Influences of early‐life stress on frontolimbic circuitry: Harnessing a dimensional approach to elucidate the effects of heterogeneity in stress exposure

Abstract

Early‐life stress confers profound and lasting risk for developing cognitive, social, emotional, and physical health problems. The effects of stress on the developing brain contribute to this risk, with frontolimbic circuitry particularly susceptible to early experiences, possibly due to its innervation with glucocorticoid receptors and the timing of frontolimbic circuit maturation. To date, the majority of studies on stress and frontolimbic circuitry have employed a categorical approach, comparing stress‐exposed versus non‐stress‐exposed youth. However, there is vast heterogeneity in the nature of stress exposure and in outcomes. Recent forays into understanding the psychobiological effects of stress have employed a dimensional approach focused on experiential, environmental, and temporal factors that influence the association between stress and subsequent vulnerability. This review highlights empirical findings that inform a dimensional approach to understanding the effects of stress on frontolimbic circuitry. We identify the timing, type, severity, controllability, and predictability of stress, and the degree to which a caregiver is involved, as specific features of stress that may play a substantial role in differential outcomes. We propose a framework for the effects of these features of stress on frontolimbic development that may partially determine how heterogeneity in stress exposure influences this circuitry and, ultimately, mental health.

Decomposing complex links between the childhood environment and brain structure in school-aged youth

“…The age range of 9-10 years old in this sample also represents a very specific point in childhood, and it is unknown whether similar brain-environment relationships would be observed at different ages during development. Given marked neurodevelopmental changes throughout childhood and adolescence Gee et al, 2018;Giedd et al, 1999;Herting & Sowell, 2017;Kaczkurkin et al, 2019;Luna, 2009), as well as the likelihood that different environmental factors will influence the brain in unique ways depending on developmental stage (Cohodes et al, 2020;Gee & Casey, 2015;Lupien et al, 2009;Tottenham & Sheridan, 2010), conducting subtyping of brain-environment relationships across development is a vital next step. Perhaps due to the relatively low rate of parent-reported trauma exposure in the current sample, childhood trauma did not meaningfully vary across subtypes in this study.…”

“…Much of the existing knowledge about environmental influences on brain development has stemmed from research focusing on a single type of experience (e.g., physical abuse, neglect, exposure to violence) or aggregating across different types of exposures to adversity (De Bellis et al, 1999;Mehta et al, 2009;Tomoda et al, 2009Tomoda et al, , 2012. While such evidence has been foundational in establishing the deleterious effects of early adversity, there is vast heterogeneity in both the nature of adversity exposure and in outcomes (Cohodes et al, 2020). The frequent cooccurrence of adverse experiences (Green et al, 2010) and additional complexity of family, neighborhood, and school environments present further challenges to precisely linking environmental factors with variation in brain structure.…”

“…Dimensional approaches have increasingly focused on key aspects of early adversity (Cicchetti & Toth, 1995;Cohodes et al, 2020;Everaerd et al, 2016;McCoy, 2013;McLaughlin et al, 2014;Pynoos et al, 1999), including the type of adversity experienced (Dennison et al, 2019;Machlin et al, 2019;McLaughlin et al, 2014;Miller et al, 2018;Sheridan et al, 2017). Previous work directly comparing distinct types of exposures (e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect) has demonstrated differential impacts on brain structure (Cassiers et al, 2018;Edmiston et al, 2011;Heim et al, 2013;Tomoda et al, 2009Tomoda et al, , 2012van Harmelen et al, 2010).…”

Gaming Disorder: How to Translate Behavioral Neuroscience Into Public Health Advances

“…These effects may be mediated by increased amygdala habituation to stress and downregulation of emotions through executive control and salience networks [93]. In addition, subjective controllability of stress may have positive effects on the development of executive control, reward, and salience networks in adolescents [94].…”

Chronic Psychosocial Stress and Experimental Pubertal Delay Affect Socioemotional Behavior and Amygdala Functional Connectivity in Adolescent Female Rhesus Macaques

“…Neuroimaging studies have begun to disentangle the effects of age, sex, and pubertal stage on brain structure and function in humans (e.g., Goddings et al, 2019; Herting et al, 2015; van Duijvenvoorde et al, 2019; Wierenga et al, 2018), as well as the impact of stress during development (e.g., Cohodes et al, 2020; Fareri et al, 2017; Tottenham and Galvan, 2016). Their findings map well onto the rodent work, demonstrating altered structure, function, and connectivity within and between regions such as amygdala, striatum, hippocampus, and PFC.…”