>>13457936>i don't even use that word.It's the topic of the thread you dumb shit, and you even replied with an image about neurogenesis here
>>13457592 when I was specifically talking about neuroplasticity. They're entirely different, one dealing with reorganization of neural connections and the other with the development of new neurons.
>Given the central importance of neuroplasticity, an outsider would be forgiven for assuming that it was well defined and that a basic and universal framework served to direct current and future hypotheses and experimentation. Sadly, however, this is not the case. While many neuroscientists use the word neuroplasticity as an umbrella term it means different things to different researchers in different subfields ... In brief, a mutually agreed upon framework does not appear to existNice quote, notice how neurogenesis was never mentioned? You're using the wrong words. There's no confusion between the two terms, they're entirely separate processes. Study after study uses both terms, because one doesn't encompass the other.
>it isn't newThe proof that it happens has only been validated in the last couple of years.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0375-9
>the dogma was that once you're an adult you got all your neurons and you're done.That's neurogenesis, AGAIN. We're talking about neuroplasticity. Read the title of the thread.
