4.6 Article

Effect of Hippocampal and Amygdala Connectivity on the Relationship Between Preschool Poverty and School-Age Depression

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 173, 期 6, 页码 625-634

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15081014

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01 MH064769-06, R01 MH090786]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: In this study, the authors tested the hypothesis that poverty experienced in early childhood, as measured by income-to-needs ratio, has an impact on functional brain connectivity at school age, which in turn mediates influences on child negative mood/depression. Method: Participants were from a prospective longitudinal study of emotion development. Preschoolers 3-5 years of age were originally ascertained from primary care and day care sites in the St. Louis area and then underwent annual behavioral assessments for up to 12 years. Healthy preschoolers and those with a history of depression symptoms underwent neuroimaging at school age. Using functional MRI, the authors examined whole brain resting-state functional connectivity with the left and right hippocampus and amygdala. Results: Lower income-to-needs ratio at preschool age was associated with reduced connectivity between hippocampus and amygdala and a number of regions at school age, including the superior frontal cortex, lingual gyrus, posterior cingulate, and putamen. Lower income-to-needs ratio predicted greater negative mood/depression severity at school age, as did connectivity between the left hippocampus and the right superior frontal cortex and between the right amygdala and the right lingual gyrus. Connectivity mediated the relationship between income to-needs ratio and negative mood/depression at the time of scanning. Conclusions: These findings suggest that poverty in early childhood, as assessed by at least one measure, may influence the development of hippocampal and amygdala connectivity in a manner leading to negative mood symptoms during later childhood.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据