4.5 Article

Normalization of EEG activity among previously institutionalized children placed into foster care: A 12-year follow-up of the Bucharest Early Intervention Project

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 68-75

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.004

关键词

Early deprivation; Foster care intervention; EEG; BEIP; Alpha activity; Beta activity

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [U54 HD090255] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH091363] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extreme social and cognitive deprivation as a result of institutional care has profound effects on developmental outcomes across multiple domains for many abandoned or orphaned children. The Bucharest Early Intervention Project (BEIP) examines the outcomes for children originally placed in institutions who were assessed comprehensively and then randomized to foster care (FCG) or care as usual (CAUG) and followed longitudinally. Here we report on the brain electrical activity (electroencephalogram: EEG) of 12-year-old children enrolled in the BEIP. Previous reports suggested improvement in resting EEG activity for the group of children placed in the foster care intervention, particularly those placed before 24 months of age compared to children who were randomized to CAUG or those placed into families after this age. At 12 years, differences between those in the FCG and those in the CAUG persist in the alpha band (8-13 Hz), but not in higher frequency bands (i.e. in the beta band; 15-30 Hz), except in those children placed into the FCG who remained in high quality care environments over the course of the study. These findings highlight the importance of maintaining a stable high quality caregiving environment, particularly for children exposed to early psychosocial deprivation, for promoting healthy brain development. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://cleativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

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

4.5
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