Because it doesn't impact the body of the article. EG's story is a framing device around the broader (and for this article primary) subject of the brain's adaptability and research into that topic. EG missing part of her brain (and her sister as well) just gives a "human interest" touch to the article.
It changes it in the sense that the theorized cause of her temporal lobe being missing (a stroke in infancy) is quite possibly false, and it's actually some sort of genetic trait. Of course, perhaps they were both predisposed to strokes in that lobe, but in either case it adds an extra dimension to the context in which the brain is still very functional with unconventional biology.
Quite right. My comment was too flippant. Yours provided the detail I left out.
Without question, it is a worthwhile study and very interesting.
But, losing a lobe in infancy and then having the brain compensate is much different, I would think, than having a brain develop in the womb without a lobr.
The sibling’s missing lobe, to my mind, is far more indicative of some genetic abnormality as opposed to some acute event in infancy. But, who knows? Either way, she’s a useful data point and hopefully will advance our meager knowledge of the brain.
