Class Notes (835,294)
Canada (509,074)
Psychology (7,776)
PSYB65H3 (519)
Ted Petit (310)
Lecture

PSYB65 - Lec 11 (near verbatim).docx

6 Pages
109 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSYB65H3
Professor
Ted Petit
Semester
Fall

Description
Lec 11: PSYB65 Frontal Lobe (but actually means prefrontal area):  History: o It was thought that the front part of the brain was for intellectual function  GALL who proposed phrenology = by looking at ppl who had particular characteristics and then feeling their skull for bumps for where the diff characteristics were localized; thought that intelligence was at the front o Jacobson was the first person to test the theory that was proposed that intelligence is in frontal region; took monkeys and removed anterior portion of frontal lobes (prefrontal area); had a problem in delayed response capacities = ability to perform on delayed response tasks was severely impaired; tested them in apparatus WGTA (Wisconsin General Testing Apparatus) = equivalence of Skinner box for rats  WGTA: on a table, have cups that are marked with raisin/etc underneath; separate monkey from experimenter by glass/curtain; ex) the monkey learns to pick up the raisin from under the red cup but not the yellow cup  If the animals could see the solution to the problem (ie: if they could watch the experimenter put the raisin under the red cup) then react, they were able to solve the problem; however, if there was a delay btn seeing the solution to the problem and actually being able to solve the problem, THEY COULDN’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM  Natural enviro: if you put a monkey in cage and put banana in front of cage just beyond reach, monkey will look around for stick to reach the banana = normal to pull banana towards cage using stick; in monkeys with prefrontal damage, they see banana and they look around for object to reach banana, but by the time they retrieve object, it’s as if they’ve forgotten that there’s a banana and vice versa;  if there was a delay in seeing the problem and seeing the solution to the problem (if objects weren’t side by side), then they couldn’t solve the problem  Jacobson initially thought it may be a problem in immediate memory (short-term memory capacity loss; however, he started testing them in diff kinds of conditions and he figured it wasn’t that simple  In dark or if given tranquilizer = the animals were able to perform task  tried to figure out what the problem really was by eliminating things; this suggested that it wasn’t a problem in memory at all but that maybe it was emotional component like distractibility (if in dark or on sedative, wouldn’t be distracted)  Problems in alternation: test where first, one set of responses is correct and then another set is correct (ex: first the animal has to choose the red cup to nd get a raisin, in 2 trial, animal has to choose yellow cup to get the raisin  Monkey with prefrontal problem could not solve alternations task; normal monkeys can solve this problem fairly quick  Damaged monkey: once learned the first response, they became unable to change their response  became rigid in their behavior patterns; lack plasticity in their ability to change responses o Jacobson: there was a particular monkey that he tested which did not like being tested; the monkey got more upset, neurotic/uptight and would throw tantrums; eventually got to a point where she was throwing tantrums before they could get her into the WGTA; after doing frontal lobotomy, the monkey became tranquil/calm o Jacobson reported results about the monkey testing; how there may be an emotional component in the frontal lobe; also talked about how this particular monkey was especially out of control b4 the surgery but AFTER FRONTAL LOBOTOMY, the monkey became calm  these results were presented at conference which MONIZ attended o Moniz = neurosurgeon = potentially try this on humans who were out of control and had psychiatric disorders? o Moniz tried this on humans  began prefrontal lobotomies in humans o Use letter openers, leukotomes (drive it thru orbit)  they disconnected prefrontal lobe from the rest of the brain; didn’t actually remove it o 20 ppl surgery = all survived; reported 7 of them had recovered, 7 had improved o best results with depressed patients o considered major advancement in psychiatric; whole wave of treating psychiatric patients by prefrontal lobotomy o moniz himself stopped performing lobotomies in 1944 b/c he was shot by one of his lobotomy patients  severed spine  paraplegic o Two other ppl still thought prefrontal lobotomy still a good idea = Freeman and Watts = brought technique to N.America; operated on 3500 patients -Estimated that there were about 40,000 prefrontal lobotomies performed in US (1940s) -problems with prefrontal lobotomy  generate scar tissue  18% developed epilepsy/seizures -continued until 1950’s when drug therapies were developed (ex: antihistamines) so prefrontal surgeries to treat psychiatric disorders declined in 50s and 60s  Prefrontal damage in humans: o IQ = WAIS = normal scores on IQ tests; opposes Gall’s phrenology which stated that frontal lobes = intelligence; turns out that frontal lobes have nothing to do with intelligence o These patients had problems in changing inappropriate behavior; measured by Wisconsin Card Sort Test  has little objects on it that can either vary by color, number or shape; ask the person to sort it however they want; however they sort it the first time, you say is right  do this until they get 10 of them correct; after they get 10 correct, the experimenter has changed the rule by which the patient has to sort but the patient hasn’t been told that the rule has changed; you say it’s wrong and normally it takes a couple tries for the person to realize what the new rule is and to sort according to the new rule; let the person get 10 right again with the new rule and then switch to a new rule o Prefrontal damage patients don’t get that the rules have changed; whatever they started with, they continue with that; once they start doing a particular behavior, these patients lack the flexibility to be able to change when it is inappropriate to continue o What is interesting is that they can solve the problem intellectually: they can tell you but they will continue in the same beh even tho inappropriate o Dissociation between verbal and motor beh: board with green and red light, have 2 buzzers that they can press  tell person ‘when green light comes on, press red button; when red light comes on, press green button’ patient may do the opposite of what was told OR they may keep hitting same button no matter what; but they can verbally tell you clearly what the directions are but they can’t follow it (motorically c
More Less

Related notes for PSYB65H3

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit