Amygdalar Activation as a Neurobiological Marker of Differential Sensitivity in the Effects of Family Rearing Experiences on Socioemotional Adjustment in Youths.
Amygdala
Differential susceptibility
Early-life stress
Family rearing environments
Internalizing and externalizing symptoms
Parenting
Journal
Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging
ISSN: 2451-9030
Titre abrégé: Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101671285
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
received:
12
01
2021
revised:
21
04
2021
accepted:
25
04
2021
pubmed:
9
5
2021
medline:
19
11
2021
entrez:
8
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Substantial heterogeneity exists in how rearing environments influence youths' socioemotional outcomes. This heterogeneity, as suggested by the biological sensitivity to context theory and the differential susceptibility theory, is associated with emotional reactivity patterns and underlying neural functions. The present study investigated amygdalar reactivity to emotional stimuli as a neural signature that amplified the influence of rearing environments on youths' socioemotional outcomes. To increase replicability and generalizability, this investigation included two independent studies that methodologically complemented each other. Study 1 employed a large, national, longitudinal dataset (the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study; N = 11,875). Study 2 used a community sample of youths (N = 123) with multimethod and multireporter assessments. In study 1, high left amygdalar reactivity to positive stimuli significantly amplified the impact of parental warmth on youths' prosocial behaviors. In study 2, left and right amygdalar reactivity to positive stimuli significantly intensified the associations between family functioning and youths' internalizing problems. These findings were consistent with the biological sensitivity to context theory/differential susceptibility theory hypothesis because significant socioemotional differences were observed at both negative and positive extremes of rearing environments. Additionally, study 2 partially supported the diathesis-stress hypothesis by showing significant differences in youths' vulnerability to negative family environments. Specifically, left amygdalar response to negative stimuli exacerbated the associations between unbalanced family functioning and heightened internalizing/externalizing symptoms. Left amygdalar reactivity to positive stimuli intensified the link between unbalanced family functioning and elevated externalizing problems. Among youths and adolescents, amygdalar emotional reactivity may serve as a biomarker of differential sensitivity to rearing environments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Substantial heterogeneity exists in how rearing environments influence youths' socioemotional outcomes. This heterogeneity, as suggested by the biological sensitivity to context theory and the differential susceptibility theory, is associated with emotional reactivity patterns and underlying neural functions. The present study investigated amygdalar reactivity to emotional stimuli as a neural signature that amplified the influence of rearing environments on youths' socioemotional outcomes.
METHODS
To increase replicability and generalizability, this investigation included two independent studies that methodologically complemented each other. Study 1 employed a large, national, longitudinal dataset (the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study; N = 11,875). Study 2 used a community sample of youths (N = 123) with multimethod and multireporter assessments.
RESULTS
In study 1, high left amygdalar reactivity to positive stimuli significantly amplified the impact of parental warmth on youths' prosocial behaviors. In study 2, left and right amygdalar reactivity to positive stimuli significantly intensified the associations between family functioning and youths' internalizing problems. These findings were consistent with the biological sensitivity to context theory/differential susceptibility theory hypothesis because significant socioemotional differences were observed at both negative and positive extremes of rearing environments. Additionally, study 2 partially supported the diathesis-stress hypothesis by showing significant differences in youths' vulnerability to negative family environments. Specifically, left amygdalar response to negative stimuli exacerbated the associations between unbalanced family functioning and heightened internalizing/externalizing symptoms. Left amygdalar reactivity to positive stimuli intensified the link between unbalanced family functioning and elevated externalizing problems.
CONCLUSIONS
Among youths and adolescents, amygdalar emotional reactivity may serve as a biomarker of differential sensitivity to rearing environments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33964518
pii: S2451-9022(21)00124-5
doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2021.04.017
pmc: PMC8568728
mid: NIHMS1700685
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1052-1062Subventions
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : K01 DA045219
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
J Consult Psychol. 1965 Dec;29(6):552-7
pubmed: 5846126
Eur J Neurosci. 2004 Sep;20(5):1355-62
pubmed: 15341607
Psychol Bull. 2013 Jul;139(4):901-16
pubmed: 23025924
Neuroimage. 2019 Nov 15;202:116091
pubmed: 31415884
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(4):811-30
pubmed: 18316124
Dev Psychopathol. 2019 May;31(2):741-758
pubmed: 30175699
Dev Psychopathol. 2017 Oct;29(4):1267-1278
pubmed: 28052783
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2000;23:155-84
pubmed: 10845062
Dev Psychopathol. 2011 Feb;23(1):7-28
pubmed: 21262036
Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2004 May;45(2):96-103
pubmed: 15145620
J Pain. 2010 Nov;11(11):1027-38
pubmed: 21055709
J Youth Adolesc. 2020 Apr;49(4):804-817
pubmed: 31385230
Neuroimage. 2003 Mar;18(3):660-9
pubmed: 12667843
Child Dev. 2021 Mar;92(2):731-745
pubmed: 33030267
Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2018 Aug;32:4-7
pubmed: 29051027
Child Dev Perspect. 2020 Jun;14(2):104-109
pubmed: 32655684
Mol Psychiatry. 2001 Jan;6(1):13-34
pubmed: 11244481
Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2018 Aug;32:43-54
pubmed: 29567376
Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Feb 15;77(4):314-23
pubmed: 24993057
Neuroreport. 2002 Jan 21;13(1):15-9
pubmed: 11924878
Psychol Methods. 2012 Dec;17(4):615-22
pubmed: 22984788
Dev Psychol. 2018 Dec;54(12):2341-2355
pubmed: 30359060
Neuroreport. 2001 Aug 28;12(12):2779-83
pubmed: 11522965
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Dec;1094:13-27
pubmed: 17347338
Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2002;67(3):i-v, vii-viii, 1-115
pubmed: 12528424
Soc Dev. 2007 May 1;16(2):361-388
pubmed: 19756175
Dev Psychopathol. 2012 May;24(2):389-409
pubmed: 22559121
J Neurosci. 2003 Nov 12;23(32):10274-82
pubmed: 14614086
J Fam Psychol. 2007 Sep;21(3):459-67
pubmed: 17874931
Psychiatry Res. 2009 Aug 15;168(3):242-9
pubmed: 19564050
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 May 1;186:94-101
pubmed: 29558674
Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Jun;19:1-18
pubmed: 26773514
Comput Biomed Res. 1996 Jun;29(3):162-73
pubmed: 8812068
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1997 Aug;25(4):333-44
pubmed: 9304449
Child Dev. 2013 Mar-Apr;84(2):512-27
pubmed: 23034132
Psychol Bull. 2016 Oct;142(10):1068-110
pubmed: 27513919
Dev Psychopathol. 2005 Spring;17(2):303-28
pubmed: 16761547
Psychol Sci. 2020 Jul;31(7):792-806
pubmed: 32489141
Dev Psychopathol. 2005 Spring;17(2):271-301
pubmed: 16761546
Neuroimage. 2013 Oct 15;80:169-89
pubmed: 23684877
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1999 Feb;27(1):17-24
pubmed: 10197403
J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009 Nov;34(6):418-32
pubmed: 19949718
Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2018 Aug;32:16-22
pubmed: 29703560
J Fam Psychol. 2016 Apr;30(3):331-40
pubmed: 26414417
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Dec;29(8):1201-13
pubmed: 16271821
Psychiatry Res. 2018 Dec;270:1059-1067
pubmed: 29910020
Psychol Bull. 2009 Nov;135(6):885-908
pubmed: 19883141
Neuron. 2015 Feb 4;85(3):505-11
pubmed: 25654256
Psychol Bull. 1991 Nov;110(3):406-25
pubmed: 1758917
Neuron. 2002 Jan 31;33(3):341-55
pubmed: 11832223
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998 Sep;7(3):125-30
pubmed: 9826298
J Res Adolesc. 2020 Jan;30 Suppl 1:177-191
pubmed: 30270464