Close
today i learned (til)

How The Science of Neuroplasticity Can Help You

April 5, 2019

What is Neuroplasticity?

Neuroplasticity seems like something a person would read about in a science-fiction novel. How can the brain, a seemingly unchanging mass of brain-goo, be constantly re-modelling and changing itself? As crazy as it seems, research has shown that throughout a person’s life, even as a person reaches adulthood, there are parts of the brain that remain “plastic” or moldable. For example, if a person loses their sight, the neurons associated with sight are re-wired to be used for other senses, such as touch or hearing. Although a child’s brain exhibits more neuroplasticity, the adult brain is still surprisingly flexible. This is specifically relevant to students, who use the brain’s natural ability to change for their own benefit.

The Student Guide to Revamping Their Brain

Feel less stressed, get better sleep, and feel more in control of your life!

1.Meditation

For most of neuroscience’s history, scientists believed that the brain was fixed or set. However, we now know that the brain changes itself in response to experiences, stimuli, thoughts, and the environment. Rather than being a static machine, the brain is constantly processing information and making new neural connections and letting old ones die. Evidence for this phenomena comes from the effect of meditation on the brain. Richard Davidson, a researcher from the University of Wisconsin, studied the effects of both short and long-term meditation practices. The researcher found that the meditator brain’s were different from the non-meditator brain’s. Not only did individuals who meditate feel less stressed, depressed, and more content, their actual brain showed differences too! On average, those who had a consistent mediation practice had more gray matter, which has been linked to mood control and decision making.

2. Exercise

If you need another reason to exercise, look so further! Exercise has been shown to not only increase spatial memory, but it promotes the generation and growth of neurons. People that exercise consistently have been shown to have a higher grey matter mass, especially grey matter associated with cognitive control. So, if you exercise, you might think and function better!

3. Change Your Thoughts

Although it’s surprising to think about, but the way we think can have an effect on our physical brain. When you think a thought, the brain forms a neural pathway. When you think that thought again, the neural pathway grows stronger. It is similar to the way a canyon is formed. Water flows through a canyon for years, making the path deeper and wider. Thought is powerful. When a person believes something, it has a physical manifestation in the brain. If a student believes that they can never be good at math, they will form a mental block. However, if they practice doing math, their brain will form a mini “map” for math and they will get better at it. The way we think can shape our worldview, what we do, and how we behave. It is good to be aware of that, even though a large part of our thoughts are not in our conscious awareness.

Citations:

Doidge, N. (2017). The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science. Strawberry Hills, NSW: ReadHowYouWant.

Lutz, A., Greischar, L. L., Rawlings, N. B., Ricard, M., & Davidson, R. J. (2004). Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16369-16373. doi:10.1073/pnas.0407401101

Begley, S. (2007, January 19). How Thinking Can Change the Brain. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116915058061980596

 

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
When to Start Panicking about Killer Robots
today i learned (til)
Breakthrough in Quantum Computing
today i learned (til)
Glowing Gels for Clearer Vision: A New Era in Eye Surgery
today i learned (til)
Virtual Reality in Education: Revolutionizing Learning Experiences

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.