Processes linking socioeconomic disadvantage and neural correlates of cognitive control in adolescence

Experience-dependent neurodevelopment of self-regulation in adolescence

Adolescence is a period of rapid biobehavioral change, characterized in part by increased neural maturation and sensitivity to one's environment. In this review, we aim to demonstrate that self-regulation skills are tuned by adolescents' social, cultural, and socioeconomic contexts. We discuss adjacent literatures that demonstrate the importance of experience-dependent learning for adolescent development: environmental contextual influences and training paradigms that aim to improve regulation skills. We first highlight changes in prominent limbic and cortical regions-like the amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex-as well as structural and functional connectivity between these areas that are associated with adolescents' regulation skills. Next, we consider how puberty, the hallmark developmental milestone in adolescence, helps instantiate these biobehavioral adaptations. We then survey the existing literature demonstrating the ways in which cultural, socioeconomic, and interpersonal contexts drive behavioral and neural adaptation for self-regulation. Finally, we highlight promising results from regulation training paradigms that suggest training may be especially efficacious for adolescent samples. In our conclusion, we highlight some exciting frontiers in human self-regulation research as well as recommendations for improving the methodological implementation of developmental neuroimaging studies and training paradigms.

The relationship between cognitive and affective control and adolescent mental health

Background

Cognitive control problems have been implicated in the etiology and maintenance of mental health problems, including depression, in adults. Studies in adolescents have been more equivocal, with some showing changes in cognitive control in adolescents with mental health problems, whereas others fail to show an association. This study examines whether adolescent mental health is associated with affective control, the application of cognitive control in affective contexts, which shows more protracted development than cognitive control.

Methods

The present study investigated the association of cognitive and affective control with depressive symptomatology and self-reported diagnostic history of mental health problems in adolescents. The study included 1929 participants (M age = 13.89) from the Future Proofing Study (N = 6,388, 11-16 years), who completed affective (incl., affective stimuli) and/or cognitive (incl., neutral stimuli) versions of a working memory (backward digit-span) and/or shifting (card-sorting) task at least once within 3 weeks of assessing mental health.

Results

Poorer working memory was associated with greater depressive symptomatology in adolescents (β = -0.06, p = .004), similarly across cognitive and affective control conditions (β = -0.02, p = .269). Adolescents with self-reported diagnostic history of mental health problems had significantly poorer shifting ability in affective compared to cognitive control conditions (b = 0.05, p = .010), whereas for adolescents with no self-reported diagnoses, shifting ability did not differ between conditions (b = -0.00, p = .649).

Conclusions

The present analyses suggest that working memory difficulties, in particular, may be associated with the experience of current depressed mood in adolescents. Problems with affective shifting may be implicated in a range of mental health problems in adolescents. Given the ubiquitous need for efficient cognitive functioning in daily life, enhancing cognitive and affective control in adolescents may be a promising means of improving functioning across a range of domains, including affective functioning, and by extension, adolescent mental health.

Conceptualizing the Influence of Social and Structural Determinants of Neurobiology and Mental Health: Why and How Biological Psychiatry Can Do Better at Addressing the Consequences of Inequity

Psychiatry and allied disciplines have recognized the potency of structural and social determinants of mental health, yet there has been scant attention given to the roles of neurobiology in the links between structural and social determinants and mental health. In this article, we make the case for why greater attention must be given to structural and social determinants of biological psychiatry by researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers. After defining these terms and theoretical frameworks for considering their relevance in biological psychiatry, we review empirical research with marginalized and minoritized racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, and economic communities that reveals the ways in which structural and social determinants affect neurobiological functioning with implications for mental health. We give particular emphasis to developmental science and developmentally informed research, because structural and social determinants influence neurobiological adaptation and maturation across the lifespan. We conclude with recommendations for advancing research, practice, and policy that connect biological psychiatry with structural and social determinants of health. Foremost among these is diversifying the ranks of biological psychiatry, from classrooms through laboratories, hospitals, and community health centers. Transforming and advancing the understanding of the structural and social determinants of neurobiology and mental health is most likely to come through transforming the discipline itself.

The Impact of Childhood Socioeconomic Status on Adolescents' Risk Behaviors: The Role of Physiological and Psychological Threats

Adolescence is a period of high levels of risk behavior. The present research aims to examine the influences of childhood socioeconomic status (SES) on risk behaviors in gain or loss domains among adolescents and the roles of threats in this effect. In experiment 1, a total of 107 adolescents (M_age = 14.80; SD_age = 1.15) were asked to complete the childhood socioeconomic status scale before they took part in a risk behavior task under the gain and loss situation. A total of 149 adolescents (M_age = 14.24; SD_age = 1.11) in experiment 2a and 139 adolescents (M_age = 13.88; SD_age = 1.09) in experiment 2b completed the childhood socioeconomic status scale before they took part in a risk behavior task under the gain and loss situation under physiological threats and psychological threats, respectively. The results showed that high-childhood-SES adolescents tend to take more risks than low-childhood-SES adolescents in the gain domain, while low-childhood-SES adolescents tend to take more risks than high-childhood-SES adolescents in the loss domain. Threats amplified the impact of childhood socioeconomic status on adolescents' risk behaviors in the gain and loss domains. When a physiological threat or psychological threat was primed, compared to the control group, in the gain situation, the extent to which high-childhood-SES adolescents showed greater risk seeking than low-childhood-SES adolescents became larger; in the loss domain, the extent to which low-childhood-SES adolescents showed greater risk seeking than high-childhood-SES adolescents became larger.

Development of cognitive control during adolescence: The integrative effects of family socioeconomic status and parenting behaviors

Cognitive control is of great interest to researchers and practitioners. The concurrent association between family socioeconomic status (SES) and adolescent cognitive control is well-documented. However, little is known about whether and how SES relates to individual differences in the development of adolescent cognitive control. The current four-year longitudinal investigation (N = 167, 13-14 years at Wave 1) used multi-source interference task performance (reaction time in interference correct trials minus neutral correct trials) and corresponding neural activities (blood oxygen level dependent contrast of interference versus neutral conditions) as measures of cognitive control. SES and parenting behaviors (warmth, monitoring) were measured through surveys. We examined direct and indirect effects of earlier SES on the development of cognitive control via parenting behaviors; the moderating effect of parenting also was explored. Results of latent growth modeling (LGM) revealed significant interactive effects between SES and parenting predicting behavioral and neural measures of cognitive control. Lower family SES was associated with poorer cognitive performance when coupled with low parental warmth. In contrast, higher family SES was associated with greater improvement in performance, as well as a higher intercept and steeper decrease in frontoparietal activation over time, when coupled with high parental monitoring. These findings extend prior cross-sectional evidence to show the moderating effect of the parenting environment on the potential effects of SES on developmental changes in adolescent cognitive control.