Site maintenance Wednesday, November 13th, 2024. Please note that access to some content and account information will be unavailable on this date.
Skip to main content
Full access
Editorials
Published Online: 4 November 2021

Abuse and Delayed Brain Maturation in Girls: The Cost of Lagging Behind

That childhood abuse can lead to significant negative outcomes for the abused is not debatable. What is less clearly understood is how this occurs, especially on a biological level. Many studies, including a recent meta-analysis, have noted that adversity experienced early in life may accelerate maturation (1). This has been described as the stress acceleration hypothesis, which posits that early stress advances brain development (2). However, there is also evidence that different adversity types may have differential effects; for example, abuse (i.e., threat-related adversity) and neglect (i.e., deprivation-related adversity) may have opposite maturational effects (3). Such mixed findings from heterogenous samples have led to some confusion in the field; the study by Keding and colleagues (4), in this issue of the Journal, moves this debate forward by separately examining the impact of abuse and neglect on brain maturation and internalizing psychopathology in girls.
It is important to better understand how abuse may affect maturation but also how such alterations in maturation affect health and disease in the long-term. Moreover, why do some abused girls develop psychopathology while others do not? The study by Keding and colleagues does not answer all of these questions, but it does separately examine resilient girls compared with susceptible girls (i.e., those with either no/low versus high internalizing psychopathology symptoms). Keding and colleagues used structural MRI data and a stacked machine learning algorithm to examine brain maturation in a large sample (N=234) of 8- to 18-year old girls scanned at three study sites. These participants were divided into three groups: no abuse history, abuse without psychopathology, and abuse with internalizing psychopathology. The abuse group included all girls who self-reported any experience of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Self-reported neglect score was used as a continuous variable. The brain age gap estimation (BrainAGE) algorithm derives an index of either delayed or accelerated brain development relative to chronological age. The key results indicate that 1) neglect can lead to accelerated brain maturation, while abuse may delay maturation, primarily in emotion circuits; 2) this delayed maturation is associated with higher hyperarousal symptoms in abused girls; and 3) brain maturation patterns differ between resilient and susceptible abused girls. Importantly, these data were cross-sectional, and therefore the results are correlational and not causal.
Keding and colleagues report that abuse and neglect had opposite associations with brain development: abuse delayed, whereas neglect accelerated, maturation. The reported associations differ in specificity as well as direction. Neglect was associated with whole-brain maturation, while abuse was related to maturation of emotion circuitry, including the amygdala, hippocampus, cingulate, and insula. These differential effects have important implications for understanding the impact of adversity on brain development given that according to the 2019 Child Maltreatment report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 61% of maltreated children report neglect, 23.5% report abuse, and 15.5% experience both neglect and abuse. For those 15% of children exposed to both forms of adversity, the opposing patterns of maturation may mask the impact of each and result in mixed findings in the literature, underscoring the need to assess both in any research of brain development. Keding and colleagues assessed and analyzed abuse and neglect; however, the study was primarily designed to test the impact of abuse, with more girls in their sample having no exposure to neglect than having experienced physical neglect. For this reason, the study does not provide strong insight into the impact of neglect in the absence of abuse, or even for individuals who might experience high levels of both abuse and neglect. Additional studies that examine how abuse and neglect jointly affect brain development are needed.
The specificity of findings pointing to delayed maturation of emotion circuits is highly interesting and clinically significant. Abused girls did not show any delays in whole-brain maturation or language-relevant circuits. This underscores the importance of emotion processing circuits in understanding the link between abuse and subsequent health risks. Previous research has identified emotion-related difficulties in children who were victims of abuse, including problems identifying emotional facial expressions (5), disengaging attention from angry faces (6), and regulating emotion (7). Although it is unclear whether delayed maturation of emotion circuits underlies these problems, these findings lay the groundwork for future studies to make this link more explicitly.
Taken together, these data highlight potential mechanisms underlying risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in abused girls. Critically, susceptible girls showed delayed maturation of the hippocampus, a limbic brain structure that has repeatedly been associated with trauma outcomes. Those with chronic PTSD have smaller hippocampi compared with control subjects (8), and prospective studies of adults have shown that hippocampus activity after trauma increases resilience and decreases risk for later PTSD (9). Keding and colleagues suggest that delayed maturation of emotion circuits may lead to increased hyperarousal via increased threat generalization. Increased threat generalization and poor discrimination between threat and safety has been linked both with PTSD symptoms broadly (10) and hyperarousal specifically (11). The hippocampus has also been implicated in safety learning (12) and could be a key link between early abuse, impaired inhibition of fear to safety versus threat signals, and risk for PTSD. Studies have especially supported the association between safety learning and PTSD in women (13), specifically those with lower estrogen levels (14). Because the study by Keding and colleagues specifically examined abused girls, their results are consistent with this pathway to risk in female subjects. Further work should test whether the same relationships are also found in male subjects.
Although the analyses did not incorporate information about the specific age(s) when participants experienced abuse or neglect, Keding and colleagues note that brain structure-specific developmental trajectories may affect the relationship between abuse, neglect, and brain development. Studies indicate that age of abuse exposure affects subsequent effects on brain structure (15). Recent work has highlighted puberty as a sensitive period for fear learning (16) and for recalibration of the stress response system (17), suggesting that the effects of abuse may depend on whether it is experienced pre- or postpuberty. Indeed, the positive association between childhood maltreatment and amygdala volume is strongest when maltreatment exposure occurred near the onset of puberty (18). The study by Keding and colleagues sets the stage for future studies to incorporate age of exposure into analyses of the associations between abuse, neglect, brain structure, and internalizing psychopathology.
Prior studies indicate that both the developmental timing and type of abuse may affect both psychopathology risk (19) and brain development in nuanced ways (15). Keding and colleague’s results provide an overarching summary of how abuse and neglect affect girls: regardless of developmental timing or type, abuse is associated with delayed emotion circuit maturation, and neglect is associated with accelerated brain development. These results suggest that abuse and neglect may result in a developmental mismatch between the child’s age and brain maturation, such that the capabilities of the child are not aligned with the demands of her environment. The association between lower BrainAGE values and more hyperarousal symptoms may be one example of how developmental mismatches confer mental health risk. This highlights the need for future work that examines how either acceleration or delay of typical development may modulate health risk and resilience in abused and neglected girls.

References

1.
Colich NL, Platt JM, Keyes KM, et al: Earlier age at menarche as a transdiagnostic mechanism linking childhood trauma with multiple forms of psychopathology in adolescent girls. Psychol Med 2020; 50:1090–1098
2.
Callaghan BL, Tottenham N: The stress acceleration hypothesis: effects of early-life adversity on emotion circuits and behavior. Curr Opin Behav Sci 2016; 7:76–81
3.
McLaughlin KA, Weissman D, Bitrán D: Childhood adversity and neural development: a systematic review. Annu Rev Dev Psychol 2019; 1:277–312
4.
Keding TJ, Heyn SA, Russell JD, et al: Differential patterns of delayed emotion circuit maturation in abused girls with and without internalizing psychopathology. Am J Psychiatry 2021; 178:1026–1036
5.
Pollak SD, Cicchetti D, Hornung K, et al: Recognizing emotion in faces: developmental effects of child abuse and neglect. Dev Psychol 2000; 36:679–688
6.
Shackman JE, Shackman AJ, Pollak SD: Physical abuse amplifies attention to threat and increases anxiety in children. Emotion 2007; 7:838–852
7.
Kim SG, Weissman DG, Sheridan MA, et al: Child abuse and automatic emotion regulation in children and adolescents. Dev Psychopathol (Online ahead of print, July 29, 2021)
8.
Logue MW, van Rooij SJH, Dennis EL, et al: Smaller hippocampal volume in posttraumatic stress disorder: a multisite ENIGMA-PGC Study: subcortical volumetry results from posttraumatic stress disorder consortia. Biol Psychiatry 2018; 83:244–253
9.
van Rooij SJH, Stevens JS, Ely TD, et al: The role of the hippocampus in predicting future posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in recently traumatized civilians. Biol Psychiatry 2018; 84:106–115
10.
Morey RA, Dunsmoor JE, Haswell CC, et al: Fear learning circuitry is biased toward generalization of fear associations in posttraumatic stress disorder. Transl Psychiatry 2015; 5:e700
11.
Jovanovic T, Norrholm SD, Blanding NQ, et al: Impaired fear inhibition is a biomarker of PTSD but not depression. Depress Anxiety 2010; 27:244–251
12.
Milad MR, Orr SP, Lasko NB, et al: Presence and acquired origin of reduced recall for fear extinction in PTSD: results of a twin study. J Psychiatr Res 2008; 42:515–520
13.
Ressler KJ, Mercer KB, Bradley B, et al: Post-traumatic stress disorder is associated with PACAP and the PAC1 receptor. Nature 2011; 470:492–497
14.
Glover EM, Jovanovic T, Mercer KB, et al: Estrogen levels are associated with extinction deficits in women with posttraumatic stress disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2012; 72:19–24
15.
Teicher MH, Samson JA, Anderson CM, et al: The effects of childhood maltreatment on brain structure, function and connectivity. Nat Rev Neurosci 2016; 17:652–666
16.
Stenson AF, Nugent NR, van Rooij SJH, et al: Puberty drives fear learning during adolescence. Dev Sci 2021; 24:e13000
17.
Gunnar MR, DePasquale CE, Reid BM, et al: Pubertal stress recalibration reverses the effects of early life stress in postinstitutionalized children. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2019; 116:23984–23988
18.
Pechtel P, Lyons-Ruth K, Anderson CM, et al: Sensitive periods of amygdala development: the role of maltreatment in preadolescence. Neuroimage 2014; 97:236–244
19.
Infurna MR, Reichl C, Parzer P, et al: Associations between depression and specific childhood experiences of abuse and neglect: a meta-analysis. J Affect Disord 2016; 190:47–55

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 988 - 990
PubMed: 34734742

History

Accepted: 14 September 2021
Published in print: November 2021
Published online: 4 November 2021

Keywords

  1. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
  2. Child/Adolescent Psychiatry
  3. Biological Markers
  4. Development
  5. Neuroimaging

Authors

Details

Anaïs F. Stenson, Ph.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Wayne State University, Detroit
Tanja Jovanovic, Ph.D. [email protected]
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Wayne State University, Detroit

Notes

Send correspondence to Dr. Jovanovic ([email protected]).

Competing Interests

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share