Early Parenting Intervention and Adverse Family Environments Affect Neural Function in Middle Childhood

Abstract

Background: Growing work points to the negative impact of early adverse experiences on the developing brain. An outstanding question concerns the extent to which early intervention can normalize trajectories of brain development in at-risk children. We tested this within the context of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of an early parenting program, the Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch up (ABC), delivered to parents and infants monitored for maltreatment by Child Protective Services. Methods: Families participated in the RCT when children were 2.5 years of age and younger. Parenting and home adversity was measured at baseline. Children were followed longitudinally and resting brain activity was measured electrophysiologically (n=106) when children reached 8 years of age. Spectral power was quantified and compared across children assigned to the experimental intervention (ABC), a control intervention, and a low-risk comparison group (n=76) recruited at the follow up assessment. Results: Higher early home adversity was associated with electrophysiological profiles indicative of cortical delays/immaturity in middle childhood, based on relatively greater power in lower frequency bands (theta, 4-6Hz and low alpha, 6-9Hz) and lower power in a higher frequency band (high alpha, 9-12Hz). Children assigned to ABC showed relatively greater high frequency power (beta, 12-20Hz) than children assigned to the control intervention. Beta power in the ABC did not differ from those of the low risk comparison group. Conclusions: Maltreatment risk and home adversity can affect indicators of middle childhood brain maturation. Early parenting programs can support more normative patterns of neural function during middle childhood.

The long‐term effects of institutional rearing, foster care intervention and disruptions in care on brain electrical activity in adolescence

“…Together these findings suggest that early intervention and continued high‐quality care can improve and normalize the cortical activity of individuals who have experienced severe early psychosocial deprivation. Our findings are consistent with a number of studies that have shown that early intervention altered and normalized neural activity of deprived children (Bick et al, ; Raine et al, ).…”

“…This pattern of immature neuronal activity, characterized by greater power in the slower frequency band combined with reduced power in a faster frequency, has been observed in children reared in social isolation and deprivation (Gendreau, Freedman, Wilde, & Scott, ; Zubek, Welch, & Saunders, ), extreme stress (Montes, Alcántara, Cedeño, García, & Rojas, ), poor environmental stimulation (Otero, , ) and adverse family environment (Bick, Palmwood, Zajac, Simons, & Dozier, ). Bick et al () examined the relations between early family adversity and brain electrical activity and found that early family adversity was associated with greater power in theta frequency band and lower power in alpha frequency band in middle childhood. The immature cortical activity may be the result of deficits in the structural and functional development of the brain.…”

Sustained effects on attachment security in middle childhood: results from a randomized clinical trial of the Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch‐up (ABC) intervention

“…These findings are consistent with a larger body of work demonstrating positive effects of ABC on child outcomes across a range of domains (e.g., Bernard et al, ; Bick et al, ; Dozier & Bernard, ; Grube & Liming, ; Lind, Raby, Caron, Roben, & Dozier, ; Raby et al, ; Tabachnick, Raby, Goldstein, Zajac, & Dozier, ). In addition to promoting secure and organized attachments during infancy (Bernard et al, ), ABC is effective in reducing children's expression of negative affect (Lind, Bernard, Ross, & Dozier, ) and enhancing executive functioning (Lind et al, ), physiological regulation (Bernard, Hostinar, & Dozier, ), and receptive vocabulary (Raby et al, ) in early childhood for children involved in the child welfare system.…”

“…In addition to promoting secure and organized attachments during infancy (Bernard et al, ), ABC is effective in reducing children's expression of negative affect (Lind, Bernard, Ross, & Dozier, ) and enhancing executive functioning (Lind et al, ), physiological regulation (Bernard, Hostinar, & Dozier, ), and receptive vocabulary (Raby et al, ) in early childhood for children involved in the child welfare system. During middle childhood, ABC has been shown to positively affect physiological regulation (Tabachnick et al, ) and brain development (Bick et al, ). Given that several studies demonstrate that children with secure perceptions of their parents show more competent adaptation in school contexts (Brumariu, Giuseppone et al, ; Brumariu, Madigan et al, ), exhibit more emotional and peer social competence (Brumariu, Giuseppone et al, ; Brumariu & Kerns, ; Brumariu & Kerns, ; Brumariu, Kerns, & Seibert, ; Brumariu, Madigan et al, ; Kerns et al, ; Madigan et al, ), have higher self‐esteem (Brumariu, Giuseppone et al, ; Brumariu, Madigan et al, ), and exhibit fewer behavioral problems than children with insecure perceptions (Brumariu, Giuseppone et al, ; Brumariu, Madigan et al, ; Madigan et al, ), it is encouraging that ABC's effects on attachment are sustained in middle childhood.…”

“…Specifically, CPS‐referred children who received ABC as infants demonstrate more adaptive autonomic nervous system regulation during a stressful task at age nine than children who received the control intervention (Tabachnick et al, ). In this sample of CPS‐referred children, ABC has also been shown to promote brain development during middle childhood (Bick, Palmwood, Zajac, Simons, & Dozier, ). However, it remains unclear whether ABC effects on attachment are sustained in middle childhood.…”