Dataset Information

Anxious attachment is associated with heightened responsivity of a parietofrontal cortical network that monitors peri-personal space.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Attachment, or affiliative bonding among conspecifics, is thought to involve neural mechanisms underlying behavioral responses to threat and reward-related social signals. However, attachment-oriented responses may also rely on basic sensorimotor processes. One sensorimotor system that may play a role in attachment is the parietofrontal cortical network that responds to stimuli that are near or approaching the body, the peripersonal space (PPS) monitoring system. We hypothesized that this network may vary in responsivity to such potentially harmful stimuli, particularly those with social salience, based on individual differences in attachment styles.

Methods

Young adults viewed images of human faces or cars that appeared to move towards or away from them, while functional magnetic resonance imaging data were collected. Correlations between each of four adult attachment styles, measured using the Relationship Questionnaire, and responses of the PPS network to approaching (versus withdrawing) stimuli were measured.

Results

A region-of-interest (ROI) analysis, focused on six cortical regions of the PPS network that showed significant responses to approaching versus withdrawing face stimuli in an independent sample (n = 80), revealed that anxious attachment style (but not the other 3 attachment styles) was significantly positively correlated with responses to faces (but not to cars) in all six ROIs (r = 0.33-0.49, p = 0.01-0.0001, n = 50).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that anxious attachment is associated with over-responsivity of a sensorimotor network involved in attending to social stimuli near the body.

SUBMITTER: Nasiriavanaki Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8024770 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPersonal and indoor air pollution monitors represent two ways to assess acute air pollution exposures; however, few reproductive epidemiology studies have incorporated these tools.ObjectiveTo provide an overview of the unique challenges and opportunities that arise when measuring acute exposure to air pollution in two ongoing reproductive epidemiology studies.MethodsThe Air Pollution, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), and Reproductive Outcomes (AIR) Study recruits women undergoing IVF to wear a personal particulate matter (PM) air pollution monitor (AirBeam2©) for the 72-hour period following the start of controlled ovarian stimulation. The Reproductive Effects of Chemicals and Air Pollutants (RECAP) Study recruits men across the United States to place an air pollution monitor (emmET) in their home for 3 months, use a smartphone application, and provide a semen sample. We highlight the key issues identified in implementing exposure assessment for both studies.ResultsThe main advantages of using the AirBeam2© personal monitor are as follows: (a) the low cost, (b) the ability to collect multiple size fractions of PM data every second, (c) the portability, (d) its capability to track GPS location, and (e) the ability for the participant to observe their real-time exposure information. The limited battery life, incompatibility with iOS-based smartphones, and frequent connection issues that arise between the AirBeam2© and smartphone are the main disadvantages. The main advantages of the emmET are the ability to measure multiple air pollutants at a high level of accuracy, collect data for a long period of time without burdening the participant, and ship monitors to participants around the country without the need for in-person set-up by trained technicians; however, the monitor only measures the indoor home environment.ConclusionsNovel methods can be utilised to characterise short-term air pollution exposure in reproductive epidemiology studies and represent an exciting area for future research.

Project description:Mobile phones have a large spectrum of applications, aiding in risk prevention and improving health and wellbeing of their owners. So far, however, they have not been used for direct assessment of personal exposure to air pollution. In this study, we comprehensively evaluated the first, and the only available, mobile phone-BROAD Life-equipped with air pollution sensors (PM2.5 and VOC), to answer the question whether this technology is a viable option in the quest of reducing the burden of disease to air pollution. We tested its performance, applicability and suitability for the purpose by subjecting it to varied concentrations of different types of aerosol particles (cigarette smoke, petrol exhaust and concrete dust) and formaldehyde under controlled laboratory conditions, as well as to ambient particles during field measurements. Six reference instruments were used in the study: AEROTRAK Optical Particle Counter (OPC model number 9306), DustTrak, Aerodynamic Particle Counter (APS), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS), Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) and Formaldehyde Analyser. Overall, we found that the phone's response was linear at higher particle number concentrations in the chamber, above 5 and 10 ?g m-3, for combustion and concrete dust particles, respectively, and for higher formaldehyde concentrations, making it potentially suitable for applications in polluted environments. At lower ambient concentrations of particles around 10 ug m-3 and 20 ?g m-3 for PM2.5 and PM10, respectively, the phone's response was below its noise level, suggesting that it is not suitable for ambient monitoring under relatively clean urban conditions. This mobile phone has a number of limitations that may hinder its use in personal exposure and for continuous monitoring. Despite these limitations, it may be used for comparative assessments, for example when comparing outcomes of intervention measures or local impacts of air pollution sources. It should be kept in mind, however, that a mobile phone measuring air quality alone cannot as such 'reduce the burden of disease to air pollution, as knowing ambient concentrations is only one of the building block in this quest. As long as individuals cannot avoid exposure e.g. in urban areas, knowing concentrations is not sufficient to reduce potential adverse effects. Yet, there are many situations and microenvironments, which individuals could avoid knowing the concentrations and also being aware of the risk caused by exposure to them. This includes for example to proximity to vehicle emissions, either for social purposes (e.g. street cafes) or exercising (e.g. walking or jogging along busy roads)or indoor environments affected by combustion emissions (smoking, candle burning, open fire).