Cited by 25Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Exploring the neural basis for paternal protection: An investigation of the neural response to infants in danger

Open access
van ‘t Veer, Anna E, Thijssen, Sandra, Witteman, Jurriaan, van IJzendoorn, Marinus H, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J·2019·Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Perceiving potential threat to an infant and responding to it is crucial for offspring survival and parent-child bonding. Using a combination of functional magnetic resonance imaging and multi-informant reports, this longitudinal study explores the neural basis for paternal responses to threat to infants pre-natally (N = 21) and early post-natally (n = 17). Participants viewed videos showing an infant in danger and matched control videos, while instructed to imagine that the infant was their own or someone else's. Effects were found for infant-threatening vs neutral situations in the amygdala (region-of-interest analyses) and in clusters spanning cortical and subcortical areas (whole-brain analyses). An interaction effect revealed increased activation for own (vs unknown) infants in threatening (vs neutral) situations in bilateral motor areas, possibly indicating preparation for action. Post-natal activation patterns were similar; however, in part of the superior frontal gyrus the distinction between threat to own and unknown infant faded. Fathers showing more protective behavior in daily life recruited part of the frontal pole more when confronted with threat to their own vs an unknown infant. This exploratory study is the first to describe neural mechanisms involved in paternal protection and provides a basis for future work on fathers' protective parenting.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/scan/nsz018

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Neural responses in bilateral motor areas were stronger when fathers-to-be imagined a threatened infant was their own rather than someone else's, but after birth the distinction faded.

    “Neural responses in bilateral motor areas, possibly indicating preparation for action, were stronger when fathers‐to‐be imagined that the threatened infant was their own rather than someone else’s, but after the birth of their baby, the distinction between responses to one’s own and someone else’s infant faded (Van 't Veer et al., 2019).”

    From Birth of a Father: Fathering in the First 1,000 Days (2019) · cites this paper as Van 't Veer et al., 2019

    The Discussion reports stronger prenatal activation in bilateral motor areas when fathers-to-be imagined their own infant, rather than an unknown infant, in danger. It says postnatal results were similar and that the distinction faded only in one region of the superior frontal gyrus—not across the bilateral motor areas as the citing sentence implies. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van ‘t Veer, A. E., Thijssen, S., Witteman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Methodology and Statistics Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  • Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Venue
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Published
2019-03-07
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
447-457
ISSN
  • 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-5024
OpenAlex
W2921268590
Cited by
25
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Research Council (ERC AdG 669249)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
amygdala, protective parenting, frontal pole, superior frontal gyrus, motor preparation, parent-child bonding, threat perception, fathers
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Fathers, Humans, Infant, Longitudinal Studies, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Object Attachment, Paternal Behavior, Parenting, Young Adult

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.

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