Article

Amygdala, hippocampal and corpus callosum size following severe early institutional deprivation: The English and Romanian Adoptees Study Pilot

Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 5.67). 05/2009; 50(8):943-51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02084.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The adoption into the UK of children who have been reared in severely deprived conditions provides an opportunity to study possible association between very early negative experiences and subsequent brain development. This cross-sectional study was a pilot for a planned larger study quantifying the effects of early deprivation on later brain structure. We used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the sizes of three key brain regions hypothesized to be sensitive to early adverse experiences. Our sample was a group of adoptee adolescents (N = 14) who had experienced severe early institutional deprivation in Romania and a group of non-institutionalised controls (N = 11). The total grey and white matter volumes were significantly smaller in the institutionalised group compared with a group of non-deprived, non-adopted UK controls. After correcting for difference in brain volume, the institutionalised group had greater amygdala volumes, especially on the right, but no differences were observed in hippocampal volume or corpus callosum mid-sagittal area. The left amygdala volume was also related to the time spent in institutions, with those experiencing longer periods of deprivation having a smaller left amygdala volume. These pilot findings highlight the need for future studies to confirm the sensitivity of the amygdala to early deprivation.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Chiara Nosarti, Jul 02, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
172 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Though noted in the clinical literature for more than 50 years, attachment disorders have been studied systematically only recently. In part because of the ubiquity of attachments in humans, determining when aberrant behavior is best explained as an attachment disorder as opposed to insecure attachment has led to some confusion. In this selective review, we consider the literature on reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited social engagement disorder and describe an emerging consensus about a number of issues, while also noting some areas of controversy and others where we lack clear answers. We include a brief history of the classification of the disorders, as well as measurement issues. We describe their clinical presentation, causes and vulnerability factors, and clinical correlates, including the relation of disorders to secure and insecure attachment classifications. We also review what little is known and what more we need to learn about interventions.Methods We conducted a literature search using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases, using search terms ‘reactive attachment disorder,’ ‘attachment disorder,’ ‘indiscriminate behavior,’ ‘indiscriminate friendliness,’ ‘indiscriminate socially disinhibited reactive attachment disorder,’ ‘disinhibited social engagement disorder,’ and ‘disinhibited social behavior.’ We also contacted investigators who have published on these topics.FindingsA growing literature has assessed behaviors in children who have experienced various types of adverse caregiving environments reflecting signs of putative attachment disorders, though fewer studies have investigated categorically defined attachment disorders. The evidence for two separate disorders is considerable, with reactive attachment disorder indicating children who lack attachments despite the developmental capacity to form them, and disinhibited social engagement disorder indicating children who lack developmentally appropriate reticence with unfamiliar adults and who violate socially sanctioned boundaries.Conclusions Although many questions remain to be answered, especially regarding appropriate interventions, we know considerably more about attachment disorders than we did only a decade ago.
    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 10/2014; 56(3). DOI:10.1111/jcpp.12347 · 5.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The quality of the early environment is hypothesized to be an influence on morphological development in key neural areas related to affective responding, but direct evidence to support this possibility is limited. In a 22-year longitudinal study, we examined hippocampal and amygdala volumes in adulthood in relation to early infant attachment status, an important indicator of the quality of the early caregiving environment.Methods Participants (N = 59) were derived from a prospective longitudinal study of the impact of maternal postnatal depression on child development. Infant attachment status (24 Secure; 35 Insecure) was observed at 18 months of age, and MRI assessments were completed at 22 years.ResultsIn line with hypotheses, insecure versus secure infant attachment status was associated with larger amygdala volumes in young adults, an effect that was not accounted for by maternal depression history. We did not find early infant attachment status to predict hippocampal volumes.Conclusions Common variations in the quality of early environment are associated with gross alterations in amygdala morphology in the adult brain. Further research is required to establish the neural changes that underpin the volumetric differences reported here, and any functional implications.
    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 08/2014; DOI:10.1111/jcpp.12317 · 5.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article focuses on the concepts of risk and resilience and their potential to inform clinical interventions, school-based prevention programs, and social policies. Research suggests that childhood adversity can trigger a cascade of psychological and neurobiological events that can lead to mental disorders in later life. Yet little is known about how these processes manifest in adolescence, a developmental window that is typically associated with an elevated risk for psychopathology and represents a period of neurological growth and reorganization that is second only to early childhood. A better understanding of adolescent brain development may provide an empirical grounding to improve the focus and timing of interventions, particularly those that target self-regulation, meta-cognition, and social supports. Finally, opportunities and challenges that emerge when bridging neuroscience and prevention science are discussed.
    Mind Brain and Education 03/2014; 8(1). DOI:10.1111/mbe.12042 · 1.35 Impact Factor