D'Souza Hana, Karmiloff-Smith Annette
Sensorimotor Development Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK.
Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK.
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2017 Jan;8(1-2). doi: 10.1002/wcs.1398. Epub 2016 Dec 1.
Recent technological advances allow us to measure how the infant brain functions in ways that were not possible just a decade ago. Although methodological advances are exciting, we must also consider how theories guide research: what we look for and how we explain what we find. Indeed, the ways in which research findings are interpreted affects the design of policies, educational practices, and interventions. Thus, the theoretical approaches adopted by scientists have a real impact on the lives of children with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) and their families, as well as on the wider community. Here, we introduce and compare two theoretical approaches that are used to understand NDDs: the neuropsychological account and neuroconstructivism. We show how the former, adult account, is inadequate for explaining NDDs and illustrate this using the examples of Williams syndrome and specific language impairment. Neuroconstructivism, by contrast, focuses on the developing organism and is helping to change the way in which NDDs are investigated. Whereas neuropsychological static approaches assume that one or more 'modules' (e.g., visuospatial ability in Williams syndrome) are impaired while the rest of the system is spared (e.g., language in Williams syndrome), neuroconstructivism proposes that basic-level deficits have subtle cascading effects on numerous domains over development. Neuroconstructivism leads researchers to embrace complexity by establishing large research consortia to integrate findings at multiple levels (e.g., genetic, neural, cognitive, environmental) across developmental time. WIREs Cogn Sci 2017, 8:e1398. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1398 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
最近的技术进步使我们能够以前所未有的方式测量婴儿大脑的功能，而就在十年前这还无法实现。尽管方法上的进步令人兴奋，但我们也必须思考理论如何指导研究：我们寻找什么以及如何解释我们所发现的。事实上，研究结果的解释方式会影响政策设计、教育实践和干预措施。因此，科学家采用的理论方法对患有神经发育障碍（NDDs）的儿童及其家庭以及更广泛的社区的生活有着切实的影响。在这里，我们介绍并比较两种用于理解NDDs的理论方法：神经心理学观点和神经建构主义。我们展示了前者作为成人视角，不足以解释NDDs，并以威廉姆斯综合征和特定语言障碍为例进行说明。相比之下，神经建构主义关注发育中的机体，并正在改变研究NDDs的方式。神经心理学的静态方法假设一个或多个“模块”（例如威廉姆斯综合征中的视觉空间能力）受损，而系统的其余部分未受影响（例如威廉姆斯综合征中的语言能力），而神经建构主义则提出，基础水平的缺陷在发育过程中会对多个领域产生微妙的级联效应。神经建构主义促使研究人员通过建立大型研究联盟来整合不同发育阶段多个层面（如基因、神经、认知、环境）的研究结果，从而接受复杂性。WIREs认知科学2017年，8:e1398。doi:10.1002/wcs.1398 有关本文的更多资源，请访问WIREs网站。
