Scars-Article Review

Numerous experiments were conducted by Martin Teicher and his colleagues at McLean
Hospital. These experiments were related to analyzing if there is a relationship between child abuse,
brain changes, and extreme personalities. Throughout the course of the article, there are many
descriptions of the experiments. The control group was the individuals who were not abused as
children. The independent variable in the experiment was whether the individuals were abused as a
child. The dependent variable was whether the brain had abnormalities. After the experiments were
conducted, definitive results were obtained. The conclusion of the experiment yielded numerous
results: reduction in amygdala size, reduction in left-hemisphere size, disruption of neural receptors by
stress, reduction in corpus collosum size, and even seizures caused by receptor disruption. These
conclusions show a connection between child abuse and brain changes. The results of the numerous
experiments show that multiple repetitions occurred over different experiments.
I was not entirely surprised with the results of the experiments. The connection of psychological
disorders and personality disorder with actual changes in the brain due to external factors seemed
reasonable. However, some of the actual structural changes surprised me. Reductions in various parts of
the brain and actual receptor disruption were the most surprising results. I was unaware that external
components like stress could actually cause reductions in certain parts of the brain. Overall, the
methodology seemed to be sound, except for the selection of the control group. If the control group
was not an actual representation of society, the results of the child abuse individuals might seem too
extreme. The actual methods for obtaining the results, however, were all fine. I agree with the
conclusion, with a caveat. If the control group did actually represent a cross-section of society and took
into account normal stress in everyday families, then the results of the experiments do not see
exaggerated. Definitive changes in left-hemisphere size and receptor disruption are hard to argue with.
A few questions came to mind when I was reading this article. How was abuse or stress measured in the
individuals studied? Was the difference in size dramatic enough to affect behavior? Did any of the
subjects show positive results? Did any of the subjects from the control group exhibit similar results to
the individuals who were abused as children? There were various ethical issues at hand. Ethically, one
cannot be subjected to abuse for the purpose of experimentation. However, the individuals studied
were already abused as children, and there is no way of taking back the harms done to them. The
individuals may have had a traumatic time recounting their abuse as children during the experiment.


The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat

A neurologist recounts his experiences with a patient who had lost his sense of reality, in the article The
Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat. The recollection begins by introducing the audience to the
patient, Dr. J. The doctor has difficulty recognizing faces but can draw an accurate conclusion after a few
features of an individuals face are analyzed. The neurologist first concluded that Dr. J was a normal
functioning man since he talked well and fluently. But, the neurologist soon noted that something was
out of place. First, Dr. J seemed to see with his ears and not with his eyes, meaning Dr. J could see the
neurologist but only differentiate him from somebody else from the sound of his voice. After conducting
tests, such as describing the National Geographic Magazine, the neurologist noted that Dr. J noticed
some features in a scenario, but did not see the entire picture. The neurologist confirms that Dr. J relies
on sound more than sight and had no problem recognizing abstract figures. However, real figures posed
a problem for Dr. J. He was unable to name family members from their pictures without obvious
indications. Finally, at the end of the narrative, the neurologist notes that music had replaced images for
Dr. J. When music was playing, Dr. J was able to function; however once the music stopped, Dr. J had
problems with differentiation. This was all attributed to Dr. Js cortex damage, which caused him to lose
real visual perception.
I found the article to be truly interesting. Dr. J seemed like a normal man and even laughed at the
beginning when he was just starting to make mistakes. However, it was evident that Dr. J slowly lost
complete control over his visual perception of reality. The experiences Dr. J had and the mistakes he
made contributed to the interesting nature of the article. Mistaking your wifes head for a hat seems like
a major problem, though, Dr. J was still able to function if he could hear an individuals voice. I believe
that Dr. Js lack of visual perception impaired his ability to function, but did not entirely debilitate it. The
worst aspect of Dr. Js problem was that he could no longer perceive personal information. He could no
longer perceive family members without obvious indicators. The most interesting part of the article was
how Dr. J could function when music was playing. The music somehow triggered Dr. J into functioning.
When reading this article, a few questions came to mind. How did Dr. J damage his cortex in such a way
that only visual perception was altered? How did Dr. J perceive information when auditory signals were
present? How did others react to Dr. Js condition, and were they understanding about his lack of
recognition? There were no ethical issues violated throughout the neurologists evaluation of Dr. J.