Cited by 460Face Recognition and PerceptionNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorInfant Health and Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 59 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

What’s in a smile? Maternal brain responses to infant facial cues

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVES. Our goal was to determine how a mother's brain responds to her own infant's facial expressions, comparing happy, neutral, and sad face affect. METHODS. In an event-related functional MRI study, 28 first-time mothers were shown novel face images of their own 5- to 10-month-old infant and a matched unknown infant. Sixty unique stimuli from 6 categories (own-happy, own-neutral, own-sad, unknown-happy, unknown-neutral, and unknown-sad) were presented randomly for 2 seconds each, with a variable 2- to 6-second interstimulus interval. RESULTS. Key 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, and frontal lobe regions involved in (1) emotion processing (medial prefrontal, anterior cingulate, and insula cortex), (2) cognition (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), and (3) motor/behavioral outputs (primary motor area). Happy, but not neutral or sad own-infant faces, activated nigrostriatal brain regions interconnected by dopaminergic neurons, including the substantia nigra and dorsal putamen. A region-of-interest analysis revealed that activation in these regions was related to positive infant affect (happy > neutral > sad) for each own–unknown infant-face contrast. CONCLUSIONS. When first-time mothers see their own infant's face, an extensive brain network seems to be activated, wherein affective and cognitive information may be integrated and directed toward motor/behavioral outputs. Dopaminergic reward-related brain regions are activated specifically in response to happy, but not sad, infant faces. Understanding how a mother responds uniquely to her own infant, when smiling or crying, may be the first step in understanding the neural basis of mother–infant attachment.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 28 first-time mothers, viewing their own 5–10-month-old baby’s face activated dopamine-associated reward and frontolimbic brain regions compared with an unknown baby’s face. Happy own-baby faces specifically activated nigrostriatal regions, with a graded response across happy, neutral, and sad affect.

Key findings

  • Own > unknown baby faces activated reward-processing regions including ventral tegmental area/substantia nigra, striatum, and frontal regions for emotion, cognition, and motor output (P<0.001, FDR q<0.05).
  • Happy own-baby faces versus unknown happy faces activated nigrostriatal regions including substantia nigra and dorsal putamen (P<0.0005, FDR q<0.05); neutral own faces showed weaker activation in 4 of 6 regions (P<0.01), and no region showed significant own > unknown sad-face activation.
  • Region-of-interest analyses showed a graded response by infant affect (happy > neutral > sad); sad responses were significantly lower than happy responses in each region (P<0.005, except amygdala P<0.05).
  • Mothers’ own feelings correlated with how they imagined the baby felt (r=0.82, P<0.001), and they were more sensitive to their own baby’s affect than to unknown baby faces (own r=0.87 vs unknown r=0.80; slope own=0.84 vs unknown=0.49, P<0.05).

Methods

  • Event-related fMRI study of 28 first-time mothers shown novel images of their own 5–10-month-old baby and a matched unknown baby; 60 unique stimuli from 6 categories (own/unknown × happy/neutral/sad) were presented for 2 seconds each with a 2–6 second inter-stimulus interval.
  • Mothers were enrolled during the third trimester; babies were videotaped around 7 months post-delivery, and scanning occurred at least 3 months later. During the second scanning run, data were available for 26 women because of head motion in one case and scanner failure in another.
  • Analyses used random-effects GLM with FDR correction at q<0.05, cluster threshold 100 mm³ except brainstem at 30 mm³, plus region-of-interest random-effects analyses and 2-factor repeated-measures ANOVAs.

Limitations

  • Stated: mothers were scanned at varying times postpartum (7–17 months) and viewed baby faces ranging from 5 to 10 months, which may have influenced results.
  • Stated: key animal-derived maternal brain regions such as the medial preoptic area and ventral bed nucleus of the stria terminalis were not activated; prior fMRI work suggests these may be more important in the early postpartum period.
  • Stated: individual variation within the sample (breastfeeding duration, mother–infant separation, psychopathology risk) limits interpretation; evident from the text: the second scanning run showed no significant activation, and no significant main effect of affect or identity × affect interaction was found.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2007-1566

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

30 Not checked yet · 29 Own result · 10 Own method · 9 Own interpretation

Verify all 59 references — free account

Show all 38 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 30
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
40 of 40
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most prior baby face studies did not specifically control for variation in affect or examine response differences related to facial affect.

    “Although most baby face studies sought to standardize face affect, none of them specifically controlled for variation in affect, or examined response differences related to facial affect.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The control baby face images were unknown to each mother.

    “Control baby face images, unknown to each mother, were collected from the babies of other enrolled mothers or mothers involved in the pilot study.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    BOLD signal changes in dopamine-associated brain regions reflect dopaminergic activity.

    “all of the key dopamine-associated reward-processing regions of the brain are activated”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Maternal responses to infant behavioral cues may shape future child development.

    “How a mother responds to her infant’s behavioral cues may have an important role in shaping future child development.”
4 of 4

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?

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.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 457

Metadata

Authors
Strathearn, L., Li, J., Fonagy, P., & Montague, P. R.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Human Neuroimaging Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2008-07-01
Volume
122
Issue
1
Pages
40-51
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2100246886
Cited by
460
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 29
FWCI
11.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 11723, R01DA011723)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS045790, NS045790)
  • National Center for Research Resources (O1RR00188, M01RR000188)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K12-HD-41648, K23HD43097, K12HD041648, K23HD043097)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Health and Development
Keywords
infant facial expressions, smiling, infant affect, ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra, striatum, maternal attachment, primiparous women
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Female, Humans, Infant, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mother-Child Relations, Mothers, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Third, Smiling

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).

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