Mommy Brain Assignment

Assignment 2

Mommy Brain

1. Popular Article Summary. (5 pts)

The purpose of this article was to see whether or not certain areas of a mother’s brain change after having a baby. The participants of the study were 19 women who had recently given birth. All of the women gave birth at the same hospital. Each of the participants had images taken of their brains two to four weeks, and three to four months after giving birth. This was done to see if their were any changes in the grey matter of their brain. The scientists discovered that grey matter does increase in certain areas of the brain after a woman gives birth. The areas where the scientist saw grey matter growth are associated with maternal behaviors, “The areas affected support maternal

motivation (hypothalamus), reward and emotion processing (substantia nigra and amygdala), sensory integration (parietal lobe), and reasoning and judgment (prefrontal cortex),” (The real 'mommy brain'). These findings lead researchers to think that this growth in certain areas of the brain could “lead to more nurturing, which would help babies survive and thrive physically, emotionally and cognitively,” (The real 'mommy brain).

2. Discuss Academic Article: (5 pts)
The academic article had advantages and disadvantages. Some the advantages of this article were that it contained the actual research from the study. Such as charts, the MRI images, and the author cited other research when appropriate. Disadvantages of the article were that some of the research provided was hard to interpret. For example, the images from the MRI that were shown in the article are hard for anyone who is not a doctor to understand. One other disadvantage of the article was that some language used was a little hard to follow. This is not necessarily a disadvantage for other medical persons, but it is a disadvantage for an average person reading this study. All five of the authors of this study are associated with universities. Two of the authors of this study are associated wit Yale university, Leckman, James F. and Mayes, Linda C..
My view on this articles that it is very well done, even if it is a little hard to understand at first. For example, one place that was tricky to understand was when the researchers talked about the results of the MRI, “A. Gray matter increase from 2–4 weeks to 3–4 months postpartum, p < .05, (FDR corrected) > 100 voxels—surface areas shown in red—please see Table 1 for complete list of structures that increased in density over time; B. A cluster of midbrain regions are circled in yellow (x = 1, y = −10, z = −15; p < .05, …” (The plasticity of human maternal brain: Longitudinal changes in brain anatomy during the early postpartum period.). This section is not really that important to getting the main point of the article. However, I think it would have been helpful if this section was more extensively explained.

3. Discuss Popular Article: (5 pts)
The popular article had positive and negative aspects. One positive thing in this article was that it explained the medical terms, for example, “reward and emotion processing (substantia nigra and amygdala),” (The real 'mommy brain'). This made it easier to understand what the author was talking about and how it pertained the study. One negative aspect of the article was that it didn't include any of the charts of images from the study. This is not automatically a negative thing since sometimes those charts are difficult to understand. In this case though I think it could have been nice to see the MRI images, and have the author explain the images in a more basic and easy to understand way. There is no specific author or set of credentials or
affiliations to go along with this article. However, the real 'mommy brain' article was written by “Women's Health Weekly editors from staff and other reports,” (The real 'mommy brain')

4. Compare the two articles: (10 pts)
Both articles had advantages and disadvantages. Although the popular article (The real 'mommy brain’) was simpler than the academic article it did not construe any facts in a way that would mislead the reader. The popular article did leave out a few things. For example, the author of the popular article did not include the table or images from the academic article. The popular article did a pretty good job of covering everything in the academic article without changing the results or overemphasizing aspects of the academic article. While the popular article did a good job of getting the facts right, it was not clear who wrote it and what their credentials are. Compared to the authors of the academic article, the five authors are all affiliated with colleges, and it is very clear who contributed to the writing of the academic article.

5. Internet Article (third article) Summary: (5 pts)
The third article titled “Mommy Brain: Yes, It's a Thing” does not seem have a purpose for any research but rather to simply acknowledge that the mommy brain exists.

Mommy brain is when moms feel that they loose brain power after having a baby. The participants could be seen as all moms. The author does reference one study, “Half of new moms still felt super sleepy 18 weeks after giving birth, according to a recent study published in PLOS One,” (Mommy Brain: Yes, It's a Thing). The author, conflict of interest does not give any procedure, results,or implications since there isn't really any research happening in this article. She does how ever however give ways to help with “mommy brain”. Carole Anderson Lucia does not include any credentials,affiliations about herself in this article.

6. Discuss Internet Article: (5 pts)

My opinion of this article is that is contains no real research or evidence for it’s claims. While the author does not seem to have any conflict of interest (no connection to any companies that are trying to persuade their customers), Carole Anderson Lucia does not provide any reference to studies about the topic. The author writes in her article that, “Many experts attribute the sluggishness to the upheaval of hormones that inevitably occurs after childbirth,” (Mommy

Brain: Yes, It's a Thing). However, Carole Anderson Lucia’s (the author) one supporting reference to a study done, is about how sleep causes “mommy brain”. This leads me to question the credibility of this

article.

7. Summary. (10 pts)
All three articles had positive and negative components. The third article (Mommy Brain: Yes, It's a Thing) was weak on the research, while the first article (The Plasticity of Human Maternal Brain: Longitudinal Changes in Brain Anatomy during the Early Postpartum Period) was quite heaving in the same section. coincidentally, the second article (The real 'mommy brain': New mothers grew), fell somewhere in the middle, it had research and cited credible studies but it was also written in an easy to read way. The first article’s writers had strong credentials as well as affiliations to noteworthy colleges such as Yale. The same cannot be said for the second and third articles. The first and second articles sited other research and studies to support their own article. The third article also sited a study, however, the article that “Mommy Brain: Yes, It's a Thing,” cited did not really apply to what the author was writing about.
The information included the three articles differed greatly. In the first article the authors wrote in a way that made it feel very clinical, as though it was meant for other researchers to study so that they could perform their own study. The second article was written in a very clear way, that was also understandable and easy to read. This article also seemed credible: it sited reliable research and was free of grammatical errors. The third article was written as though the author was writing to a friend. It didn't have any grammatical errors but it did not carry the same feeling of credibility. For example, the third article “Mommy Brain: Yes, It's a Thing” stated a fact, “Many experts attribute the sluggishness to the upheaval of hormones that inevitably occurs after childbirth,” but the author never said where the fact came from. Overall, I think that the three articles were written for different purposes and different audiences. That being said all three were good in different ways.