Risk and resilience are topics that psychology, neuroscience, and other social and biological sciences are dedicated to studying because they are implicated in various psychiatric and physical illnesses. A better understanding of these phenomena may mean better prevention, treatment, and overall well-being, especially for those who are at a high risk of experiencing trauma.
Dr. Anna Weinberg at McGill University in Montreal, Canada has conducted several studies to better understand the neural correlates underlying risk and resilience, including in daughters of depressed mothers. In one particular paper, “Risk and resilience in an acute stress paradigm: Evidence from salivary cortisol and time-frequency analysis of the reward positivity,” Dr. Weinberg discusses a study in which she and colleagues analyze the associations between acute stress, neural responses, and reward-related potentials. Based on participants’ exposure to a very acute stressor, the results suggest a bidirectional relationship between stress and the brain’s reward system: greater stress may reduce reward-related feedback, while greater reward-sensitivity may buffer the severe impacts of stress on individuals. While these results find support for stress-induced anhedonia, they also show that a strong neural reward system is associated with less stress responses, which may be a marker of resilience in stress-related psychopathology.
These results spark questions regarding the implications they hold for mental illness. However, it is important to note that the stressor the participants faced in Dr. Weinberg’s study was very acute (an unfriendly supervisor) and may not be reflective of long-term stressors and traumas such as exposure to war or sexual assault. Dr. Ruth Feldman, a professor at Yale University, posited a model that suggests that there are several systems that are markers of resilience because they allow for adaptation to social ecology and hardships. Together they explain the neurobiology of affiliation, as expressed in “What is resilience: an affiliative neuroscience approach.” Those systems are oxytocin, the affiliative brain, and biobehavioral synchrony. Oxytocin is a hormone that has been implicated in affiliation, in connection between humans, and in neural plasticity in the hippocampus. Dr. Feldman finds that oxytocin also plays an important role in the affiliative brain, which is made up of several interconnected brain structures that integrate motivation and cognitive aspects and ultimately help in the formation of attachments and the management of stress. Finally, biobehavioral synchrony is important for affiliation because it coordinates the social, behavioral and mental conditions of individuals and relates them with the outside world and relationships.
In a unique longitudinal study, Dr. Feldman follows three cohorts of high-risk children (children with a depressed mother, children who were exposed to war from infancy, and children who were born prematurely) from infancy to adolescence. Throughout the study, there were repeated measurements of psychopathology, oxytocin, and neuroimaging. The results of the study support the proposed model of the neurobiology of affiliation. The findings suggest that synchrony and oxytocin—components of the neurobiology of affiliation—were markers of resilience. Neuroimaging provided even more interesting results. Not all children facing trauma showed disruptions in the default mode network (DMN), which is implicated in sustaining the sense of self and displaying empathy. Only children facing trauma and receiving minimal synchrony showed disruption in the DMN. This emphasizes the role of synchrony in developing and maintaining social relationships and resilience. Ultimately, the evidence of this study supports Dr. Feldman’s model of the neurobiology of affiliation, by showing that oxytocin, the affiliative brain, and biobehavioral synchrony intersect to mark resilience for children facing trauma throughout their childhood.
Dr. Feldman’s powerful conclusions display several connections to Dr. Weinberg’s work by showing that there are neurobiological underpinnings to risk and resilience. Dr. Weinberg’s work utilized the impact of acute stressors to imply that the reward system may have a role in mediating the effect of stress and the development of psychopathology. In contrast, Dr. Feldman conducted a longitudinal study examining the neurobiology of children undergoing very grave traumas in a real-life setting to support her affiliative neurobiology model. Although the researchers point to different mechanisms and brain regions implicated in resilience, they both suggest that neural activation of certain regions may affect risk and resilience. Both Dr. Weinberg and Dr. Feldman’s research exhibit the need to continue understanding the brain in risk and resilience in order to establish effective prevention and treatment methods.
Citations:
Ethridge, P., Ali, N., Racine, S. Pruessner, J. & Weinberg, A (2020). Risk and resilience in an acute stress paradigm: Evidence from salivary cortisol and time-frequency analysis of the reward positivity. Clinical Psychological Science.
Feldman, R. What is resilience: An affiliative neuroscience approach (2020). World Psychiatric Association.
No comments:
Post a Comment