Your Daily digest for PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

[Article Digests for Psychology & Social Work]

PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

 

(https://www.psypost.org/harsh-parenting-in-childhood-may-alter-brain-development-and-lead-to-behavioral-issues-in-girls/) Harsh parenting in childhood may alter brain development and lead to behavioral issues in girls
Mar 3rd 2025, 08:00

New research suggests a potential biological reason why harsh parenting in early childhood can lead to behavioral problems in girls. Scientists found that girls who experienced harsh parenting showed differences in the development of brain connections involving the amygdala, an area important for emotions, and that these brain differences may help explain the link between early parenting and later behavioral challenges. The findings were published in (https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172400196X) Psychological Medicine.
It’s increasingly recognized that a child’s early experiences, including parenting styles, play a powerful role in shaping their developing brain and future well-being. Harsh parenting, encompassing actions like physical punishment and frequent displays of anger, is considered a significant source of stress for young children and can disrupt their emotional and social growth, potentially leading to behavioral problems as they mature.
Although earlier research suggested a link between negative early experiences and later difficulties like aggression and rule-breaking, many studies only provided a limited view, either examining the brain at a single point or focusing on older age groups. The new study set out to provide a more complete picture by following brain development across multiple time points in childhood. Recognizing that boys and girls may respond differently to stress, the researchers specifically investigated potential differences in how harsh parenting might affect brain development and behavior in each sex.
For their study, the researchers utilized data from a long-term study called “Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes” (GUSTO). This study has been collecting detailed information on children from birth onwards. For this specific research, they used brain scans taken at four different times as the children grew, starting at age four and a half and continuing until age ten and a half.
This longitudinal approach, with multiple brain scans over time, is significant because it allows researchers to track brain development within each individual child, rather than just comparing different children at different ages. This is especially important in childhood, where brain development can vary greatly from child to child.
The researchers first looked at whether harsh parenting in early childhood, specifically at age four and a half, was associated with behavioral problems at age ten and a half. Because they were interested in understanding the brain basis of these associations, they then investigated whether harsh parenting was related to how the amygdala develops over time. The amygdala is a key area of the brain involved in processing emotions, particularly in response to threats or stressful situations. They focused on two aspects of amygdala development: its size and its functional connectivity, meaning how well it communicates with other brain regions.
To measure harsh parenting, mothers completed a questionnaire when their children were four and a half years old. This questionnaire, called the Parenting Style & Dimensions Questionnaire – Short version, assessed different aspects of parenting. The researchers focused on the subscales related to physical coercion, verbal hostility, and punitive discipline, which together are considered indicators of harsh or authoritarian parenting.
When the children were ten and a half years old, their behavioral problems were assessed using two different methods. Parents completed the Child Behavior Checklist, a widely used questionnaire that asks about a range of emotional and behavioral problems in children. This checklist provides scores for both internalizing problems (like anxiety and withdrawal) and externalizing problems (like aggression and rule-breaking). To also get the children’s own perspective, the researchers used the Children’s Depression Inventory 2nd Edition, a self-report questionnaire that measures depressive symptoms in children.
The study’s findings revealed that harsh parenting in early childhood was associated with externalizing problems, such as aggression and rule-breaking, at age ten and a half. However, harsh parenting was not found to be associated with internalizing problems, such as anxiety or depression, at the same age. Interestingly, when the researchers looked at boys and girls separately, they found that the link between harsh parenting and externalizing problems was primarily evident in girls, not in boys.
Regarding brain development, the researchers found that harsh parenting was not directly associated with the size of the amygdala. However, it was linked to the developmental trajectories of functional connectivity between the amygdala and several other brain regions, including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), orbital frontal cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
Specifically, children who experienced higher levels of harsh parenting showed a different pattern of change in these connections over time compared to children who experienced less harsh parenting. Again, these effects appeared to be somewhat different for boys and girls. For example, the association between harsh parenting and the developmental trajectory of amygdala-ACC connectivity was mainly observed in girls.
Importantly, the mediation analysis provided evidence that changes in amygdala-ACC functional connectivity might be a neural mechanism explaining the link between harsh parenting and externalizing problems in girls. The results suggested that girls who experienced harsher parenting showed a faster decrease in amygdala-ACC connectivity over time, and this faster decrease was, in turn, associated with more externalizing problems. This accelerated decrease in connectivity could potentially reflect an accelerated development of this brain circuit in response to early stress.
“The present study provided evidence that harsh parenting in early childhood is prospectively associated with both externalizing behavior and the developmental trajectories of functional connectivity profiles of the amygdala, with some support for sex differences at the behavioral and neurocircuitry levels,” the researchers concluded.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172400196X) Harsh parenting, amygdala functional connectivity changes across childhood, and behavioral problems,” was authored by Yuna Koyama, Henning Tiemeier, Pei Huang, Shi Yu Chan, Mioko Sudo, Yena Kyeong, Michael Meane, Peipei Setoh, and Ai Peng Tan.

(https://www.psypost.org/chewing-wood-may-boost-memory-and-brain-antioxidants-study-finds/) Chewing wood may boost memory and brain antioxidants, study finds
Mar 3rd 2025, 06:00

Chewing on moderately hard foods, like wood, might do more than just break down your lunch; new research suggests it could actually boost brainpower by increasing levels of a natural antioxidant, which in turn may improve memory. A recent study published in (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2024.1489919/full) Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience explored how chewing different materials affects the brain and found that chewing on wood, compared to chewing gum, led to a significant increase in a brain antioxidant called glutathione.
Previous research has suggested that the act of chewing can influence brain activity and blood flow. This is important because the brain requires a constant supply of oxygen and nutrients to function properly, and blood flow is the delivery system for these essential resources. Some studies have even shown that people with chewing difficulties tend to experience poorer cognitive abilities. However, exactly what metabolic changes occur in the brain when chewing improves blood flow has remained unclear.
One area of interest is oxidative stress in the brain. Oxidative stress is essentially damage to brain cells caused by harmful molecules called reactive oxygen species. This kind of damage is thought to play a significant role in the decline of brain function as we age. The brain is especially vulnerable to oxidative stress because it uses a lot of oxygen and contains fats that are easily damaged. To protect itself, the brain uses antioxidants, and one of the most important is glutathione.
Glutathione acts like a bodyguard for brain cells, neutralizing harmful reactive oxygen species. Researchers in this study were curious if chewing, and specifically chewing materials of different hardness, could influence the levels of this protective antioxidant, glutathione, in the brain. They also wanted to see if any changes in glutathione were related to changes in thinking skills.
To investigate these questions, the researchers recruited 52 healthy university students in South Korea. They divided the students into two groups: one group would chew gum, and the other group would chew small wooden sticks, similar to popsicle sticks. The researchers made sure the groups were similar in age, gender, and education level.
Before the chewing began, and again after five minutes of chewing, the researchers used a special brain scanning technique called Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy to measure the levels of glutathione in a specific area of the brain called the anterior cingulate cortex. This brain region is known to be important for cognitive control and thinking processes. Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy is a non-invasive method that allows scientists to measure the concentration of different chemicals in the brain. The specific technique they used, called MEGA-PRESS, is particularly good at measuring glutathione.
During the chewing task, participants were positioned comfortably and instructed to chew for five minutes. To keep the chewing consistent, they were asked to chew on the right side of their mouth at a rate of once per second, alternating between 30 seconds of chewing and 30 seconds of rest. One group chewed paraffin wax gum, which is a standard type of chewing gum used in research. The other group chewed on wooden tongue depressors.
Both before and after the chewing session, all participants also completed a cognitive test called the Korean Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological State. This test is designed to quickly assess different aspects of thinking skills, including memory, attention, language, and visual-spatial abilities. This allowed the researchers to see if there was any change in cognitive function related to the chewing.
After analyzing the data, the researchers found some interesting results. First, they looked at the glutathione levels in the anterior cingulate cortex before and after chewing. In the group that chewed wood, they observed a significant increase in glutathione levels after chewing compared to before. This means that chewing wood seemed to boost the amount of this important antioxidant in that brain region.
However, in the gum-chewing group, there was no significant change in glutathione levels after chewing. While there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in the change in glutathione levels between the gum and wood groups directly, the trend was clearly towards a greater increase in the wood-chewing group.
Next, the researchers examined the relationship between changes in glutathione levels and performance on the cognitive tests. They found that in the wood-chewing group, the increase in glutathione levels was positively related to scores on immediate memory and story memory tests. This means that participants who showed a larger increase in glutathione after chewing wood also tended to perform better on memory tasks.
Interestingly, this relationship was not found in the gum-chewing group. There was no link between changes in glutathione and memory performance for those who chewed gum. In essence, chewing wood seemed to both increase brain antioxidant levels and improve certain aspects of memory, and these two changes appeared to be connected.
But the study, like all research, has some limitations to consider. Firstly, the participants were all young, healthy university students in their twenties. It’s not clear if these findings would be the same in older adults or in people with health conditions. Future studies should include a wider range of ages to see if the effects of chewing on glutathione and cognition are consistent across the lifespan.
Secondly, the study focused on just one specific brain region, the anterior cingulate cortex. While this region is important for thinking, it would be beneficial to investigate other brain areas to get a more complete picture of how chewing affects the brain.
Thirdly, the chewing period was relatively short, only five minutes. It’s possible that longer chewing durations, or different patterns of chewing, could have different effects. Also, while the study compared gum and wood, these materials differ in more ways than just hardness. Texture and other properties could also play a role. Future research could explore a wider variety of chewing materials and try to objectively measure the hardness of what people are chewing.
“In summary, this study yielded two major findings. Firstly, the wood-chewing group experienced stimulated of brain [glutathione (GSH)] synthesis, leading to increased GSH levels in the brain,” the researchers concluded. “Secondly, correlation analysis indicated that the higher GSH levels in the wood-chewing group were associated with improved scores in cognitive measures. Since there are currently no drugs or established practices for boosting brain GSH levels, our findings suggest that chewing moderately hard material could serve as an effective practice for increasing GSH levels in the brain. Based on these results, consuming harder foods might prove more effective in enhancing brain antioxidant defenses through elevated GSH levels.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2024.1489919) Effect of Chewing Hard Material on Boosting Brain Antioxidant Levels and Enhancing Cognitive Function,” was authored by Seungho Kim, Ji-Hye Kim, Hansol Lee, Sung Ho Jang, Ralph Noeske, Changho Choi, Yongmin Chang, and Youn-Hee Choi.

(https://www.psypost.org/your-brains-secret-painkiller-can-you-switch-it-on/) Your brain’s secret painkiller: Can you switch it on?
Mar 2nd 2025, 14:00

In the second world war, the physician (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pain-research/articles/10.3389/fpain.2022.961304/full) Henry Beecher observed that some of his soldier patients, despite being injured on the battlefield, required no strong painkillers to manage their pain. In some cases, the injury was as severe as losing part of a limb.
A truly remarkable phenomenon had come into play – the effects of fear, stress and emotion on the brain had switched off their pain. But how does this work – and how can we use it to our advantage?
We all struggle with pain at times. The burning of indigestion, the wince of a scald from the kettle. The sharp stabbing of a sliced finger.
But despite its unpleasantness, pain has a critically important purpose, designed to protect the body rather than harm it. A fundamental concept to first understand is that you do not detect pain – it is a sensation. A sensation that your brain has created – from information it receives from the countless neurons (nerve cells) which supply your skin.
These specialised neurons are called (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21041958/) nociceptors – they detect stimuli which are noxious, or potentially damaging to the body. This (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29212893/) stimulation might range from a mechanical cut or crush injury, to extreme hot or cold temperatures.
So, if you touch a hot iron, or stand on a sharp nail, the correct reaction is to move your hand or foot away from it. The brain responds to pain by initiating muscle contractions in your arm or leg. In doing so, any further damage is averted.
The course of information, rushing along one neuron to another in a relay, is carried as electrical currents called action potentials. These begin at the skin, travel along nerve highways and into the spinal cord. When the information reaches the uppermost level of the brain – the cerebral cortex – (https://www.kenhub.com/en/library/anatomy/spinothalamic-tract) a sensation of pain is generated.
Blocking pain signals
Many different factors can interfere with this transmission of information – we don’t perceive pain if the route to the cortex is blocked. Take the use of anaesthetics, for instance.
(https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/local-anaesthesia/) Local anaesthetics are injected directly into the skin to deactivate nociceptors (like lidocaine) – perhaps in A+E to perform stitches. Other agents induce a loss of consciousness – these are (https://www.rcoa.ac.uk/documents/anaesthesia-explained/types-anaesthesia) general anaesthetics, for more extensive surgical operations.
Pain is also a very variable experience. Commonly, we ask patients to quantify their pain by giving a value along a (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x) scale of nought to ten.
What one person would consider a five out of ten pain, another might consider a seven – and another a two.
Some patients are born without the ability to sense pain – this rare condition is called (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11204641/) congenital analgesia. You might think this confers an advantage, but the truth is quite the opposite. These individuals will be unaware of circumstances where their bodies are being damaged, and can end up sustaining more profound injuries, or missing them entirely and suffering the consequences.
How to trick your brain
What is more extraordinary is that we all possess an innate ability to control our pain levels. In fact, a natural painkiller is found deep within the nervous system itself.
The secret lies in a structure located in the very middle of your brain: the (https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.00998.2014) periaqueductal grey (PAG). This small, heart-shaped region contains neurons whose role is to alter incoming pain signals reaching the cerebral cortex. In doing so, it is able to dampen down any pain that would otherwise be experienced.
Let’s consider this in practice using the extreme example of the battlefield. This is an instance where sensing pain might actually prove more of a hindrance than of help. It might hamper a soldier’s ability to run, or assist comrades. In temporarily numbing the pain, the soldier becomes able to escape the dangerous environment and seek refuge.
But we encounter many examples of this ability coming into action in our everyday routines. Ever picked something in the kitchen that you suddenly realise is extremely hot? Sometimes that casserole dish or saucepan descends to the floor, but sometimes we are able to hold on just long enough to transfer it to the stove-top. This action may be underpinned by the PAG shutting off the sensation of clasping something too hot to handle, just long enough to prevent dropping it.
The substances which generate this effect are called (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32422213/) enkephalins. They are produced in many different areas of the brain (including the PAG) and spinal cord, and may have similar actions to strong analgesics such as morphine. It has also been suggested that long term or chronic pain – which is persistent and not useful to the body – might arise as a result of abnormalities within this natural analgesic system.
This begs the question: how might you go about hacking your own nervous system to produce an analgesic effect?
There is growing evidence to suggest that the release of painkilling enkephalins can be enhanced in a variety of different ways. Exercise (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38048912/) is one example – one of the reasons why prescribed exercise might be able to work wonders for aches and pains (backache for instance) instead of popping paracetamols.
Besides this, (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28781901/) stressful situations, (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-024-01099-4) feeding and (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417433/) sex might also affect the activity of enkephalins and other related compounds.
So, how could we go about it? Take up strength or endurance training? Alleviate our stress? Good food? Good sex? While more work is needed to clarify a role for these options in pain management, their reward might be greater than we thought.
Pain remains a complex, poorly understood experience, but the future is bright. Only last month, the FDA approved the use of a new medication (https://www.iasp-pain.org/publications/iasp-news/fda-approves-non-opioid-treatment-for-moderate-to-severe-acute-pain/) Journavx for managing acute pain.
It works by (https://www.journavx.com/) switching off nociceptors in the (https://teachmephysiology.com/nervous-system/components/peripheral-nervous-system/) peripheral nervous system, and therefore preventing pain signals getting to the brain. This represents a potential new breakthrough in a world which has become dependent on (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-025-00022-0) addictive opioid medications, such as morphine and fentanyl.
Developing new painkilling treatments relies on the work of pain researchers to help unravel the intricate neuronal circuitry and function. There is no denying that this is going to be difficult task. But in considering the neuroscience of how our bodies generate and suppress pain, we can hope to understand how they can act as their own healers.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/how-the-brain-can-miraculously-switch-off-pain-248333) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/lack-of-tiktok-self-control-strongly-predicts-bedtime-procrastination/) Lack of TikTok self-control strongly predicts bedtime procrastination
Mar 2nd 2025, 12:00

Is TikTok use affecting young people’s sleep? A recent study published in (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691824004438) Acta Psychologica explored this question and uncovered an interesting link between TikTok and bedtime habits. The research showed that when teenagers and young adults experience a sense of failing to control their TikTok use, especially when it gets in the way of other responsibilities, they are significantly more likely to postpone going to bed. This finding suggests that the type of TikTok use, not just the amount, is important to consider.
TikTok, a social media platform centered around short-form videos, has experienced a massive surge in popularity around the world, especially among teenagers and young adults. Originally launched in China under the name Douyin, TikTok allows users to create, share, and watch brief, often entertaining videos. Its engaging format and personalized content feeds have made it a dominant force in the social media landscape. This rapid rise has also led to concerns about the potential impact of TikTok on its users, particularly young people who are heavy consumers of social media content.
Like other social media platforms before it, questions have been raised about whether spending time on TikTok might negatively affect young people’s mental well-being, their ability to succeed in school, and their sleep patterns. These concerns became even more pressing during the COVID-19 pandemic when social media became a primary way for many to stay connected while facing lockdowns and social restrictions.
During this period, people, especially young people, spent more time than ever on social media platforms like TikTok. While previous research has examined the effects of social media in general, there has been less focus specifically on TikTok, despite its widespread use. Furthermore, studies conducted before the pandemic showed inconsistent results regarding the links between social media use and well-being, academic success, and sleep. Some studies found negative relationships, while others found no relationship or even, in some cases, a positive connection.
To gain a clearer understanding, researchers from a recent study decided to take a different approach. Instead of just looking at how much time young people spent on TikTok, they focused on the idea of “TikTok self-control failure.” This concept refers to situations where individuals use TikTok even when they know they should be doing something else more important, like studying, working, or getting ready for bed. The researchers reasoned that it might not be just the amount of TikTok use that matters, but rather whether that use is happening at the expense of other important activities. They hypothesized that this lack of self-control regarding TikTok use would have a stronger negative impact on well-being, academic performance, sleep quality, and bedtime habits than simply the overall amount of time spent on the app.
To investigate this, the researchers conducted two separate studies during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. The first study involved 249 adolescents from middle schools in China, aged 12 to 17. The second study included 222 university students, aged 18 to 31, who were studying in the Netherlands but were originally from China.
Participants in both studies were recruited online. The adolescent group was reached through a collaborating school in China, while the university students were recruited through social media groups for Chinese students in the Netherlands. For the younger group, researchers obtained consent from both the students and their parents. University students provided their own consent. Participants completed online surveys that were available in Chinese for the first group and in both Chinese and English for the second group.
The surveys asked participants about their general TikTok use, their experiences with TikTok self-control failure, their well-being, sleep quality, bedtime procrastination related to social media, and academic performance. To measure general TikTok use, participants were asked how often and for how long they typically used TikTok. They estimated their frequency of use on a scale from “never” to “every day” and reported the average number of hours they spent on TikTok on weekdays and weekend days. These measures were combined to create a general TikTok use score.
TikTok self-control failure was measured using a short questionnaire adapted from a scale used in previous research on social media self-control. Participants were asked how often in the past year they gave in to the temptation to use TikTok even when it interfered with other goals, made them use time less efficiently, or caused them to delay other things they needed to do. Responses were given on a scale from “almost never” to “very often.”
Well-being was assessed using questions adapted from a quality of life questionnaire designed for young people. These questions covered aspects of psychological well-being, such as feeling positive emotions and being satisfied with life, as well as well-being related to their school or university environment, like feelings about school and ability to concentrate.
Sleep quality was measured using adapted questions from a widely used sleep questionnaire, focusing on overall sleep quality and how long it usually takes to fall asleep. Social media bedtime procrastination was measured using questions about whether participants went to bed later than intended due to social media use and whether they used social media when they wanted to be sleeping. Academic performance was measured differently for the two groups. For adolescents, it was based on their average scores across all school subjects. For university students, it was based on their average grades in their courses.
After collecting the data, the researchers analyzed the relationships between general TikTok use, TikTok self-control failure, and the various outcome measures. They used statistical tests to see if TikTok self-control failure was more strongly linked to negative outcomes than general TikTok use.
The results showed a consistent pattern across both studies, particularly regarding bedtime procrastination. In both adolescents and university students, TikTok self-control failure was significantly more strongly associated with social media bedtime procrastination than general TikTok use. This means that young people who reported struggling to control their TikTok use and using it when they knew they should be doing other things were more likely to delay their bedtime due to social media compared to those who simply used TikTok frequently or for long periods without reporting self-control issues.
However, for the other outcomes—well-being, academic performance, and sleep quality—the researchers did not find a significant difference in the strength of the relationships between general TikTok use and TikTok self-control failure. In the adolescent group, both general TikTok use and TikTok self-control failure were linked to lower well-being, poorer academic performance, and increased bedtime procrastination. TikTok self-control failure was also associated with lower sleep quality in adolescents. In university students, only TikTok self-control failure showed significant links to lower well-being and increased bedtime procrastination. General TikTok use was not significantly related to any of the measured outcomes in university students.
The researchers suggest that the stronger link between TikTok self-control failure and bedtime procrastination might be because bedtime procrastination is a more immediate and direct consequence of failing to control TikTok use. Outcomes like well-being, academic performance, and sleep quality might be influenced by TikTok self-control failure in more complex and indirect ways, possibly over a longer period.
“The present studies provide, to the best of our knowledge, the first empirical data on the relationships between TikTok use, TikTok self-control failure, and the well-being among middle school and university students during the COVID-19 pandemic, and thus provide important implications for future discussions regarding the potential negative influences of TikTok use in these groups,” the researchers concluded.
“Based on our findings, we suggest that such discussions should focus not only on the frequency of social media (here: TikTok) use and general well-being, but also on situations in which social media use may conflict with other goals and have detrimental effects on various outcomes, such as later bedtimes, poorer sleep quality, and lower academic performance, especially among adolescents. To summarize, we showed that differentiating between a general measure of social media use (i.e., duration and frequency) and a measure of social media self-control failure might provide more fine-grained insights into the relationships between variables of interest for many (social) media researchers.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104565) TikTok use versus TikTok self-control failure: Investigating relationships with well-being, academic performance, bedtime procrastination, and sleep quality,” was authored by Ewa Miedzobrodzka, Jie Du, and Guido M. van Koningsbruggen.

(https://www.psypost.org/infant-regulatory-problems-linked-to-poorer-peer-relationships-and-altered-brain-connectivity-in-adulthood/) Infant regulatory problems linked to poorer peer relationships and altered brain connectivity in adulthood
Mar 2nd 2025, 10:00

A recent neuroimaging study found that regulatory problems in infancy (i.e., difficulties with sleeping, crying, and/or feeding) were associated with poorer quality relationships with peers in adulthood and enhanced functional connectivity in the allostatic-interoceptive nodes of the brain. The paper was published in the (https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14033) Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
Early regulatory problems refer to difficulties in self-regulation during infancy and early childhood. These issues can manifest as excessive crying, trouble settling, poor sleep patterns, or feeding difficulties. They are relatively common, affecting approximately 20% of infants. Such problems may stem from a child’s temperament, environmental stressors, or an immature nervous system.
The brain’s ability to anticipate and correct physiological imbalances before they occur is known as allostatic regulation. Early regulatory problems can be viewed as disruptions in this regulatory process. This function is supported by the allostatic-interoceptive system, a complex network that continuously receives sensory input from the body and responds accordingly to maintain balance.
Anatomically, this system comprises two well-known neural networks: the default mode network, which is active when a person is at rest, and the salience network, a large-scale brain system primarily involving the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex. The salience network detects and filters relevant stimuli, switching between the default mode and executive control networks to guide attention and behavior.
Some studies have suggested that early regulatory problems may be linked to the quality of peer relationships in adulthood. With this in mind, study author Saša Zorjan and colleagues conducted a study examining the relationships between early regulatory problems, allostatic regulation, the allostatic-interoceptive system, and social functioning. They hypothesized that multiple and persistent regulatory problems in infancy would be associated with altered connectivity in the allostatic-interoceptive system and poorer peer relationships in adulthood.
The study involved 42 individuals who had experienced multiple or persistent regulatory problems as infants and 70 individuals who had never exhibited such problems. Participants were selected from the Bavarian Longitudinal Study, a geographically defined birth cohort study of neonatal at-risk children born in Southern Bavaria, Germany, between January 1985 and March 1986. This study included 7,505 newborns who required hospital admission within 10 days of birth and 916 healthy infants born at term in the same obstetric hospitals.
At five months of age, pediatricians conducted standardized interviews with parents about their infants’ crying, feeding, and sleeping behaviors. At 20 and 56 months, sleeping and eating behaviors were reassessed through standardized parental interviews, while eating problems were additionally evaluated through neurological examinations of oral motor function.
The researchers used these data, combined with neurological examinations, to determine the regulatory problems experienced by the children. Information on participants’ peer relationship quality in adulthood was obtained through a semi-structured interview (the Life Course Interview) and an assessment (the YASR scale, which includes items such as “I have problems with making or maintaining friendships”). Participants also underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of their brains.
The results indicated that individuals who had regulatory problems as infants reported poorer peer relationship quality in adulthood compared to those who had not experienced such issues. Additionally, those with early regulatory problems exhibited enhanced functional connectivity in the allostatic-interoceptive system nodes of the brain.
The researchers tested a statistical model proposing that changes in intrinsic functional connectivity between the dorsal mid-insula region and the frontal and temporal cortex mediate the relationship between early regulatory problems and peer relationship quality. The results supported this hypothesis. Intrinsic functional connectivity refers to synchronized activity between brain regions at rest, reflecting stable communication patterns that underlie cognitive and emotional functions. In other words, the findings suggest that early difficulties in self-regulation—such as sleep, feeding, or emotional control issues—may lead to long-term changes in brain connectivity, which, in turn, could affect a person’s ability to interact with and maintain relationships in adulthood.
“This study indicates that early RPs [regulatory problems] are associated with changes in AIS [allostatic-interoceptive system] connectivity and peer relationship problems some 25 years later. Multiple and persistent RPs have long term adverse effects on the brain and social relationships and should be considered as targets of early treatment,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on the links between early regulatory problems and peer relationships in adulthood. However, it is important to note that MRI data were collected only in adulthood. It remains unclear whether the observed alterations in functional connectivity were already present in childhood. Additionally, the study’s design does not allow for definitive causal inferences to be drawn from the results.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14033) The association between early regulatory problems and adult peer relationship quality is mediated by the brain’s allostatic-interoceptive system,” was authored by Sasa Zorjan, Dieter Wolke, Nicole Baumann, Christian Sorg, and Satja Mulej Bratec.

Forwarded by:
Michael Reeder LCPC
Baltimore, MD

This information is taken from free public RSS feeds published by each organization for the purpose of public distribution. Readers are linked back to the article content on each organization's website. This email is an unaffiliated unofficial redistribution of this freely provided content from the publishers. 

 

(#) unsubscribe from this feed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.clinicians-exchange.org/pipermail/article-digests-clinicians-exchange.org/attachments/20250303/2f6f0a1b/attachment.htm>