According to Tracy & Osipowicz (2011), there are two types of traumatic brain damages, which are closed head and penetrating head injuries. The closed head damage is characterized by internal bleeding resulting from issues such as tumors, high blood pressure, stroke, or weak blood vessels. Besides, internal bleeding in the brain can be as a result of accidents and falls that damage the nerve endings (Polito, Thompson, & DeFina, 2010). Contrary, penetrating head injuries are caused by sharp objects that enter the brain. The two types of injuries cause disparity in the neurological elements of the brain by damaging its nerves. This explains why individuals that incur a brain injury face challenges such as persistent vocational, psychological, cognitive, social, and communicative challenges as well as neurodegenerative and neuroendocrine disorders. In most cases, brain injuries that are not considered catastrophic are treatable.
An individual’s brain has numerous cells known as neurons that are interlinked through a network referred to as synapses. These series of cells are responsible for communication within the brain since they send messages through the synapses to all hemispheres of an individual’s brain. The two types of brain damage destroy these neurons hence obstructing communication since the connection between the neurons is broken. According to Hill (2015), an injured brain can reorganize and repair its synapses through neuroplasticity or brain plasticity process. This process involves developing new neural links by enabling brain nerve cells to adjust the networks they use to communicate with each other. The re-organization process occurs by mechanisms such as the axonal sprouting that enables undamaged axons to grow new neurons that reconnect with other nerve endings whose links were damaged during the injury. Besides, undamaged axons can sprout neurons that connect with intact nerve cells to form a neural pathway, synapses, that accomplishes the needed tasks in the brain (Sawada, & Sawamoto, 2013). For instance, if it is one hemisphere of the brain that is damaged, the undamaged part takes over some of its tasks. The intact hemisphere does so by reorganizing and forming new connections between the healthy nerve endings that compensate for the damaged brain hemisphere. Therefore, it is evident that an injured brain has an amazing ability of healing or repairing itself.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are different biological, clinical, and mental aspects that promote positive brain function outcomes. One of the factors is age. It is apparent that a child’s brain can repair itself through replications of neurons through mitosis. This process is known as neurogenesis, and it aids in successful brain outcomes since it facilitates brain cell multiplication. Another factor is the preexisting environment. It is apparent that therapists should aim at placing patients in environments that provide extinction paradigm and positive reinforcement to promote learning (Villamar et al. 2012). Other factors include severity of an injury, genetics, access to quality of treatment as well as response to treatment.
Key clinical interventions that facilitate the restoration of lost brain function include psychotherapy and occupational therapies. Therapists in these settings educate the recovering persons to ensure that they do not cultivate weak characters. Jackson & Haverkamp (1991) document that as patients start to improve, maladaptive behaviors emerge. Therapists need to replace these behaviors with adaptive ones that will enhance skill development and acquisition. Besides, rehabilitation in specialized setting aids in brain recovery. The reason is that these facilities allow re-acquisition of skills by individuals through exercise and environmental stimuli. It is apparent that exercises release endorphin hormone, which stimulates neuroplasticity and neurogenesis hence accelerating the process of recovery.
References
Hill, R. (2015). The Brain's Way of Healing: Remarkable Discoveries and Recoveries from the Frontiers of Neuroplasticity. Library Journal , 140 (5), 128-129.
Jackson, A., & Haverkamp, B. E. (1991). Family response to traumatic brain injury. Counselling Psychology Quarterly , 4 (4), 355.
Polito, M., Thompson, J., & DeFina, P. (2010). A review of the international brain research foundation novel approach to mild traumatic brain injury presented at the international conference on behavioral health and traumatic brain injury. Journal Of The American Academy Of Nurse Practitioners, 22(9), 504-509. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00540.x
Sawada, M., & Sawamoto, K. (2013). Mechanisms of neurogenesis in the normal and injured adult brain. The Keio Journal Of Medicine, 62 (1), 13-28. doi:10.2302/kjm.2012-0005-RE
Tracy, J. I., & Osipowicz, K. Z. (2011). A conceptual framework for interpreting neuroimaging studies of brain neuroplasticity and cognitive recovery. Neurorehabilitation , 29 (4), 331- 338.
Villamar, M. F., Santos Portilla, A., Fregni, F., & Zafonte, R. (2012). Noninvasive Brain Stimulation to Modulate Neuroplasticity in Traumatic Brain Injury. Neuromodulation , 15 (4), 326-338. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00474.x
