Prior to beginning this activity, read Chapter 5: Cognitive Development, Chapter 6: Language, and Chapter 7: Intelligence in the course textbook. In addition, read the following required articles:
A Novel Theoretical Life Course Framework for Triggering Cognitive Development Across the Lifespan (Links to an external site.)
Cognitive Development in Children with Chronic Protein Energy Malnutrition
Effect of Breastfeeding Duration on Cognitive Development in Infants: 3-Year Follow-Up Study (Links to an external site.)
And view the following videos:
Genetics and Intelligence Robert Plomin (Links to an external site.)
The Teenage Brain: A World of Their Own
Kids and Language
Child looking at a tablet screen.jpg
In this journal,
Reflect on the factors (cognitive development, language development, and intelligence), that you have learned about this week.
Identify what you believe to be the most important variables that are associated with each of the following areas:
infant intelligence development
cognitive development in adolescence
Evaluate your personal or vicarious experiences and/or weekly sources, utilizing citations, to support your beliefs about why, what you included, is of such importance.
reviously described. Coehlo et al.  analyzed the fatigue of simulated dental crowns formed from a zirconia core layered with LAVA and VITA. Silva et al.  tested lithium disilicate crowns in a conventional dynamic fatigue test. Beams are a more standardized testing method for comparison between samples eliminating the confounding variables of crown design or tooth shape. These variables were simulated by Rekow et al. , where seven factors involved in the mechanical performance of a dental crown were analyzed. Some of those variables were the material type, cementing agent, and tooth element. They generated 128 possible combinations of effects from these 7 variables, which are closely related. Beams, on the other hand, allowed a simpler approach, with the material as the majority factor in the test, with MHS as the independent variable. Another important factor in step stress is the form of loading. The literature suggests that cyclic loading does not increase the rate of crack growth in ceramics. Therefore, using a testing frequency (10 Hz), higher than rates of normal physiological activity, are not likely to influence the results. This was suggested by Joshi et al. , in their study of cyclic fatigue on fluorapatite glass-ceramics. Step-stress test results showed an increase in the reliability for MHS samples when compared to CFS samples. This is indirectly reflected by the higher ratio of Suspension to Failures (number of samples surviving the test vs number of samples failing the test) for samples sintered with MHS (Figure ). Previous studies have shown that step-stress testing provides a more conservative estimate than dynamic fatigue testing while maintaining predictive significance. Additionally, the step stress test is based on fewer assumptions (the same failure mechanisms will be present at the higher stress levels and will act in the same manner as at normal stress levels)[Ministry of Defense UK 2009] than a dynamic fatigue test, and therefore, has stronger predictive value. [Balakrishnan et al. 2012, Borba et al. 2013, Huh et al. 2011, Kamal et al. 2013, Yoshikawa et al. 2007]. The step-stress test results predict MHS samples have a probability of 58% of surviving longer than CFS samples. The results show a predicted performance of around 47,000 cycles for CFS samples, against over 59,000 cycles for MHS samples (Figure 64). This is a 20% increase in the predicted 90% reliability for the MHS processed material. Since the standard service life of a dental crown is 5 years, this adds another year of life to a dental crown. Although comparing these results to other tests is complicated, due to the use of crown or tooth shaped samples, the results obtained in this test are consistent with the results published in the review on dental ceramics by Li et al. , which report lithium disilicate ceramics survival rates of 97-100% after two years. These results are compatible with the findings of Silva et al. , mentioned before, whose fatigue experiments showed lithium disilicate crowns may be as reliable as zirconia crowns, usually considered the material with the best mechanical performance. In a recent review of survival rates of dental crowns by Lekesiz et al , using another glass ceramic (IPS Empress, Ivoclar Vivadent, >GET ANSWER