No abstract

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) represent a formidable challenge for psychiatry and neuroscience because of their high prevalence, life-long nature, complexity and substantial heterogeneity. Facing these obstacles requires large-scale multidisciplinary efforts. While the field of genetics has pioneered data sharing for these reasons, neuroimaging had not kept pace. In response, we introduce the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) – a grassroots consortium aggregating and openly sharing 1112 existing resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (R-fMRI) datasets with corresponding structural MRI and phenotypic information from 539 individuals with ASD and 573 age-matched typical controls (TC; 7–64 years) (http://fcon_1000.projects.nitrc.org/indi/abide/). Here, we present this resource and demonstrate its suitability for advancing knowledge of ASD neurobiology based on analyses of 360 males with ASD and 403 male age-matched TC. We focused on whole-brain intrinsic functional connectivity and also survey a range of voxel-wise measures of intrinsic functional brain architecture. Whole-brain analyses reconciled seemingly disparate themes of both hypo and hyperconnectivity in the ASD literature; both were detected, though hypoconnectivity dominated, particularly for cortico-cortical and interhemispheric functional connectivity. Exploratory analyses using an array of regional metrics of intrinsic brain function converged on common loci of dysfunction in ASD (mid and posterior insula, posterior cingulate cortex), and highlighted less commonly explored regions such as thalamus. The survey of the ABIDE R-fMRI datasets provides unprecedented demonstrations of both replication and novel discovery. By pooling multiple international datasets, ABIDE is expected to accelerate the pace of discovery setting the stage for the next generation of ASD studies.

Disinhibition is a common focus in psychopathology research. However, use of inhibition models often is piecemeal, lacking an overarching taxonomy of inhibitory processes. The author organizes key concepts and models pertaining to different kinds of inhibitory control from the cognitive and temperament/personality literatures. Within the rubrics of executive inhibitory processes, motivational inhibitory processes, and automatic attentional inhibition processes, 8 kinds of inhibition are distinguished. Three basic temperament traits may address key executive and motivational inhibitory processes. Future developmental psychopathology research should be based on a systematic conceptual taxonomy of the kinds of inhibitory function relevant to a given disorder. Such an approach can clarify which inhibition distinctions are correct and which inhibition deficits go with which disorders.

Background Self‐regulation (SR) is central to developmental psychopathology, but progress has been impeded by varying terminology and meanings across fields and literatures. Methods The present review attempts to move that discussion forward by noting key sources of prior confusion such as measurement‐concept confounding, and then arguing the following major points. Results First, the field needs a domain‐general construct of SR that encompasses SR of action, emotion, and cognition and involves both top‐down and bottom‐up regulatory processes. This does not assume a shared core process across emotion, action, and cognition, but is intended to provide clarity on the extent of various claims about kinds of SR. Second, top‐down aspects of SR need to be integrated. These include (a) basic processes that develop early and address immediate conflict signals, such as cognitive control and effortful control (EC), and (b) complex cognition and strategies for addressing future conflict, represented by the regulatory application of complex aspects of executive functioning. Executive function (EF) and cognitive control are not identical to SR because they can be used for other activities, but account for top‐down aspects of SR at the cognitive level. Third, impulsivity, risk‐taking, and disinhibition are distinct although overlapping; a taxonomy of the kinds of breakdowns of SR associated with psychopathology requires their differentiation. Fourth, different aspects of the SR universe can be organized hierarchically in relation to granularity, development, and time. Low‐level components assemble into high‐level components. This hierarchical perspective is consistent across literatures. Conclusions It is hoped that the framework outlined here will facilitate integration and cross‐talk among investigators working from different perspectives, and facilitate individual differences research on how SR relates to developmental psychopathology.

This review discusses conceptual issues in relating temperament to psychopathology, including the disputed relation of temperament to personality in children. A potential integrative framework is discussed that links trait and biological markers of temperament (reactive, incentive-response tendencies) with regulatory processes. This framework is utilized to highlight potential temperamental pathways to specific forms of psychopathology, noting that in some instances their relations may reflect a spectrum model (with psychopathology closely related as an extreme of a temperament-based trait), but in many instances it likely reflects a vulnerability-transaction set of processes. Conduct disorder involves at least two temperamental paths, one emanating from low fear response and one from either high incentive approach or high anger reactivity. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder also involves at least two temperament pathways, one involving extremely low effortful control and the other likely involving strong approach. Anxiety disorders appear to result from the confluence of high negative emotionality and low effortful control. Hypotheses for future research are presented and limitations discussed.