Why the study?
Are there sex differences in the longitudinal development of emotion circuitry in adolescents at risk for substance abuse?
Are there sex differences in the longitudinal development of emotion circuitry in adolescents at risk for substance abuse?
This study provides longitudinal neural evidence that female adolescents at risk for substance abuse show persistent amygdala activation to negative affect, potentially contributing to risk through internalizing pathways.
Persistent amygdala response in at-risk females may sustain internalizing pathways to substance use; leaves open sex-specific prevention targets.
There is substantial evidence for behavioral sex differences in risk trajectories for alcohol and substance use, with internalizing factors such as negative affectivity contributing more to female risk. Because the neural development of emotion circuitry varies between males and females across adolescence, it represents a potential mechanism by which underlying neurobiology contributes to risk for substance use. Longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging was conducted in males and females (n = 18 each) with a family history of alcohol use disorders starting at ages 8-13 years. Participants performed an affective word task during functional magnetic resonance imaging at 1- to 2-year intervals, covering the age range of 8.5-17.6 years (3-4 scans per participant). Significant age-related sex differences were found in the right amygdala and right precentral gyrus for the negative vs neutral word condition. Males showed a significant decrease in both amygdala and precentral gyrus activation with age, whereas the response in females persisted. The subjective experience of internalizing symptomatology significantly increased with age for females but not for males. Taken together, these results reveal sex differences in negative affect processing in at-risk adolescents, and offer longitudinal neural evidence for female substance use risk through internalizing pathways.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hardee et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: