Central Nervous System Determines Behaviour

The central nervous system is undoubtedly the key determinant over the course of human behaviour. Since the time of Herophilus first examining and reporting the structure of the nervous system, it is now central to not only neuroscience, but is an area of expansive research in biological psychology; it is the fundamental link between the mind and the body and thus, is an important determinant in shaping behaviour. It can be said that when it comes to shaping behaviour, the brain, nervous and sensory systems and cognitive functions are interrelated. However, this essay will critically examine and focus primarily on the extent to which the central nervous system determines, monitors and regulates the human behaviours of movement and pain perception by examining their biological and neurological factors, and evaluating of the presence of societal and environmental factors.

The central nervous system is an integral part of the nervous system comprising of the brain and spinal cord. The peripheral nervous system is represented by the nerves that emerge from the brain and spinal cord, and are distributed throughout the body (Winn, 2001). Reber, Allen and Reber (2009) define movement as any change in an organism's position or one or more of its parts. Primarily governed by the central nervous system, the human behavior of movement unquestionably elicits both biological and non-biological factors. For regulation and monitoring purposes, the biology and neuroscience of movement must be analysed. Kalat (2018) Predicates that humans movement relies on contraction of muscle with skeletal or striated muscles controlling the body's movement with respect to the environment. The presence of a proprioceptor is needed to control movement. Muscle proprioceptors detect a muscle stretch and tension and send messages that allow the spinal cord to adjust its signals. The spinal cord then sends a message to contract it reflexively when the muscle is stretched. Some rapid behavioral sequences are based on central pattern generators, neural mechanisms in the spinal cord that produce rhythmic motor output patterns. Hägglund et al. (2013) did you start neural mechanisms of excitation and inhibition generates these rhythms.

The study of movement is not just the study of muscles. Is in study of how we decide what to do (Kalat, 2018). When investigating the monitoring and regulation of movement by the central nervous system, it is crucial we examine the salience of the brain's vital mechanisms in order to critically analyse this behavior. Neuroscientists and psychologists alike have understood that direct electrical stimulation of the primary motor cortex elicits movements since the pioneering work of Fritsch and Hitzig (1870). No messages are sent directly to the muscles by the motor cortex. The axons traveled to the brain and spinal cord, resulting in the impulses that control the muscles. Interestingly, Hinoshita et al. (2012) Discovered that some axons in humans go directly from the cerebral cortex to motor neurons, resulting in increased dexterity. Areas adjacent to the primary motor cortex including the prefrontal, premotor and supplementary motor cortices are involved in the identification and planning for movement stimuli. Critical structures also include the cerebellum and basal ganglia. The cerebellum has multiple behavioral roles including the aforementioned perception of timing or rhythm of stimuli. He made her ganglia, a large group of support go structures, are of particular importance for spontaneous self-initiated behaviors (Kalat,2018). Each of these brain structures play different but equally significant roles in the regulation of movement.

A noteworthy example of how the extension nervous system fails to regulate movement is the disorder of Parkinson's disease. Parkinson’s disease is characterized by slow and inaccurate movements, impaired initiation of activity, depression, tremor, and cognitive deficits. The degenerative disease is Associated with the lack of dopamine-containing axons from the substantia nigra to the caudate nucleus and putamen. Although none of them alone have a major effect on the disease, researchers have identified many gene variants that increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease (Nalls et al. 2014). The chemical MPTP selectively damages neurons in the substantia nigra and leads to the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Some cases of Parkinson’s disease may result in part from exposure to toxins (Nicklas, Saporito, Basma, Geller, & Heikkila, 1992, as cited in Kalat 2018). Although the effectiveness of it varies and it produces unpleasant side effects. The most common treatment for Parkinson’s disease is L-dopa, which crosses the blood–brain barrier and enters neurons that convert it into dopamine (Obeso et al., 2008). Parkinson’s disease highlights that control of movement is closely associated with cognition. People with the condition are likely to suffer cognitive deficits, apathy, and a lack of motivation and pleasure. The psychological problems that generally develop prior to any noticeable motor problems. Essentially, the mechanisms of thought are also the mechanisms of movement, thus portraying the interrelatedness of the biological process with the psychological explanation (Kalat, 2018).

Through the utilisation of these biological factors we can also reasonably postulate the conspicuous presence of non-biological factors in determining movement. An interesting study by Engel, Burke, Fiehler, Bien and Rösler (2008) investigated the isolation of the mirror neuron system to non-biological movement patterns. Mirror neurons activate both during preparation for a movement and while watching someone else perform a similar movement (Rizzolatti & Sinigaglia, 2010, as cited in Kalat, 2018). In their research, Engel et al. (2008) texted the claim that movement exclusively connected to human motor repertoire has direct access to mirror neurons. Engel et al. (2008) established through hemodynamic response recordings, that while biological movement patterns are the first and potentially also the most commonly encountered moving stimuli in life, It is not surprising that movements of non-biological objects are analyzed spontaneously with respect to biological categories represented within the mirror neurons network. Thus, it can be argued that while biological factors encompass movement behaviours, the prominent presence of the aforementioned non biological factors provide fundamental knowledge of the psychological explanation of movement in the central nervous system.

To adequately discussed the pertinent role of the central nervous system in determining behaviour, it is essential we examine the relevant role of the peripheral nervous system in monitoring and regulating said behaviour. While the peripheral nervous system has many subdivisions, we will discuss the function of the somatosensory system with a particular focus on pain perception to critically evaluate how it determines behaviour. Merskey (1991, as cited in Winn 2001) Describe a pain as execrable emotional and sensory experience, connected with potential or actual tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage. This definition encompasses three prominent aspects elicited in most definitions: pain is distinguishable from other sensory modalities; it normally occurs with an aversive emotional state; and sometimes a distinctive sensory-emotional experience of pain arises in the absence of tissue damage or physical stimuli.

Similar to the central nervous system, you must analyse the biological factors which monitor and regulates pain behaviour. The sensation of pain initiates with a bare nerve ending (Kalat, 2018). These pain sensitive cells relay information Tim sites in the brain, with one path option extending to the ventral posterior nucleus of the thalamus and then to the somatosensory cortex. The bodys specialised pain receptors are called nocioceptors (Martin, 2003). The experience of pain is signaled by sensory fibers in the spinal cord, which receive information from the peripheral nervous system. C fibres and A-delta fibres connect the nocioceptors to the spinal cord. Slow, painful sensations are conveyed by C fibres, while the smaller more thinly mylenated A-delta fibres convey rapid pain stimuli. The contributions of Melzack and Wall (1965) revolutionised our comprehension of pain mechanisms with important clinical and scientific outcomes. Their proposed Gate Control Theory made classification of pain as a circular rather than linear response, because of the nocioceptive signal being carried by the A-delta and C fibres being inhibited at the spinal level (Melzack & Wall, 1965, as cited in Marchand, 2018). Perhaps incomprehensive factor in understanding pain behaviour regulation is emotional pain. Other than the somatosensory cortex, pain stimuli also have a path that activates through the medulla, to the thalamus, then the amygdala, hippocampus, prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortes (Kalat, 2018). Hunt and Mantyh (2001) Stated that these areas cannot react to the sensation but to its emotional aspect. Glasser and Strauss (1967) Grounded Theory Is a methodological approach geared towards research that was considered suitable for the study of emotional pain. Grounded Theory Values the clients who reflexivity an individual experience it integrates a constructivist social perspective. This theory elicits how emotional pain has an environmental and social congruency, as well as being biologically monitored.

In the same way the central nervous system is covered by biological and non-biological factors, the peripheral nervous system is similarly determined by these factors. In his study Shankland (2011) critically assessed multiple factors that affect pain behaviour. He used the knowledge that nociocpetion produces pain, which produces suffering and suffering is observed by behaviors due to that pain. Through the implication of this biological process, Shankland (2011) discovered various societal environmental factors Such as family influences, religious beliefs and cultural differences etc. all impact pain behaviour. He stated that all anyone can observe is one's pain behaviour, not the magnitude of one's real pain or suffering. We must understand that pain behaviours are real and manifest differently, depending on many emotional factors such as those mentioned.

To conclude, the importance of biology within the field of psychology has been and contiues to be widely debated. However, the mojority of psychologists noe believe that biology and psyhology work in congruency and both need to be considered to create a more accurate explanation of biological psychology. As evidently explained, the argument of the central nervous systems extent of dteremining human behaviour is essentially a matter of nature versus nuture. While it can be argued that expansive research has proven the various inputs into te regulation, monitoring and determination of human behaviour, as portryed thoughout this essay, additional research in the societal and enviromental factors, leading to the expedient homogenisation of both nature and nutrture to expalin the question of the central nervous systems role in determining human behaviour.