Discuss research into plasticity and functional recovery of the brain (16 marks)
Brain plasticity refers to the brain’s ability to adapt structurally and functionally in response to experience, learning, or trauma. In childhood, plasticity is at its peak due to the rapid formation of synaptic connections, but it continues throughout life. One key mechanism is synapse strengthening, where frequently used neural pathways become more efficient through repetition and reinforcement. Another is rewiring, where entirely new neural pathways are formed in response to new experiences or learning. A third mechanism is neuronal unmasking, where dormant synapses become active when surrounding pathways are damaged, allowing new connections to form. These same processes are central to functional recovery, which occurs after trauma such as stroke or injury. In recovery, the brain compensates for damaged areas by activating unused or alternative neural routes, demonstrating its remarkable capacity for repair and reorganisation.
Want to Write A* Essays Like This?
Join the 7-Day A* Essay Writing Challenge — a mini course designed to supercharge your Psychology essays. Learn how to structure 16-markers, avoid common mistakes, and impress examiners, one day at a time.
Join the Challenge Now
One strength of the brain plasticity theory is that it is supported by research evidence. For example, Maguire et al. (2000) conducted a study on London taxi drivers and found significantly more grey matter in the posterior hippocampus of taxi drivers compared to a control group. This suggests that learning and navigating the complex London streets can alter brain structure through experience. Further support comes from Draganski et al. (2006), who scanned medical students before and after intense exam preparation. They found increased grey matter in brain areas associated with memory and learning, reinforcing the idea that the brain structurally adapts to high cognitive demand. This complements Maguire’s findings and suggests that plasticity is a general mechanism, not just linked to navigation or profession. Together, these studies strengthen the validity of brain plasticity by demonstrating consistency across different forms of learning and across different populations.
However, Maguire’s study was correlational, meaning it cannot establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between navigating London's streets and increased grey matter volume. It is possible that individuals with a naturally larger hippocampus are more likely to become taxi drivers, rather than the training itself causing the brain changes. Furthermore, the study focused on a narrow occupational group with exceptional spatial memory demands, which may not generalise to other learning experiences.
This limitation is supported by research from Gaser and Schlaug (2003), who found structural brain differences in professional musicians compared to non-musicians, particularly in areas related to motor control and auditory processing. While this reinforces the idea of experience-dependent plasticity, it also shows that different experiences affect different brain regions, suggesting plasticity is task-specific.
Nonetheless, the collective findings from multiple studies — including Maguire and Gaser & Schlaug — offer converging evidence that the brain does adapt to environmental demands. Although caution is needed in interpreting individual studies, the overall consistency across domains strengthens the validity of brain plasticity as a scientific concept and enhances our biopsychological understanding of how learning shapes neural structures.
Another strength of the theory of brain plasticity is that it has been demonstrated in both human and animal studies, which enhances its scientific credibility. For example, Kempermann et al. (1998) investigated the effects of enriched environments on the brains of rats. They found that rats housed in complex, stimulating settings developed a significantly higher number of new neurons in the hippocampus compared to those in standard laboratory cages. This suggests that brain structure can be altered through interaction with enriched environments, supporting the idea that plasticity is not just a passive biological process but one that is responsive to experience and stimulation.
This aligns with findings from Kuhn et al. (2014), who demonstrated that playing video games such as Super Mario over a sustained period led to increased grey matter in regions like the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. These results reinforce the notion that even non-academic or recreational experiences can induce structural brain changes, suggesting plasticity is flexible and experience-dependent across multiple domains.
However, animal studies like Kempermann’s may lack generalisability to humans due to differences in brain complexity and cognitive function. Rats, while useful for neurological research, do not possess the same higher-order learning capabilities as humans. Additionally, the artificial nature of enriched environments in laboratory conditions might not reflect real-world human experiences. Similarly, Kuhn’s study does not isolate specific aspects of the gaming experience that might trigger plasticity — it’s unclear whether it is the problem-solving, hand–eye coordination, or time investment causing the effect.
Despite these limitations, the convergence of findings across species and types of activity builds a robust case for plasticity. The use of multiple methodologies — including neuroimaging and behavioural observation — lends scientific rigour to the concept. These studies collectively enhance our understanding of how flexible and adaptive the human brain is, strengthening the validity of plasticity as a foundational principle in biopsychology.