Sensitive Periods in the Development of the
Brain and Behavior
Eric I. Knudsen
Abstract
& Experience exerts a profound influence on the brain and,
therefore, on behavior. When the effect of experience on the
brain is particularly strong during a limited period in
development, this period is referred to as a sensitive period.
Such periods allow experience to instruct neural circuits to
process or represent information in a way that is adaptive for
the individual. When experience provides information that is
essential for normal development and alters performance
permanently, such sensitive periods are referred to as critical
periods.
Although sensitive periods are reflected in behavior, they
are actually a property of neural circuits. Mechanisms of plas-
ticity at the circuit level are discussed that have been shown
to operate during sensitive periods. A hypothesis is proposed
that experience during a sensitive period modifies the archi-
INTRODUCTION
Learning that occurs during sensitive periods lays the
foundation for future learning. A classical example is that
of filial imprinting (Lorenz, 1937): During a limited
period soon after birth, a young animal (mammal or
bird) learns to recognize, and bonds with, its parent
(Hess, 1973). The newborn cannot know the identity of
its parent a priori, so it imprints on the individual that is
consistently nearby and that satisfies best its innate
expectations for the characteristics of a parent. Under
unusual conditions, that individual may not even be of
the same species. The learning that occurs during this
sensitive period exerts a long-lasting influence on the
development of the individual’s social and emotional
behavior (Immelmann, 1972; Scott, 1962).
The term ‘‘sensitive period’’ is a broad term that
applies whenever the effects of experience on the brain
are unusually strong during a limited period in develop-
ment. Sensitive periods are of interest to scientists and
educators because they represent periods in develop-
ment during which certain capacities are readily shaped
or altered by experience. Critical periods are a special
class of sensitive periods that result in irreversible
Stanford University School of Medicine
D 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
tecture of a circuit in fundamental ways, causing certain pat-
terns of connectivity to become highly stable and, therefore,
energetically preferred. Plasticity that occurs beyond the end
of a sensitive period, which is substantial in many circuits,
alters connectivity patterns within the architectural constraints
established during the sensitive period. Preferences in a cir-
cuit that result from experience during sensitive periods are
illustrated graphically as changes in a ‘‘stability landscape,’’ a
metaphor that represents the relative contributions of genetic
and experiential influences in shaping the information pro-
cessing capabilities of a neural circuit. By understanding sen-
sitive periods at the circuit level, as well as understanding the
relationship between circuit properties and behavior, we gain
a deeper insight into the critical role that experience plays in
shaping the development of the brain and behavior. &
changes in brain function. The identification of critical
periods is of particular importance to clinicians, because
the adverse effects of atypical experience throughout a
critical period cannot be remediated by restoring typical
experience later in life. The period for filial imprinting,
for example, is a critical period.
Most of us view sensitive and critical periods from the
perspective of behavior. Many aspects of our perceptual,
cognitive, and emotional capabilities are shaped power-
fully by experiences we have during limited periods in
life. For example, the capacity to perceive stereoscopic
depth requires early experience with fused binocular
vision (Crawford, Harwerth, Smith, & von Noorden,
1996; Jampolsky, 1978); the capacity to process a lan-
guage proficiently requires early exposure to the lan-
guage (Newport, Bavelier, & Neville, 2001; Weber-Fox &
Neville, 1996; Kuhl, 1994; Oyama, 1976); and the capac-
ities to form strong social relationships and exhibit
typical responses to stress require early positive inter-
actions with a primary care giver (Thompson, 1999; Liu
et al., 1997; Leiderman, 1981; Hess, 1973). In each case,
the experience must be of a particular kind and it must
occur within a certain period if the behavior is to
develop normally.
Although sensitive periods are reflected in behavior,
they are actually a property of neural circuits. Because
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16:8, pp. 1412–1425
behavior results from information that has been pro-
cessed through hierarchies of neural circuits, behavioral
measures tend to underestimate the magnitude and
persistence of the effects of early experience on neural
circuits. Therefore, to define sensitive periods and to
explore why they occur and how they might be manipu-
lated, we must think about them at the level of circuits.
Examples of Sensitive Periods
To illustrate properties of sensitive periods, I will re-
fer primarily to data from four systems that have been
studied in some detail: the systems for (1) ocular rep-
resentation in the cortex of mammals, (2) auditory space
processing in the midbrain of barn owls, (3) filial im-
printing in the forebrain of ducks and chickens, and (4)
song learning in the forebrain of songbirds. The fol-
lowing is a brief introduction to each of these systems.
Ocular representation in the primary visual cortex of
monkeys, cats, and ferrets is the most thoroughly studied
of all systems that exhibit a sensitive period (Katz & Shatz,
1996; Daw, 1994; Fox & Zahs, 1994; Shatz & Stryker, 1978;
Hubel & Wiesel, 1977). In this circuit, information origi-
nating from either the left or right eye is conveyed to
cortical layer IV by axons from the thalamus. The con-
nections of thalamic axons with neurons in layer IV are
shaped powerfully by visual experience during the first
months after birth. During this period, chronic closure of
one eyelid (monocular deprivation) causes a selective
elimination of connections from the closed eye and an
elaboration of new connections from the open eye
(Antonini & Stryker, 1993). As a result, the circuit in layer
IV comes to be dominated by input from the open eye.
After the period ends, the typical pattern of ocular
representation cannot be recovered despite the restora-
tion of visual input to both eyes (Wiesel & Hubel, 1965).
Because of this last property, ocular representation in the
visual cortex is an example of a critical period.
Filial imprinting in ducks and chickens is another
example of a critical period. Within a few days of hatch-
ing, these animals imprint on auditory and visual stimuli
that identify the parent (Bolhuis & Honey, 1998; Ramsay
& Hess, 1954). Imprinting causes neurons in a particular
nucleus in the forebrain (the intermediate and medial
hyperstriatum ventrale) to undergo changes in architec-
ture and biochemistry and to become functionally se-
lective for the imprinted stimulus (Horn, 1998, 2004;
Scheich, 1987). After the imprinting period ends, the
preference for the imprinted stimulus does not change
with subsequent experience.
Song memorization in songbirds occurs during a
critical period in some species but throughout life in
other closely related species. Songbirds memorize the
song that they will sing (Konishi, 1985; Marler, 1970a).
Normally, they learn the song of their father (when only
the male sings). However, in the absence of a father’s
song, they will learn other song dialects or the songs of
certain other species. Song learning is associated with
architectural and functional changes in a forebrain
nucleus (the lateral magnocellular nucleus of the ante-
rior neostriatum) which is essential for song learning
(Doupe, 1997; Wallhausser-Franke, Nixdorf-Bergweiler,
& DeVoogd, 1995; Bottjer, Meisner, & Arnold, 1984). For
some species, song learning occurs only during a limited
period early in development, whereas for others song
learning continues throughout life.
Auditory processing of spatial information in the
midbrain of the barn owl is an example of a sensitive
period that is not a critical period. The processing of
auditory spatial information in barn owls exhibits an
unusually high degree of plasticity in juvenile animals
(Knudsen, 2002). A circuit in the external nucleus of the
inferior colliculus, integrates information from various
localization cues and forms associations between audi-
tory cue values and locations in space. Neural connec-
tivity is shaped powerfully by juvenile experience, as the
circuit calibrates its representations of auditory cues to
create a map of space that is accurate for the individual.
Manipulations of the owl’s hearing or vision (vision
calibrates the representation of auditory cues in this
circuit) during the juvenile period result in the acquisi-
tion of highly atypical representations of auditory cue
values. However, typical representations of cue values
can be acquired even after the juvenile period ends by
restoring normal hearing and vision, and by providing
the owl with a sufficiently rich environment (Brainard &
Knudsen, 1998). Because of this last property, this
period is not a critical period.
Opening of Sensitive Periods
Initial Conditions
Not all circuits are shaped during sensitive periods. In
some circuits, the connectivity (pattern and strengths of
connections) that exists in the mature circuit is estab-
lished by innate mechanisms with essentially no contri-
bution from experience (Figure 1A). This is the case for
many circuits that are located near the sensory or motor
periphery, such as in the retina or the spinal cord, or that
operate automatically (Kania & Jessell, 2003; Dyer &
Cepko, 2001; Meissirel, Wikler, Chalupa, & Rakic, 1997).
Other circuits maintain a high degree of plasticity
throughout life, such as in the basolateral nucleus of
the amygdala, the molecular layer of the cerebellar cortex,
or the CA1 region of the hippocampus (Medina, Christo-
pher Repa, Mauk, & LeDoux, 2002; Malenka & Nicoll,
1999; Ito, 1984). In these circuits, the range of potential
stable patterns of connectivity is broad and remains broad
throughout the lifetime of the animal (Figure 1B).
Most circuits operate between these extremes. For
these circuits, innate influences establish an initial pat-
tern of connectivity that is preferred (a valley in the
stability landscape; Figure 1C), but the pattern is not
specified precisely. This kind of circuit may be shaped by
Knudsen 1413
Figure 1. The constraints
placed on different neural
circuits by innate influences
before experience exerts
its effects, as represented by a
stability landscape. The
horizontal axis indicates the
range of patterns of neural
connectivity (strength and
pattern of connections) that the
circuit could acquire under any
conditions. The vertical axis
indicates the degree to which
each pattern is stable. The thick line is the landscape showing the relative stabilities of the various possible patterns of connectivity and reflecting,
therefore, the energy cost to change from one pattern of connectivity to another. The location of the ball in the landscape indicates the
particular pattern of connectivity that exists in the circuit. (A) Circuit that is completely constrained by innate influences. The range of potential
patterns of connectivity is narrow, and alternative patterns are not stable and, therefore, cannot be maintained. Examples are projections of
photoreceptor cells onto bipolar cells in the retina or olfactory afferents onto glomeruli in the olfactory bulb. (B) Circuit with high capacity for
experience-driven plasticity. The range of potential patterns of connectivity is broad, although defined by genetic determinants. All patterns are
equally stable, so one pattern is not preferred over others. Examples are the molecular layer of the cerebellum, the CA1 region of the hippocampus
and the basolateral amygdala. (C) Circuit that has the capacity to acquire a range of patterns, but prefers a certain range of patterns. Examples are
the thalamic input to layer IV of the primary sensory cortex in mammals, the external nucleus of the inferior colliculus in owls, the lateral
magnocellular nucleus of the anterior neostriatum in songbirds.

experience during a sensitive period. The degree to
which experience can alter the innate pattern of con-
nectivity varies greatly across different circuits and, for
the same circuit, across different species. When a circuit
can select from a large range of potential patterns of
connectivity, the effect of experience can have an enor-
mous impact on circuit connectivity. Conversely, when
the range of potential patterns of connectivity is highly
constrained by genetic influences, the effect of experi-
ence is correspondingly small.
Prerequisites
A sensitive period cannot open until three conditions
are met. First, the information provided to the circuit
must be sufficiently reliable and precise to allow the
circuit to carry out its function (for high-level circuits,
this may not happen until relatively late in develop-
ment). Second, the circuit must contain adequate con-
nectivity, including both excitatory and inhibitory
connections, to process the information (Fagiolini &
Hensch, 2000). Finally, it must have activated mecha-
nisms that enable plasticity, such as the capacity for
altering axonal or dendritic morphologies, for making or
eliminating synapses, or for changing the strengths of
synaptic connections. Experience that occurs before
these three conditions are met will have no effect
(positive or negative) on the circuit.
Timing of Initiation
The conditions required in order for a sensitive period to
open may result from the progress of development or
they may be enabled by the individual’s experience. In
several systems, intense impulse activity, of the kind that
can result from experience, has been shown to trigger
gene transcription and translation and to activate exist-
ing molecular cascades for processes that underlie plastic-
ity (Zhou, Tao, & Poo, 2003; Kandel, 2001; Benson,
Schnapp, Shapiro, & Huntley, 2000; Luscher, Nicoll,
Malenka, & Muller, 2000). Conversely, depriving animals
of adequate experience has been shown to delay the
opening of certain sensitive periods (Doupe & Kuhl,
1999; Daw, 1997; Mower & Christen, 1985). Thus, either
the progress of development or intense, experience-
driven activity can trigger the onset of a sensitive period.
Complex behaviors may comprise multiple sensitive
periods. Experimental evidence suggests that sensitive
periods for circuits performing low-level, more funda-
mental computations end before those that affect circuits
processing higher order aspects of sensory stimuli (Jones,
2000; Daw, 1997). For example, the sensitive periods for
circuits responsible for binocular fusion and stereopsis
end long before the sensitive periods for circuits that
analyze complex objects (Le Grand, Mondloch, Maurer, &
Brent, 2003; Rodman, 1994; LeVay, Wiesel, & Hubel,
1980). The same principle is likely to obtain for language,
social development and other complex behaviors. This
sequencing of sensitive periods is logical, because higher
levels in a hierarchy depend on precise and reliable
information from lower levels in order to accomplish
their functions. Therefore, experience-dependent shap-
ing of high-level circuits cannot occur until the computa-
tions being carried out by lower-level circuits have
become reliable.
During a Sensitive Period
Properties of Sensitive Period Plasticity
Experience during a sensitive period customizes a de-
veloping neural circuit to the needs of the individual.

1414 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 16, Number 8

Experience provides precise information about the indi-
vidual or about the environment that often cannot be
predicted and, therefore, cannot be genetically encoded.
For example, experience calibrates the circuits that
process stereoscopic information to the exact separation
and physical properties of the eyes (Jampolsky, 1978)
and customizes circuits involved in processing speech
sounds for the particular language(s) that will be spoken
(Newport et al., 2001).
Only certain kinds of stimuli are able to shape a
particular circuit during a sensitive period. The range
of stimuli that can influence a circuit is determined by
genetic predispositions that are built into the nervous
system (Knudsen, 1999; Konishi, 1985; Hess, 1973;
Immelmann, 1972). Within this potential range, some
stimuli are preferred over others (Figure 1C). The pre-
disposition of a circuit to be instructed by typical ex-
perience reflects both the selectivity of the circuit’s
various inputs, which themselves may be shaped during
sensitive periods, as well as the innate connectivity of
the circuit.
Mechanisms of Sensitive Period Plasticity
Axon elaboration and synapse formation as well as axon
and synapse elimination are mechanisms that have been
shown to alter circuit architecture during sensitive peri-
ods. During the development of a circuit, axons and
dendrites are growing and connections between many
pre- and postsynaptic neurons are being formed and
broken over short periods (Niell & Smith, 2004). Expe-
rience that activates a circuit adequately can cause
particular connections to be strengthened according to
a Hebbian rule as follows: When the activity of a
tentative, presynaptic element consistently anticipates
(and, therefore, contributes to driving) the activity of a
postsynaptic neuron, that synapse is stabilized and
strengthened. The distribution of stabilized synapses
shapes the growth patterns of axons and dendrites (Niell
& Smith, 2004; Ruthazer & Cline, 2004).
Axon elaboration and synapse formation is associated
with sensitive period plasticity in both the primary visual
cortex in mammals and in the external nucleus in barn
owls. In the primary visual cortex, experience with
monocular deprivation causes thalamic axons conveying
activity from the nondeprived eye to elaborate exten-
sively in regions of layer IV that are typically occupied by
axons representing the deprived eye (Antonini, Gilles-
pie, Crair, & Stryker, 1998). In the external nucleus of
the barn owl, novel axonal connections can be formed
(DeBello, Feldman, & Knudsen, 2001) that allow highly
atypical associations to be established between values
of auditory localization cues and locations in space
(Figure 2A). The capacity for axon elaboration in layer

Figure 2. Mechanisms of
architectural change that
can underlie sensitive
period plasticity. (A)
Elaboration of a new axonal
projection field, establishing
novel connections as
instructed by experience.
The sketch represents data
from auditory space analysis
in the external nucleus of
barn owls and ocular
dominance in layer IV of the
primary visual cortex in cats
(DeBello et al., 2001;
Antonini & Stryker, 1993).
(B) Loss of dendritic spines,
suggesting the selective
elimination of unused
synaptic inputs. The sketch
represents data from filial
imprinting in Guinea fowl
and song memorization
in zebra finches
(Wallhausser-Franke et al.,
1995; Scheich, 1987). (C)
Hypothesis for synapse
consolidation by CAMs. Repeated activation of this synapse and the postsynaptic neuron by experience during a sensitive period results in the
insertion of CAMs (vertical bars cross-linking the synaptic membranes), which structurally consolidate the synapse, making it invulnerable to
subsequent elimination. Changes in the efficacy of the synapse, due for example to experience after the end of the sensitive period, are still
possible. Changes in the numbers of presynaptic vesicles (spheres in upper terminal) or neurotransmitter receptors (trapezoids in lower terminal)
represent changes in the efficacy of the synapse. Consolidated synapses represent a permanent trace of the learning that occurred during the
sensitive period.

Knudsen 1415
IV of the primary visual cortex correlates with high levels
of growth associated proteins and neurotrophic factors,
particularly brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF),
low levels of factors that inhibit axonal outgrowth, and
the activation of a special subclass of glutamate receptor,
the NMDA receptor (Huberman & McAllister, 2002; Katz
& Shatz, 1996; McIntosh, Daw, & Parkinson, 1990).
Some of these same factors have been shown to be
present in other circuits during sensitive period plastic-
ity (Horn, 2004; Mooney, 1999; Bottjer & Arnold, 1997).
Axon and synapse elimination is a second, potentially
independent mechanism that can play a key role in
shaping circuit architecture during sensitive periods. In
layer IV of the visual cortex and somatosensory cortex,
for example, synaptic connections that consistently fail
to predict the activity of postsynaptic neurons are
weakened and eliminated and axon branches are pruned
(Feldman, 2001; Antonini & Stryker, 1993). The capacity
to eliminate axons based on experience is apparent only
during a sensitive period.
Selective synapse elimination during a critical period
also shapes the architecture of circuits involved in filial
imprinting in birds (Figure 2B). In ducks and chickens,
auditory imprinting causes neurons in a particular fore-
brain nucleus (the medial hyperstriatum ventrale) to be
activated strongly by the imprinted stimulus (Horn,
2004; Scheich, 1987). The dendrites of principal neurons
in this nucleus exhibit about half the density of spines
(sites for synapses) as the same class of neurons in
individuals that have not imprinted on an auditory stim-
ulus, and the synapses that remain have become more
powerful. The inputs that are eliminated are presumably
those that do not contribute to the representation of the
learned stimulus (narrowing the range of potential pat-
terns of connectivity).
Similar evidence (a decrease in dendritic spines) has
been found in the song learning pathway in the fore-
brain of songbirds (Wallhausser-Franke et al., 1995),
suggesting that an analogous mechanism may underlie
their critical period for song memorization. Both of
these behaviors, song memorization and filial imprinting
in birds, are subject to critical periods that can end
rapidly with appropriate experience (Hess, 1973; Marler,
1970b).
Synapse consolidation is a third mechanism that could
underlie fundamental architectural changes that result
from experience during sensitive periods. Unlike the
first two mechanisms (axon elaboration and elimina-
tion), synapse consolidation has been implicated but
not demonstrated to influence sensitive period plastic-
ity. Cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) of different kinds
can insert into synapses that have become functionally
strong (potentiated) (Ehlers, 2003; Benson et al., 2000;
Tanaka et al., 2000). CAMs are highly stable molecules
that can cross-link pre- and postsynaptic membranes
and anchor the synaptic membranes to the cytoskeleton.
The hypothesis is that experience during a sensitive
1416 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
period potentiates specific synapses and that these
synapses are structurally stabilized by the insertion of
particular kinds of CAMs (Figure 2C). While other syn-
apses remain vulnerable to elimination, these synapses
become invulnerable to elimination, even if the func-
tional efficacy of these synapses was to drop to zero
(Figure 2C, right side).
This mechanism could account for the persistence
of learning that occurs during sensitive periods. For
example, in the external nucleus of the barn owl,
multiple representations of auditory cues can be ac-
quired through experience during the sensitive period.
Multiple representations are associated with the acqui-
sition of novel axonal projections into this nucleus
(DeBello et al., 2001). Owls that have acquired alter-
native representations as juveniles are able to re-
express those representations as adults (Knudsen,
1998). The increased capacity for plasticity in these
individuals reflects the learning that occurred during
the sensitive period. Moreover, a substantial portion of
the axonal and synaptic changes (as assessed by
bouton densities) that result from juvenile experience
persist in adults (Linkenhoker & Knudsen, in press).
The persistence of these synapses suggests that they
have become relatively invulnerable to elimination,
perhaps because they have been consolidated by a
particular kind of CAM which inserts into synapses
that drive postsynatpic neurons powerfully during the
sensitive period.
The Unique Advantage of Initial Experience
Experience that occurs initially during a sensitive period
has a unique advantage in shaping the connectivity of a
circuit. Accumulating evidence about the development
of synapses and circuits indicates that before a circuit
has ever been activated strongly, it is in a state that
favors change: excitatory synapses tend to be weak,
synapses are occupied by subclasses of neurotransmitter
receptors with relatively slow kinetics that favor plastic-
ity, and inhibitory influences are weak and/or unpat-
terned (Luscher et al., 2000; Petralia et al., 1999; Hensch
et al., 1998; Luhmann & Prince, 1991). Intense and
repeated activation of a circuit, as can result from
experience, alters these conditions dramatically. Synap-
ses that participate in driving postsynaptic neurons
become strong and less susceptible to further change
due to the insertion of stabilizing proteins and different
subclasses of neurotransmitter receptors (Si et al., 2003;
Benson et al., 2000; Malenka & Nicoll, 1999). Synapses
that do not participate in driving postsynaptic neurons
are depressed and, possibly, eliminated (Bender, Rangel,
& Feldman, 2003; Antonini & Stryker, 1993). Inhibitory
networks become powerful and organized so that they
suppress alternative patterns of excitation (Galarreta &
Hestrin, 2001; Zheng & Knudsen, 2001; Hensch et al.,
1998; Carandini & Heeger, 1994). Self-organizing forces,
Volume 16, Number 8
acting according to the Hebbian rule, tend to reinforce
already strengthened patterns of connections (Feldman,
2000; Martin, Grimwood, & Morris, 2000; Katz & Shatz,
1996; Miller, 1990; Bear, Cooper, & Ebner, 1987).
Although initial experience may have a uniquely po-
tent effect in shaping patterns of connectivity, subse-
quent experience has the ability to cause further
structural and functional changes that add to or coun-
teract initial connectivity patterns, as long as the sensi-
tive period remains open (Blakemore & Van Sluyters,
1974; Blakemore, Vital-Durand, & Garey, 1981). For
example, cortical circuits that process speech informa-
tion can acquire the capacity to process speech sounds
of different languages with equal facility if the individual
learns those languages at an early age (Newport et al.,
2001; Doupe & Kuhl, 1999).
As with most forms of learning, behavioral and
emotional state can have an enormous impact on the
changes that result from experience during a sensitive
period. Without adequate attention to the stimulus or
arousal from the experience, plasticity does not occur
in many circuits. Conversely, with heightened levels of
attention and arousal, plasticity may occur at much
later developmental stages in a given circuit. For
example, long after juvenile songbirds no longer learn
songs from a tape recorder, they can still learn songs
from adult birds that interact with them while singing
(Jones, Ten Cate, & Slater, 1996; Baptista & Petrino-
vich, 1986). In the sound localization pathway of barn
owls, long after experience in individual cages no
longer induces plasticity, exposure to more natural
conditions results in substantial plasticity (Brainard &
Knudsen, 1998).
Stability Landscape as a Metaphor for Sensitive
Period Plasticity
The metaphor of a ‘‘stability landscape’’ illustrates
graphically the functional implications of these cellular
and molecular events for the future performance of a
circuit. A stability landscape represents the range of
possible connectivity patterns that a circuit might ac-
quire and the degree to which any particular pattern is
preferred. According to this metaphor, a sensitive period
is a restricted period in the development of a circuit
when experience readily alters the stability of particular
patterns of connectivity.
Figure 3 illustrates the influence of experience on the
landscape of a circuit. The ball begins at a low point in
the center of the landscape, representing the intuitive
notion that innate mechanisms establish an initial pat-
tern of connectivity that is appropriate to process the
neural activity that results from typical experience. Once
a sensitive period begins, the particular spatio-temporal
patterns of neuronal activity that result from experience
(location of bold downward arrows in Figure 3) cause
structural and functional changes, as described above,
that can modify, refine, and reinforce this initial pattern.
The changes may alter the range of patterns of connec-
tivity that the circuit can acquire and they create high
points and low points in the stability landscape. The
pattern of connectivity that is instructed by experience
becomes more sharply defined and highly preferred,
even though the pattern may be atypical (Figure 3B).
Some circuits are able to acquire the capacity to ex-
press multiple stable patterns of connectivity (Figure 4A).
When secondary experience instructs a new pattern of
connectivity, extra energy must be expended to over-
come the influences that stabilize the initial pattern (the
ball must move up the slope of the landscape). Repeated
experience that instructs the new pattern of connectivity
refines and stabilizes the new pattern, creating a new
low point in the landscape. For example, in the external
nucleus of the barn owl, different kinds of experience
during a sensitive period can establish multiple sets of
associations between auditory cue values and locations
in space and, once these alternative patterns have been
acquired, the circuit can switch among them based on
recent experience (Brainard & Knudsen, 1998; Knudsen,
1998). Analogously, some species of songbirds are able
to learn multiple songs and humans are able to learn
multiple languages with equal facility during a sensitive
period (Doupe & Kuhl, 1999).
Other circuits are able to maintain only a single highly
preferred pattern of connectivity (Figure 4B). For exam-
ple, the circuits involved in imprinting acquire a strong
preference for a particular stimulus, and the circuits
involved in song memorization establish a template for
just a single song, in some species of songbirds (Hess,
1973; Marler, 1970b).
Ending of Sensitive Periods
After a sensitive period has ended, many independent
mechanisms that support plasticity continue to operate.
The amount of plasticity that persists in a mature circuit
varies widely, depending on the circuit’s function. The
plasticity that remains enables mature circuits to modify
their patterns of connectivity within the enduring con-
straints established as a result of experience during a
sensitive period.
A sensitive period ends when the mechanisms that
were responsible for the unusually heightened state of
plasticity no longer operate or operate with much lower
efficiency. In the model, this is the point in development
at which the circuit’s landscape becomes resistant to
change. After a sensitive period ends, change may still
occur (as long as the period was not a critical period)
but extra energy is required for a circuit to maintain a
less stable pattern of connectivity (Figure 5). For exam-
ple, in the auditory localization pathway of the barn owl,
restoration of typical experience after the end of the
sensitive period does not result in typical circuit perform-
ance unless the owl experiences a sufficiently rich
Knudsen 1417
Figure 3. Stability landscape
metaphors for the effects of
typical (A) or atypical (B)
experience on a neural circuit
during a sensitive period. The
horizontal axis indicates the
range of patterns of neural
connectivity that a circuit could
potentially acquire; the vertical
axis indicates the stability of
each pattern of connectivity.
Each contour line is the
stability landscape for the
circuit at a given point in
development. Development
progresses from top to bottom
and may proceed quickly or
slowly, depending on the
circuit and the quality of the
experience. The location of the
ball on the landscape indicates
the pattern of connectivity
that exists at that point in
development. The downward
arrow indicates the pattern of
connectivity that is instructed by experience. The dashed line represents the history of patterns of connectivity that the circuit attained over the
course of development. Circuits begin with a genetically preferred pattern of connectivity (low area in the landscape) that is within a broader range
of potential patterns. During a sensitive period, experience shapes fundamental aspects of a circuit’s connectivity and, therefore, its stability
landscape. (A) Effect of typical experience. When the pattern of connectivity that is instructed by experience is similar to the one that is established
initially by innate influences, that pattern is further strengthened and stabilized. At the same time, the stability of alternative patterns decreases, due
synaptic weakening and elimination of inappropriate synapses and to lateral inhibitory effects by the stabilized pattern. Thus, experience refines and
reinforces the innate pattern of connectivity in the neural circuit. After the sensitive period ends, experience can alter the pattern of connectivity to
a less stable pattern only by expending large amounts of energy. (B) Effect of atypical experience. Atypical experience drives the circuit’s
connectivity toward an abnormal pattern even though the pattern is initially energetically less favorable (the ball must move up the slope of
the landscape). Once the circuit acquires this abnormal pattern, continuing atypical experience strengthens this pattern and it becomes the
preferred pattern (low point in the landscape). The innately preferred, initial pattern usually maintains a relatively low point in the landscape
(shoulder to the right of the low point), even though it has not been reinforced by experience. If the innate pattern is sufficiently robust and
provides a stable alternative to the learned pattern, it can be attained after the end of a sensitive period as a result of restored, normal experience
(Brainard & Knudsen, 1998).

environment (Brainard & Knudsen, 1998). After a critical
period ends, alternative patterns of connectivity are no
longer possible due to the properties of the circuit’s
stability landscape (Figure 6).
Many sensitive periods end gradually as a result of the
progress of development, such as the adjustment of
sound localization in barn owls or the acquisition of
language proficiency in humans (Newport et al., 2001;
Brainard & Knudsen, 1998). Sensitive periods that end
exclusively as a function of developmental stage involve
circuits that have the potential to learn multiple, stable
patterns of connectivity during the sensitive period
(Figure 4A).
However, some sensitive periods, specifically certain
critical periods, have been shown to end rapidly once an
individual is provided appropriate experience. Periods
that can end rapidly involve circuits that have strong
innate predispositions to be shaped by certain kinds of
stimuli, such as the circuits for filial imprinting in birds
and mammals and song learning in certain songbirds
(Konishi, 1985; Hess, 1973). These circuits learn to
respond to a particular stimulus (stimuli that identify
the parent for filial imprinting or the song of a conspe-
cific for song learning) and once the circuit acquires
selectivity for that stimulus, subsequent experience has
little or no effect.
A mechanism responsible for ending a sensitive peri-
od has not been demonstrated yet for any circuit. In the
primary visual cortex, where the mechanisms have been
studied in greatest detail, numerous factors correlate
with the loss of plasticity in layer IV after the critical
period (Berardi, Pizzorusso, & Maffei, 2000; Katz &
Shatz, 1996; Fox & Zahs, 1994). If fundamental changes
in connectivity patterns depend upon axonal or dendrit-
ic growth, the loss of any of the various mechanisms that
enable neurite outgrowth would end a sensitive period
(Lein & Shatz, 2001). If the fundamental changes require
synapse formation or elimination, then the loss of key
mechanisms that support these processes would end
the sensitive period (Huberman & McAllister, 2002; Katz
& Shatz, 1996; Fox & Zahs, 1994), and if the fundamental
changes rely on structural stabilization of selected syn-
apses by a particular CAM (Ehlers, 2003; Si et al., 2003;
Kandel, 2001; Benson et al., 2000; Tanaka et al., 2000),

1418 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 16, Number 8

Figure 4. Stability
landscape metaphor for the
effects of atypical experience
followed by restored, typical
experience on a neural
circuit during a sensitive
period (see caption for
Figure 3 for explanation of
symbols). (A) Some circuits
are capable of acquiring
multiple low points in the
stability landscape. Initial
experience (atypical or first
experience) instructs and
strengthens one pattern of
connectivity. A change in
experience due, for
example, to a change in
the environment or to
remediation of dysfunction
(typical or second
experience), causes the
circuit to acquire a
second stable pattern of connectivity. In some circuits, two or more stable patterns can coexist. After the sensitive period ends, this landscape
allows the circuit to adopt either pattern of connectivity (move between low points in the landscape). Examples include the representations
of auditory space cues in the barn owl, song learning in species of songbirds capable of learning multiple songs, and language learning in humans.
(B) Some circuits can contain only a single stable pattern of connectivity. For these circuits, the stabilization of the second pattern (typical or
second experience) involves the destabilization of the first pattern (atypical or first experience). Examples include thalamic projections to layer IV in
the primary visual cortex, filial imprinting, and song learning in species of songbirds capable of memorizing only a single song.

the loss of the capacity to produce this molecule would
end the sensitive period.
A host of mechanisms that impede changes in con-
nectivity may also contribute to ending a sensitive
period. Examples include a dramatic increase in the
effectiveness of inhibitory circuitry (Zheng & Knudsen,
2001; Bear & Kirkwood, 1993), the myelination of axons
(Keirstead, Hasan, Muir, & Steeves, 1992; Sirevaag &
Greenough, 1987), the appearance of molecules that
inhibit neurite outgrowth (Lee, Strittmatter, & Sah,
2003), and the stabilization of synapses by glia, extracel-
lular matrix or proteoglycans (Ullian, Christopherson, &
Barres, in press; Berardi et al., 2000). The capacity of
experience to induce fundamental circuit changes could
also be lost due to factors such as an age-dependent
decrease in arousal or attention, a decrease in the
release of neuromodulators, or a decrease in the re-
sponsiveness of neurons to these neuromodulators.
The various mechanisms listed above are not mutually
exclusive and may well act in concert to restrict plasticity
after the end of a sensitive period. Moreover, many of
them could be triggered by repeated, strong activation
of postsynaptic neurons in a circuit and, therefore, could
contribute to a rapid closure of a sensitive period
following appropriate experience. They could also arise
gradually as a function of age or developmental stage.
A number of sensitive periods seem to end as animals
approach sexual maturity, for example, heightened plas-
ticity in the sound localization pathway in barn owls,
song learning in some songbirds, and certain aspects of
language learning in humans decline as juveniles ap-
proach adulthood (Newport et al., 2001; Knudsen, 1999;
Immelmann, 1972). In songbirds, steroid hormones are
known to exert a wide range of direct and indirect
effects on neurons in the song pathway (White, Living-
ston, & Mooney, 1999; Bottjer & Arnold, 1997) that
could stabilize connectivity in these circuits, making
them resistant to further change by experience.
Absence of Relevant Stimulation Increases the
Duration of Sensitive Periods
Under severely abnormal conditions, an individual may
never be exposed to stimuli that are adequate to shape
the innate properties of a neural circuit. Such complete
absence of relevant stimulation prolongs the sensitive
period. For example, juvenile songbirds that are kept in
acoustic isolation, and are thereby prevented from
hearing the songs of other birds, remain capable of
memorizing the song of their species much later into
development than birds that hear and memorize an
abnormal song (Doupe & Kuhl, 1999). Analogously, in
kittens that are reared in total darkness, layer IV of the
primary visual cortex remains capable of a shift in its
ocular dominance representation much later into devel-
opment than in kittens reared in the light with one or
both eyelids sutured closed (Mower, Caplan, Christen, &
Duffy, 1985). In both of these systems, complete depri-
vation delays the closure of a critical period. Apparently,
absence of relevant stimulation prevents the circuit from

Knudsen 1419

Figure 5. After a sensitive period has ended, attention, arousal, and/or
reward, when coupled with new experience (downward arrow), can
provide the energy needed (spring) to enable a circuit to acquire a less
stable pattern of connectivity (dashed arrow), as long as the sensitive
period is not a critical period (see Figure 6). Extra energy must
continue to be expended in order to maintain this less stable pattern of
connectivity in the circuit. When experience has caused an atypical
pattern of connectivity to become the most stable (as shown), then an
innately preferred pattern of connectivity (shoulder on the right of
the landscape) requires the least additional energy to maintain,
because innate factors usually help to stabilize this pattern.
ever being activated powerfully and, therefore, prevents
the cellular and molecular transitions, discussed previ-
ously, that strengthen and consolidate synapses.
Even with complete deprivation, however, sensitive
periods eventually end as a result of the progress of
development. Under these conditions, circuits acquire
highly abnormal patterns of connectivity and are unable
mechanistically (the range of the landscape shrinks)
or energetically (the slope of the landscape becomes
Figure 6. Stability landscape
metaphors for critical periods.
Experience during a critical
period causes the pattern
of connectivity to become
irreversibly committed to
the instructed pattern. (A)
Mechanistically limited.
Alternative patterns of
connectivity no longer exist.
(B) Energetically limited.
Alternative patterns of
connectivity cannot be
maintained due to energetic
constraints imposed by the
effects of experience.
1420 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
too steep) to acquire a typical pattern of connectivity
(Figure 6). In the case of songbirds that have never
heard song throughout a critical period, adults sing
highly abnormal (‘‘isolate’’) songs (Konishi, 1985; Mar-
ler, 1970b); in the case of primates or birds that have
been deprived of interactions with an attentive primary
car giver, they never respond appropriately to social
signals offered by members of their own species (Thomp-
son, 1999; Hess, 1973; Scott, 1962); in the case of humans
who do not experience language during juvenile life, they
become unable to acquire and use the principles of
language (Newport, 1990; Curtis, 1977; Lenneberg, 1967).
From a clinical perspective, complete deprivation
provides a means to prolong a critical period, thereby
extending the time window when remediation of a
disability or physical defect may still allow normal brain
development. The danger, however, is that deprivation
can lead to the consolidation of highly abnormal circuit
connectivity. The highly abnormal patterns of connec-
tivity that can arise from deprivation may result from
homeostatic mechanisms, intrinsic to neurons and cir-
cuits, which attempt to maintain a minimal level of
impulse activity in developing neural circuits. Under
conditions of deprivation, a circuit is never activated
strongly by experience. In response, homeostatic mech-
anisms cause the strength of inhibition in the circuit to
decrease (Morales, Choi & Kirkwood, 2002), which
increases the circuit’s excitability. At the same time,
other homeostatic mechanisms within excitatory neu-
rons increase their excitability and sensitivity to synaptic
input (Zhang & Linden, 2003; Turrigiano & Nelson,
2000). Consequently, the neurons begin to respond to
abnormal patterns of input that otherwise would have
been too weak to drive the circuit (the flanks in the
stability landscape sink; Figure 7). If the circuit contin-
ues to respond to this input, the active connections,
which previously were weak, begin to strengthen and
Volume 16, Number 8

Figure 7. Absence of relevant stimulation causes a flattening of a
circuit’s stability landscape. Complete deprivation prevents the
occurrence of the intense impulse activity that a circuit needs to drive
changes in the landscape. Inadequate activation of a circuit causes
homeostatic mechanisms to increase the excitability of the circuit and
to diminish the normal advantage of the innately preferred pattern of
connectivity, making the circuit vulnerable (horizontal arrows) to
acquiring a highly abnormal pattern of connectivity.
stabilize. As the connections strengthen, homeostatic
mechanisms now decrease the sensitivity of the neurons
and, therefore, decrease their responsiveness to the
unused normal inputs, and the circuit’s connectivity
consolidates an atypical pattern. If a critical period ends,
the circuit is now committed to processing this abnor-
mal information and/or processing information in an
abnormal fashion.
Critical Periods for Circuits Versus Behavior
Behavioral analysis can demonstrate the existence of
critical periods in the development of the brain. How-
ever, behavioral analysis tends to underestimate critical
periods. The reason is that, in the hierarchies of circuits
that produce complex behaviors, information is pro-
cessed in series of circuits that operate in parallel.
Circuits at higher levels in a hierarchy that remain plastic
tend to obscure irreversible changes in circuits at lower
levels (Trachtenberg, Trepel, & Stryker, 2000; Daw, Fox,
Sato, & Czepita, 1992; Jones, Spear & Tong, 1984) as the
higher level circuits are able to make adjustments that
partially compensate for abnormal processing at lower
levels. Thus, behavioral performance may improve with
subsequent experience, even though circuits at some
levels in a pathway have become irreversibly committed
to processing information abnormally.
In addition, the parallel organization of information
processing in the brain means that similar information
can be derived from alternative pathways. For example,
children who do not develop stereoscopic depth per-
ception due to early strabismus may still acquire excel-
lent depth perception using a variety of other cues. Only
by testing specifically for stereoscopic vision is the deficit
apparent ( Jampolsky, 1978). Thus, because of the
brain’s capacity to tap alternative processing streams,
behavioral performance may improve even though cer-
tain neural circuits have been irreversibly altered by
experience. Again, irreversible changes in a neural circuit
do not necessarily translate into irreversible changes in a
complex behavior.
Because behaviors, such as language and social skills,
result from the interactions of multiple hierarchies of
neural circuits, each with its own developmental regu-
lation, attempts to identify critical periods based on
behavioral observations of different kinds or measured
under different conditions are likely to lead to con-
flicting conclusions. A good example is the debate about
critical periods in human language development (New-
port et al., 2001; Doupe & Kuhl, 1999; Flege & Yeni-
Komshian, 1999). Although it is convenient to talk about
‘‘the critical period for language,’’ this short-hand is far
too simplistic and can lead to apparent contradictions.
Language depends on a wide range of specialized sen-
sory, motor, and cognitive skills that involve many
neural hierarchies distributed throughout much of the
forebrain. For example, the analyses of phonetics, se-
mantics, grammar, syntax, and prosody are likely to be
accomplished by distinct hierarchies of neural circuits.
The functional properties of each of these hierarchies
are shaped by experience with language. Whereas the
hierarchy that underlies semantic analysis remains fully
plastic throughout life, the hierarchy that underlies
phonetic analysis contains neural circuits that pass
through sensitive periods. The hierarchies that underlie
the analysis of grammar and syntax also appear to
contain circuits that are subject to sensitive periods
(Newport et al., 2001; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996; Ne-
ville, Mills, & Lawson, 1992). Thus, language develop-
ment involves multiple sensitive periods that affect
certain, but not other, aspects of this complex behavior.
To minimize contradictions in the interpretation of
behavioral observations, it is essential to analyze behav-
ior into elementary components that reflect, as closely
as possible, the specific levels of neural processing that
are shaped by experience. A similar principle holds true
when characterizing critical periods in terms of brain
physiology: Because critical periods act at the level of
specific neural circuits, to avoid apparent contradictions
it is essential to analyze a critical period in the circuit in
which it occurs. For example, the critical period for
ocular dominance representation in the visual cortex
was analyzed initially by combining data recorded from
all layers of the cortex (Hubel & Wiesel, 1965). Because
the cortex comprises several levels of processing in the
visual pathway, combining data across cortical layers led
to differing characterizations of the critical period. We
now understand that the critical period for ocular
representation reflects predominantly the critical period
for thalamic input to layer IV (Trachtenberg & Stryker,
2001; Antonini et al., 1998; Daw et al., 1992). Plasticity in
Knudsen 1421
other layers persists much later into development, al-
lowing them to respond to binocular experience by
altering their connections in a way that partially com-
pensates for an abnormal ocular representation in layer
IV. With this realization, the search for mechanisms
underlying the critical period for ocular dominance
representation in the visual system has focused on layer
IV of the primary visual cortex.
Can Critical Periods Be Re-Opened?
The question of whether a critical period can be re-
opened is of particular interest from a therapeutic
standpoint. By definition, the effects of critical period
experience on the performance of a circuit are perma-
nent. That is, they persist for the lifetime of the animal.
Changes in the environment or remediation of dysfunc-
tion that restores normal input to a circuit does not
enable experience to restore normal function to that
circuit after the critical period has ended. Although the
mechanisms activated by attention and arousal have
been shown to enable large changes in the connectivity
of adult circuits (Kilgard & Merzenich, 1998), it is
unlikely that the changes that have been induced involve
the same range of cellular and molecular changes as
those that occur during critical periods (Feldman, 2003;
Francis, Diorio, Plotsky, & Meaney, 2002; Zhang, Bao, &
Merzenich, 2001).
For normal experience to restore completely normal
function after a critical period has ended, the factors that
impose the energetic or mechanistic constraints on a
circuit (Figure 6) must become, once again, modifiable
by experience. Numerous factors probably contribute to
the loss of plasticity after the critical period in most
circuits, as in the primary visual cortex (Berardi et al.,
2000; Katz & Shatz, 1996; Fox & Zahs, 1994). If so, then
to reinstate the full capacity for plasticity that exists
during a critical period would require the reactivation
of an entire array of early plasticity mechanisms as well
as the inactivation of the many factors that impede
plasticity in mature circuits (Lee et al., 2003). In some
circuits, however, a critical period may be controlled by
one or a few key factors. This possibility is suggested, for
example, for the circuits responsible for song learning
in songbirds, in which plasticity is limited to a critical
period in some species but not in other closely related
species (Konishi, 1985). In such cases, reinstatement of
critical period plasticity in adults may be feasible.
Although the full capacity for plasticity that exists
during a critical period may not be able to be re-
established, it is possible to increase the plasticity of
mature circuits dramatically through various experimen-
tal manipulations. For example, ocular dominance plas-
ticity in the visual cortex has been increased in adult cats
or rats by injecting fetal astrocytes, enzymatically degrad-
ing extracellular matrix proteoglycans, or by raising
levels of BDNF, NE, or ACh (Huberman & McAllister,
1422 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
2002; Pizzorusso et al., 2002; Lein & Shatz, 2001; Berardi
et al., 2000; Greuel, Luhmann, & Singer, 1988; Bear &
Singer, 1986). Another technique that increases func-
tional plasticity in the cortex is electrical stimulation of
the nucleus basalis, the source of the neuromodulator
ACh in the forebrain. The nucleus basalis becomes active
when individuals are aroused and attend to particular
stimuli. Electrical stimulation of this nucleus while ex-
posing adult rats to a particular sound frequency, for
example, dramatically increases the representation of
that frequency in the primary auditory cortex (Kilgard
& Merzenich, 1998).
Interventions like these, when combined with appro-
priate experience and applied to the correct circuits,
may have the potential to restore normal function to a
circuit even though the critical period may not be able to
be reopened. With increased understanding of (1) the
fundamental components of behavior that are affected
by critical periods, (2) the circuits in the underlying
pathways where plasticity would enable the recovery of
typical behavior, and (3) the mechanisms that control
and limit plasticity in these circuits, acquisition of typical
behavior in adult animals that have experienced atypical
or deprived conditions during critical periods may be
possible.
Concluding Remarks
The central nervous system requires instruction from
experience during sensitive periods in order to develop
properly. Sensitive periods in the development of com-
plex behaviors (such as social behavior and language)
reflect sensitive periods in the development of the
neural circuits that underlie these behaviors. The effects
of experience operate within the constraints imposed by
genetics on a circuit. These effects include the capacity
to guide changes in brain architecture and biochemistry
and, in some circuits, to trigger and/or end sensitive
period plasticity.
During a sensitive period, particular kinds of experi-
ence shape the connectivity of a circuit in fundamental
ways, causing certain patterns of connectivity to become
energetically preferred or mechanistically specified. Al-
though plasticity persists after the end of a sensitive
period, this residual plasticity alters a circuit’s connec-
tivity within the constraints that were established as a
result of experience during the sensitive period.
Critical periods are a subset of sensitive periods for
which the instructive influence of experience is essential
for typical circuit performance and the effects of expe-
rience on performance are irreversible. A clinical issue
that is of central importance is: for an animal that suffers
from the adverse effects of chronic atypical experience
throughout a critical period, can the critical period be
reopened to enable the restoration of typical behavior at
a later stage? Experimental evidence indicates that for
most circuits a host of molecular and cellular changes
Volume 16, Number 8
contribute to the reduction in circuit plasticity after a
critical period has ended. It is unlikely that all of these
changes could be reversed at a later stage in such a way
that the full capacity for plasticity, that existed during
the critical period, is reinstated. However, experiments
have demonstrated that certain molecular and cellular
changes can be reversed, and several interventions have
been found that dramatically increase plasticity in adult
circuits that are shaped by early experience. In principle
then, if we are able to identify precisely which circuits
are responsible for the components of behavior that
have been affected adversely by atypical experience
during a critical period, and we learn to manipulate
the capacity for plasticity of key aspects of these circuits
in adults, it may be possible to restore normal function
to those circuits and, therefore, to restore typical be-
havior to individuals after the end of a critical period.
Acknowledgments
I thank J. Bergan, A. Fernald, P. Knudsen, C. Nelson, and L.
Stryer for reviewing the manuscript and P. Knudsen for
preparation of the figures. This work was supported by grants
from the MacArthur Foundation, through the Research Net-
work on Early Experience and Brain Development, and from
the National Institutes of Health (NIDCD R01DC00155 and
R01DC0560).
Reprint requests should be sent to Eric I. Knudsen, Depart-
ment of Neurobiology, Stanford University School of Medicine,
Sherman Fairchild Sciences Building, Stanford, CA 94305-5125,
USA, or via e-mail: eknudsen@stanford.edu.
REFERENCES
Antonini, A., Gillespie, D. C., Crair, M. C., & Stryker, M. P.
(1998). Morphology of single geniculocortical afferents and
functional recovery of the visual cortex after reverse
monocular deprivation in the kitten. Journal of
Neuroscience, 18, 9896–9909.
Antonini, A., & Stryker, M. P. (1993). Rapid remodeling of
axonal arbors in the visual cortex. Science, 260, 1819–1821.
Baptista, L., & Petrinovich, L. (1986). Song development in the
white-crowned sparrow: social factors and sex differences.
Animal Behavior, 34, 1359–1371.
Bear, M. F., Cooper, L. N., & Ebner, F. F. (1987). A physiological
basis for a theory of synapse modification. Science, 237,
42–48.
Bear, M. F., & Kirkwood, A. (1993). Neocortical long-term
potentiation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 3, 197–202.
Bear, M. F., & Singer, W. (1986). Modulation of visual cortical
plasticity by acetylcholine and noradrenaline. Nature, 320,
172–176.
Bender, K. J., Rangel, J., & Feldman, D. E. (2003). Development
of columnar topography in the excitatory layer 4 to layer 2/3
projection in rat barrel cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 23,
8759–8770.
Benson, D. L., Schnapp, L. M., Shapiro, L., & Huntley, G. W.
(2000). Making memories stick: Cell-adhesion molecules in
synaptic plasticity. Trends in Cell Biology, 10, 473–482.
Berardi, N., Pizzorusso, T., & Maffei, L. (2000). Critical periods
during sensory development. Current Opinion in
Neurobiology, 10, 138–145.
Blakemore, C., & Van Sluyters, R. (1974). Reversal of the
physiological effects of monocular deprivation in kittens:
further evidence for a sensitive period. Journal of
Physiology (London), 237, 195–216.
Blakemore, C., Vital-Durand, F., & Garey, L. (1981). Recovery
from monocular deprivation in the monkey: I. Recovery of
physiological effects in the visual cortex. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 213,
399–423.
Bolhuis, J. J., & Honey, R. C. (1998). Imprinting, learning and
development: From behaviour to brain and back. Trends in
Neurosciences, 21, 306–311.
Bottjer, S. W., & Arnold, A. P. (1997). Developmental plasticity
in neural circuits for a learned behavior. Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 20, 459–481.
Bottjer, S. W., Meisner, E. A., & Arnold, A. P. (1984). Forebrain
lesions disrupt development but not maintenance of song in
passerine birds. Science, 224, 901–903.
Brainard, M. S., & Knudsen, E. I. (1998). Sensitive periods for
visual calibration of the auditory space map in the barn owl
optic tectum. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 3929–3942.
Carandini, M., & Heeger, D. J. (1994). Summation and
division by neurons in primate visual cortex. Science, 264,
1333–1336.
Crawford, M. L., Harwerth, R. S., Smith, E. L., & von Noorden,
G. K. (1996). Loss of stereopsis in monkeys following
prismatic binocular dissociation during infancy. Behavioural
Brain Research, 79, 207–218.
Curtis, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a
modern-day ‘wild child’. New York: Academic Press.
Daw, N. W. (1994). Mechanisms of plasticity in the visual
cortex. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 35,
4168–4179.
Daw, N. W. (1997). Critical periods and strabismus: what
questions remain? Optometry and Vision Science, 74,
690–694.
Daw, N. W., Fox, K., Sato, H., & Czepita, D. (1992). Critical
period for monocular deprivation in the cat visual cortex.
Journal of Neurophysiology, 67, 197–202.
DeBello, W. M., Feldman, D. E., & Knudsen, E. I. (2001).
Adaptive axonal remodeling in the midbrain auditory space
map. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 3161–3174.
Doupe, A. J. (1997). Song- and order-selective neurons in
the songbird anterior forebrain and their emergence during
vocal development. Journal of Neuroscience, 17,
1147–1167.
Doupe, A. J., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). Birdsong and human
speech: Common themes and mechanisms. Annual Review
of Neuroscience, 22, 567–631.
Dyer, M. A., & Cepko, C. L. (2001). Regulating proliferation
during retinal development. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
2, 333–342.
Ehlers, M. D. (2003). Activity level controls postsynaptic
composition and signaling via the ubiquitin–proteasome
system. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 231–242.
Fagiolini, M., & Hensch, T. K. (2000). Inhibitory threshold for
critical-period activation in primary visual cortex. Nature,
404, 183–186.
Feldman, D. E. (2000). Timing-based LTP and LTD at vertical
inputs to layer II/III pyramidal cells in rat barrel cortex.
Neuron, 27, 45–56.
Feldman, D. E. (2001). A new critical period for sensory map
plasticity. Neuron, 31, 171–173.
Feldman, D. E. (2003). Ocular dominance plasticity in mature
mice. Neuron, 38, 846–848.
Flege, J. E., & Yeni-Komshian, G. H. (1999). Age constraints
on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and
Language, 41, 78–104.
Knudsen 1423
Fox, K., & Zahs, K. (1994). Critical period control in sensory
cortex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4, 112–119.
Francis, D. D., Diorio, J., Plotsky, P. M., & Meaney, M. J. (2002).
Environmental enrichment reverses the effects of maternal
separation on stress reactivity. Journal of Neuroscience, 22,
7840–7843.
Galarreta, M., & Hestrin, S. (2001). Spike transmission and
synchrony detection in networks of GABAergic interneurons.
Science, 292, 2295–2299.
Greuel, J. M., Luhmann, H. J., & Singer, W. (1988).
Pharmacological induction of use-dependent receptive field
modifications in the visual cortex. Science, 242, 74–77.
Hensch, T. K., Fagiolini, M., Mataga, N., Stryker, M. P.,
Baekkeskov, S., & Kash, S. F. (1998). Local GABA circuit
control of experience-dependent plasticity in developing
visual cortex. Science, 282, 1504–1508.
Hess, E. H. (1973). Imprinting: Early experience and the
developmental psychobiology of attachment. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Horn, G. (1998). Visual imprinting and the neural mechanisms
of recognition memory. Trends in Neurosciences, 21,
300–305.
Horn, G. (2004). Pathways of the past: the imprint of memory.
Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 5, 108–120.
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1965). Binocular interaction in
striate cortex of kittens reared with artificial squint. Journal
of Neurophysiology, 28, 1041–1059.
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1977). Ferrier Lecture:
Functional architecture of macaque monkey visual cortex.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B,
Biological Sciences, 198, 1–59.
Huberman, A. D., & McAllister, A. K. (2002). Neurotrophins
and visual cortical plasticity. Progress in Brain Research,
138, 39–51.
Immelmann, K. (1972). Sexual imprinting in birds. Advances in
the Study of Behavior, 4, 147–174.
Ito, M. (1984). The cerebellum and neural control. New York:
Apple-Century-Crofts.
Jampolsky, A. (1978). Unequal visual inputs and strabismus
management: A comparison of human and animal
strabismus. In Symposium on strabismus. Transactions of
the New Orleans Academy of Ophthalmology (Chap. 26,
pp. 358–492).
Jones, A. E., Ten Cate, C., & Slater, P. J. B. (1996). Early
experience and plasticity of song in adult male zebra finches
(Taeniopygia guttata). Journal of Comparative
Psychology, 110, 354–369.
Jones, E. G. (2000). Cortical and subcortical contributions to
activity-dependent plasticity in primate somatosensory
cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 1–37.
Jones, K. R., Spear, P. D., & Tong, L. (1984). Critical periods
for effects of monocular deprivation: Differences between
striate and extrastriate cortex. Journal of Neuroscience,
4, 2543–2552.
Kandel, E. R. (2001). The molecular biology of memory
storage: A dialogue between genes and synapses. Science,
294, 1030–1038.
Kania, A., & Jessell, T. M. (2003). Topographic motor
projections in the limb imposed by LIM homeodomain
protein regulation of ephrin-A:EphA interactions. Neuron,
38, 581–596.
Katz, L. C., & Shatz, C. J. (1996). Synaptic activity and the
construction of cortical circuits. Science, 274, 1133–1138.
Keirstead, H. S., Hasan, S. J., Muir, G. D., & Steeves, J. D.
(1992). Suppression of the onset of myelination extends the
permissive period for the functional repair of embryonic
spinal cord. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, U.S.A., 89, 11664–11668.
1424 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Kilgard, M. P., & Merzenich, M. M. (1998). Cortical map
reorganization enabled by nucleus basalis activity. Science,
279, 1714–1718.
Knudsen, E. I. (1998). Capacity for plasticity in the adult owl
auditory system expanded by juvenile experience.
Science, 279, 1531–1533.
Knudsen, E. I. (1999). Mechanisms of experience-dependent
plasticity in the auditory localization pathway of the barn
owl. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 185, 305–321.
Knudsen, E. I. (2002). Instructed learning in the auditory
localization pathway of the barn owl. Nature, 417, 322–328.
Konishi, M. (1985). Birdsong: From behavior to neuron.
Annual Review of Neuroscience, 8, 125–170.
Kuhl, P. (1994). Learning and representation in speech and
language. Current Biology, 4, 812–822.
Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P.
(2003). Expert face processing requires visual input to the
right hemisphere during infancy. Nature Neuroscience, 6,
1108–1112.
Lee, D. H., Strittmatter, S. M., & Sah, D. W. (2003). Targeting
the Nogo receptor to treat central nervous system injuries.
Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 2, 872–878.
Leiderman, P. (1981). Human mother–infant social bonding: Is
there a sensitive phase? In K. Immelmann, G. Barlow, L.
Petrinovich, & M. Main (Eds.), Behavioral development
(pp. 454–468). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lein, E. S., & Shatz, C. J. (2001). Neurotrophins and refinement
of visual circuitry. In W. M. Cowan, T. C. Sudhof, & C. F.
Stevens (Eds.), Synapses (pp. 613–649). Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language.
New York: Wiley.
LeVay, S., Wiesel, T. N., & Hubel, D. H. (1980). The
development of ocular dominance columns in normal
and visually deprived monkeys. Journal of Comparative
Neurology, 191, 1–51.
Linkenhoker, B. A., & Knudsen, E. I. (in press). Anatomical
traces of juvenile learning in the auditory system of the barn
owl. Nature Neuroscience.
Liu, D., Diorio, J., Tannenbaum, B., Caldji, C., Francis, D.,
Freedman, A., Sharma, S., Pearson, D., Plotsky, P. M., &
Meaney, M. J. (1997). Maternal care, hippocampal
glucocorticoid receptors, and hypothalamic–pituitary–
adrenal responses to stress. Science, 277, 1659–1662.
Lorenz, K. (1937). Imprinting. Auk, 54, 245–273.
Luhmann, H. J., & Prince, D. A. (1991). Postnatal maturation
of the GABAergic system in rat neocortex. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 65, 247–263.
Luscher, C., Nicoll, R. A., Malenka, R. C., & Muller, D. (2000).
Synaptic plasticity and dynamic modulation of the
postsynaptic membrane. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 545–550.
Malenka, R. C., & Nicoll, R. A. (1999). Long-term potentiation—
A decade of progress. Science, 285, 1870–1874.
Marler, P. (1970a). Birdsong and speech development: Could
there be parallels? American Scientist, 58, 669–673.
Marler, P. (1970b). A comparative approach to vocal learning:
Song development in white-crowned sparrows. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 71, 1–25.
Martin, S. J., Grimwood, P. D., & Morris, R. G. (2000). Synaptic
plasticity and memory: An evaluation of the hypothesis.
Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 649–711.
McIntosh, J., Daw, N. W., & Parkinson, D. (1990). GAP-43 in the
cat visual cortex during postnatal developemnt.
Neuroscience, 4, 585–594.
Medina, J. F., Christopher Repa, J., Mauk, M. D., & LeDoux,
J. E. (2002). Parallels between cerebellum- and
amygdala-dependent conditioning. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 3, 122–131.
Volume 16, Number 8
Meissirel, C., Wikler, K. C., Chalupa, L. M., & Rakic, P. (1997).
Early divergence of magnocellular and parvocellular
functional subsystems in the embryonic primate visual
system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
U.S.A., 94, 5900–5905.
Miller, K. D. (1990). Correlation-based models of neural
development. In M. A. Gluck & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.),
Neuroscience and connectionist theory (pp. 267–352).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mooney, R. (1999). Sensitive periods and circuits for learned
birdsong. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 9, 121–127.
Morales, B., Choi, S. Y., & Kirkwood, A. (2002). Dark rearing
alters the development of GABAergic transmission in visual
cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 8084–8090.
Mower, G., & Christen, W. (1985). Role of visual experience
in activating critical period in cat visual cortex. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 53, 572–589.
Mower, G. D., Caplan, G. J., Christen, W. G., & Duffy, F. H.
(1985). Dark rearing prolongs physiological but not
anatomical plasticity of the cat visual cortex. Journal of
Comparative Neurology, 235, 448–466.
Neville, H. J., Mills, D. L., & Lawson, D. S. (1992). Fractionating
language: Different neural subsystems with different
sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex, 2, 244–258.
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language
learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.
Newport, E. L., Bavelier, D., & Neville, H. J. (2001). Critical
thinking about critical periods: Perspectives on a critical
period for language acquisition. In E. Doupoux (Ed.),
Language, brain and cognitive development: Essays in
honor of Jacques Mehler (pp. 481–502). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Niell, C. M., & Smith, S. J. (2004). Live optical imaging of
nervous system development. Annual Review of Physiology,
66, 771–798.
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a
nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 5, 261–283.
Petralia, R. S., Esteban, J. A., Wang, Y. X., Partridge, J. G., Zhao,
H. M., Wenthold, R. J., & Malinow, R. (1999). Selective
acquisition of AMPA receptors over postnatal development
suggests a molecular basis for silent synapses. Nature
Neuroscience, 2, 31–36.
Pizzorusso, T., Medini, P., Berardi, N., Chierzi, S., Fawcett, J. W.,
& Maffei, L. (2002). Reactivation of ocular dominance
plasticity in the adult visual cortex. Science, 298,
1248–1251.
Ramsay, A. O., & Hess, E. H. (1954). A laboratory approach
to the study of imprinting. Wilson Bulletin, 66, 196–206.
Rodman, H. R. (1994). Development of inferior temporal
cortex in the monkey. Cerebral Cortex, 4, 484–498.
Ruthazer, E. S., & Cline, H. T. (2004). Insights into
activity-dependent map formation from the retinotectal
system: A middle-of-the-brain perspective. Journal of
Neurobiology, 59, 134–146.
Scheich, H. (1987). Neural correlates of auditory filial
imprinting. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 161,
605–619.
Scott, J. P. (1962). Critical periods in behavioral development.
Science, 138, 949–958.
Shatz, C. J., & Stryker, M. (1978). Ocular dominance in layer IV
of the cat’s visual cortex and the effects of monocular
deprivation. Journal of Physiology, 281, 267–283.
Si, K., Giustetto, M., Etkin, A., Hsu, R., Janisiewicz, A. M.,
Miniaci, M. C., Kim, J. H., Zhu, H., & Kandel, E. R. (2003). A
neuronal isoform of CPEB regulates local protein synthesis
and stabilizes synapse-specific long-term facilitation in
aplysia. Cell, 115, 893–904.
Sirevaag, A. M., & Greenough, W. T. (1987). Differential rearing
effects on rat visual cortex synapses: III. Neuronal and
glial nuclei, boutons, dendrites, and capillaries. Brain
Research, 424, 320–332.
Tanaka, H., Shan, W., Phillips, G. R., Arndt, K., Bozdagi, O.,
Shapiro, L., Huntley, G. W., Benson, D. L., & Colman, D. R.
(2000). Molecular modification of N-cadherin in response to
synaptic activity. Neuron, 25, 93–107.
Thompson, R. A. (1999). Early attachment and later
development. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications (pp. 265–286). New York: Guilford.
Trachtenberg, J. T., & Stryker, M. P. (2001). Rapid anatomical
plasticity of horizontal connections in the developing visual
cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 3476–3482.
Trachtenberg, J. T., Trepel, C., & Stryker, M. P. (2000). Rapid
extragranular plasticity in the absence of thalamocortical
plasticity in the developing primary visual cortex. Science,
287, 2029–2032.
Turrigiano, G. G., & Nelson, S. B. (2000). Hebb and
homeostasis in neuronal plasticity. Current Opinion
in Neurobiology, 10, 358–364.
Ullian, E., Christopherson, K., & Barres, B. (2004). Control of
CNS synaptogenesis by glia. Glia, 64, 209–216.
Wallhausser-Franke, E., Nixdorf-Bergweiler, B. E., & DeVoogd,
T. J. (1995). Song isolation is associated with maintaining
high spine frequencies on zebra finch IMAN neurons.
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 64, 25–35.
Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints
on functional specializations for language processing: ERP
and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.
White, S. A., Livingston, F. S., & Mooney, R. (1999). Androgens
modulate NMDA receptor-mediated EPSCs in the zebra finch
song system. Journal of Neurophysiol, 82, 2221–2234.
Wiesel, T. N., & Hubel, D. H. (1965). Extent of recovery from
the effects of visual deprivation in kittens. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 28, 1060–1072.
Zhang, L. I., Bao, S., & Merzenich, M. M. (2001). Persistent and
specific influences of early acoustic environments on
primary auditory cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 4,
1123–1130.
Zhang, W., & Linden, D. J. (2003). The other side of the
engram: Experience-driven changes in neuronal intrinsic
excitability. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 885–900.
Zheng, W., & Knudsen, E. I. (2001). GABAergic inhibition
antagonizes adaptive adjustment of the owl’s auditory space
map during the initial phase of plasticity. Journal of
Neuroscience, 21, 4356–4365.
Zhou, Q., Tao, H. W., & Poo, M. M. (2003). Reversal and
stabilization of synaptic modifications in a developing visual
system. Science, 300, 1953–1957.
Knudsen 1425
This article has been cited by:

1. Lindsay Manor, David L. Streiner, Winnie K.L. Yam, Peter L. Rosenbaum, Leonard H. Verhey, Lucyna Lach, Gabriel M.
Ronen. 2013. Age-related variables in childhood epilepsy: How do they relate to each other and to quality of life?. Epilepsy
& Behavior 26:1, 71-74. [CrossRef]
2. Brandon Towl. 2012. Laws and constrained kinds: a lesson from motor neuroscience. Synthese 189:3, 433-450. [CrossRef]
3. Mark S. Scher. 2012. Peripartum Consultations Expand the Role of the Fetal/Neonatal Neurologist. Pediatric Neurology 47:6,
411-418. [CrossRef]
4. Sytske Besemer. 2012. The impact of timing and frequency of parental criminal behaviour and risk factors on offspring
offending. Psychology, Crime & Law 1-22. [CrossRef]
5. P. Guevara-Fiore, P. Andreas Svensson, John A. Endler. 2012. Sex as moderator of early life experience: interaction between
rearing environment and sexual experience in male guppies. Animal Behaviour 84:4, 1023-1029. [CrossRef]
6. Rebecca J. Landa, Alden L. Gross, Elizabeth A. Stuart, Ashley Faherty. 2012. Developmental Trajectories in Children With
and Without Autism Spectrum Disorders: The First 3 Years. Child Development n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
7. Shinji Yamaguchi, Naoya Aoki, Takaaki Kitajima, Eiji Iikubo, Sachiko Katagiri, Toshiya Matsushima, Koichi J. Homma.
2012. Thyroid hormone determines the start of the sensitive period of imprinting and primes later learning. Nature
Communications 3, 1081. [CrossRef]
8. Corina Nagy, Gustavo Turecki. 2012. Sensitive periods in epigenetics: bringing us closer to complex behavioral phenotypes.
Epigenomics 4:4, 445-457. [CrossRef]
9. Andrew K. Birnie, Shelton E. Hendricks, Adam S. Smith, Ross Milam, Jeffrey A. French. 2012. Maternal gestational
androgens are associated with decreased juvenile play in white-faced marmosets (Callithrix geoffroyi). Hormones and
Behavior 62:2, 136-145. [CrossRef]
10. Pico Caroni, Flavio Donato, Dominique Muller. 2012. Structural plasticity upon learning: regulation and functions. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience 13:7, 478-490. [CrossRef]
11. Marina de Lima Marcolin, André de Noronha D. Benitz, Danusa Mar Arcego, Cristie Noschang, Rachel Krolow, Carla
Dalmaz. 2012. Effects of early life interventions and palatable diet on anxiety and on oxidative stress in young rats. Physiology
& Behavior 106:4, 491-498. [CrossRef]
12. Xin Yu, Seungsoo Chung, Der-Yow Chen, Shumin Wang, Stephen J. Dodd, Judith R. Walters, John T.R. Isaac, Alan P.
Koretsky. 2012. Thalamocortical Inputs Show Post-Critical-Period Plasticity. Neuron 74:4, 731-742. [CrossRef]
13. Derek M. Houston, Jessica Stewart, Aaron Moberly, George Hollich, Richard T. Miyamoto. 2012. Word learning in deaf
children with cochlear implants: effects of early auditory experience. Developmental Science 15:3, 448-461. [CrossRef]
14. Hermann Wagner, Lutz Kettler, Julius Orlowski, Philipp Tellers. 2012. Neuroethology of prey capture in the barn owl (Tyto
alba L.). Journal of Physiology-Paris . [CrossRef]
15. Roi Cohen Kadosh, Neil Levy, Jacinta O'Shea, Nicholas Shea, Julian Savulescu. 2012. The neuroethics of non-invasive brain
stimulation. Current Biology 22:4, R108-R111. [CrossRef]
16. J. Ronald Lally. 2012. Want Success in School? Start with Babies!. Kappa Delta Pi Record 48:1, 10-16. [CrossRef]
17. Salomé Kurth, Reto HuberSleep Slow Oscillations and Cortical Maturation 227-261. [CrossRef]
18. Nils Skotara, Uta Salden, Monique Kügow, Barbara Hänel-Faulhaber, Brigitte Röder. 2012. The influence of language
deprivation in early childhood on L2 processing: An ERP comparison of deaf native signers and deaf signers with a delayed
language acquisition. BMC Neuroscience 13:1, 44. [CrossRef]
19. Charles H. Zeanah, Megan R. Gunnar, Robert B. McCall, Jana M. Kreppner, Nathan A. Fox. 2011. VI. SENSITIVE
PERIODS. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 76:4, 147-162. [CrossRef]
20. ERIN M. INGVALSON, LORI L. HOLT, JAMES L. McCLELLAND. 2011. Can native Japanese listeners learn to
differentiate /r–l/ on the basis of F3 onset frequency?. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1-20. [CrossRef]
21. Barbara L. Ganzel, Pamela A. Morris. 2011. Allostasis and the developing human brain: Explicit consideration of implicit
models. Development and Psychopathology 23:04, 955-974. [CrossRef]
22. Jeremiah B. Wills, Jonathan R. Brauer. 2011. Have children adapted to their mothers working, or was adaptation unnecessary?
Cohort effects and the relationship between maternal employment and child well-being. Social Science Research . [CrossRef]
23. Patricia K. Kuhl. 2011. Early Language Learning and Literacy: Neuroscience Implications for Education. Mind, Brain, and
Education 5:3, 128-142. [CrossRef]
24. Ella Striem-Amit, reja Bubic, Amir AmediNeurophysiological Mechanisms Underlying Plastic Changes and Rehabilitation
following Sensory Loss in Blindness and Deafness 20115459, 395-422. [CrossRef]
25. Sophie Bouton, Pascale Colé, Willy Serniclaes. 2011. The influence of lexical knowledge on phoneme discrimination in deaf
children with cochlear implants. Speech Communication . [CrossRef]
26. Y. Yang, F. Roussotte, E. Kan, K. K. Sulik, S. N. Mattson, E. P. Riley, K. L. Jones, C. M. Adnams, P. A. May, M. J. O'Connor,
K. L. Narr, E. R. Sowell. 2011. Abnormal Cortical Thickness Alterations in Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and Their
Relationships with Facial Dysmorphology. Cerebral Cortex . [CrossRef]
27. Leher Singh, Jacqueline Liederman, Robyn Mierzejewski, Jonathan Barnes. 2011. Rapid reacquisition of native phoneme
contrasts after disuse: you do not always lose what you do not use. Developmental Science no-no. [CrossRef]
28. Virginia B. Penhune. 2011. Sensitive periods in human development: Evidence from musical training. Cortex . [CrossRef]
29. Olav Moberg, Victoria A. Braithwaite, Knut Helge Jensen, Anne Gro Vea Salvanes. 2011. Effects of habitat enrichment and
food availability on the foraging behaviour of juvenile Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua L). Environmental Biology of Fishes .
[CrossRef]
30. Jaanus Harro, Evelyn Kiive. 2011. Droplets of black bile? Development of vulnerability and resilience to depression in young
age. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36:3, 380-392. [CrossRef]
31. Filip Asp, Gunnar Eskilsson, Erik Berninger. 2011. Horizontal Sound Localization in Children With Bilateral Cochlear
Implants. Otology & Neurotology 1. [CrossRef]
32. Nina Sajaniemi, Eira Suhonen, Elina Kontu, Pekka Rantanen, Harri Lindholm, Sirpa Hyttinen, Ari Hirvonen. 2011. Children's
cortisol patterns and the quality of the early learning environment. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
19:1, 45-62. [CrossRef]
33. Kathrin Cohen Kadosh. 2011. What can emerging cortical face networks tell us about mature brain organisation?.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience . [CrossRef]
34. Paloma Rohlfs Domínguez. 2011. The study of postnatal and later development of the taste and olfactory systems using the
human brain mapping approach: An update. Brain Research Bulletin 84:2, 118-124. [CrossRef]
35. Katja Coneus, Manfred Laucht, Karsten Reuß. 2011. The role of parental investments for cognitive and noncognitive skill
formation—Evidence for the first 11 years of life. Economics & Human Biology . [CrossRef]
36. Eric E. Nelson, Amanda E. Guyer. 2011. The development of the ventral prefrontal cortex and social flexibility.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience . [CrossRef]
37. Valerie L. Shafer, Yan H. Yu, Hia Datta. 2011. The development of English vowel perception in monolingual and bilingual
infants: Neurophysiological correlates. Journal of Phonetics . [CrossRef]
38. Jack P. Shonkoff, Susan Nall Bales. 2011. Science Does Not Speak for Itself: Translating Child Development Research for
the Public and Its Policymakers. Child Development 82:1, 17-32. [CrossRef]
39. Nils Skotara, Monique Kügow, Uta Salden, Barbara Hänel-Faulhaber, Brigitte Röder. 2011. ERP correlates of intramodal
and crossmodal L2 acquisition. BMC Neuroscience 12:1, 48. [CrossRef]
40. Elena Nava, Brigitte RöderAdaptation and maladaptation 191, 177-194. [CrossRef]
41. Bidisha Chattopadhyaya. 2011. Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Activity-Dependent GABAergic Synapse Development
and Plasticity and Its Implications for Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Neural Plasticity 2011, 1-8. [CrossRef]
42. Blake S. Wilson, Michael F. Dorman, Marty G. Woldorff, Debara L. TucciCochlear implants 194, 117-129. [CrossRef]
43. Stephen G. Lomber, M. Alex Meredith, Andrej KralAdaptive crossmodal plasticity in deaf auditory cortex 191, 251-270.
[CrossRef]
44. Anthony M. NorciaDevelopment of Vision in Infancy 713-724. [CrossRef]
45. D. J. Davidson. 2010. Short-Term Grammatical Plasticity in Adult Language Learners. Language Learning 60, 109-122.
[CrossRef]
46. A. E. Denburg. 2010. Global Child Health Ethics: Testing the Limits of Moral Communities. Public Health Ethics 3:3,
239-258. [CrossRef]
47. Matthijs G. Bossong, Raymond J.M. Niesink. 2010. Adolescent brain maturation, the endogenous cannabinoid system and
the neurobiology of cannabis-induced schizophrenia. Progress in Neurobiology 92:3, 370-385. [CrossRef]
48. Oswald J.N. Bloemen, Quinton Deeley, Fred Sundram, Eileen M. Daly, Gareth J. Barker, Derek K. Jones, Therese A.M.J.
van Amelsvoort, Nicole Schmitz, Dene Robertson, Kieran C. Murphy, Declan G.M. Murphy. 2010. White matter integrity
 in Asperger syndrome: a preliminary diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging study in adults. Autism Research 3:5,
203-213. [CrossRef]
49. K. M. Neufeld, N. Kang, J. Bienenstock, J. A. Foster. 2010. Reduced anxiety-like behavior and central neurochemical change
in germ-free mice. Neurogastroenterology & Motility no-no. [CrossRef]
50. Karen J. Parker, Dario Maestripieri. 2010. Identifying key features of early stressful experiences that produce stress
vulnerability and resilience in primates. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews . [CrossRef]
51. J. M. Najman, M. R. Hayatbakhsh, A. Clavarino, W. Bor, M. J. O'Callaghan, G. M. Williams. 2010. Family Poverty Over
the Early Life Course and Recurrent Adolescent and Young Adult Anxiety and Depression: A Longitudinal Study. American
Journal of Public Health 100:9, 1719-1723. [CrossRef]
52. Jennifer A. Bailey, Virginia B. Penhune. 2010. Rhythm synchronization performance and auditory working memory in early-
and late-trained musicians. Experimental Brain Research 204:1, 91-101. [CrossRef]
53. E. A. R. Losin, M. Dapretto, M. Iacoboni. 2010. Culture and neuroscience: additive or synergistic?. Social Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience 5:2-3, 148-158. [CrossRef]
54. C. Shilyansky, Y.S. Lee, A.J. Silva. 2010. Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Learning Disabilities: A Focus on NF1.
Annual Review of Neuroscience 33:1, 221-243. [CrossRef]
55. Vladimir Miskovic, Louis A. Schmidt, Katholiki Georgiades, Michael Boyle, Harriet L. Macmillan. 2010. Adolescent females
exposed to child maltreatment exhibit atypical EEG coherence and psychiatric impairment: Linking early adversity, the brain,
and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology 22:02, 419. [CrossRef]
56. Moritz Haupt, Andrea T.U. Schaefers. 2010. Effects of postweaning social and physical deprivation on locomotor activity
patterns and explorative behavior in female CD-1 mice. Developmental Psychobiology 52:4, 383-393. [CrossRef]
57. C. K. Tamnes, Y. Ostby, A. M. Fjell, L. T. Westlye, P. Due-Tonnessen, K. B. Walhovd. 2010. Brain Maturation in Adolescence
and Young Adulthood: Regional Age-Related Changes in Cortical Thickness and White Matter Volume and Microstructure.
Cerebral Cortex 20:3, 534-548. [CrossRef]
58. Sharon E. Fox, Pat Levitt, Charles A. Nelson III. 2010. How the Timing and Quality of Early Experiences Influence the
Development of Brain Architecture. Child Development 81:1, 28-40. [CrossRef]
59. Douglas Davidson, Peter Indefrey. 2009. [image omitted] Plasticity of grammatical recursion in German learners of Dutch.
Language and Cognitive Processes 24:9, 1335-1369. [CrossRef]
60. Akemi Tomoda, Carryl P. Navalta, Ann Polcari, Norihiro Sadato, Martin H. Teicher. 2009. Childhood Sexual Abuse Is
Associated with Reduced Gray Matter Volume in Visual Cortex of Young Women. Biological Psychiatry 66:7, 642-648.
[CrossRef]
61. Judy Sng, Michael J Meaney. 2009. Environmental regulation of the neural epigenome. Epigenomics 1:1, 131-151. [CrossRef]
62. Jennifer L. Hogsden, Hans C. Dringenberg. 2009. NR2B subunit-dependent long-term potentiation enhancement in the rat
cortical auditory system in vivo following masking of patterned auditory input by white noise exposure during early postnatal
life. European Journal of Neuroscience 30:3, 376-384. [CrossRef]
63. Charles Zeanah. 2009. The Importance of Early Experiences: Clinical, Research, and Policy Perspectives. Journal of Loss
and Trauma 14:4, 266-279. [CrossRef]
64. David R Moore, Robert V Shannon. 2009. Beyond cochlear implants: awakening the deafened brain. Nature Neuroscience
12:6, 686-691. [CrossRef]
65. Peter J. Marshall, Justin W. Kenney. 2009. Biological perspectives on the effects of early psychosocial experience.
Developmental Review 29:2, 96-119. [CrossRef]
66. Roi Cohen Kadosh, Avishai Henik, Vincent Walsh. 2009. Synaesthesia: learned or lost?. Developmental Science 12:3,
484-491. [CrossRef]
67. Tal Savion-Lemieux, Jennifer A. Bailey, Virginia B. Penhune. 2009. Developmental contributions to motor sequence learning.
Experimental Brain Research 195:2, 293-306. [CrossRef]
68. Jan Thornton, Julia L. Zehr, Michael D. Loose. 2009. Effects of prenatal androgens on rhesus monkeys: A model system to
explore the organizational hypothesis in primates. Hormones and Behavior 55:5, 633-644. [CrossRef]
69. Kalynn M. Schulz, Heather A. Molenda-Figueira, Cheryl L. Sisk. 2009. Back to the future: The organizational–activational
hypothesis adapted to puberty and adolescence. Hormones and Behavior 55:5, 597-604. [CrossRef]
70. Yuri I. Arshavsky. 2009. Two functions of early language experience. Brain Research Reviews 60:2, 327-340. [CrossRef]
71. Pat Levitt, Daniel B. Campbell. 2009. The genetic and neurobiologic compass points toward common signaling dysfunctions
in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Clinical Investigation 119:4, 747-754. [CrossRef]
72. 2009. National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators (NAECTE) Position Statement on Early Childhood
Certification for Teachers of Children 8 Years Old and Younger in Public School Settings. Journal of Early Childhood
Teacher Education 30:2, 188-191. [CrossRef]
73. Peter Mundy, Lisa Sullivan, Ann M. Mastergeorge. 2009. A parallel and distributed-processing model of joint attention, social
cognition and autism. Autism Research 2:1, 2-21. [CrossRef]
74. Barbara L. Thompson, Gregg D. Stanwood. 2009. Pleiotropic Effects of Neurotransmission during Development: Modulators
of Modularity. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 39:2, 260-268. [CrossRef]
75. L REARDON, E LEENFELDNER, C HAYWARD. 2009. A critical review of the empirical literature on the relation between
anxiety and puberty. Clinical Psychology Review 29:1, 1-23. [CrossRef]
76. Maya Yossifoff, Tatiana Kisliouk, Noam Meiri. 2008. Dynamic changes in DNA methylation during thermal control
establishment affect CREB binding to the brain-derived neurotrophic factor promoter. European Journal of Neuroscience
28:11, 2267-2277. [CrossRef]
77. R COHENKADOSH, V WALSH. 2008. Synaesthesia and cortical connections: cause or correlation?. Trends in
Neurosciences 31:11, 549-550. [CrossRef]
78. Judy H. Song, Erika Skoe, Patrick C. M. Wong, Nina Kraus. 2008. Plasticity in the Adult Human Auditory Brainstem
following Short-term Linguistic Training. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20:10, 1892-1902. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
79. Madhu Kalia. 2008. Brain development: anatomy, connectivity, adaptive plasticity, and toxicity. Metabolism 57, S2-S5.
[CrossRef]
80. Diane Branson, Debra C. Vigil, Ann Bingham. 2008. Community Childcare Providers’ Role in the Early Detection of Autism
Spectrum Disorders. Early Childhood Education Journal 35:6, 523-530. [CrossRef]
81. M.S. Malmierca, J. Storm-Mathisen, N.B. Cant, D.R.F. Irvine. 2008. From cochlea to cortex: A tribute to Kirsten Kjelsberg
Osen. Neuroscience 154:1, 1-9. [CrossRef]
82. Fiona M. Richardson, Michael S.C. Thomas. 2008. Critical periods and catastrophic interference effects in the development
of self-organizing feature maps. Developmental Science 11:3, 371-389. [CrossRef]
83. P. K Kuhl, B. T Conboy, S. Coffey-Corina, D. Padden, M. Rivera-Gaxiola, T. Nelson. 2008. Phonetic learning as a pathway to
language: new data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences 363:1493, 979-1000. [CrossRef]
84. ELIZABETH B. ISAACS, DAVID G. GADIAN, STUART SABATINI, WUI K. CHONG, BRIAN T. QUINN, BRUCE R.
FISCHL, ALAN LUCAS. 2008. The Effect of Early Human Diet on Caudate Volumes and IQ. Pediatric Research 63:3,
308-314. [CrossRef]
85. Hirofumi Morishita, Takao K Hensch. 2008. Critical period revisited: impact on vision. Current Opinion in Neurobiology
18:1, 101-107. [CrossRef]
86. Noam Meiri. 2008. 14-3-3# Expression is induced during the critical period of thermal control establishment. Developmental
Neurobiology 68:1, 62-72. [CrossRef]
87. JAMES J. HECKMAN, FREDRICK FLYER, COLLEEN LOUGHLIN. 2008. AN ASSESSMENT OF CAUSAL
INFERENCE IN SMOKING INITIATION RESEARCH AND A FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE RESEARCH. Economic
Inquiry 46:1, 37-44. [CrossRef]
88. Judith L Rapoport, Nitin Gogtay. 2008. Brain Neuroplasticity in Healthy, Hyperactive and Psychotic Children: Insights from
Neuroimaging. Neuropsychopharmacology 33:1, 181-197. [CrossRef]
89. E David Leonardo, Rene Hen. 2008. Anxiety as a Developmental Disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology 33:1, 134-140.
[CrossRef]
90. P. Shaw, K. Eckstrand, W. Sharp, J. Blumenthal, J. P. Lerch, D. Greenstein, L. Clasen, A. Evans, J. Giedd, J. L. Rapoport.
2007. From the Cover: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is characterized by a delay in cortical maturation. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 104:49, 19649-19654. [CrossRef]
91. Bryan M. Hooks, Chinfei Chen. 2007. Critical Periods in the Visual System: Changing Views for a Model of Experience-
Dependent Plasticity. Neuron 56:2, 312-326. [CrossRef]
92. Leonard E. White, David Fitzpatrick. 2007. Vision and Cortical Map Development. Neuron 56:2, 327-338. [CrossRef]
93. Philip Shaw. 2007. Intelligence and the developing human brain. BioEssays 29:10, 962-973. [CrossRef]
 94. J DAHMEN, A KING. 2007. Learning to hear: plasticity of auditory cortical processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology
17:4, 456-464. [CrossRef]
95. N Stettler. 2007. Nature and strength of epidemiological evidence for origins of childhood and adulthood obesity in the first
year of life. International Journal of Obesity 31:7, 1035-1043. [CrossRef]
96. A KEUROGHLIAN, E KNUDSEN. 2007. Adaptive auditory plasticity in developing and adult animals. Progress in
Neurobiology 82:3, 109-121. [CrossRef]
97. Edward T. Auer, Lynne E. Bernstein, Witaya Sungkarat, Manbir Singh. 2007. Vibrotactile activation of the auditory cortices
in deaf versus hearing adults. NeuroReport 18:7, 645-648. [CrossRef]
98. Sharon Tirosh, Alina Elkobi, Kobi Rosenblum, Noam Meiri. 2007. A role for eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2B
(eIF2B) in taste memory consolidation and in thermal control establishment during the critical period for sensory development.
Developmental Neurobiology 67:6, 728-739. [CrossRef]
99. J KIMCOHEN. 2007. Resilience and Developmental Psychopathology. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North
America 16:2, 271-283. [CrossRef]
100. Kurt E. Weaver, Alexander A. Stevens. 2007. Attention and Sensory Interactions within the Occipital Cortex in the Early
Blind: An fMRI Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19:2, 315-330. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
101. D GESCHWIND, P LEVITT. 2007. Autism spectrum disorders: developmental disconnection syndromes. Current Opinion
in Neurobiology 17:1, 103-111. [CrossRef]
102. Donald Watanabe, Tal Savion-Lemieux, Virginia B. Penhune. 2007. The effect of early musical training on adult motor
performance: evidence for a sensitive period in motor learning. Experimental Brain Research 176:2, 332-340. [CrossRef]
103. Rebecca E. Watson, John M. DeSesso, Mark E. Hurtt, Gregg D. Cappon. 2006. Postnatal growth and morphological
development of the brain: a species comparison. Birth Defects Research Part B: Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology
77:5, 471-484. [CrossRef]
104. H. B. M. Uylings. 2006. Development of the Human Cortex and the Concept of “Critical” or “Sensitive” Periods. Language
Learning 56, 59-90. [CrossRef]
105. David Birdsong. 2006. Age and Second Language Acquisition and Processing: A Selective Overview. Language Learning
56, 9-49. [CrossRef]
106. Peter Indefrey, Marianne Gullberg. 2006. Introduction. Language Learning 56, 1-8. [CrossRef]
107. Y ARSHAVSKY. 2006. “Scientific roots” of dualism in neuroscience. Progress in Neurobiology 79:4, 190-204. [CrossRef]
108. E. D. Leonardo, René Hen. 2006. Genetics of Affective and Anxiety Disorders. Annual Review of Psychology 57:1, 117-137.
[CrossRef]
109. Andrej Kral, Jochen Tillein, Silvia Heid, Rainer Klinke, Rainer HartmannCochlear implants: cortical plasticity in congenital
deprivation 157, 283-402. [CrossRef]
110. Flavio Cunha, James J. Heckman, Lance Lochner, Dimitriy V. MasterovChapter 12 Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle
Skill Formation 1, 697-812. [CrossRef]
111. Suzanne I. Sollars. 2005. Chorda tympani nerve transection at different developmental ages produces differential effects on
taste bud volume and papillae morphology in the rat. Journal of Neurobiology 64:3, 310-320. [CrossRef]
112. Michael Rutter. 2005. Multiple meanings of a developmental perspective on psychopathology. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology 2:3, 221-252. [CrossRef]
113. Patricia Kuhl, Barbara Conboy, Denise Padden, Tobey Nelson, Jessica Pruitt. 2005. Early Speech Perception and Later
Language Development: Implications for the "Critical Period". Language Learning and Development 1:3, 237-264.
[CrossRef]