The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 117 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging
Open accessAbstract
Interacting parenting thoughts and behaviors, supported by key brain circuits, critically shape human infants’ current and future behavior. Indeed, the parent–infant relationship provides infants with their first social environment, forming templates for what they can expect from others, how to interact with them and ultimately how they go on to themselves to be parents. This review concentrates on magnetic resonance imaging experiments of the human parent brain, which link brain physiology with parental thoughts and behaviors. After reviewing brain imaging techniques, certain social cognitive and affective concepts are reviewed, including empathy and trust—likely critical to parenting. Following that is a thorough study-by-study review of the state-of-the-art with respect to human neuroimaging studies of the parental brain—from parent brain responses to salient infant stimuli, including emotionally charged baby cries and brief visual stimuli to the latest structural brain studies. Taken together, this research suggests that networks of highly conserved hypothalamic–midbrain–limbic–paralimbic–cortical circuits act in concert to support parental brain responses to infants, including circuits for limbic emotion response and regulation. Thus, a model is presented in which infant stimuli activate sensory analysis brain regions, affect corticolimbic limbic circuits that regulate emotional response, motivation and reward related to their infant, ultimately organizing parenting impulses, thoughts and emotions into coordinated behaviors as a map for future studies. Finally, future directions towards integrated understanding of the brain basis of human parenting are outlined with profound implications for understanding and contributing to long term parent and infant mental health.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes in vivo MRI/fMRI studies of the human parental brain, arguing that infant cues engage conserved hypothalamic–midbrain–limbic–paralimbic–cortical circuits for emotion, motivation, reward, and regulation. It presents a model in which sensory appraisal, corticolimbic modules, and hormonal/behavioral outputs coordinate parenting thoughts and behaviors.
Key findings
- Across reviewed fMRI studies, own vs other infant cry/picture/video contrasts repeatedly activate drive/motivation and limbic regions (midbrain, striatum, amygdala, insula, cingulate, hypothalamus) alongside cortical regulatory regions (medial prefrontal, orbitofrontal, anterior cingulate). For example, Lorberbaum et al. (1999) studied 4 mothers with a 30-s standard cry vs control and found increased subgenual anterior cingulate and right mesial prefrontal/orbitofrontal cortex; a follow-up with 10 breastfeeding first-time mothers, infants 1–2 months old, using random effects, activated anterior and posterior cingulate, thalamus, midbrain, hypothalamus, septal regions, dorsal and ventral striatum, medial prefrontal cortex, right orbitofrontal/insula/temporal polar cortex, right lateral temporal cortex, and fusiform gyrus, with amygdala active when cry was compared with rest.
- Parental experience/time and gender/experience modulate responses: Swain et al. found first-time mothers (n=9) at 2–4 weeks postpartum showed own vs other baby cry activations in midbrain, basal ganglia, cingulate, amygdala, and insula; at 3–4 months, amygdala and insula activations were not evident and activity shifted to medial prefrontal and hypothalamic regions. Seifritz et al. (2003), studying four groups of 10 subjects each (mothers and fathers of children under age 3, and non-parent males and females) with 6-s sounds, found baby cry/laugh vs neutral produced bilateral temporal activity; women showed decreased subgenual anterior cingulate activity to cry/laugh; parents activated more to infant crying than laughing in right amygdala, while non-parents responded more to laughing than crying.
- Visual infant stimuli engage reward/emotion and social-cognition circuits: Bartels and Zeki, in 20 healthy mothers viewing own vs other child, found increased midbrain periaqueductal gray/substantia nigra, dorsal and ventral striatum, thalamus, left insula, orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate, and superior medial prefrontal cortex, with decreased left amygdala. Strathearn et al. studied 28 healthy right-handed mothers at 7–17 months postpartum and found own infant face activated ventral tegmental area/substantia nigra, striatum, medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate/insula, dorsolateral prefrontal, and primary motor areas; happy own-infant faces activated nigrostriatal regions including substantia nigra and dorsal putamen. In 30 first-time mothers, secure attachment showed greater ventral striatum and hypothalamus/pituitary activation and higher peripheral oxytocin responses, while insecure/dismissing mothers showed greater insular activation to own infant sad faces.
- Structural and early-life findings: Kim et al. reported mothers with higher perceived maternal care in childhood had greater cry responses in middle and superior frontal gyri and higher gray matter volume in superior and middle frontal gyri, orbital gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, and fusiform gyrus; lower maternal care was associated with increased hippocampal activations. The review’s model centers on feedback loops involving hypothalamus, midbrain, basal ganglia, anterior cingulate, prefrontal cortex, and thalamus, with frontal, insular, fusiform, and occipital areas for more complex social-emotional/empathy responses.
Methods
- Design: narrative review of in vivo MRI/fMRI experiments of the human parent brain, plus a selective review of social cognition/affect (empathy, trust, attachment) and animal parenting literature; no new primary data are reported.
- Data/sample: published studies with parents as subjects using infant cry, laughter, pictures, or videos, and structural voxel-based morphometry studies; Tables 1 and 2 summarize baby sound and visual stimulus studies. Reported findings satisfy fixed effects at p<0.001 or random effects at p<0.05.
- Analysis: study-by-study synthesis grouped by audio-only baby cry and visual stimuli; contrasts own vs other/control, correlations with parenting behavior, mood, attachment, and hormones; a model is presented in Fig. 1.
Limitations
- Paper-stated: baby stimuli are only partially realistic; subjects have limited response possibilities during imaging; brain activity can only be compared across time points if the same stimuli are used, while the actual baby and parent–infant relationship are complex “moving targets”; early studies had limited subject numbers and fixed-effects analyses that do not account for inter-subject variability and require replication.
- Paper-stated gaps: postpartum depression, anxiety, and substance abuse had not yet been studied with a single published fMRI study at the time of writing, although several groups were close; many cited findings are preliminary, abstract-only, or in press.
- Evident from the text: this is not a systematic meta-analysis; studies are heterogeneous in stimuli (cry vs picture vs video; 6-s vs 30-s), postpartum timing, sample sizes, and analysis methods, limiting direct comparison; some studies lack direct parent vs non-parent contrasts (e.g., Seifritz et al. reported within-group results only).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
87 Not checked yet · 28 Own interpretation · 2 Own method · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported
In the paper
“Only one study with direct correlation between own baby cry response and depression in medial frontal cortex.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 8. Future directions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Swain et al. (2008) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Attachment style and reflective function has only been formally assessed in one imaging study so far showing direct correlation with insula response to own infant face.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 8. Future directions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lenzi et al. (2008) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is strong evidence from many studies using picture and cry response data that own vs. other brain activity is significant.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 8. Future directions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bartels and Zeki, 2004b
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al., 2010a
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al., 2010c
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of these overlapping regions are the cingulate and insular cortices.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These empathy systems seem to overlap significantly with brain responses of parents to infant stimuli reviewed in this paper.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Suddenly, the subject player is excluded from the virtual game and there is a rapid change in the anterior cingulate cortex activity.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eisenberger et al., 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The experience of one’s own pain oneself also activated the brainstem, cerebellum, and sensorimotor cortex.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Singer et al., 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, this research suggests that networks of highly conserved hypothalamic–midbrain–limbic–paralimbic–cortical circuits act in concert to support parental brain responses to infants, including circuits for limbic emotion response and regulation.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“More recent studies imaging are showing that the distress of peer rejection involves linked activity in the anterior cingulate with insula, frontal cortical regions and striatum that varies over our childhood and adolescence”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Crowley et al., 2010
- Not checked yetcites Masten et al., 2009 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Subjects with organized compared to disorganized attachment patterns showed increased activity in the right amygdala, left hippocampus and right inferior frontal gyrus—areas considered to be important to social bonding and attachment.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buchheim et al., 2006 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 41
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Sander and colleagues also report a striking gender effect with infant laughing and crying stimuli vs. a control sound activating the amygdala and anterior cingulate of women, while the control stimuli elicited stronger activations in men.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sander et al., 2007 source
The Results section ('Effects of infant laughing and crying on amygdala and anterior and posterior cingulate cortex') reports stronger amygdala and ACC activation to infant vocalizations than to the unnatural control stimuli in women, and the reverse pattern in men. The claim describes that pattern without asserting statistical significance for each comparison. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Mothers and fathers have been grouped together to look for common parental brain responses suggesting commonalities across sex.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 8. Future directions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seifritz et al. (2003) source
- Not checked yetcites Swain et al. (in press)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Related measures of early-life experience correlate with brain cortical structure and function, supporting the importance of attachment style for parental brain and behavior.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 8. Future directions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barrett et al. (2009) source
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al. (2010c)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“affect corticolimbic limbic circuits that regulate emotional response, motivation and reward related to their infant, ultimately organizing parenting impulses, thoughts and emotions into coordinated behaviors as a map for future studies.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Specifically, both experiencing pain and experiencing the pain of a loved one activated the insula and anterior cingulate with the latter activating relatively more anterior regions of these structures.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Singer et al., 2004 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such decoupled yet parallel representations of empathy in cortical structures such as the insula and anterior cingulate have been postulated to be necessary for our empathic abilities to mentalize, that is, to understand the thoughts, beliefs, and intentions of others in relation to ourselves”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The insula has also been raised as an important center for integrating across emotional and cognitive information”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in addition to registering physical pain, anterior cingulate may also be an important circuit in thinking about a range of emotional signals (including social pain such as in witnessing the pain of a loved one, social rejection, or stimuli of one’s child or romantic love), involving coordinated shifts in attention, decision-making, memory, mood regulation, and directed behavior.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Statistical methods vary across studies, but all findings reported here satisfy the criteria of fixed effects at p<0.001, or random effects at p<0.05.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They also reported that women as a group including, parents and non-parents (but not males), had a decrease in activity in response to both baby cry and laughter in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seifritz et al., 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps the gender-dependent correlates of neural activity in amygdala and anterior cingulate reflect neural predispositions in women for responses to preverbal infant vocalizations, whereas the gender-independent similarity of activation patterns in posterior and anterior cingulate reflects the relatively sensory-based and cognitive levels of neural processing.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, within-group analyses showed that parents activated more to infant crying than laughing in the right amygdala, while non-parent response was greater for infant laughing then crying (Seifritz et al., 2003).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seifritz et al., 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These limitations include the only partial realism of baby stimuli, limited response possibilities of subjects as they are being imaged as well as the inherent methodological problems in which brain activity can only be compared across time points if the same stimuli”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 2. Connecting the psychology and functional neuroanatomy of parenting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Activation of the fusiform gyrus is interesting because this structure has been implicated in human face and voice recognition along with related social cognitions that might be impaired in autism”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schultz, 2005 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Both conditions led to bilateral activation of the amygdala, insula and auditory cortex with a right-hemisphere advantage in the amygdala, and larger activation during laughing than crying in the auditory cortex with a slight right-hemisphere advantage for laughing.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sander et al., 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These within-group results suggest a potential change in amygdala function with being a parent, although there was no direct comparison of parents to non-parents.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These results suggest that certain brain regions, including the amygdala, activate to emotionally meaningful sounds like laughing and crying independent of the emotional involvement, suggesting the pattern recognition aspect of these sounds is crucial for this activation and that emotional valence might be represented elsewhere in the brain”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sander et al., 2003 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Activated regions included the anterior and posterior cingulate, thalamus, midbrain, hypothalamus, septal regions, dorsal and ventral striatum, medial prefrontal cortex, right orbitofrontal/insula/temporal polar cortex region, and right lateral temporal cortex and fusiform gyrus.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lorberbaum et al., 2002 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In recent human studies, it has specifically been connected with parent–infant behavior, as measured in both serum and saliva (Feldman et al., 2010a) and across gender (Feldman et al., 2010b).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Feldman et al., 2010a
- Not checked yetcites Feldman et al., 2010b
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They measured brain activity in 20 healthy mothers while viewing still face photographs of their own child compared to age-matched photographs of other children. There was increased activity in the midbrain (periaqueductal gray and substantia nigra regions), dorsal and ventral striatum, thalamus, left insula, ORC, sub-, pre-, and supra-genual anterior cingulate, and superior medial prefrontal cort”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bartels and Zeki, 2004b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Preliminary analysis of connected parenting interview data shows that mothers were significantly more preoccupied than fathers, which was consistent with the relative activations for mothers compared with fathers in the amygdala and basal ganglia (Swain et al., 2004b).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Swain et al., 2004b
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, activity in the left insula-putamenglobus pallidus correlated with trait affect intensity, whereas activity in limbic and cortical regions, including insula, cingulate parietal, inferior temporal and middle temporal cortex was correlated with the length of time in love.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Correlations between parent response to own vs. other baby picture and parent behaviors attained from videotapes of interactions with their infant reveals activations in superior temporal lobe, OFC and ventral tegmental areas, may be key to understanding the regulation of parental motivation and reward associated with baby-directed empathy, approach and caring behaviors as well as social bonding.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, these studies suggest that romantic love uses subcortical motivation and reward systems to focus thoughts and behaviors on a specific individual, while limbic cortical regions process individual emotional factors.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Activation of these regions may reflect an increase in arousal, obsessive/anxiety circuits that may be normally temporarily more active for parents and persistently sensitive with some mental illnesses (Swain et al., 2007).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 3. Parental brains and baby cry stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Swain et al., 2007 source
hedgedconditionaln = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, regional activity between brain areas that are known to be anatomically connected have been shown to be simultaneously active during movie viewing (Bartels and Zeki, 2005).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bartels and Zeki, 2005
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may be explained by the use of much older children, which might involve a different set of circuits relevant to those particular relationships.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“They found that the mirror neuron system, including insula and amygdala were more active during emotional expressions from a mother’s own child, and that insula response correlates with maternal reflective function, conceptualized as a measure of empathy.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lenzi et al., 2008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, areas of visual cortex that also discriminated between own and unfamiliar infants were unrelated to mood ratings (Nitschke et al., 2004).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nitschke et al., 2004 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They also reported that baby joy expressions across identity evoked mostly right limbic and paralimbic areas important to emotional processing, whereas ambiguous expressions elicited responses in left-sided high order cognitive and motor areas, logically reflecting associated cognitive effort.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lenzi et al., 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Peripheral oxytocin responses to infant contact provocations at 7 months were also significantly higher in secure mothers, and positively correlated with brain activation in both regions.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strathearn et al., 2009 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They reported that dopamine-associated reward-processing regions of the brain were activated when mothers viewed their own infant’s face compared with an unknown infant’s face. These included the ventral tegmental area/substantia nigra regions, the striatum. In addition, there were frontal lobe responses in emotion processing (medial prefrontal, anterior cingulate, and insula cortex), cognition (d”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strathearn et al., 2008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“First, this study attempts to address the effects of early-life events on later parenting, as elaborated in rodent and non-human primate models (Champagne, 2010; Kaffman and Meaney, 2007; Veenema, 2009), brain structure as well as functional responses to baby cry vary according to a measure of perceived maternal quality (Kim et al., 2010c).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 5. Parental brain structure
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al., 2010c
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It now appears that careful use of a variety of baby stimuli can be used to activate parent brains across identity and affect. Furthermore, such responses correlate with psychometrics of parenting, mood, anxiety and attachment parameters as well as across sensibly across hormonal milieus.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is perhaps not surprising, given that brain structure changes with the environmental demands of learning to juggle (Draganski et al., 2004) or studying (Draganski et al., 2006) over a few months.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 5. Parental brain structure
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They also found correlations in OFC with own baby-response and happiness as well as to their own distressed baby response in the superior temporal regions.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Noriuchi et al., 2008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Also, the intensity with which subjects perceive different features in a movie (color, faces, language, and human bodies) was correlated with activity in separate brain areas (Bartels and Zeki, 2004a).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bartels and Zeki, 2004a
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These regions might allow accurate modeling of the baby’s mind to predict their needs and plan behavior (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2004; Decety and Grezes, 2006; Pelphrey et al., 2004; Saxe, 2006a).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2004
- Not checked yetcites Decety and Grezes, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Pelphrey et al., 2004 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“First, key parenting sensory signals, including cry, visuals as well as touch and smell from baby (A), must be organized in sensory cortices which appraise the input and interact with subcortical memory and motivation structures (B).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Swain et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, (ii) cognitive circuits would be brought online in the parent brain, including those that regulate “mirroring”, empathy, planning and further cognitive flexibility, including the inferior frontal, insular and superior–temporoparietal cortical regions.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A growing body of evidence from naturalistic longitudinal studies attests to an adverse impact of postpartum depression, with depressed mothers less sensitively attuned to their infants, less affirming and more negative in describing their infant.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 6. Special parent populations, specific behaviors
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Postpartum depression follows 10% to 15% of all deliveries (Caplan et al., 1989) and more than 60% of patients have an onset of symptoms within the first 6 weeks postpartum (Stowe and Nemeroff, 1995).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 6. Special parent populations, specific behaviors
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Caplan et al., 1989 source
- Not checked yetcites Stowe and Nemeroff, 1995
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, baby pictures and cries can be used to selectively activate brain circuits related to arousal, mood, and social and habitual behaviors according to identity and affect of baby, as well as and group differences such as parental status, early-life experience, delivery, etc.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In another recent study (Feldman et al., 2009), infants of control, anxious and depressed mothers were compared with respectively poorer outcomes at 9 months postpartum. Social engagement, maturity of regulatory behaviors and more emotionality were all diminished by mood and anxiety, with associated increases in cortisol reactivity.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 6. Special parent populations, specific behaviors
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Feldman et al., 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More complex planning and social emotional/empathy responses may involve frontal, insular, fusiform and occipital areas.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These common problems, including pre-term delivery, postpartum depression and anxiety and substance abuse have received much less investigative attention and not yet a single published fMRI study (Squire and Stein, 2003), although several groups are close.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 6. Special parent populations, specific behaviors
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Squire and Stein, 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This appears to center on the feedback loops involving hypothalamus, midbrain, basal ganglia regions, anterior cingulate, prefrontal cortex, and thalamus—all requiring motivation and reward.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ultimately, sufficient motivation will activate corticolimbic modules (C), that have delineated as (i) reflexive caring impulses, such as those studied in preclinical animal models and requiring little or no cortical input such as licking, grooming and nursing in which the hypothalamus, MPOA, and other limbic and thalamocingulate circuits are of primary importance (Numan and Insel, 2003).”
- Also stated in: § 7. Summary and model · hedged
“In addition, (ii) cognitive circuits would be brought online in the parent brain, including those that regulate “mirroring”, empathy, planning and further cognitive flexibility, including the inferior frontal, insular and superior–temporoparietal cortical regions.”
- Also stated in: § 7. Summary and model · hedged
“Finally, (iii) other alarm/ emotion–preoccupation anxiety systems might be activated to increase arousal and regulate parental worries and habitual responses in coordination with memory systems.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 7. Summary and model · hedged
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The output would also feed back to sensory systems (B) during dynamic interactions with the infant to generate new input from baby (A).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The parental brain undergoes adaptive plastic changes associated with postpartum and is strongly affected by the baby.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These reflexive, cognitive and emotional modules would interact with each other in the experience of parental love and attachment formation, and work together to generate coordinated hormonal, autonomic and behavioral output required for parenting (D) via motor cortex and hypothalamus.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The parental brain undergoes adaptive plastic changes associated with postpartum and is strongly affected by the baby.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other important aspects of parenting may be regulated by context and memory processing regions including the hippocampus, parahippocampus and amygdala.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, (iii) other alarm/ emotion–preoccupation anxiety systems might be activated to increase arousal and regulate parental worries and habitual responses in coordination with memory systems.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The human parental brain is the concept of a discrete set of interacting brain circuits that serve as substrate for the human transition to parenting, integrate baby as well as internal information, and support key thoughts and behaviors for us to identify and react to baby stimuli.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other critical factors to be added include current circumstances such as delivery and breastfeeding, early-life experience for which we have brain imaging evidence of modifying brain function in response to infant stimuli (Kim et al., 2010a; Kim et al., 2010c; Swain et al., 2008).”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 7. Summary and model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al., 2010a
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al., 2010c
- Not checked yetcites Swain et al., 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The parental brain undergoes adaptive plastic changes associated with postpartum and is strongly affected by the baby.
The paper relies on this without support.
The parent–infant relationship provides infants with their first social environment and forms templates for what they can expect from others, how to interact, and how they go on to be parents.
“The parent–infant relationship provides infants with their first social environment, forming templates for what they can expect from others, how to interact with them and ultimately how they go on to themselves to be parents.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Parental wellness, and/or the presence of other attuned care giving adults, has long-term positive effects on resiliency and emotional well-being of children as they grow up and for decades later.
“Clearly, parental wellness (and/or the presence of other attuned care giving adults) has long term positive effects on resiliency and emotional well-being of children as they grow up and for decades later.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Different populations may process infant cues in different ways.
“Perhaps different populations may process infant cues in different ways.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The anterior cingulate is key to parenting.
“certain cortical structures such as the anterior cingulate that are postulated as key to parenting”
The paper relies on this without support.
The parental brain undergoes adaptive plastic changes associated with postpartum and is strongly affected by the baby.
“The parental brain is also a moving target, subject to adaptive plastic changes associated with postpartum, so richly affected by the baby.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The parent–infant bond is central to the human condition, contributes to risks for mood and anxiety disorders, and has potential for resiliency and protection against the development of psychopathology throughout life.
“The parent–infant bond is so central to the human condition, contributes to risks for mood and anxiety disorders, and the potential for resiliency and protection against the development of psychopathology throughout life, not to mention the far-reaching aspects of human attachment across individual behaviors and between cultures.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Subsequently, researchers have identified a series of hypothalamic-midbrain-limbic-paralimbic-cortical brain circuits that are selectively activated during times when the maternal brain is ‘switched-on’ by baby-cries (4).”
From Neuroendocrinology of Parental Response to Baby‐Cry (2011) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“In several human fMRI studies, responses to own- versus other-baby stimuli of first-time mothers during this early postpartum period show increased brain activity in several regions, including the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), midbrain, striatum, cingulate, amygdala and insula (4,5,8,9,19,20).”
From Neuroendocrinology of Parental Response to Baby‐Cry (2011) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“Although the association between the EO and maternal brain responses remains unknown in humans using direct hormone measurements, neuroimaging studies suggest that central opioid system activations (62) overlap with central maternal activations (4,5) in the mesocorticolimbic circuitry.”
From Neuroendocrinology of Parental Response to Baby‐Cry (2011) · cites this paper as [4]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 8. Future directions
“Attachment style and reflective function has only been formally assessed in one imaging study so far showing direct correlation with insula response to own infant face.”
§ The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging > 4. Parental brains and baby visual stimuli
“In a sophisticated brain imaging follow-up (Strathearn et al., 2009), 30 first-time mothers, were studied using similar stimuli combined with the Adult Attachment Interview, and peripheral serum oxytocin responses to infant cues.”
Citations
Cites
Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition
Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R., & Heim, C. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2639 · Cited by 6,256
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00 · Cited by 4,093
Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression
Mayberg, H. S., Lozano, A. M., Voon, V., McNeely, H. E., Seminowicz, D., Hamani, C., Schwalb, J. M., & Kennedy, S. H. (2005) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.02.014 · Cited by 4,059
Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093535 · Cited by 3,929
Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089134 · Cited by 3,849 · cited 1×
“In this study (Eisenberger et al., 2003), the subject is involved in a virtual game of “Cyberball”, which includes three players.”
BackgroundChanges in grey matter induced by training
Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Busch, V., Schuierer, G., Bogdahn, U., & May, A. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/427311a · Cited by 2,373
Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing
Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2003) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1218 · Cited by 2,306
A unifying view of the basis of social cognition
GALLESE, V, KEYSERS, C., & RIZZOLATTI, G. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.002 · Cited by 2,236
Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: a relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas
Carr, L., Iacoboni, M., Dubeau, M.-C., Mazziotta, J. C., & Lenzi, G. L. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0935845100 · Cited by 1,978
Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision
Hasson, U., Nir, Y., Levy, I., Fuhrmann, G., & Malach, R. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089506 · Cited by 1,839
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Strathearn, 2005, An fMRI study of maternal mentalization: having the baby's mind in mind, Neuroimage, 26, S25
- Swain, 2004, Neural substrates and psychology of human parent–infant attachment in the postpartum, Biol Psychiatry, 55, 153S
- Swain, 2005, Early human parent–infant bond development: fMRI, thoughts and behaviors, Biol Psychiatry, 57, 112S
- Swain, 2006, Own baby pictures induce parental brain activations according to psychology, experience and postpartum timing, Biol Psychiatry, 59, 126S
- Swain JE, Leckman JF, Mayes LCRF, Hoyt E, Kang K, Kim P, David D, Nguyen S, Constable R T, Schultz RT. Functional brain activations of parents listening to their own baby-cry change over the early postpartum. Developmental Psychobiology. In press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The brain basis of emotion: a meta-analytic review
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Barrett, L. F. (2012) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11000446 · Cited by 2,320
“(For thorough reviews, see Barrett & Fleming 2011; Swain 2011).”
BackgroundToward a second-person neuroscience
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000660 · Cited by 1,510
Mirror neurons: from origin to function
Cook, R., Bird, G., Catmur, C., Press, C., & Heyes, C. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x13000903 · Cited by 647
The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression
Niedenthal, P. M., Mermillod, M., Maringer, M., & Hess, U. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000865 · Cited by 618
Verhage, M. L., Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, R. M. P., Oosterman, M., Cassibba, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000038 · Cited by 550
Metadata
- Authors
- Swain, J. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Swain, James E.
- ORCID
- Swain, James E.
- Venue
- Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1242-1254
- ISSN
- 0278-5846 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4329016
- OpenAlex
- W1998962587
- Semantic Scholar
- 6c9097a766f3144ab60e1b42ff140b238ee5b392
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 111
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 15.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Institute for Research on Unlimited Love (unlimitedloveinstitute.org)
- National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (narsad.org)
- Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation
- Yale Center for Risk, Resilience and Recovery
- Associates of the Yale Child Study Center
- Department of Psychiatry of the University of Michigan
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Health and Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Keywords
- parenting, parent-infant relationship, empathy, trust, reward, motivation, social cognition, affective neuroscience
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Female, Humans, Infant, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Parents, Photic Stimulation, Infant Behavior, Neuroimaging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
