| This Article | |
 | |
 | Abstract |
| Full Text |
| |
| Services | |
| |
| Email this article to a colleague |
| Alert me to new issues of the journal |
| Request Copyright Permission |
| |
| Citing Articles | |
| |
| Citing Articles via CrossRef |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whittle et al. 10.1073/pnas.0709815105. |
Table 2. Means and SD of raw brain volumes and asymmetry measures, and tests for gender differences
|
Raw brain measure |
Full sample |
Males |
Females |
Gender difference: raw (corrected) |
|||
|
N |
M (SD) |
N |
M (SD) |
N |
M (SD) |
t |
|
|
Whole brain |
137 |
1303565.66 (109328.89) |
74 |
1348941.2 (99720.42) |
63 |
1250267.41 (95742.59) |
-5.88*** |
|
Left amygdala |
137 |
1895.79 (273.50) |
74 |
1971.95 (272.10) |
63 |
1806.33 (248.71) |
-3.69** (-4.43**) |
|
Right amygdala |
137 |
1833.09 (283.30) |
74 |
1886.41 (294.83) |
3 |
1770.46 (257.54) |
-2.43* (-2.82*) |
|
OFC asymmetry |
136 |
-622.65 (1616.72) |
74 |
-783.11 (1516.10) |
63 |
-438.97 (1715.49) |
1.24 (1.23) |
|
ACCL asymmetry |
135 |
-649.97 (2590.05) |
74 |
-949.82 (2534.31) |
63 |
-307.29 (2630.58) |
1.44 (1.43) |
|
ACCP asymmetry |
131 |
437.63 (2274.25) |
74 |
449.61 (2203.09) |
63 |
424.29 (2368.92) |
-0.06 (-0.06) |
Corrected, regional brain volume or asymmetry measure corrected for whole brain volume; OFC, orbitofrontal cortex; ACCL, anterior cingulate cortex (limbic); ACCP, anterior cingulate cortex (paralimbic). *, P < 0.05. **, P < 0.001; ***, P < 0.0001.
Table 3. Summary of hierarchical regressions predicting adolescent reciprocity of parental aggressive behaviors and duration of adolescent dysphoric behaviors with adolescent brain volume/asymmetry measures
|
N |
ß |
t |
F |
∆R2 |
|
|
DV: Adolescent aggressive given parent aggressive |
|||||
|
Left amygdala |
136 |
.174 |
1.909 |
3.643 |
.026 |
|
Left amygdala × gender |
136 |
.161 |
1.298 |
1.686 |
.012 |
|
Right amygdala |
136 |
.071 |
.800 |
.640 |
.005 |
|
Right amygdala × gender |
136 |
.166 |
1.270 |
1.612 |
.012 |
|
OFC asymmetry |
135 |
.104 |
1.200 |
1.439 |
.011 |
|
OFC asymmetry × gender |
135 |
.017 |
.139 |
.019 |
.000 |
|
ACCL asymmetry |
134 |
.084 |
.965 |
.932 |
.007 |
|
ACCL asymmetry × gender |
134 |
.120 |
.954 |
.910 |
.007 |
|
ACCP asymmetry |
130 |
-.169 |
-1.938 |
3.754 |
.028 |
|
ACCP asymmetry × gender |
130 |
-.149 |
-1.216 |
1.477 |
.011 |
|
DV: duration of dysphoric behaviors |
|||||
|
Left amygdala |
136 |
.026 |
.285 |
.081 |
.001 |
|
Left amygdala × gender |
136 |
.028 |
.213 |
.045 |
.000 |
|
Right amygdala |
136 |
-.075 |
-.849 |
.721 |
.005 |
|
Right amygdala × gender |
136 |
-.163 |
-1.251 |
1.565 |
.012 |
|
OFC asymmetry |
135 |
.003 |
.031 |
.001 |
.000 |
|
OFC asymmetry × gender |
135 |
-.059 |
-.489 |
.239 |
.002 |
|
ACCL asymmetry |
134 |
-.065 |
-.737 |
.554 |
.004 |
|
ACCL asymmetry × gender |
134 |
-.009 |
-.073 |
.005 |
.000 |
|
ACCP asymmetry |
130 |
.090 |
1.031 |
1.064 |
.008 |
|
ACCP asymmetry × gender |
130 |
.007 |
.055 |
.003 |
.000 |
These values are based on the model controlling for adolescent gender effects (not significant and hence not shown here); therefore, change in F and R2 values are displayed. DV, dependent variable; OFC, orbitofrontal cortex; ACCL, anterior cingulate cortex (limbic); ACCP, anterior cingulate cortex (paralimbic).
SI Methods
Recruitment and Screening Procedure. Adolescents and their families were recruited as part of an ongoing research program investigating the relationship between adolescent temperament, brain development, and risk for psychopathology. As part of the study, final-year primary school students (grade 6; aged 10-12 yr) across metropolitan Melbourne, Australia, were approached through their schools to take part in the study. Through this process, 2,479 students completed the revised Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire [EATQ-R (1)] in groups of 18-25 students in the classroom. Given that the main aim of the screening procedure was to provide a risk-enriched sample, EATQ-R scores were used to select a sample that was representative of scores across the full range of two higher-order temperament dimensions thought to confer risk for affective disorders: Negative Affectivity and Effortful Control. Equal numbers of male and female students were selected from each of the following ranges of scores on these dimensions: 0-1, 1-2, 2-2.5, and greater than 2.5 standard deviations above and below the mean. This produced a sample that showed relatively even distribution across each higher order temperament dimension, while maintaining the range of temperament scores evident in the larger sample. The sampling frame was constructed such that all students scoring in the extreme ranges of each temperament dimension were recruited. This resulted in a selected sample of 414 students.
Selected participants were invited to complete a diagnostic interview. Given that this broader study set out to prospectively investigate the role of emotion regulation as a vulnerability factor in the development of adolescent depression, only participants who had no current or past case-level depressive disorders were selected for the study. From the selected sample, 245 families consented to participate in the diagnostic interview. No differences between participants who agreed to the interview and those that declined were observed on temperament (Negative Affectivity (t[407] = 0.16, n.s.; Effortful Control (t[413] = -0.54, n.s.), gender (c2[1] = 0.34, n.s.), or socioeconomic status as defined by an index of neighbourhood social disadvantage (2), (t[405] = -1.00, n.s.).
All adolescents completing the diagnostic interview were invited to participate in neuroimaging and/or the family interactions task. Adolescents completing both of these research components did not differ significantly from those who ceased participation after the diagnostic interview in Negative Affectivity (t[242] = -.23, n.s.), Effortful Control (t[243] = - .20, n.s.), or gender (c2[1] = 3.11, n.s).
1. Ellis LK, Rothbart MK, Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN, April 20-23, 2001, poster.
2. Vinson T (2004) Community Adversity and Resilience: The Distribution of Social Disadvantage in Victoria and NSW, the Mediating Role of Social Cohesion (Jesuit Social Services, Richmond, Victoria, Australia).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||