Longitudinal structural brain development and externalizing behavior in adolescence

Abstract

BackgroundCross‐sectional studies report relations between externalizing behavior and structural abnormalities in cortical thickness of prefrontal regions and volume reductions in subcortical regions. To understand how these associations emerge and develop, longitudinal designs are pivotal.MethodIn the current longitudinal study, a community sample of children, adolescents and young adults (N = 271) underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in three biennial waves (680 scans). At each wave, aspects of externalizing behavior were assessed with parent‐reported aggression and rule‐breaking scores (Child Behavior Checklist), and self‐reported aggression scores (Buss‐Perry Aggression Questionnaire). Regions of interest (ROIs) were selected based on prior research: dorsolateral prefrontal (dlPFC), orbitofrontal (OFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula, and parahippocampal cortex, as well as subcortical regions. Linear mixed models were used to assess the longitudinal relation between externalizing behavior and structural brain development. Structural covariance analyses were employed to identify whether longitudinal relations between ROIs (maturational coupling) were associated with externalizing behavior.ResultsLinear mixed model analyses showed a negative relation between parent‐reported aggression and right hippocampal volume. Moreover, this longitudinal relation was driven by change in hippocampal volume and not initial volume of hippocampus at time point 1. Exploratory analyses showed that stronger maturational coupling between prefrontal regions, the limbic system, and striatum was associated with both low and high externalizing behavior.ConclusionsTogether, these findings reinforce the hypothesis that altered structural brain development coincides with development of more externalizing behavior. These findings may guide future research on normative and deviant development of externalizing behavior.

Sex differences in medial prefrontal and parietal cortex structure in children with disruptive behavior

“…We also examined age-related two-way and three-way interactions with sex and group for gray matter volume in the vmPFC and amygdala regions-of-interest, and for cortical thickness in the whole-brain analysis. Despite our hypothesis that the relationship between sex, disruptive behavior, and brain structure might differ with age ( Oostermeijer et al, 2016 ; Bos et al, 2018 ; Muetzel et al, 2018 ), no age-related interactions were observed in this study. It is important to note that both of these recent longitudinal structural MRI studies ( Oostermeijer et al, 2016 ; Bos et al, 2018 ; Muetzel et al, 2018 ) did not find significant age-related interactions with disruptive behavior in the ventral prefrontal cortex or amygdala.…”

“…Given the influence of age on brain structure development ( Gennatas et al, 2017 ), we also tested age-related differences between DBD and healthy control children (group-by-age interactions) and potential interactions with sex (sex-by-group-by-age interactions). Recent longitudinal structural studies suggest attenuation of cortical maturation (i.e., reduced cortical thinning) and exaggeration of subcortical maturation in the emergence of disruptive behavior in youth ( Oostermeijer et al, 2016 ; Bos et al, 2018 ; Muetzel et al, 2018 ). Thus, even though exploratory in nature, we expected adolescents with DBD to show increased volume and thickness in prefrontal regions compared to younger children with DBD relative to controls, and the opposite pattern for amygdala volume.…”

The Effect of Smoking during Pregnancy on Severity and Directionality of Externalizing and Internalizing Symptoms: A Genetically Informed Approach

“…That SDP predicted differentiation towards externalizing symptoms is consistent with the generalist gene and specialist environments hypothesis, which suggests that genetic influences should be more predictive of severity of problems and comorbidity, whereas environmental influences should explain their divergence [28,46,47]. Here, we find support that SDP may be a specific environmental influence serving to nudge individuals down developmental trajectories that are more externalizing in nature, perhaps through impairments in brain regions that are linked to behavioral disinhibition (a hallmark of externalizing but not internalizing problems) [48]. Interestingly, the only other predictor of directionality of internalizing/externalizing symptoms in the literature was also a prenatal influence: obstetric complications predicted a preponderance of internalizing relative to externalizing problems.…”

Genetic and environmental influences on structure of the social brain in childhood

“…To compute bilateral measurements of surface area we averaged measurements for left hemisphere (lh) and right hemisphere (rh) surface area (SA): . To compute bilateral measurements of average cortical thickness (CT), we took the size of each region into account (also see Bos et al, 2018 ) by using the following formula:

Fig. 2 Regions of interest in the social brain, including TPJ (blue), pSTS (orange), mPFC (green), and precuneus (yellow).

…”