Critical Period In Brain Development

A critical period is a fixed window in early development. During it, specific experience must occur for a skill or brain system to wire up normally. Miss the window, and that skill can become far harder, or sometimes impossible, to learn later.

What Is a Critical Period?

A critical period is a biologically determined stage of development. During it, an organism is optimally ready to acquire a specific pattern of behavior. The window does not come back.

An organism may not receive the right stimulus to learn a skill during its critical period. If so, developing that skill later in life can become difficult or even impossible.

This happens because a range of functional and structural elements prevent passive experiences from eliciting significant changes in the brain (Cisneros-Franco et al., 2020).

Origins of the Critical Period Idea

The first strong proponent of critical periods was the biologist Charles Stockard (1921), who tested the effects of various chemicals on fish embryos. He credited Dareste with originating the idea 30 years earlier (Scott, 1962).

Stockard’s experiments showed that applying certain chemicals to fish embryos at a specific stage of development produced one-eyed fish. The malformation that resulted depended on exactly when in development the chemical was applied, because each organ system had its own narrow window of vulnerability (Stockard, 1921).

These experiments established that the fastest-growing tissues in an embryo are the most sensitive to changes in conditions, with effects that surface later in development (Scott, 1962).

Meanwhile, psychologist Sigmund Freud tried to explain the origins of neurosis in human patients as a result of early experiences. This implied that infants are particularly sensitive to influences at certain points in their lives.

Imprinting and Early Critical Period Studies

Lorenz (1935) later showed that critical periods also govern primary social bonds in birds, a process he called imprinting. He saw a clear parallel with the critical periods that shape a developing embryo.

Aim: Lorenz (1935) wanted to know how young geese and ducks come to recognize and follow their own species, and whether this recognition is innate or learned.

Method: He hand-reared goslings so that the first moving object they saw after hatching was Lorenz himself rather than the mother goose, then compared them with normally reared birds.

Results: The goslings followed whichever moving object they met in the first day after hatching, and this attachment proved highly stable. When Lorenz mixed a Lorenz-reared group with a mother-reared group, each gosling still followed its own imprinting object.

Conclusion: A lasting social bond in these birds can form only within a brief, genetically timed window. Later research has softened Lorenz’s claim that the bond is completely irreversible, but the basic finding, that timing is everything, still stands.

Soon thereafter, McGraw (1946) pointed out the existence of critical periods for the optimal learning of motor skills in human infants (Scott, 1962).

Mechanisms for Critical Periods

Both genetics and sensory experiences from outside the body shape the brain as it develops (Knudsen, 2004). Timing matters too. How much the brain can change depends on the developmental stage it has reached.

In scientific terms, the brain’s plasticity changes across the lifespan. It is highest early on, before many key connections take root, and much lower later.

Early experience is crucial for developing skills like language and music. Both are harder to take up in adulthood (Skoe and Kraus, 2013; White et al., 2013; Hartshorne et al., 2018).

As brains mature, the connections in them become more fixed. That stability is useful. It lets the brain hold on to complex perceptual, motor, and cognitive processes (Piaget, 1962).

Children’s gestures, for example, help predict how they will acquire oral language skills (Colonnesi et al., 2010), which in turn are important for developing executive functions (Marcovitch and Zelazo, 2009).

However, this formation of stable connections can limit how the brain’s neural circuitry can be revised in the future.

What Happens When Experience Is Missing

Abnormal sensory experience during the critical period leaves a mark. Auditory or visual deprivation is the clearest case.

The brain may then fail to wire itself to process later sensory input properly (Gallagher et al., 2020).

One illustration is the timing of cochlear implants, a prosthesis that restores hearing in some deaf people. Children who receive them before age two benefit more than those implanted later (Kral and Eggermont, 2007; Gallagher et al., 2020).

Cataracts in infants cause a comparable pattern of visual deprivation. Early removal allows near-normal vision to develop. Left untreated into adulthood, the same cataract leaves vision substantially poorer (Rosa et al., 2013).

After the critical period closes, abnormal sensory experience matters less. Barring direct damage to the nervous system, changes tend to be reversible (Gallagher et al., 2020).

Much of this knowledge comes from animal studies. They give researchers far greater control over the variables being tested.

This research has found that different sensory systems, such as vision, auditory processing, and spatial hearing, have different critical periods (Gallagher et al., 2020).

How the Window Opens and Closes

The brain regulates when a critical period opens and closes largely through inhibitory neurotransmitters, chemical messengers that carry signals between neurons.

The window opens as inhibitory circuits that release GABA, particularly fast-spiking cells called parvalbumin-expressing interneurons, mature and start to sharpen the cortex’s response to patterned input.

Closure then comes from a set of structural “brakes.” Axons lose some capacity to grow, myelination stabilizes existing connections, and dense structures called perineuronal nets form around inhibitory neurons (Gallagher et al., 2020).

Because these brakes are actively built rather than simply lost, they can, in principle, be loosened again later in life, opening the door to future treatments.

Vision: The Ocular-Dominance Critical Period

The visual system provides the clearest evidence for a strict critical period in the brain. Two classic experiments on kittens, by neuroscientists David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, mapped out exactly when and how this window operates.

Wiesel and Hubel (1963): Monocular Deprivation

Aim: Wiesel and Hubel (1963) wanted to see what happens to the brain’s visual cortex when one eye is deprived of normal input early in life.

Method: They sewed one eyelid shut in newborn kittens for several weeks while the other eye saw normally, then recorded which eye individual cells in the visual cortex responded to.

Results: Most cortical cells no longer responded to the deprived eye. The open eye had captured cortical territory that would normally serve both eyes.

Conclusion: Normal binocular vision is not simply hard-wired. It must be built and maintained through balanced visual experience during early development.

Hubel and Wiesel (1970): Mapping the Critical Window

Aim: To map the critical period itself. Hubel and Wiesel (1970) set out to define when, and for how long, the visual cortex stays vulnerable to deprivation.

Method: Kittens were deprived of vision in one eye for different lengths of time, starting at different ages. The results were compared with deprivation carried out in fully grown adult cats.

Results: Vulnerability began around three weeks of age. It peaked in the fourth to fifth week. By three months it was largely gone.

During the peak, even a few days of deprivation produced a marked shift toward the open eye. In an adult cat, the same deprivation did little.

Conclusion: The visual cortex has a sharply timed critical period with a clear onset, peak, and end. Outside this window, the same manipulation that devastates a kitten’s vision barely affects an adult’s.

These two studies are among the most influential in developmental neuroscience, earning Hubel and Wiesel a share of a Nobel Prize. Together, they map directly onto human eye conditions.

A congenital cataract removed in infancy allows near-normal vision to develop, but the same cataract left untreated into adulthood leaves vision permanently impaired.

Untreated amblyopia (“lazy eye”) and childhood strabismus can likewise cause permanent loss of visual acuity if not corrected early. Because the effects compound with age, early eye exams remain the single most effective way to protect a child’s vision.

Critical Periods vs Sensitive Periods

Critical periods are similar to sensitive periods, and scholars have, at times, used them interchangeably. However, they describe distinct but overlapping developmental processes.

A sensitive period is a developmental stage where sensory experiences have a greater-than-usual impact on behavioral and brain development. This influence, however, is not exclusive to that time period (Knudsen, 2004; Gallagher, 2020). These sensitive periods are important for skills such as learning a language or instrument.

In contrast, a critical period is a special type of sensitive period, a window where sensory experience is necessary to shape the neural circuits involved in basic sensory processing. When this window opens and closes is well-defined (Gallagher, 2020).

Bornstein (1989) set out what a genuine sensitive period looks like. It has an onset, a peak of susceptibility, and an offset.

Each of those should be traceable to identifiable experiential and neural causes. The distinction earns its keep by preventing two opposite errors.

Treating a soft window as if it slammed shut breeds fatalism about late learners. Treating a hard window as reopenable at will breeds false optimism, for example about restoring sight after lifelong deprivation.

Researchers also refer to sensitive periods as weak critical periods (Gallagher et al., 2020). Examples include:

• Strong critical periods: vision and hearing.
• Weak critical periods (sensitive periods): phoneme tuning (how children learn to organize a language’s sounds), grammar processing, vocabulary acquisition, musical training, and sports training.

Critical Period Hypothesis

Linguistics offers the most notable application of the critical period. Scholars usually trace the debate about age and language acquisition to Penfield and Roberts’s book Speech and Brain Mechanisms (2014).

In the 1950s and 1960s, Penfield was a staunch advocate of early immersion education (Kroll and De Groot, 2009).

Lenneberg did not coin the term “critical period.” It was already established in biology and ethology. Scott (1962) had applied it to behavioral development. Lenneberg (1967) brought it to language in his book Biological Foundations of Language.

Lenneberg (1967) described a critical period as “a period of automatic acquisition from mere exposure” that “seems to disappear after this age.” Scovel (1969) later summarized and narrowed Penfield’s and Lenneberg’s view on the critical period hypothesis into three main claims:

1. Accent detection: Adult native speakers can identify non-natives by their accents immediately and accurately.
2. Plasticity loss: The loss of brain plasticity at about the age of puberty accounts for the emergence of foreign accents.
3. Speech-only scope: The critical period hypothesis only holds for speech (whether or not someone has a native accent) and does not affect other areas of linguistic competence.

Linguists have since asked whether the evidence supports the critical period hypothesis. Two questions stay open. One is whether a critical period exists for accentless speech or for grammatical (“morphosyntactic”) competence. The other is how age-related differences arise at the neurological level (Scovel, 2000). Neither is settled.

The critical period hypothesis is central to theories of language acquisition, applying to both first- and second-language learning. Early research on first-language acquisition drew heavily on cases of so-called “feral” children deprived of normal language input during childhood.

Aim: A real-world test of the critical period hypothesis. Could Genie learn a first language if her exposure began only after the proposed window had closed?

Method: Genie had been deprived of nearly all social and linguistic contact from around 20 months of age. She was discovered at 13 years old.

Curtiss (1977) and colleagues studied her language development over several years of rehabilitation.

Results: Genie built a sizeable vocabulary and used language to communicate. But she never mastered grammar. Her speech stayed largely telegraphic, with lasting problems in word order and tense.

Conclusion: Genie’s case fits a closing window for grammar, though her extreme social isolation, malnutrition, and abuse mean age of exposure cannot be separated from these other harms. Her case is best read as suggestive, not conclusive, evidence.

More recent research turns to deaf children born to hearing parents. Many receive no accessible language input until elementary school.

These studies isolate the effect of missing language input without the extreme social deprivation seen in feral-child cases. The older a child is when first exposed to sign language, the worse their ultimate grammatical attainment (Emmorey, Bellugi, Friederici, and Horn, 1995; Kroll and De Groot, 2009).

Kroll and De Groot argue, however, that the critical period hypothesis does not apply to the rate of language learning. Adults and adolescents can learn a language at the same rate as children, or even faster, in the initial stage of acquisition (Slavoff and Johnson, 1995).

However, adults tend to have a more limited ultimate attainment of language ability (Kroll and De Groot, 2009).

There is a long lineage of empirical findings on age of acquisition. The most fundamental research comes from studies since the late 1970s. These consistently document a negative correlation between age of acquisition and ultimate language mastery (Kroll and De Groot, 2009).

Different periods of infancy bring sensitivity to different aspects of language. Infants hear speech sounds categorically from about one month.

One- and four-month-olds notice a sound change that crosses an adult phoneme boundary, such as between “ba” and “pa.” An equally large change within one category goes unnoticed. That is categorical perception (Eimas et al., 1971).

Aim: Werker and Tees (1984) tested how the ability to tell apart foreign speech sounds changes across a baby’s first year.

Method: English-learning infants aged 6-8, 8-10, and 10-12 months were tested on consonant sounds that do not occur in English. A head-turn procedure rewarded them for noticing a change.

Results: At 6-8 months, infants told the foreign sounds apart easily. By 10-12 months, most no longer could, though babies raised on those languages still discriminated them easily.

Conclusion: Over the first year, perception narrows to fit the sounds of a baby’s own language. Because this narrowing can be partly reversed with training, it counts as a sensitive period rather than a hard-and-fast critical one.

Vocabulary learning experiences rapid growth at about 18 months of age (Kuhl, 2010).

Critical Evaluation

The critical period hypothesis has changed how languages are taught. No other area of applied linguistics has felt its influence more. Researchers have questioned how much it really matters.

Several early studies found that children were not necessarily superior to older learners at acquiring a second language. This held true even for pronunciation (Olson and Samuels, 1973; Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978; Scovel, 2000).

Most researchers at the time were skeptical. Some denied a critical period outright.

Several documented cases run counter to one of Scovel’s (1969) primary claims: adults who acquired a second language and still spoke with a native accent.

Moyer (1999) found that at least one highly proficient English-speaking learner of German was judged to have native-like pronunciation. Bongaerts (1999) similarly found that several highly proficient Dutch speakers of French spoke with accents judged to be native (Scovel, 2000).

Experience-Expectant and Experience-Dependent Plasticity

Greenough, Black and Wallace (1987) argue that critical periods and lifelong learning are not two separate mechanisms. They sit at two ends of one continuum.

Experience-expectant plasticity relies on input that is universal and species-typical, such as patterned light for the visual cortex. The brain over-produces synapses in anticipation of it.

Input that fails to arrive on schedule leaves those synapses unclaimed, and they are lost.

Experience-dependent plasticity encodes what is idiosyncratic to the individual: a particular vocabulary, skill, or relationship. That kind of learning never stops. It builds new connections in response to specific experience, right across the lifespan.

Bruer (1999), in The Myth of the First Three Years, used this distinction to push back on a popular claim.

He accepted the narrow sensory windows Hubel and Wiesel demonstrated. What he rejected was the leap from those windows to the idea that whatever a child misses before age three is lost for good.

Extrapolating From Animals to Humans

The hardest evidence for a strict critical period comes from deliberate deprivation experiments on animals (Wiesel and Hubel, 1963; Hubel and Wiesel, 1970).

Those studies could never ethically be run on human infants. The precise onset, peak, and offset shown in kittens is strong evidence for cats.

For humans, the case beyond basic sensory wiring rests on weaker material: confounded single cases such as Genie, natural experiments, and correlational data on adoption and language exposure.

Reading that precision straight across risks overstating how sharply timed the human windows are. The gap matters.

Most human abilities keep enough residual plasticity that “sensitive period” fits the data better than “critical period.”

The cost of getting this wrong runs both ways. Overselling a hard window writes off late-placed adopted children and late language learners.

Underselling a genuinely time-limited clinical window delays treatment whose benefit falls away sharply with age.

Contemporary Research

Recent large-scale research has sharpened, rather than overturned, the classical picture of critical periods.

It has replaced the question “is there a critical period?” with three better ones. How sharp is the window for higher cognition? What machinery opens and closes it, and can it be reopened? Large samples and controlled animal experiments outweigh isolated case reports here.

How Late Can the Grammar Window Stay Open?

Aim: Hartshorne, Tenenbaum, and Pinker (2018) measured, with far more statistical power than earlier studies, how age of first exposure affects the grammar someone eventually learns.

Method: They analyzed an online English grammar quiz completed by roughly 669,000 native and non-native speakers. Statistical modeling separated the effects of age of first exposure, years of exposure, and current age.

Results: Grammar-learning ability stayed high through childhood and adolescence. It then declined sharply around age 17 to 18. Reaching near-native grammar, however, required starting immersion by about age 10 to 12, well before that decline began.

Conclusion: There is a real, bounded window for learning grammar, but it closes gradually in late adolescence rather than snapping shut at puberty as Lenneberg proposed.

Can a Closed Critical Period Reopen?

Aim: Do perineuronal nets actively hold the visual window shut? Pizzorusso and colleagues (2002) tested these structures, which condense around inhibitory neurons after the critical period.

Method: In adult rats, well past the normal visual critical period, an enzyme was used to dissolve perineuronal nets in the visual cortex. One eye was then deprived and ocular dominance measured.

Results: Once the nets were degraded, depriving one eye produced the same juvenile-like shift in ocular dominance normally seen only in young animals.

Conclusion: Closure of a critical period is not just plasticity fading away. It is an active molecular “brake,” and lifting that brake can partly reopen the window, a finding with real promise for treating conditions like adult amblyopia.

Real-World Applications

The two grades of window carry different real-world stakes. Where the window is strict, timing is everything. Where it is soft, the message is “start early,” not “too late.”

Timing Eye and Ear Treatment

Ophthalmology has built the visual window straight into standard care. Birch and Stager (1996) followed infants who had a dense congenital cataract in one eye removed at different ages.

Children operated on within roughly the first six to eight weeks of life reached far better visual acuity than those treated later.

The later group’s eyes and retinas were equally intact. What differed was the timing of surgery.

Cochlear implantation shows the same logic in a softer form. Niparko et al. (2010) tracked spoken-language development in a large prospective study of children who received an implant.

Children implanted earlier showed steeper growth in spoken language than those implanted later. Implantation still produced meaningful gains at older ages.

That graded pattern looks like a sensitive period rather than an absolute cut-off.

When to Start a Second Language

The grammar evidence speaks directly to a live policy question. At what age should schools introduce foreign-language immersion, and is investing in adult programmes worthwhile at all?

Hartshorne et al. (2018) found grammar-learning ability staying high through childhood before declining from the late teens.

Near-native ultimate attainment, though, required immersion to begin far earlier, around age 10 to 12.

The practical reading cuts two ways. Starting immersion early is worth it where that is feasible, because only early starters reach the grammatical ceiling.

Yet raw learning ability holds up well into adolescence. Adult and heritage-language programmes therefore remain a reasonable investment.

They will rarely produce native-like grammar. They will still produce real competence, and the data give no support to the fatalistic view that later learners cannot progress.

Adoption and Early Intervention

The clearest human test of a sensitive period for first attachment comes from adoption research.

Rutter and the English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team (1998) followed children adopted into UK families from severely depriving Romanian institutions.

The contrast was stark. Children placed before around six months of age typically caught up close to the developmental level of a UK-adopted comparison group.

Children placed later, especially after about two years, showed much higher rates of persisting cognitive, attachment-related, and quasi-autistic difficulties.

The association strengthened with the duration of early deprivation. This evidence has genuinely shaped policy toward prioritising early placement.

It needs the Bruer caution attached, though. The same children showed real catch-up capacity well beyond infancy and kept making gains into adolescence.

Earlier placement predicts better outcomes. A trajectory fixed by age three does not follow.

References

Birch, E. E., & Stager, D. R. (1996). The critical period for surgical treatment of dense congenital unilateral cataract. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 37(8), 1532-1538.

Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis, 133-159.

Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Sensitive periods in development: Structural characteristics and causal interpretations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 179-197.

Bruer, J. T. (1999). The myth of the first three years: A new understanding of early brain development and lifelong learning. Free Press.

Cisneros-Franco, J. M., Voss, P., Thomas, M. E., & de Villers-Sidani, E. (2020). Critical periods of brain development. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology (Vol. 173, pp. 75-88). Elsevier.

Colonnesi, C., Stams, G. J. J., Koster, I., & Noom, M. J. (2010). The relation between pointing and language development: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 30(4), 352-366.

Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern-day “wild child.” Academic Press.

Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171(3968), 303-306.

Emmorey, K., Bellugi, U., Friederici, A., & Horn, P. (1995). Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16(1), 1-23.

Knudsen, E. I. (2004). Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 16(8), 1412-1425.

Greenough, W. T., Black, J. E., & Wallace, C. S. (1987). Experience and brain development. Child Development, 58(3), 539-559.

Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263-277.

Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1970). The period of susceptibility to the physiological effects of unilateral eye closure in kittens. The Journal of Physiology, 206(2), 419-436.

Kral, A., & Eggermont, J. J. (2007). What’s to lose and what’s to learn: development under auditory deprivation, cochlear implants and limits of cortical plasticity. Brain Research Reviews, 56(1), 259-269.

Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford University Press.

Kuhl, P. K. (2010). Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron, 67(5), 713-727.

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. Wiley.

Lorenz, K. (1935). Der kumpan in der umwelt des vogels. Journal für Ornithologie, 83(2), 137-213.

Marcovitch, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2009). A hierarchical competing systems model of the emergence and early development of executive function. Developmental science, 12(1), 1-18.

McClelland, J. L., Thomas, A. G., McCandliss, B. D., & Fiez, J. A. (1999). Understanding failures of learning: Hebbian learning, competition for representational space, and some preliminary experimental data. Progress in brain research, 121, 75-80.

McGraw, M. B. (1946). Maturation of behavior. In Manual of child psychology. (pp. 332-369). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age, motivation, and instruction. Studies in second language acquisition, 21(1), 81-108.

Niparko, J. K., Tobey, E. A., Thal, D. J., Eisenberg, L. S., Wang, N.-Y., Quittner, A. L., Fink, N. E., & CDaCI Investigative Team. (2010). Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA, 303(15), 1498-1506.

Gallagher, A., Bulteau, C., Cohen, D., & Michaud, J. L. (2020). Neurocognitive Development: Normative Development. Elsevier.

Olson, L. L., & Jay Samuels, S. (1973). The relationship between age and accuracy of foreign language pronunciation. The Journal of Educational Research, 66(6), 263-268.

Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (2014). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton University Press.

Piaget, J. (1962). The stages of the intellectual development of the child. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 26(3), 120.

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(5596), 1248-1251.

Rosa, A. M., Silva, M. F., Ferreira, S., Murta, J., & Castelo-Branco, M. (2013). Plasticity in the human visual cortex: an ophthalmology-based perspective. BioMed Research International, 2013.

Rutter, M., & the English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) Study Team. (1998). Developmental catch-up, and deficit, following adoption after severe global early privation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(4), 465-476.

Salkind, N. J. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of human development. Sage Publications.

Scott, J. P. (1962). Critical periods in behavioral development. Science, 138(3544), 949-958.

Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance 1. Language learning, 19(3‐4), 245-253.

Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual review of applied linguistics, 20, 213-223.

Skoe, E., & Kraus, N. (2013). Musical training heightens auditory brainstem function during sensitive periods in development. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 622.

Slavoff, G. R., & Johnson, J. S. (1995). The effects of age on the rate of learning a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(1), 1-16.

Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child development, 1114-1128.

Stockard, C. R. (1921). Developmental rate and structural expression: an experimental study of twins,‘double monsters’ and single deformities, and the interaction among embryonic organs during their origin and development. American Journal of Anatomy, 28(2), 115-277.

Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7(1), 49-63.

White, E. J., Hutka, S. A., Williams, L. J., & Moreno, S. (2013). Learning, neural plasticity and sensitive periods: implications for language acquisition, music training and transfer across the lifespan. Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 7, 90.

Wiesel, T. N., & Hubel, D. H. (1963). Single-cell responses in striate cortex of kittens deprived of vision in one eye. Journal of Neurophysiology, 26(6), 1003-1017.