes, 2014). In opposition to these views lies the nativists’ perspective to language development, whose strongest advocate is Noam Chomsky. It was argued that children have a language acquisition device (LAD) which is hard wired into the human brain and activated once a child is exposed to language. Once LAD is activated it allows the child to understand the rules of the language the child has been exposed to (Gleason, 2013). All of the above mentioned approaches draw a picture of a complex mechanism for the development of language and, despite so many attempts of explaining this, our knowledge about the acquisition of the language is rather limited.
Although most species are able to communicate between its members in one way or another, humans are the only ones with such complex and sophisticated communication means as language. This fact alone suggests that there is a possibility of innate genetic predispositions for language development, however, it is very difficult to confirm due to obvious ethical concerns. Fortunately researchers have been able to study the development of communication in laboratory settings. Biologists were able to separate the young chicks of zebra finches before they developed their chirp. To ensure that they were deprived of environmental inputs, as it was considered that they learned “proper chirp” from their fathers they were kept in a sound proof container. As a result of the deprivation of environmental input, the chirps of those chicks did not resemble those of zebra finches at all. This seemed to suggest that the only right way to learn comes from environmental and social settings, but this was not the case. The fourth generation of chicks, kept away from natural zebra finches chirp, managed to develop a chirp which closely resembled the natural chirps (Feher, Wang, Saar, Mitra & Tchernichovski, 2009). Some other evidence supporting a genetic basis of human speech emerged in the 1980’s with the study of developmental verbal dyspraxia, namely the study of the KE family. It has been discovered that members of the family with speech disorder suffer from a rare genetic mutation in their seventh chromosome. Since then an actual gene responsible for the mutation, has been discovered (FOXP2) which confirms genetic predispositions for language production. It is suggested that multiple genes, as well as multiple genetic mechanisms, are involved in the development and production of speech. It is thought that developmental disorders are a result of a combination of genes and the pathways that these genes regulate (Grigorienko, 2009). Those findings however, do not explain the differences in language acquisition among people without any genetic disorders, and how environmental and social settings impact language development. One of the real life examples of language input depravation comes from a study of a girl called Genie (a modern day wild child). When Genie was a baby her father decided that she was mentally re****ed and kept her socially isolated, from the age of around 20 months until 13 years old, when she was rescued. This provided psychologists with an opportunity to investigate the effects of depravation of social settings on human development. Genie’s language development had been severely re****ed, with only a handful of words being known. The fact that Genie could not speak at such age would suggest that innate capabilities for language are not the only factor responsible for development of speech. Despite her lack of speech, during adolescence Genie managed to learn to speak, knowing words she was using on a daily basis (Curtiss, 2014). Once in care, Genie’s language improved significantly, which provides evidence towards the importance of social scaffolding when it comes to language acquisition.
Social factors and type of interaction appear to play an important role in the language development. Very young children show preference for infant/child directed speech (CDS) over adult directed speech (ADS), where month old and 2 days old infants provided evidence in the auditory input preference when confronted with both types of auditory input (Cooper & Aslin, 1990). Further research suggested that language development occurs at an accelerated rate when parents or caregivers speak to the child in a way that matches the child’s understanding and knowledge (Tomasello, 2006). It has been observed that infant directed communication is also found among other primates (Luef & Liebal, 2012), which suggest biological factors involved in the type of interactions and communication. It is not clear, however, how long the child directed speech provides any benefits (if any other than a preference for listening) and the impact of it on the language development. More recent studies suggest that the quality of social interaction with children, is a better predictor than type of speech approach of the accelerated language acquisition (Ramírez‐Esparza, García‐Sierra & Kuhl, 2014). The time spent with children and quality of interaction which is appropriate for the childs capabilities appears to provide the best results. The interactionism view has gained a lot of support over the years and research in this area has provided valuable information on the effect of interaction and the language development. The case of Genie provided sound evidence suggesting that without interactions, social scaffolding and possibly behaviour conditioning, language proves extremely hard to develop. The investigation of bilingual children provides further details on to the importance of not only the age, but social interaction as well, for the development of language. It has been suggested that the critical period is crucial for “ease” in which second language can be acquired (Johnson & Newport, 1989), where people who arrived at a younger age to the US demonstrated better English proficiency than those who arrived after puberty. A later study suggests that the most effective method of second language development is learner participation in interaction, that offers opportunities for the negotiation of meaning, and that this interaction is effectively obtained through the use of tasks (Mackey, 1999). It is possible that once the rules of any language are known it is possible to learn another, yet post adolescents will experience more difficulties when doing so. It is not known whether it would be possible for an adult who never experienced language to learn to speak in any of the languages; research such as this would provide insight into biological factors related to language acquisition and critical period, but is almost impossible due to ethical issues. It is assumed that auditory input from the environment is crucial for children’s language development. Further details into language input and development have been provided by studies of deaf children and the way they acquire language. Scientists were able to study the language development of children who were deaf from birth and provided insights to an auditory input depravation and language development. It has been noted that children deprived of auditory input from birth show reduced access to phonological code and severe disadvantages when learning to read (Goldin‐Meadow & Mayberry, 2001). Further studies shown that deaf people who used sign language from birth show no activation in the classical language auditory areas when reading English (Chilosi, Comparini, Cristofani, Turi, Berrettini, Forli & Cioni, 2014; Hirshorn, Dye, Hauser, Supalla, & Bavelier, 2014), which suggest that auditory input is not necessary for language development but appears to be helpful. The cochlear implants provide a tool for improvement in language when applied in young children (Fink, Wang & Visaya, 2007). It has now been established that children with cochlear implants implanted before age of three, show no deficits in cognitive or language skills (Hess, Zettler-Greeley, Godar, Ellis-Weismer, & Litovsky, 2014). The importance of auditory input in language development appears to play a crucial role, but the reason for the differences development of language may be due to environmental factors. As suggested by Ramírez‐Esparza et al., (2014) the quality of social interaction is a more reliable predictor of language development; it is possible that due to parental proficiency in sign language, reliance on professional service providers, and overall deprivation of auditory communication cues are responsible for differences in the quality of interaction and reading among deaf and hearing children.
To summaries, there appears to be a clear innate capability for humans to communicate using language and given the deprivation of an input, it is highly likely, that over several generations, a primal form of speech would emerge as it was in the case of zebra finches. With the examples of exceptional as well as abnormal circumstances, the role of language input appears to play a major role in the development of the language in the early years. The cases of deaf children and their difficulties in reading the English language also highlight the importance of an auditory input. Similarly, studies of multilingual children provided sound evidence towards the quality of interaction with children and their language development. Future studies should concentrate on exploring “typically” developed children and the differences in language development following different interventions. This would provide a valuable tool for professionals in designing the most effective ways to improve the quality of the interactions.
REFERENCES:
1. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9), 1175.
2. Chilosi, A. M., Comparini, A., Cristofani, P., Turi, M., Berrettini, S., Forli, F. & Cioni, G. (2014). Cerebral lateralization for language in deaf children with cochlear implantation. Brain and language, 129, 1-6.
3. Cooper, R. P., & Aslin, R. N. (1990). Preference for infant‐directed speech in the first month after birth. Child development, 61(5), 1584-1595.
4. Curtiss, S. (2014). Genie: a psycholinguistic study of a modern-day wild child. Academic Press.
5. Doherty, J., Hughes, M., (2014), Children Development. Theory and Practise 0-11. Second edition, Pearson
6. Feher, O., Wang, H., Saar, S., Mitra, P. P., & Tchernichovski, O. (2009). De novo establishment of wild-type song culture in the zebra finch. Nature, 459(7246), 564-568.
7. Fink, N. E., Wang, N. Y & Visaya, J., (2007). Childhood Development after Cochlear Implantation (CDaCI) study: Design and baseline characteristics. Cochlear Implants Int, 8, 92–116.
8. Gleason, B., (2013). The development of language, 8th edition. Pearson
9. Goldin‐Meadow, S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to read?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 222-229.
10. Grigorenko, E (2009). "At the height of fashion: what genetics can teach us about neurodevelopmental disabilities". Current Opinion in Neurology 22 (2): 126–130
11. Hess, C., Zettler-Greeley, C., Godar, S. P., Ellis-Weismer, S., & Litovsky, R. Y. (2014). The effect of differential listening experience on the development of expressive and receptive language in children with bilateral cochlear implants.Ear and hearing, 35(4), 387-395.
12. Hirshorn, E. A., Dye, M. W., Hauser, P. C., Supalla, T. R., & Bavelier, D. (2014). Neural networks mediating sentence reading in the deaf. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8.
13. Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive psychology, 21(1), 60-99.
14. Luef, E., & Liebal, K. (2012). Infant‐Directed Communication in Lowland Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla): Do Older Animals Scaffold Communicative Competence in Infants? American journal of primatology, 74(9), 841-852.
15. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in second language acquisition, 21(04), 557-587.
16. Ramírez‐Esparza, N., García‐Sierra, A., & Kuhl, P. K. (2014). Look who's talking: speech style and social context in language input to infants are linked to concurrent and future speech development. Developmental science, 17(6), 880-891.
17. Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
18. Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74(3), 209-253.
19. Tomasello, M., (2006). Acquiring metalinguistics constructions. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds) and D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds). Handbook of child psychology. Vol 2. New York

Sorry for being quiet for so long, been really busy lately. So since I'm getting ready to quit smoking I decided to get ready properly so it is not one of my many attempts. PRIME is a motivational theory so it can be applied to pretty much anything. If you have any questions regarding your particular motivational challenges and the application of PRIME, get in touch. Below is a bit of a crack at PRIME and smoking cessations, enjoy and prosper ;)

Drugs such as to***co are usually administered by inhaling the smoke, ni****ne is then being absorbed by a network of capillaries into the lungs. The ni****ne attaches to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the mid brain which stimulates the firing of neurons and causes dopamine release in the Nucleus Accumbens (Pinel, 2009). In effect, after continuous use, the smoker feels an urge to smoke in situations that have been associated with smoking or feels the urge (“a need” which increases with time passing from the last cigarette); which strength is often influenced by triggers or stressful situations. Smoking to***co is associated with lung cancer as well as cardiovascular disease and many others (Marks, Murray, Evans & Vida Esatcio, 2011). The negative effects of smoking are well known and communicated to public, yet many smokers either quit and start smoking again or never decide to quit despite the importance of quitting the habit. The benefits of smoking cessation are quite obvious and important due to possibility of full or substantial recovery. Due to significant events such as becoming pregnant, being diagnosed with a disease or other factors may influence ones will to give up smoking; yet many people are relapsing despite the best intentions. The motivational pathways in the smoker’s brains are altered, creating a “drive” which feels similar to a hunger. The limbic system involvement in the addiction to ni****ne which includes areas such as amygdala and hippocampus being involved in emotion and memory formation (Pinel, 2009). The pleasurable memory of relief of the urge to smoke may result in relapse which makes the motivation to quit the habit as well as become and maintain being “a non-smoker” a crucial factor. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the role of motivation in the adoption and maintenance of the smoking cessation in relation to PRIME theory of motivation. It will explore recent studies and their applicability to the theory and smoking cessation.
Motivation is a frequently appearing item in the theories or models of health behaviour and maintenance. In the recent years, the PRIME theory of motivation has been proposed as one of the main building blocks of understanding behaviour (The COM-B system). The PRIME theory proposes that motivation is crucial in generating new behaviour and having so many possibilities of things to do; motivation if the factor that determines what will be done (Michie & West, 2012). The theory assumes five levels of human motivation with higher levels feeding into the lower ones. The structure proposed by the theory is as follows: Plans (representations of future actions associated with different degrees of commitment), Evaluations (beliefs consisting of what is functional, moral and aesthetic), Motives (representations of future states with feelings anticipated pleasure, satisfaction or relief), Impulses/ Inhibition (which activate CNS actions and competing inhibiting pathways) and Responses (start, stop or modify an action). Dispositions are referred to the levels of the system which govern its operations (and they may vary in stability and context sensitivity). According to the theory the change of behaviour does not need to proceed in a linear fashion through the stages, it is suggested that change from one major disposition may occur in a single transformation (which may happen without being intended, vary in length or may respond to an insignificant triggers) (Michie & West, 2013). The relevance of the theory to motivation and smoking cessation is quite substantial involving all levels of the system. In order to maximise the chances for the success (of the habit cessation) the system should be addressed at all levels and tailored to individual needs of the smokers (West, McNeill & Raw, 1998; Michie & West, 2012).
The smokers have often, over-learned plans to smoke at certain times (for example on their way to work, after a meal or a coffee, etc.) these often respond to environmental cues or triggers. According to the PRIME theory those schemas trigger the initial level of the motivation system, the Plan. Although a prediction attempt is hard to make at this stage, the intention to quit plays a significant role in the attempt to stop smoking. In the study conducted on 214 participants suggested that those who intended (measured on a variety of questionnaires) to quit smoking managed to successfully attempt (with some relapsing) to quit (Smith, Hoving, Schelleman-Offermans, West & Vries, 2014). No significant differences between the two groups (those who relapsed or maintain abstinence) attempting to quit has been noted which indorses complexity of the maintaining motivation. Although this findings are to be expected, the intention to quit smoking appears to be crucial in creation of a plan (such as “no puff” rule or “if, then” scenario’s) and changing the schemas associated with to***co use. Personal beliefs associated with smoking and the disposition to form mental representation of oneself as a smoker are potentially important source of motives. This is referred to as identity and forms an important part of Evaluational level (Michie et al., 2012). The smoker’s identity and social factors have been implicated as an important factor of smoking cessation and the role of identity as an indirect predictor of giving up smoking (Falomir & Invernizzi, 1999). The study suggests that identity people hold in a given time with support of social cues and rules can influence smoking behaviours. A more recent study conducted on over 500 participants investigated the smoker identity in the context of the cessation attempts and staying abstinent. The findings suggest that a non- smoker identity is not only a predictor of actual attempts and medium-term abstinence but suggest that the longer the abstinence lasts the more of a non-smoker participants reported to be (Tombor, Shahab, Brown, Notley & West, 2015). The findings of this study provide valuable inside into relationship between motivation and identity, also the likelihood of quit attempts and the long term success of the process.
The process of smoking itself can be reported by smokers as “enjoyable” and smokers feel satisfaction when smoking. The reasons for the cravings is most likely having a biological processes involved and are attempted to be explained by neurological studies. It is suggested that dopamine plays important role in a goal directed behaviour which has been supported by animal studies where animals with blocked dopamine systems did not respond to reward. Following subsequent “injections” of ni****ne, cause motivational arousal when cigarette is being inhaled (Wise, 2004). Later document detailing neural basis for addiction, suggests that compulsive character of drug seeking increases due to decrease of neural rewards and less cognitive control (Kalivas & Volkow, 2005). It is suggested that multiple pharmaceutical interventions and following changes in postsynaptic proteins (due to drug use) induced by withdraw prevents drugs seeking behaviour in animals (Kalivas et al., 2005). Another factor affecting smoking cessation is the impulses or urges to smoke even in the absence of environmental cues, these are present from the within minutes after smoking a cigarette and increase in strength with time. There appear to be a link between impulses and plans, such as plan to smoke after meal will generate strong and often unconscious impulse to light up a cigarette (Michie et al, 2013). The impulses however appear to be reside on the lower level of the structure possibly due to the fact that impulses are dependent on the interactions of the higher level structures. This may be result of the prologue behaviour being conditioned with a use of a reward networks which over time become depended on the injections of ni****ne.
In the light of recent evidence it becomes clear that motivation in engagement of the protective behaviour is a complex interaction between multiple factors however the details of those interactions and the long term implications are not yet fully understood. There appear to be a lack of longitudinal studies of the role of motivation and the long term success rates of smoking cessation. The role of the D2 dopamine receptor gene and smoking has been explored by scientists and there appears to be growing evidence supporting the role of dopamine and D2 receptors in the addiction. The study investigated over 300 individuals which found that consumption of ni****ne produces higher dopamine levels which over time may result in decreased function of DRD2 gene (Noble, Jeow, Ritchie, Syndulkot, St. Jeorb, Fitch, Brunner & Sparkes, 1994). It is not clear whether decreased function of this gene is hereditary which may result in a person being more susceptible to addictions. More recent study investigating methamphetamine users supported the findings of lower dopamine levels in addicts but postulated that this is a result of the abuse of the drug rather than genetic predisposition (Volkow, Chang, Wang, Fowler, Ding, Sedler, & Pappas, 2014). The role of biological changes in the brain and how to counteract them requires more attention in order to support the smoking cessation and preservation of the motivation to quit. The pharmaceutical intervention may be required in order to support the counteraction of the withdrawn symptoms and maintenance of the motivation. Due to complexity of the interactions biological dependence appears to strongly influence other levels of the system triggering unconscious responses as well as conscious plans to smoke.
In summary, the role of motivation in adoption and maintenance of the protective behaviour is crucial and highly complex with many factors interacting and influencing each other. The PRIME theory of motivation provides great deal of detail in to not only the initial stages of the process but also into maintenance of the new behaviour. It is important that smoking cessation interventions are aimed and tailored to individual needs and circumstances in order to provide the best results. It appears clear that goal directed behaviour is channeled through motives operating at the moment and evaluations and intentions will not influence the behaviour unless they generate motives at the relevant time. In support of the recovery, full or partial agonists may support suppression of the urges as well as significant events may trigger the powerful new motivations.


REFERENCES:
1. Falomir, J. M., & Invernizzi, F. (1999). The role of social influence and smoker identity in resistance to smoking cessation. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 58(2), 73.
2. Kalivas, P. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2005). The neural basis of addiction: a pathology of motivation and choice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(8), 1403-1413.
3. Marks, D., Murray, M., Evans, B., Vida Estacio, E., (2011), Health Psychology. Theory, research and practise. Third edition. SAGE publications Ltd.
4. Michie, S., & West, R., (2013) Behaviour change theory and evidence: a presentation to Government. Health Psychology Review. 7:1, 1-22.
5. Noble, E., Jeow, S., Ritchie, T., Syndulkot, K., St. Jeorb, S., Fitch, R., Brunner, R. & Sparkes, R., (1994), D2 Dopamine receptor gene and cigarette smoking: a reward gene? Medical hypothesis. (1994) 42, 270-260
6. Pinel, J. (2009). Biopschology, 7th edition. Pearson Education, Inc.
7. Raw, M., McNeill, A., West, R., (1998). Smoking Cessation Guidelines for Health Professionals—A guide to effective smoking cessation interventions for the health care system. Thorax 53.suppl 5 (1998): S1-S18.
8. Smith, E., Hoving, C., Schelleman-Offermans, K., West R., & Vries, H., (2014), Predictors of successful and unsuccessful quit attempts among smokers motivated to quit. Addictive Behaviours, 39(2914) 1313-1324
9. Tombor, I., Shahab, L., Brown, J., Notley, K., & West, R. (2015). Does a non smoker identity following quitting predict long-term abstinence? Evidence from a national survey of smokers in England. Addictive Behaviours. Vol.45 June 2015, 99-103.
10. Volkow, N. D., Chang, L., Wang, G. J., Fowler, J. S., Ding, Y. S., Sedler, M. & Pappas, N. (2014). Low level of brain dopamine D2 receptors in methamphetamine abusers: association with metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex.
11. West, R. Theory Summary, Retrieved from Robert West’s website in April, 2015 (http://www.primetheory.com/summary-prime-motivation.php)
12. Wise, R. A. (2004). Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nature reviews neuroscience, 5(6), 483-494.

PRIME Theory of Motivation - Summary The theory is pitched at the psychological level of analysis but with a view to providing a ‘pegboard’ into which can be plugged theories at other levels (including economic theories and neurophysiological theories). The theory is painted with a broad brush and does not attempt to capture what is kn…