Sensitive Infant Care Tunes a Frontotemporal Interbrain Network in Adolescence

Sensitive Infant Care Tunes a Frontotemporal Interbrain Network in Adolescence | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Sensitive Infant Care Tunes a Frontotemporal Interbrain Network in Adolescence Linoy Schwartz, Olga Hayut, Jonathan Levy, Ilanit Gordon, Ruth Feldman This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4717524/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Caregiving plays a critical role in children's cognitive, emotional, and psychological well-being. In the current longitudinal study, we investigated the enduring effects of early maternal behavior on processes of interbrain synchrony in adolescence. Mother-infant naturalistic interactions were filmed when infants were 3 months old and interactions were coded for maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness using the Coding Interactive Behavior. In early adolescence (Mean = 12.30, SD = 1.25), mother-adolescent interbrain synchrony was measured using hyperscanning EEG during a naturalistic interaction of positive valance. Consistent with prior hyperscanning research, we focused on interbrain connections within the right frontotemporal network. Results indicate that maternal sensitivity in early infancy was longitudinally associated with interbrain synchrony in the right frontotemporal network. Post-hoc comparisons highlighted enhancement of mother-adolescent frontal-frontal connectivity, a connection implicated in parent-child social communication. In contrast, maternal intrusiveness in infancy linked with attenuation of interbrain synchrony in the right frontotemporal network. Sensitivity and intrusiveness are key maternal social orientations that are individually stable in the mother-child relationship from infancy to adulthood and foreshadow children's positive and negative social-emotional outcomes, respectively. Our findings are the first to demonstrate that these two maternal orientations play a role in enhancing or attenuating the child's frontotemporal interbrain network that sustains social communication and affiliation. Results suggest that the long-term impact of the mother's sensitive and intrusive style may relate, in part, to its effects on tuning the child's interbrain network to sociality. Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour Biological sciences/Neuroscience Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Social behaviour Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Social neuroscience Social Neuroscience Hyperscanning EEG Synchrony Technological Communication Mother-Child Relationships Zoom Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction From the moment infants are born, they depend on their caregivers to fulfil the basic physiological needs and teach the necessary social skills to prepare their brain and behavior for participation in the social world. The caregiver's social behavior plays a critical role in the infant's cognitive, social, and emotional development 1–5 , and in the formation of brain structure and functions 6–9 . This renders early caregiving an important contributor to the maturation of brain and behavior throughout life. Much research has connected positive developmental outcomes with sensitive caregiving. Sensitivity was first described within the attachment theory framework as the mother's ability to recognize the infant’s signals, accurately interpret them, and respond in an appropriate and timely manner 10 . Sensitive parenting can be observed in mother-infant interactions that include reciprocal exchanges, awareness of the infant’s state, and appropriate stimulation that are contingent upon the infant’s social signals 11–15 . Empirical and meta-analytic studies have confirmed the importance of sensitive caregiving in the first months of life for the development of children’s social-emotional competencies in both normative and high-risk populations 2,16–20 . Longitudinal studies have shown that maternal sensitivity in infancy shapes the development of secure attachment 21–23 , social abilities 24–28 , emotion regulation and social adjustment 29–33 , and cognitive and executive function 34,35 across childhood 28,35,36 , adolescence 22,24,31,34,37,38 , and adulthood 23,25 . In contrast, researchers have placed maternal intrusiveness as an orientation that is diametrically opposite to the sensitive style and is characterized by maternal overriding and impingement, forceful behavior, overstimulation, and disregard of the child's state, signals, and social initiation 15,39,40 . The mother's intrusive style early in life has been shown to predict insecure attachment 41 , behavior problems and social maladjustment 39,42,43 , difficulties in emotion regulation 44 , and executive function 45,46 , and language delays 47 . Both sensitivity and intrusiveness were found in longitudinal studies to be individually stable from infancy to adolescence and young adulthood 12,37,38,48 . As the mother's sensitive-synchronous and intrusive-overriding styles are stable over time, they are considered as resilience and risk factors, respectively, for the child's well-being and development 49 . The mechanisms by which maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness render their long-term effects on the developing brain are not fully clear. Studies suggest that the experience of adjusted versus unadjusted parenting behaviors over time impact the maturation of neural systems implicated in social, emotional and cognitive functioning 6,50–55 . Indeed, several longitudinal studies demonstrated the effects of early maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness on brain development and functioning. An EEG study reported that mother-infant interactions characterized by positive affect and less physical stimulation at the age of 5 months predicted higher frontal resting EEG power (alpha and theta band) at the age of 10 and 15 months, suggesting that a more sensitive and less intrusive maternal style quality facilitate brain development 56 . Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies linked maternal sensitivity and support in early childhood with higher gray matter volume 6 , larger hippocampal volume 57 and smaller amygdala volume at school age 58 . A functional MRI (fMRI) study found that maternal behavior characterized by the awareness of infant’s mental states, appropriate response, and autonomy support at 13 and 15 months predicted functional connectivity between default mode network (DMN) and salience network at 10 years, pointing to the effect of maternal behavior on maturation of networks involved in social cognition, affect cognition and cognitive control 9 . Another fMRI study found that the mother's sensitive style from infancy to adolescence predicted young adults’ amygdalar and insular sensitivity to others’ emotions 48 and greater mother sensitivity and child social engagement in infancy predicted a more consolidated response to attachment reminders in adulthood 59 . Using magnetoencephalography (MEG), it was found that maternal sensitivity in infancy predicted more accurate neural emphatic response to others’ distress 60 and to attachment cues in adolescence 61 . In addition to the long-term effects of maternal sensitivity on the developing brain, intrusive mothering in infancy has similarly been shown to carry long-term negative effects on the child's brain. Intrusive parenting at 9 months predicted aberrant neural response to others’ pain 62 and disrupted default mode network (DMN) connectivity in adolescence 63,64 . Overall, these studies demonstrate the long-term effects of the mother's sensitive and intrusive style on social brain functioning in adolescence. In contrast to studies that describe the effects of early caregiving on the brain, no study to date have tested the longitudinal impact of the parent's relational style in infancy on interbrain synchrony in later life. Interbrain synchrony considers the temporal concordance of neural dynamics between two or more brains 65–67 . Studies have shown that interbrain synchrony increases when partners are within an attachment relationship, including parents and children 68,69 , romantic partners 70 , close friends 71 , and patients and therapists 72 . Mother-child dyads in infancy, childhood, and adolescence, have been shown to display strong interbrain synchrony across multiple tasks, including free play 68,73–76 , joint problem-solving tasks 77–79 , naturalistic face-to-face and video-chat conversations 80 , and cooperative video-games 65,69,81 . Interbrain synchrony is sensitive to social behavior and increases when interactions are engaged and reciprocal 67,68,70,82–86 . Sharing social gaze, joint engagement, empathic resonance, and interpersonal reciprocity enhance interbrain synchrony, particularly during naturalistic, ecologically-valid interactions 71,80,87 . According to the biobehavioral synchrony model 88,89 , children acquire the capacity for brain synchrony within the mother-infant context during sensitive, well-timed social interactions (Feldman, 2017, 2020). Consistent with the model, studies have shown that episodes of brain coupling during infancy and early childhood were aligned with the mother's or female stranger's social behavior, including touch, gaze, or vocalizations 67,85 . As to the two maternal orientations, sensitivity and intrusiveness, it was found that maternal sensitivity at 5–9 months was associated with higher mother-infant neural synchrony in a frontotemporal network, while maternal intrusiveness was related to attenuated interbrain coupling in that network, pointing to a differential impact of these two styles on mother-child interbrain synchrony 51 . Another recent fNIRs study found association between secure child attachment and higher mother-child interbrain synchrony within temporal regions 79 , indirectly pointing at the effect of parenting on mother-child neural synchrony. Still, to our knowledge, no study to date has examined the long-term effect of parenting on the maturation of interbrain synchrony beyond infancy. In the current study, we examined the longitudinal associations between early maternal caregiving and the development of interbrain synchrony in adolescence. We focused on maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness during naturalistic interactions in infancy and measured mother-adolescent interbrain synchrony 12 years later using hyperscanning EEG. Our key hypothesis was that maternal sensitivity would predict enhanced interbrain synchrony, while intrusiveness attenuated interbrain coupling. We focused on the frontotemporal network that underpins core socio-cognitive functions 91,92 . Studies of mother-child neural synchrony have shown that this network plays an important role during face-to-face interactions, as well as in remote interactions of zoom or texting 80,93 . In infancy, this network has been associated with the mother's sensitive and intrusive style, respectively 51 . Specifically, we focused on inter-brain synchrony in the right frontotemporal network, and based this hypothesis on the "right hemisphere hypothesis" 94 . This hypothesis suggests a general dominance of the right hemisphere in processing emotions, and has been supported by numerous studies demonstrating right- hemisphere dominance in multiple emotional functions 95–102 . Given its crucial role in survival-related functions and nonverbal communication, right hemisphere dominance is thought to have a more ancient evolutionary origin as well as to mature early in human development 103–106 . As the mother-child context is the first to facilitate synchrony of brain and behavior, we expected early caregiving to have a more notable impact on the right hemisphere network in connecting the brains of mother and child in adolescence. Consistent with prior research, we examined interbrain synchrony in the beta frequency band, due to its role in parent-child attachment processes in both mothers 107,108 and young adolescents 61 . Naturalistic two-brain studies have shown that synchrony of beta rhythms sustains communication between romantic couples and close friends 71 , facilitates empathy and compassion 109 , and is underpinned by social engagement and shared gaze 87 . Importantly, beta synchrony has been found to sustain interactions between mothers and adolescents during naturalistic interactions 80,93 . Two hypotheses were formulated. First, we expected that the mother-adolescent face-to-face interaction would trigger significant interbrain synchrony within the frontotemporal network relative to surrogate data baseline. We expected interbrain connections of four types; homologue (same area, same hemisphere), same-region cross-brain links (same area, different hemisphere), cross-region same-hemisphere (same hemisphere, different area), and multi-dimensional (cross-region and cross hemisphere). Second, guided by the bio-behavioral synchrony model 49,88 , we expected longitudinal associations between maternal sensitivity in infancy and greater connectivity in the right frontotemporal interbrain network in adolescence and between early maternal intrusiveness and attenuated interbrain synchrony of the same network in adolescence. Materials and Methods 2.1 Participants Participants included 60 individuals, comprising 30 mother-firstborn pairs seen over a span of 12 years. Mothers and their infants were initially recruited for the study through ads posted in campus for a study on the transition to parenthood (Time 1). All were the infant's biological mothers, served as the child's primary caregiver, and all children were firstborns. At the first time-point mother-infant dyads were seen when infants were 3–4 months old and 40% of the infants were male. All mothers had completed at least high-school education and 83% finished college and all were of middle to upper-middle SES. Mothers were all healthy, infants were all born at term without complications, and 87% were breastfeeding. In early adolescence (Time 2) the mothers’ average age was 41.31 years old (SD = 3.40), and the adolescents’ average age was 12.30 years old (SD = 1.25). 40% of the adolescents were males. All participants were healthy, and all adolescents attended state-controlled typical schools. The original study during Time 1 was approved by the Bar-Ilan University ethics committee. The Reichman University institutional ethics committee approved the hyperscanning EEG experiment during Time 2, and all experiments were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. All mothers signed a written informed consent form for themselves and their adolescent children. All procedures were explained to the participants prior to the experiment, and the participants were free to leave the experiment at any time with full compensation. Participants were reimbursed for study participation ( $ 30 per hour). 2.2 Procedure Infancy Mother-infant dyads were videotaped during a naturalistic interaction. Instructions were “play with your infant as you normally do” and 10 minutes of free play interaction were filmed for offline coding. Adolescence The study utilized hyperscanning dual-EEG during positive-valance interaction. Mother-adolescent dyads set on chairs in the same room, 50 cm apart from each other, in a face-to-face position and were instructed to discuss a positive topic randomly selected by the researchers. Three possible positive topics were counterbalanced; "plan a fun day to spend together" "plan a camping trip", "plan a visit to an amusement park". (See Fig. 1 ) 2.3 Dual neural and behavioral data acquisition The EEG activity of both the mother and adolescent was recorded simultaneously and continuously throughout the experiment. The first 2 minutes of the interaction were analyzed, consistent with prior research 68,80 . Data acquisition was performed using a 64-channel BrainAmp amplifier from Brain Products Company (Germany). The EEG system was composed of two Brain product standard subtemporal BrainCap with an integrated chin belt. Each cap included 32 electrodes each, buttoned directly to the cap and arranged according to the international 10/10 system, an extension of the standard 10/20 system (See Supplementary Table S1 for full list of electrodes and electrode positions. Theta/Phi coordinates are reported, standardized to a Theta of 90 for the plane through Fpz, T7, T8, Oz). Analog 0.1–500 Hz band-pass was used for filtering, and data was sampled at 1000Hz. Impedances were maintained below 10 kOhm, and the ground electrode was placed on the AFz electrode. Both helmets were connected to the same amplifier to ensure millisecond-range synchrony between the EEG recording of the mother and adolescent. 2.4 EEG Preprocessing Preprocessing was conducted using Spyder 5.05 and Python 3.8, utilizing MNE (v0.17.0). First, the EEG data file of each dyad was separated into two data files, one for the mother and one for the child, so that each file could undergo separate preprocessing. Data were then average-referenced, and a 1–50 Hz bandpass filter was applied to all data files, consistent with prior studies 68,71,80 . Next, the data were segmented into 1000 ms epochs with 500 ms overlap between epochs. Autoreject v0.1 110 , an unsupervised algorithm with Bayesian optimization as the threshold method, was utilized to remove trials containing transient jumps in isolated EEG channels and artifacts affecting groups of channels. Following AR, a sample of the first 10 epochs of each participant was visually inspected pre- and post-AR correction to verify the algorithm's output. While AutoReject specializes in excluding trials containing transient jumps in specific channels, systematic physiological artifacts that may affect multiple sensors, such as eye blinks or muscular movements are not optimally removed by AR algorithms. Therefore, ICA was used to remove artifact components from the data. To that end, MNE’s implementations of fastica and CORRMAP 111 were used to remove systematic physiological artifacts that affected the data. Independent components (IC) were manually selected for exclusion and served as templates for selecting and excluding similar components in all other participants. Such components included non-physiological components, eye blinks, eye movements, and muscle artifacts to control for muscular movements while speaking (see Supplementary Fig. S1 ). Overall, following preprocessing and cleaning procedures, an average of 110.08 (SD = 54.31) epochs per dyad remained in the face-to-face condition. Following preprocessing, dyads that did not share a minimum of 30 common epochs in each condition were excluded from the following connectivity analysis, resulting in the exclusion of one dyad. 2.5 Connectivity Analysis Interbrain synchrony was calculated using the weighted phase lag index (wPLI), an interbrain connectivity method that has been used in various previous studies of naturalistic social interactions 68,80,93,112 . Interbrain connectivity values were calculated for the beta rhythm (13.5–29.5 Hz). Consistent with prior research, we divided the EEG cap into pre-defined areas of interest based on the research hypotheses 71,80,93,113 , resulting in a total of 4 ROIs that were examined in this study. Each ROI consisted of 3 electrodes: right frontal (RF - Fp2, F4, F8), left frontal (LF - Fp1, F3, F7), right temporal (RT - T8, TP10, P8), and left temporal (LT - T7, TP9, P7). We were particularly interested in the right frontal and temporal areas. The grouping of channels was used to enhance the reliability of region specification and provide a more meaningful and realistic interpretation of the results 114 . Overall, a total of 4 ROIs were measured in each brain, resulting in 16 possible links between the mother's and adolescent's ROIs in the comparison to surrogate data (control) analysis. The respective wPLI value of the partners' ROIs was calculated as the mean connectivity value of each of the 3 electrodes in one target ROI with each of the 3 electrodes in the second target ROI, resulting in a total of 9 connectivity values averaged for each interbrain link between 2 ROIs. Of the 30 dyads participating in the experiment, one dyad did not share sufficient common epochs following AutoReject and IC rejection, so connectivity could not be measured, resulting in a total of 29 dyads that were included in the analysis. 2.6 Behavioral Coding Mother-infant interaction was coded offline using the Coding Interactive Behavior manual (CIB, Feldman, 1998). The CIB is a well-validated rating system used for coding social interactions that has yielded over 200 publications across multiple cultures, age range, and pathological conditions (see Feldman, 2012, 2021 for review), including hyper-scanning research 68,71,80,93 . The CIB yields 52 codes, each rated on 5-point scales that aggregate into theoretically-based constructs. Here, we used the two central constructs of maternal behavior. Maternal sensitivity comprised the following scales: parent gaze, vocal appropriateness, reciprocity, enthusiasm (alpha = .91). Maternal intrusiveness included the following scales: overriding, imitation, anxiety, constriction (alpha = .89). Coding was conducted by trained coders who were blind to study hypotheses with inter-rater reliability for 20% of the interactions exceeding 90% on all codes (intra-class r = .93, range = .89–99). 2.7 Statistical Analysis 2.7.1 – Comparing neural synchrony during social interaction vs. surrogate data First, we conducted a validation analysis of the neural connectivity values of the face-to-face relative to a control condition of surrogate data. Our goal was to evaluate whether face-to-face interaction resulted in increased interbrain connectivity values relative to the surrogate data control, consistent with previous literature on two-brain research 65,77,80,116 . This analysis was conducted on the fronto-temporal network, resulting in 4 areas of interest (RT, LT, RF, LF) in each brain, leading to 16 possible interbrain links between the mother and child brains. Surrogate data was created by computing the data of one member of a dyad (mother) with the data of the other member (adolescent) from a different dyad and calculating the wPLI connectivity values for the surrogate dyad. This was done for every possible combinations of mother and other-adolescent in each of the other dyads, resulting in 28 different surrogates for each of the 29 mothers. Overall, this resulted in 812 surrogate mother other-adolescent combinations. Then, the 28 surrogate connectivity values that were created for each mother were averaged, leading to a single, “average surrogate” for each mother. The average surrogate connectivity values were then examined relative to the data of the real dyads. The analysis was conducted using "eelbrain", an open source Python module for accessible statistical analysis of MEG and EEG data (v0.31.7, https://github.com/christianbrodbeck/eelbrain , DOI 10.5281/zenodo.598150 ). A non- parametric permutation test with mass-univariate was utilized as this test uses the distribution derived from permuting the observed scores of the data and to avoid multiple comparisons 117 . The permutation test was used to compute the F value for each of the ROI pairs in order to compare connectivity patterns between the real connectivity scores and the surrogate data. The same procedure was repeated in 1000 random permutations of the two data, shuffling the condition labels (face-to-face, control). For each permutation, the largest F value was retained to form the nonparametric estimate of the distribution under the null hypothesis that condition labels are exchangeable. The p-value was computed for each ROI pair as the proportion of permutations that yielded a comparison with a larger F value than the comparison under question. Following the permutation tests, only ROIs that reached a p-value of 0.05 or smaller are reported in the results section. 2.7.3 Brain-behavior correlations Following, brain-behavior Pearson correlations were used to examine whether maternal behavior during infancy affected neural synchrony in adolescence. Here, we chose to focus on two well-known and validated constructs – maternal sensitivity and maternal intrusiveness 118 . Consistent with previous research describing the advantage of the right hemisphere in infancy 104,119 , the brain-behavior correlations focused on the right hemisphere network, and were computed between the maternal behavior during the child’s infancy and the IBS connectivity values. Notably, IBS values were calculated as the increase in interbrain connectivity relative to control (wPLI of face-to-face interaction – wPLI of surrogate data = ΔwPLI). Results 3.1. Comparing neural synchrony during Face-to-face relative to surrogate data We first compared neural synchrony during face-to-face interaction and the control condition (surrogate data) by using nonparametric permutation test with mass-univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on one-way repeated-measures ANOVA designed to detect effects stemming from the face-to-face interaction compared to control on wPLI scores. The results revealed a significant main effect for the face-to-face condition compared to control (F( 1 , 61 ) = 23.83, p < .001). (See Fig. 2 A, 2 B). Significant ( p < 0.05) inter-brain connections were observed in every one of the possible 16 links of the fronto-temporal network (Fig. 2 B, Table 1 ). The greater neural synchrony in the face-to-face interaction compared to the control condition comprised four sub-groups: (a) Homologous links between mother-child frontal and temporal regions (b) same hemisphere, cross-regional links between the mother and child’s temporal and frontal regions (c) inter-hemispheric same-region linkage of mother and child's frontal and temporal regions , (d) Inter hemisphere inter-region between mother and child’s fronto-temporl network . Homologous connections between mother-adolescent frontotemporal network – the homolog links included the left-frontal-left-frontal link (F( 1 , 28 ) = 15.8, p = .001, η 2 p = 0.36), the right-frontal-right-frontal link (F( 1 , 28 ) = 12.26, p = .011, η 2 p = 0.3), the left-temporal-left-temporal link (F( 1 , 28 ) = 10.8, p = .017, η 2 p = 0.28), and the right-temporal-right-temporal link (F( 1 , 28 ) = 13.99, p = .001, η 2 p = 0.33). Same-hemisphere, cross-regional connections within mother-adolescent frontotemporal network – comprised four links; two in the left hemisphere: between the mother's left frontal region and the adolescent's left temporal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 23.1, p < .001, η 2 p = 0.45), and the mother's left temporal region with the adolescent's left frontal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 13.9, p = .001, η 2 p = 0.33). Two links were also found In the right hemisphere: between the mother's right frontal region and the adolescent's right temporal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 12.1, p = .011, η 2 p = 0.3), and the mother’s right temporal region with the adolescent’s right frontal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 12.6, p = .001, η 2 p = 0.31). Same-region, cross-hemisphere connections within mother –adolescent frontotemporal network included four links: between the mother's left frontal region and the adolescent's right frontal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 10.9, p = .016, η 2 p = 0.28), between the mother’s right frontal and the adolescent’s left frontal region (F ( 1 , 28 ) = 11.1, p = .016, η 2 p = 0.28), between the mother’s left temporal region and the adolescent’s right temporal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 14.9, p = .001, η 2 p = 0.35), and between the mother’s right temporal region and the adolescent’s left temporal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 16.8, p < .001, η 2 p = 0.38). Cross-region connections within mother-adolescent fronto-temporal network. This included four links: between the mother's left frontal region and the adolescent's right temporal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 12.9, p = .007, η 2 p = 0.32), between the mother's right frontal region and the adolescent's left temporal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 15.2, p = .001, η 2 p = 0.35), between the mother's left temporal region and the adolescent's right frontal region (F( 1 , 28 ) = 10.1, p = .02, η 2 p = 0.27), and finally between the mother's right temporal region and the adolescent's left frontal region ((F( 1 , 28 ) = 10.7, p = .017, η 2 p = 0.28). (See Fig. 2 B, Table 1 ). Following the findings that mother-child face-to-face interactions facilitated greater interbrain synchrony relative to control across all links, we assessed our next hypothesis on the association between maternal behavior in infancy and interbrain synchrony in adolescence. Table 1 Table 1 – Mean (SD) for Face-to-face and Texting Interactions Interbrain link wPLI Face-to-face (SD) wPLI surrogate (SD) F p value Mother left frontal - Child left frontal 0.138 (0.05) 0.107 (0.03) 15.75 0.001 *** Mother left frontal - Child right frontal 0.134 (0.05) 0.106 (0.03) 10.93 0.016 * Mother left frontal - Child left temporal 0.139 (0.05) 0.109 (0.03) 23.06 < .001 *** Mother left frontal - Child right temporal 0.136 (0.05) 0.109 (0.03) 12.89 0.007 ** Mother right frontal - Child left frontal 0.132 (0.05) 0.107 (0.03) 11.06 0.016 * Mother right frontal - Child right frontal 0.132 (0.05) 0.108 (0.03) 12.26 0.011 * Mother right frontal - Child left temporal 0.140 (0.05) 0.110 (0.03) 15.24 0.001 *** Mother right frontal - Child right temporal 0.135 (0.05) 0.110 (0.03) 12.05 0.011 * Mother left temporal - Child left frontal 0.137 (0.05) 0.110 (0.03) 13.86 0.001 *** Mother left temporal - Child right frontal 0.134 (0.05) 0.108 (0.03) 10.13 0.02 * Mother left temporal - Child left temporal 0.138 (0.05) 0.111 (0.03) 10.79 0.017 * Mother left temporal - Child right temporal 0.134 (0.05) 0.109 (0.03) 14.9 0.001 *** Mother right temporal - Child left frontal 0.131 (0.05) 0.109 (0.03) 10.74 0.017 * Mother right temporal - Child right frontal 0.138 (0.05) 0.109 (0.03) 12.57 0.01 ** Mother right temporal - Child left temporal 0.140 (0.05) 0.110 (0.03) 16.75 < .001 *** Mother right temporal - Child right temporal 0.131 (0.04) 0.110 (0.03) 13.99 0.001 *** Table 1 : Increased IBS following face to face interactions relative to control. Reported here are the significant interbrain links emerging following nonparametric permutation test with mass-univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) to detect differences on wPLI connectivity measures during face to face interactions relative to control. All results were corrected to accommodate multiple comparisons. Inter-brain neural synchrony was found in each link of the fronto-temporal network. *P < 0.05 **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. 3.2 Brain-behavior coupling 3.2.1 Increase in interbrain connectivity within the right hemisphere network is related to maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness Focusing on the right hemisphere, we then assessed the advantage of the right hemisphere interbrain network over control (averaged across all 4 links that are specific to the right hemisphere – RF-RF, RT-RT, RF-RT, RT-RF). A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed greater right network synchrony in the face-to-face interaction relative to control (F( 1 , 28 ) = 18.47, p < .001, η 2 p = 0.4) (See Fig. 2 C). Following, we investigated the association between maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness and the index of increased right hemisphere interbrain connectivity in the face-to-face condition compared to control (wPLI of face-to-face interaction – wPLI control = ΔwPLI). Maternal sensitivity predicts greater synchrony in the right frontotemporal interbrain network The results revealed that the maternal sensitivity strongly correlated with the improvement in face-to-face interbrain synchrony relative to control ( N = 29, r = 0.41, p = 0.026, see Fig. 3 A). Following this finding, we next sought to shed light on the links that sustained this correlation within the right hemisphere network in a set of post-hoc tests. Results indicate that maternal sensitivity correlated with both the right frontal homolog link ( N = 29, r = 0.41, p = 0.029) and the mother-right-frontal adolescent-right-temporal link ( N = 29, r = 0.47, p = 0.01). The remaining links in the right network did not correlate with maternal sensitivity (see Supplementary Table 2) (see Fig. 3 A). Next, to evaluate the achieved power, we examined the correlation using a regression model, with the maternal sensitivity (measured when the children were 3-motths) to predict the frontotemporal IBS in the right hemisphere network. The results indicate that for effect size of F 2 = 0.22, with α = 0.05, and a total sample size of N = 29, with one predictor, the power was 0.688. Maternal intrusiveness predicts lower synchrony in the right frontotemporal interbrain network The results revealed that the maternal intrusiveness correlated negatively with the improvement in interbrain synchrony in the face-to-face interaction relative to control ( N = 29, r = -0.37 p = 0.049) (see Fig. 3 A). Following this finding, we next sought to shed light on the links that sustained this correlation within the right network in a set of post-hoc tests, and revealed that maternal intrusiveness negatively correlated the mother-right-frontal adolescent-right-temporal link ( N = 29, r = -0.43, p = 0.02). The remaining links in the right network did not correlate with maternal intrusiveness (see Supplementary Table 3) (see Fig. 3 A). Then, to evaluate the achieved power, we examined the correlation using a regression model. The results indicate that for effect size of F 2 = 0.16, with α = 0.05, and a total sample size of N = 29, with one predictor, the power was 0.55. Cross-hemisphere frontotemporal connections associated with maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness Finally, based on the findings described by Endelvalt-Shapira & Feldman (2023), who revealed that the mother-left-frontal infant-right-temporal connection correlated negatively with maternal intrusiveness in real-life interactions, the same link has been evaluated in our study. The results indicated that in our study the mother-left-frontal child-right-temporal link also correlated negatively with maternal intrusiveness ( N = 29, r = -0.49 p = 0.007). The same cross-hemisphere connection also correlated positively with maternal sensitivity ( N = 29, r = 0.42 p = 0.022), (see Fig. 3 B) Discussion Maternal care provides the basis for the child's future development, well-being, social competencies, and brain functioning 1,2,120–122 . However, despite research on interbrain synchrony flourishing in the last decade, the current study is the first to describe the association between early caregiving and the maturation of interbrain synchrony, that have been proposed as a key mechanism for joint cognitive processes 123,124 . Several important findings are highlighted by our data. First, consistent with previous literature on mother-child interbrain synchrony from infancy to adulthood 68,69,71,77,79–81,125 , we found a significant synchrony between mother and child's brain in frontotemporal regions, as indexed by an increase in interbrain synchrony between mother and child in the frontotemporal network during free interaction relative to a control condition. The face-to-face naturalistic interaction tightened a frontotemporal interbrain network that increased the connectivity in each of the 16 possible combinations of connections between mother and child's brains; homologous same-region-same-hemisphere connections, same-hemisphere-different-region connections, same-region-different-hemisphere connections, and frontal-to-temporal or temporal-to-frontal different hemisphere connections. Second, results point to the long-term associations between the main maternal caregiving orientations in infancy described in the literature and interbrain synchrony in adolescence. Maternal sensitivity in infancy was associated with the degree of improvement in neural synchrony in the right hemisphere frontotemporal network; more attuned caregiving to the infant's cues linked with greater neural synchrony 12 years later. This brain-behavior link was specific to the partners' right hemisphere and was facilitated by two important connections. The first is the mother-child right-frontal-right-frontal connection, a link that has been found in multiple studies of parent‒child interbrain synchrony 65,80,126 . The second is the connection between the mother’s right-frontal region and the adolescent’s right-temporal region, a link that is consistent with previous mother-child interbrain studies 80,93 . These findings point to the possibility that sensitivity and intrusiveness may have lingering effects on children's capacity for interbrain synchrony, particularly of the right hemisphere. The two hemispheres are known to exhibit asymmetrical involvement in various cognitive processes, with such lateralization enabling the right hemisphere to specialize in distinct functions 95–102,127 . The right hemisphere's advantage in processing non-verbal cues is evident early in life: infants aged 2–3 months demonstrate right hemispheric activation in response to women's faces 128 , and by 6 months they show a greater activation in the right fronto-temporal cortex following exposure their mother's face relative to unknown faces 129 . Notably, such right-hemisphere advantage extends beyond the visual system, as words spoken with emotional over neutral prosody elicited greater right temporal response in 7-month old infants 130 . These findings support the hypothesis that the right hemisphere specializes in the interpretation of non-verbal cues. This hypothesis is further supported by evidence that right hemisphere damage impairs the ability to recognize and interpret emotional expressions and signals 131 and to understand and produce the emotional tone of speech 132,133 . These non-verbal social signals are critical for understanding social interactions and play an important role in emotional and attentional processes (for review see Hartikainen, 2021). In line with these findings, the right-hemisphere lateralized network is crucial for various social functions, including empathy 135 , emotional processing 136,137 , theory of mind 138 , and understanding others 139 . The right hemisphere has been proposed to be a pivotal center for interpersonal emotional communication, particularly in early infancy when the non-verbal emotional interactions between the mother-infant dyad take place 137 . This pre-verbal communication relies on facial emotional expressions, gestures, and prosody, which collectively provide the groundwork for attachment formation. Through sensitive caregiving, in which mother monitors and adjusts her behavior to the infant's emotional state, the mother can regulate the infant’s emotions, a process that depends on the aforementioned right-hemispheric functions of both individuals. Over time, these mother-infant social interactions facilitate the maturation of the infant's social and emotional functions, including the brain regions and networks that support these functions, such as the right TPJ 140 . Our findings may suggest that the joint activation of the right-hemisphere network begins in early infancy and extends into adolescence. Possibly, the maternal right brain influences the development of the infant's right brain, resulting in a consistent pattern of right-lateralized processing years after infancy. This pattern is dependent on the mother's ability to respond to and regulate the child's brain throughout development. Specifically, our findings underscore the centrality of right frontal areas to mother-child interbrain coupling and their association with maternal sensitivity. The frontal-frontal connection between parents and children have been well-established across multiple studies using both hyperscanning EEG and fNIRS methodologies. Mother-child fNIRS studies reported right frontal-frontal synchrony during recovery as compared to a frustration task (Quiñones-Camacho et al., 2020), during cooperation tasks (Miller et al., 2019), and in both cooperation and competition tasks 126 . In addition, mother-child dyads exhibited greater right frontal-frontal synchrony as compared to stranger-child dyads in both competition and cooperation tasks 141 . The frontal areas implicate higher-order social functions, including social cognition, mental state knowledge, and social decision-making 142,143 , abilities that are known to develop in the context of maternal care 144 . Overall, our findings add to the existing literature and suggest that the mother’s frontal areas play an important role in monitoring, adjusting, and regulating the two-brain dynamics with her child and adjust in real-time to the child's signals and needs. This tunes the developing brain to social life, partly through interbrain synchrony mechanisms 49,145 . Our findings indicate interbrain synchrony of beta rhythms. This aligns with extensive research pointing to the crucial role of beta rhythm in parent-child interactions and attachment processes 61,80,93,107,108 . Beta rhythms are also involved in higher social functions related to the frontotemporal network and to right-hemisphere functions, including empathy 146 , mentalization 147 , the prediction of others' behavior 148 , and active information processing 149 . Consistent with the theory that mothers adjust their behavior in real-time to match their child's cues and regulate the child through sensitive caregiving, the beta frequency is further linked with continuous adaptation and updating of predictions 150 . Overall, we propose that the neural synchrony in the beta frequency observed here may be related to the ongoing adaptation and mutual adjustment of the mother-child dyad, processes that are essential for interbrain coordination 151 . Across the development from infancy to adolescence the brain undergoes significant changes, particularly in regions involved in social functions, such as the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS) 152 . In our study, we identified a network of interconnections between the mother’s and child’s right and left frontal and temporal regions in various combinations. Their joint activations across a variety of connection suggests that this frontotemporal network supports joint socio-cognitive functions 91,92 . Despite the rapid maturation and changes these regions experience during adolescence, we found that the neural coherence of the dyad correlated with maternal behaviors measured years earlier. Our findings are consistent with previous hyperscanning studies that have reported frontal-temporal neural synchrony during social interactions (Pérez et al., 2017; Schwartz et al., 2022; Tang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2017), and further extend the existing literature by showing that increased connectivity in the right frontotemporal network during face-to-face interactions could be predicted by maternal behavior measured many years earlier. Several limitations of the study should be noted. First, we base our findings on a relatively small sample. Although the uniqueness of our study lies in the longitudinal follow-up of over 12 years, future longitudinal studies are needed to validate the findings in larger samples. Studies should also examine the longitudinal impact of fathering and of early difficulties to bonding, in conditions such as postpartum depression, premature birth, or environmental adversity. Our study points to the potential enduring effects of early maternal behavior on the development of interbrain synchrony processes. Much further research is needed to explore these longitudinal links and shed light on the mechanisms by which maternal behavior tunes the child's brain to the social world. Declarations Author Contribution LS -conceptualization, study design, wrote the main manuscript, performed statistical analysis, and run the experiment at timepoint 2.OH - conceptualization, study design, wrote the main manuscript, performed statistical analysis, and run the experiment at timepoint 2. J. L - Conceptualization, experimental designI. G - Conceptualization, study design, running experiment at timepoint 1R. F - Conceptualization, writing, study design, statistical analysis, supervision Data Availability The data generated during the current study are not publicly available due to participants' privacy but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Feldman, R. & Eidelman, A. I. Biological and environmental initial conditions shape the trajectories of cognitive and social-emotional development across the first years of life. Dev. Sci. 12 , 194–200 (2009). Van Der Voort, A., Juffer, F. & J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. Sensitive parenting is the foundation for secure attachment relationships and positive social-emotional development of children. J. Child. Serv. 9 , 165–176 (2014). Lugo‐Gil, J. & Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S. Family resources and parenting quality: Links to children’s cognitive development across the first 3 years. Child Dev. 79 , 1065–1085 (2008). Poehlmann, J. et al. Preterm infants who are prone to distress: differential effects of parenting on 36‐month behavioral and cognitive outcomes. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 53 , 1018–1025 (2012). Rankin Williams, L. et al. Impact of behavioral inhibition and parenting style on internalizing and externalizing problems from early childhood through adolescence. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 37 , 1063–1075 (2009). Kok, R. et al. Normal variation in early parental sensitivity predicts child structural brain development. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 54 , 824–831 (2015). Sethna, V. et al. Mother–infant interactions and regional brain volumes in infancy: an MRI study. Brain Struct. Funct. 222 , 2379–2388 (2017). Graham, A. M., Pfeifer, J. H., Fisher, P. A., Carpenter, S. & Fair, D. A. Early life stress is associated with default system integrity and emotionality during infancy. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 56 , 1212–1222 (2015). Dégeilh, F., Bernier, A., Leblanc, É., Daneault, V. & Beauchamp, M. H. Quality of maternal behaviour during infancy predicts functional connectivity between default mode network and salience network 9 years later. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 34 , 53–62 (2018). Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E. & Wall, S. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. (1978). Bigelow, A. E. et al. Maternal sensitivity throughout infancy: Continuity and relation to attachment security. Infant Behav. Dev. 33 , 50–60 (2010). Behrens, K. Y., Hart, S. L. & Parker, A. C. Maternal sensitivity: Evidence of stability across time, contexts, and measurement instruments. Infant Child Dev. 21 , 348–355 (2012). Feldman, R. & Eidelman, A. I. Parent-infant synchrony and the social-emotional development of triplets. Dev. Psychol. 40 , 1133–1147 (2004). Kivijärvi, M. et al. Maternal sensitivity behavior and infant behavior in early interaction. Infant Ment. Heal. J. Off. Publ. World Assoc. Infant Ment. Heal. 22 , 627–640 (2001). Isabella, R. A. & Belsky, J. Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant‐mother attachment: A replication study. Child Dev. 62 , 373–384 (1991). Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. & Juffer, F. Less is more: meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychol. Bull. 129 , 195 (2003). Baker, J. K., Messinger, D. S., Lyons, K. K. & Grantz, C. J. A pilot study of maternal sensitivity in the context of emergent autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 40 , 988–999 (2010). Atkinson, L. et al. Maternal sensitivity and infant and mother adrenocortical function across challenges. Psychoneuroendocrinology 38 , 2943–2951 (2013). Nievar, M. A. & Becker, B. J. Sensitivity as a privileged predictor of attachment: A second perspective on De Wolff and van IJzendoorn’s meta‐analysis. Soc. Dev. 17 , 102–114 (2008). Jaffee, S. R. Sensitive, stimulating caregiving predicts cognitive and behavioral resilience in neurodevelopmentally at-risk infants. Dev. Psychopathol. 19 , 631–647 (2007). McElwain, N. L. & Booth-LaForce, C. Maternal sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress as predictors of infant-mother attachment security. J. Fam. Psychol. 20 , 247 (2006). Moran, G., Forbes, L., Evans, E., Tarabulsy, G. M. & Madigan, S. Both maternal sensitivity and atypical maternal behavior independently predict attachment security and disorganization in adolescent mother–infant relationships. Infant Behav. Dev. 31 , 321–325 (2008). Schoenmaker, C. et al. From maternal sensitivity in infancy to adult attachment representations: A longitudinal adoption study with secure base scripts. Attach. Hum. Dev. 17 , 241–256 (2015). Stams, G.-J. J. M., Juffer, F. & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. Maternal sensitivity, infant attachment, and temperament in early childhood predict adjustment in middle childhood: the case of adopted children and their biologically unrelated parents. Dev. Psychol. 38 , 806 (2002). Raby, K. L., Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C. & Simpson, J. A. The enduring predictive significance of early maternal sensitivity: Social and academic competence through age 32 years. Child Dev. 86 , 695–708 (2015). Jaffari-Bimmel, N., Juffer, F., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. & Mooijaart, A. Social development from infancy to adolescence: longitudinal and concurrent factors in an adoption sample. Dev. Psychol. 42 , 1143 (2006). Feldman, R. & Masalha, S. Parent-Child and Triadic Antecedents of Children’s Social Competence: Cultural Specificity, Shared Process. Dev. Psychol. 46 , 455–467 (2010). Blandon, A. Y. & Scrimgeour, M. B. Child, parenting, and situational characteristics associated with toddlers’ prosocial behaviour. Infant Child Dev. 24 , 643–660 (2015). Bouvette-Turcot, A.-A., Bernier, A. & Leblanc, É. Maternal psychosocial maladjustment and child internalizing symptoms: Investigating the modulating role of maternal sensitivity. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 45 , 157–170 (2017). Bradley, R. H. & Corwyn, R. F. Externalizing problems in fifth grade: relations with productive activity, maternal sensitivity, and harsh parenting from infancy through middle childhood. Dev. Psychol. 43 , 1390 (2007). van der Voort, A. et al. The development of adolescents’ internalizing behavior: Longitudinal effects of maternal sensitivity and child inhibition. J. Youth Adolesc. 43 , 528–540 (2014). Leerkes, E. M., Blankson, A. N. & O’Brien, M. Differential effects of maternal sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress on social‐emotional functioning. Child Dev. 80 , 762–775 (2009). Shaw, D. S., Keenan, K. & Vondra, J. I. Developmental precursors of externalizing behavior: Ages 1 to 3. Dev. Psychol. 30 , 355 (1994). Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I. & Haltigan, J. D. The legacy of early experiences in development: formalizing alternative models of how early experiences are carried forward over time. Dev. Psychol. 49 , 109 (2013). Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M. & Whipple, N. From external regulation to self‐regulation: Early parenting precursors of young children’s executive functioning. Child Dev. 81 , 326–339 (2010). Fearon, R. M. et al. In search of shared and nonshared environmental factors in security of attachment: a behavior-genetic study of the association between sensitivity and attachment security. Dev. Psychol. 42 , 1026 (2006). Feldman, R. The relational basis of adolescent adjustment: Trajectories of mother-child interactive behaviors from infancy to adolescence shape adolescents’ adaptation. Attach. Hum. Dev. 12 , 173–192 (2010). Yirmiya, K., Motsan, S., Zagoory-Sharon, O. & Feldman, R. Human attachment triggers different social buffering mechanisms under high and low early life stress rearing. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 152 , 72–80 (2020). Egeland, B., Pianta, R. & O’brien, M. A. Maternal intrusiveness in infancy and child maladaptation in early school years. Dev. Psychopathol. 5 , 359–370 (1993). Ispa, J. M. et al. Maternal intrusiveness, maternal warmth, and mother–toddler relationship outcomes: Variations across low‐income ethnic and acculturation groups. Child Dev. 75 , 1613–1631 (2004). Egeland, B. & Farber, E. A. Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its development and changes over time. Child Dev. 753–771 (1984). Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A. & Egeland, B. The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. Monogr. Soc. Res. child Dev. 147–166 (1985). Whiteside-Mansell, L., Bradley, R. H., Owen, M. T., Randolph, S. M. & Cauce, A. M. Parenting and children’s behavior at 36 months: Equivalence between African American and European American mother-child dyads. Parent. Sci. Pract. 3 , 197–234 (2003). Granat, A., Gadassi, R., Gilboa-Schechtman, E. & Feldman, R. Maternal depression and anxiety, social synchrony, and infant regulation of negative and positive emotions. Emotion 17 , 11 (2017). Broomell, A. P. R., Smith, C. L., Calkins, S. D. & Bell, M. A. Context of maternal intrusiveness during infancy and associations with preschool executive function. Infant Child Dev. 29 , e2162 (2020). Graziano, P. A., Keane, S. P. & Calkins, S. D. Maternal behaviour and children’s early emotion regulation skills differentially predict development of children’s reactive control and later effortful control. Infant Child Dev. 19 , 333–353 (2010). Conway, L. J. et al. Maternal communicative behaviours and interaction quality as predictors of language development: Findings from a community‐based study of slow‐to‐talk toddlers. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 53 , 339–354 (2018). Ulmer-Yaniv, A. et al. Synchronous caregiving from birth to adulthood tunes humans’ social brain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118 , (2021). Feldman, R. Social Behavior as a Transdiagnostic Marker of Resilience. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 17 , 153–180 (2021). Milgrom, J. et al. Early sensitivity training for parents of preterm infants: impact on the developing brain. Pediatr. Res. 67 , 330–335 (2010). Endevelt-Shapira, Y. & Feldman, R. Mother–Infant Brain-to-Brain Synchrony Patterns Reflect Caregiving Profiles. Biology (Basel). 12 , 284 (2023). Moutsiana, C. et al. Insecure attachment during infancy predicts greater amygdala volumes in early adulthood. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 56 , 540–548 (2015). Rifkin-Graboi, A. et al. Maternal sensitivity, infant limbic structure volume and functional connectivity: a preliminary study. Transl. Psychiatry 5 , e668–e668 (2015). Lupien, S. J. et al. Larger amygdala but no change in hippocampal volume in 10-year-old children exposed to maternal depressive symptomatology since birth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108 , 14324–14329 (2011). Whittle, S. et al. Positive parenting predicts the development of adolescent brain structure: A longitudinal study. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 8 , 7–17 (2014). Bernier, A., Calkins, S. D. & Bell, M. A. Longitudinal associations between the quality of mother–infant interactions and brain development across infancy. Child Dev. 87 , 1159–1174 (2016). Luby, J. L. et al. Maternal support in early childhood predicts larger hippocampal volumes at school age. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 , 2854–2859 (2012). Bernier, A. et al. Mother–infant interaction and child brain morphology: A multidimensional approach to maternal sensitivity. Infancy 24 , 120–138 (2019). Ulmer-Yaniv, A., Waidergoren, S., Shaked, A., Salomon, R. & Feldman, R. Neural representation of the parent–child attachment from infancy to adulthood. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 17 , 609–624 (2022). Levy, J., Goldstein, A. & Feldman, R. The neural development of empathy is sensitive to caregiving and early trauma. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1905 (2019). Pratt, M., Goldstein, A. & Feldman, R. Child brain exhibits a multi-rhythmic response to attachment cues. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 13 , 957–966 (2018). Pratt, M., Goldstein, A., Levy, J. & Feldman, R. Maternal Depression Across the First Years of Life Impacts the Neural Basis of Empathy in Preadolescence. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 56 , 20-29.e3 (2017). Zeev-Wolf, M., Levy, J., Goldstein, A., Zagoory-Sharon, O. & Feldman, R. Chronic Early Stress Impairs Default Mode Network Connectivity in Preadolescents and Their Mothers. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging 4 , 72–80 (2019). Zeev-Wolf, M., Dor-Ziderman, Y., Pratt, M., Goldstein, A. & Feldman, R. Investigating default mode network connectivity disruption in children of mothers with depression. Br. J. Psychiatry 220 , 130–139 (2022). Reindl, V., Gerloff, C., Scharke, W. & Konrad, K. Brain-to-brain synchrony in parent-child dyads and the relationship with emotion regulation revealed by fNIRS-based hyperscanning. Neuroimage 178 , 493–502 (2018). Czeszumski, A. et al. Hyperscanning: A Valid Method to Study Neural Inter-brain Underpinnings of Social Interaction. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 14 , 1–17 (2020). Markova, G., Nguyen, T. & Hoehl, S. Neurobehavioral interpersonal synchrony in early development: The role of interactional rhythms. Front. Psychol. 10 , 2078 (2019). Endevelt-Shapira, Y., Djalovski, A., Dumas, G. & Feldman, R. Maternal chemosignals enhance infant-adult brain-to-brain synchrony. Sci. Adv. 7 , 1–12 (2021). Reindl, V. et al. Multimodal hyperscanning reveals that synchrony of body and mind are distinct in mother-child dyads. Neuroimage 251 , 118982 (2022). Kinreich, S., Djalovski, A., Kraus, L., Louzoun, Y. & Feldman, R. Brain-to-Brain Synchrony during Naturalistic Social Interactions. Sci. Rep. 7 , 1–12 (2017). Djalovski, A., Dumas, G., Kinreich, S. & Feldman, R. Human attachments shape interbrain synchrony toward efficient performance of social goals. Neuroimage 226 , 117600 (2021). Zhang, Y., Meng, T., Hou, Y., Pan, Y. & Hu, Y. Interpersonal brain synchronization associated with working alliance during psychological counseling. Psychiatry Res. - Neuroimaging 282 , 103–109 (2018). Nguyen, T., Zimmer, L. & Hoehl, S. Your turn, my turn. Neural synchrony in mother–infant proto-conversation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 378 , 20210488 (2023). Quiñones-Camacho, L. E., Hoyniak, C. P., Wakschlag, L. S. & Perlman, S. B. Getting in synch: Unpacking the role of parent–child synchrony in the development of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Dev. Psychopathol. 34 , 1901–1913 (2022). Morgan, J. K. et al. Mother–child neural synchronization is time linked to mother–child positive affective state matching. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 18 , nsad001 (2023). Azhari, A., Bizzego, A. & Esposito, G. Parent–child dyads with greater parenting stress exhibit less synchrony in posterior areas and more synchrony in frontal areas of the prefrontal cortex during shared play. Soc. Neurosci. 17 , 520–531 (2022). Nguyen, T. et al. The effects of interaction quality on neural synchrony during mother-child problem solving. Cortex 124 , 235–249 (2020). Hoyniak, C. P. et al. Adversity is Linked with Decreased Parent-Child Behavioral and Neural Synchrony. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 48 , (2021). Nguyen, T., Kungl, M. T., Hoehl, S., White, L. O. & Vrtička, P. Visualizing the invisible tie: Linking parent–child neural synchrony to parents’ and children’s attachment representations. Dev. Sci. 1–17 (2024) doi:10.1111/desc.13504. Schwartz, L. et al. Technologically-assisted communication attenuates inter-brain synchrony. Neuroimage 264 , 119677 (2022). Miller, J. G. et al. Inter-brain synchrony in mother-child dyads during cooperation: An fNIRS hyperscanning study. Neuropsychologia 124 , 117–124 (2019). Noah, J. A. et al. Real-Time Eye-to-Eye Contact Is Associated With Cross-Brain Neural Coupling in Angular Gyrus. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 14 , 1–10 (2020). Hirsch, J., Zhang, X., Noah, J. A. & Ono, Y. Frontal temporal and parietal systems synchronize within and across brains during live eye-to-eye contact. Neuroimage 157 , 314–330 (2017). Koike, T., Sumiya, M., Nakagawa, E., Okazaki, S. & Sadato, N. What makes eye contact special? Neural substrates of on-line mutual eye-gaze: A hyperscanning fMRI study. eNeuro 6 , (2019). Leong, V. et al. Speaker gaze increases information coupling between infant and adult brains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114 , 13290–13295 (2017). Piazza, E. A., Hasenfratz, L., Hasson, U. & Lew-Williams, C. Infant and Adult Brains Are Coupled to the Dynamics of Natural Communication. Psychol. Sci. 31 , 6–17 (2020). Dikker, S. et al. Crowdsourcing neuroscience: Inter-brain coupling during face-to-face interactions outside the laboratory. Neuroimage 227 , (2021). Feldman, R. The Neurobiology of Human Attachments. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21 , 80–99 (2017). Feldman, R. What is resilience: an affiliative neuroscience approach. World Psychiatry 19 , 132–150 (2020). Feldman, R. The neurobiology of mammalian parenting and the biosocial context of human caregiving. Horm. Behav. 77 , 3–17 (2016). Frith, U. & Frith, C. The biological basis of social interaction. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 10 , 151–155 (2001). Hastings, P. D., Miller, J. G., Kahle, S. & Zahn-Waxler, C. The neurobiological bases of empathic concern for others . Handbook of Moral Development, Second Edition (2013). doi:10.4324/9780203581957. Schwartz, L. et al. Generation WhatsApp: inter-brain synchrony during face-to-face and texting communication. Sci. Rep. 14 , 1–14 (2024). Gainotti, G. Emotional behavior and hemispheric side of the lesion. Cortex 8 , 41–55 (1972). Nomura, M. et al. Functional association of the amygdala and ventral prefrontal cortex during cognitive evaluation of facial expressions primed by masked angry faces: an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 21 , 352–363 (2004). Dimberg, U. L. F. & Petterson, M. Facial reactions to happy and angry facial expressions: Evidence for right hemisphere dominance. Psychophysiology 37 , 693–696 (2000). Sato, W. & Aoki, S. Right hemispheric dominance in processing of unconscious negative emotion. Brain Cogn. 62 , 261–266 (2006). Costafreda, S. G., Brammer, M. J., David, A. S. & Fu, C. H. Y. Predictors of amygdala activation during the processing of emotional stimuli: a meta-analysis of 385 PET and fMRI studies. Brain Res. Rev. 58 , 57–70 (2008). Balconi, M. & Lucchiari, C. Consciousness and arousal effects on emotional face processing as revealed by brain oscillations. A gamma band analysis. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 67 , 41–46 (2008). Hung, Y. et al. Unattended emotional faces elicit early lateralized amygdala–frontal and fusiform activations. Neuroimage 50 , 727–733 (2010). Boes, A. D. et al. Right ventromedial prefrontal cortex: a neuroanatomical correlate of impulse control in boys. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 4 , 1–9 (2009). Álvarez-Fernández, S. et al. Emotional processing in patients with single brain damage in the right hemisphere. BMC Psychol. 11 , 8 (2023). Geschwind, A. & Galaburda, M. Cerebral lateralization. Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: I. A hypothesis and a program for research. Arch. Neurol 42 , 428–459 (1985). Chiron, C. et al. The right brain hemisphere is dominant in human infants. Brain a J. Neurol. 120 , 1057–1065 (1997). Tanaka, C., Matsui, M., Uematsu, A., Noguchi, K. & Miyawaki, T. Developmental trajectories of the fronto-temporal lobes from infancy to early adulthood in healthy individuals. Dev. Neurosci. 34 , 477–487 (2013). Uda, S. et al. Normal development of human brain white matter from infancy to early adulthood: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Dev. Neurosci. 37 , 182–194 (2015). Hernández-González, M., Hidalgo-Aguirre, R. M., Guevara, M. A., Pérez-Hernández, M. & Amezcua-Gutiérrez, C. Observing videos of a baby crying or smiling induces similar, but not identical, electroencephalographic responses in biological and adoptive mothers. Infant Behav. Dev. 42 , 1–10 (2016). Kringelbach, M. L. et al. A specific and rapid neural signature for parental instinct. PLoS One 3 , (2008). Ciaramidaro, A. et al. Multiple-Brain Connectivity during Third Party Punishment: An EEG Hyperscanning Study. Sci. Rep. 8 , 1–13 (2018). Jas, M., Engemann, D. A., Bekhti, Y., Raimondo, F. & Gramfort, A. Autoreject: Automated artifact rejection for MEG and EEG data. Neuroimage 159 , 417–429 (2017). Viola, F. C. et al. Semi-automatic identification of independent components representing EEG artifact. Clin. Neurophysiol. 120 , 868–877 (2009). Levy, J., Goldstein, A. & Feldman, R. Perception of social synchrony induces mother-child gamma coupling in the social brain. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 12 , 1036–1046 (2017). Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J. & Garnero, L. Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. PLoS One 5 , (2010). Azhari, A. et al. Parenting Stress Undermines Mother-Child Brain-to-Brain Synchrony: A Hyperscanning Study. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–9 (2019). Feldman, R. Coding Interactive Behavior (CIB) Manual. (1998). Nguyen, T., Bánki, A., Markova, G. & Hoehl, S. Studying parent-child interaction with hyperscanning. Prog. Brain Res. 254 , 1–24 (2020). Maris, E. & Oostenveld, R. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J. Neurosci. Methods 164 , 177–190 (2007). Feldman, R. Parenting behavior as the environment where children grow. (2012). Lemaître, H. et al. Rest functional brain maturation during the first year of life. Cereb. Cortex 31 , 1776–1785 (2021). Feldman, R. Parent–infant synchrony: Biological foundations and developmental outcomes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16 , 340–345 (2007). Hari, R., Henriksson, L., Malinen, S. & Parkkonen, L. Centrality of Social Interaction in Human Brain Function. Neuron 88 , 181–193 (2015). Hasson, U., Ghazanfar, A. A., Galantucci, B., Garrod, S. & Keysers, C. Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16 , 114–121 (2012). Ward, L. M. Synchronous neural oscillations and cognitive processes. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7 , 553–559 (2003). Palva, J. M., Palva, S. & Kaila, K. Phase synchrony among neuronal oscillations in the human cortex. J. Neurosci. 25 , 3962–3972 (2005). Quiñones-Camacho, L. E. et al. Parent–child neural synchrony: a novel approach to elucidating dyadic correlates of preschool irritability. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip. 61 , 1213–1223 (2020). Kruppa, J. A. et al. Brain and motor synchrony in children and adolescents with ASD - A fNIRS hyperscanning study. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 16 , 103–116 (2021). Gazzaniga, M. S. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain 123 , 1293–1326 (2000). Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. et al. Neural correlates of woman face processing by 2-month-old infants. Neuroimage 15 , 454–461 (2002). Carlsson, J., Lagercrantz, H., Olson, L., Printz, G. & Bartocci, M. Activation of the right fronto‐temporal cortex during maternal facial recognition in young infants. Acta Paediatr. 97 , 1221–1225 (2008). Grossmann, T., Oberecker, R., Koch, S. P. & Friederici, A. D. The developmental origins of voice processing in the human brain. Neuron 65 , 852–858 (2010). Borod, J. C. et al. Right hemisphere emotional perception: evidence across multiple channels. Neuropsychology 12 , 446 (1998). Ross, E. D. & Monnot, M. Affective prosody: What do comprehension errors tell us about hemispheric lateralization of emotions, sex and aging effects, and the role of cognitive appraisal. Neuropsychologia 49 , 866–877 (2011). Guranski, K. & Podemski, R. Emotional prosody expression in acoustic analysis in patients with right hemisphere ischemic stroke. Neurol. Neurochir. Pol. 49 , 113–120 (2015). Hartikainen, K. M. Emotion-attention interaction in the right hemisphere. Brain Sci. 11 , 1006 (2021). Jackson, P. L., Brunet, E., Meltzoff, A. N. & Decety, J. Empathy examined through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain. Neuropsychologia 44 , 752–761 (2006). Lettieri, G. et al. Emotionotopy in the human right temporo-parietal cortex. Nat. Commun. 10 , 5568 (2019). Schore, A. N. The interpersonal neurobiology of intersubjectivity. Front. Psychol. 12 , 648616 (2021). Saxe, R. & Wexler, A. Making sense of another mind: the role of the right temporo-parietal junction. Neuropsychologia 43 , 1391–1399 (2005). Saxe, R. Uniquely human social cognition. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 16 , 235–239 (2006). Vrtička, P. & Vuilleumier, P. Neuroscience of human social interactions and adult attachment style. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6 , 212 (2012). Reindl, V. et al. Multimodal hyperscanning reveals that synchrony of body and mind are distinct in mother-child dyads. Neuroimage 251 , 118982 (2022). Amodio, D. M. & Frith, C. D. Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7 , 268–277 (2006). Rilling, J. K. & Sanfey, A. G. The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62 , 23–48 (2011). Monroy, E., Hernández-Torres, E. & Flores, G. Maternal separation disrupts dendritic morphology of neurons in prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and nucleus accumbens in male rat offspring. J. Chem. Neuroanat. 40 , 93–101 (2010). Feldman, R. The adaptive human parental brain: Implications for children’s social development. Trends Neurosci. 38 , 387–399 (2015). Levy, J., Goldstein, A., Pratt, M. & Feldman, R. Maturation of pain empathy from child to adult shifts from single to multiple neural rhythms to support interoceptive representations. Sci. Rep. 8 , 1–9 (2018). Soto-Icaza, P., Vargas, L., Aboitiz, F. & Billeke, P. Beta oscillations precede joint attention and correlate with mentalization in typical development and autism. Cortex 113 , 210–228 (2019). Koelewijn, T., van Schie, H. T., Bekkering, H., Oostenveld, R. & Jensen, O. Motor-cortical beta oscillations are modulated by correctness of observed action. Neuroimage 40 , 767–775 (2008). Donner, T. H. & Siegel, M. A framework for local cortical oscillation patterns. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15 , 191–199 (2011). Sedley, W. et al. Neural signatures of perceptual inference. Elife 5 , e11476 (2016). Hasson, U. & Frith, C. D. Mirroring and beyond: coupled dynamics as a generalized framework for modelling social interactions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371 , 20150366 (2016). Blakemore, S. J. The social brain in adolescence. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9 , 267–277 (2008). Pérez, A., Carreiras, M. & Duñabeitia, J. A. Brain-To-brain entrainment: EEG interbrain synchronization while speaking and listening. Sci. Rep. 7 , 1–12 (2017). Tang, H. et al. Interpersonal brain synchronization in the right temporo-parietal junction during face-to-face economic exchange. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 11 , 23–32 (2015). Zhang, M., Liu, T., Pelowski, M., Jia, H. & Yu, D. Social risky decision-making reveals gender differences in the TPJ: A hyperscanning study using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Brain Cogn. 119 , 54–63 (2017). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files suppmateriallongsampleupdated1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 08 Aug, 2024 Reviews received at journal 06 Aug, 2024 Reviews received at journal 26 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Jul, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 15 Jul, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 15 Jul, 2024 Editor invited by journal 12 Jul, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 11 Jul, 2024 First submitted to journal 10 Jul, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4717524","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":334449001,"identity":"07e3dede-b463-4fe4-a23c-d9de619145e6","order_by":0,"name":"Linoy Schwartz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Linoy","middleName":"","lastName":"Schwartz","suffix":""},{"id":334449002,"identity":"e65225fc-70c5-478e-931d-a988a1d2efba","order_by":1,"name":"Olga Hayut","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Olga","middleName":"","lastName":"Hayut","suffix":""},{"id":334449003,"identity":"71cb5bb0-aa05-43f3-97d3-ead8a9d05dcd","order_by":2,"name":"Jonathan Levy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jonathan","middleName":"","lastName":"Levy","suffix":""},{"id":334449006,"identity":"4d47c914-71b1-4c44-8036-54fb95fb43f3","order_by":3,"name":"Ilanit Gordon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bar-Ilan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ilanit","middleName":"","lastName":"Gordon","suffix":""},{"id":334449007,"identity":"8c6f5cfd-458a-4b44-82b4-ab8c95f79f56","order_by":4,"name":"Ruth Feldman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ruth","middleName":"","lastName":"Feldman","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-10 11:00:38","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4717524/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4717524/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73630-2","type":"published","date":"2024-09-30T15:56:57+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":62189044,"identity":"761d311d-5707-42aa-b8c7-5010a96fcae6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:19:44","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":416978,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcedure and experimental design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Time 1, Mother and their 3-months old firstborns were videotaped during a naturalistic interaction, and were instructed to play with their infant as they normally do. Offline CIB coding later assessed maternal Intrusiveness and Sensitivity. In Time 2, the study utilized hyperscanning dual-EEG during positive-valance interaction. Mothers and their now adolescents set on chairs in the same room, in a face-to-face position and were instructed to discuss a positive topic randomly selected by the researchers. EEG connectivity at the frontotemporal network has been assessed.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4717524/v1/81ce795c7d12b7e791f4b0da.png"},{"id":62190441,"identity":"15ca2ba5-0cf1-49a7-8bb0-5ebb1de74553","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:27:44","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":107854,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisualization of validation analysis conducted on face-to-face relative to control (surrogate data):\u003c/strong\u003e Higher interbrain synchrony was detected during the face-to-face interactions relative to control (surrogate data). A: Visualization of the surrogate data (left) compared to the real connectivity values (right). Each node represents a different ROI in the mother and child brains. RT – right temporal, LT – left temporal, RC – right central, LC- left central, RF – right frontal, LF- left frontal. M and C refer to the mother and child, respectively. Darker shades represent greater values of interbrain connectivity (wPLI scores). B. Visualization of the significant links found in the face-to-face interaction relative to control. A permutation test based on repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant advantage for the face-to-face interaction compared to the control condition in facilitating interbrain synchrony in the fronto-temporal network (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Further analysis revealed this effect was evident in every possible link between the mother and child fronto-temporal network. C. Visualization of IBS increase in the face to face interaction compared to control, with each dot representing a dyad. Both the overall IBS across the entire fronto-temporal network and the right hemisphere network showed increased synchrony relative to control (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4717524/v1/36b0cc1e4d4331f35ad7bcb3.jpeg"},{"id":62189042,"identity":"a210564d-5242-4ed5-8230-12c2d2b5ef65","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:19:44","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":86609,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisualization of brain-behavior correlations with the improvement in IBS during the face-to-face interaction\u003c/strong\u003e. The improvement in IBS in the face-to-face interaction relative to control (calculated as Δ wPLI) is shown on the Y-axis. (A) Improvement in IBS in the right hemisphere network is correlated positively with maternal sensitivity (r = 0.41, p = 0.026), and negatively with maternal intrusiveness (r = -0.37 p = 0.049). (B) The improvement in IBS in the mother-left-frontal child-right-temporal is correlated positively with maternal sensitivity (r = 0.42p = 0.022), and negatively with maternal intrusiveness (r = -0.49p = 0.007).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4717524/v1/1d9aedcf415ab11e7bf99b0d.jpeg"},{"id":66097619,"identity":"ca060fa5-8add-4572-814f-e76774af95f5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-07 16:14:45","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1637916,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4717524/v1/203a63ac-dbf2-42a3-8fed-a04928fe4ff7.pdf"},{"id":62189041,"identity":"ca5a85fc-2b83-48ac-a8be-e5a15d192a9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-10 12:19:43","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":91995,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"suppmateriallongsampleupdated1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4717524/v1/428efee2460313507f0adb63.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Sensitive Infant Care Tunes a Frontotemporal Interbrain Network in Adolescence","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFrom the moment infants are born, they depend on their caregivers to fulfil the basic physiological needs and teach the necessary social skills to prepare their brain and behavior for participation in the social world. The caregiver's social behavior plays a critical role in the infant's cognitive, social, and emotional development \u003csup\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/sup\u003e, and in the formation of brain structure and functions \u003csup\u003e6\u0026ndash;9\u003c/sup\u003e. This renders early caregiving an important contributor to the maturation of brain and behavior throughout life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMuch research has connected positive developmental outcomes with sensitive caregiving. Sensitivity was first described within the attachment theory framework as the mother's ability to recognize the infant\u0026rsquo;s signals, accurately interpret them, and respond in an appropriate and timely manner \u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. Sensitive parenting can be observed in mother-infant interactions that include reciprocal exchanges, awareness of the infant\u0026rsquo;s state, and appropriate stimulation that are contingent upon the infant\u0026rsquo;s social signals \u003csup\u003e11\u0026ndash;15\u003c/sup\u003e. Empirical and meta-analytic studies have confirmed the importance of sensitive caregiving in the first months of life for the development of children\u0026rsquo;s social-emotional competencies in both normative and high-risk populations \u003csup\u003e2,16\u0026ndash;20\u003c/sup\u003e. Longitudinal studies have shown that maternal sensitivity in infancy shapes the development of secure attachment \u003csup\u003e21\u0026ndash;23\u003c/sup\u003e, social abilities \u003csup\u003e24\u0026ndash;28\u003c/sup\u003e, emotion regulation and social adjustment \u003csup\u003e29\u0026ndash;33\u003c/sup\u003e, and cognitive and executive function \u003csup\u003e34,35\u003c/sup\u003e across childhood \u003csup\u003e28,35,36\u003c/sup\u003e, adolescence \u003csup\u003e22,24,31,34,37,38\u003c/sup\u003e, and adulthood \u003csup\u003e23,25\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, researchers have placed maternal intrusiveness as an orientation that is diametrically opposite to the sensitive style and is characterized by maternal overriding and impingement, forceful behavior, overstimulation, and disregard of the child's state, signals, and social initiation \u003csup\u003e15,39,40\u003c/sup\u003e. The mother's intrusive style early in life has been shown to predict insecure attachment \u003csup\u003e41\u003c/sup\u003e, behavior problems and social maladjustment \u003csup\u003e39,42,43\u003c/sup\u003e, difficulties in emotion regulation \u003csup\u003e44\u003c/sup\u003e, and executive function \u003csup\u003e45,46\u003c/sup\u003e, and language delays \u003csup\u003e47\u003c/sup\u003e. Both sensitivity and intrusiveness were found in longitudinal studies to be individually stable from infancy to adolescence and young adulthood \u003csup\u003e12,37,38,48\u003c/sup\u003e. As the mother's sensitive-synchronous and intrusive-overriding styles are stable over time, they are considered as resilience and risk factors, respectively, for the child's well-being and development \u003csup\u003e49\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mechanisms by which maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness render their long-term effects on the developing brain are not fully clear. Studies suggest that the experience of adjusted versus unadjusted parenting behaviors over time impact the maturation of neural systems implicated in social, emotional and cognitive functioning \u003csup\u003e6,50\u0026ndash;55\u003c/sup\u003e. Indeed, several longitudinal studies demonstrated the effects of early maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness on brain development and functioning. An EEG study reported that mother-infant interactions characterized by positive affect and less physical stimulation at the age of 5 months predicted higher frontal resting EEG power (alpha and theta band) at the age of 10 and 15 months, suggesting that a more sensitive and less intrusive maternal style quality facilitate brain development \u003csup\u003e56\u003c/sup\u003e. Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies linked maternal sensitivity and support in early childhood with higher gray matter volume \u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e, larger hippocampal volume \u003csup\u003e57\u003c/sup\u003e and smaller amygdala volume at school age \u003csup\u003e58\u003c/sup\u003e. A functional MRI (fMRI) study found that maternal behavior characterized by the awareness of infant\u0026rsquo;s mental states, appropriate response, and autonomy support at 13 and 15 months predicted functional connectivity between default mode network (DMN) and salience network at 10 years, pointing to the effect of maternal behavior on maturation of networks involved in social cognition, affect cognition and cognitive control \u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e. Another fMRI study found that the mother's sensitive style from infancy to adolescence predicted young adults\u0026rsquo; amygdalar and insular sensitivity to others\u0026rsquo; emotions \u003csup\u003e48\u003c/sup\u003e and greater mother sensitivity and child social engagement in infancy predicted a more consolidated response to attachment reminders in adulthood \u003csup\u003e59\u003c/sup\u003e. Using magnetoencephalography (MEG), it was found that maternal sensitivity in infancy predicted more accurate neural emphatic response to others\u0026rsquo; distress \u003csup\u003e60\u003c/sup\u003e and to attachment cues in adolescence \u003csup\u003e61\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the long-term effects of maternal sensitivity on the developing brain, intrusive mothering in infancy has similarly been shown to carry long-term negative effects on the child's brain. Intrusive parenting at 9 months predicted aberrant neural response to others\u0026rsquo; pain \u003csup\u003e62\u003c/sup\u003e and disrupted default mode network (DMN) connectivity in adolescence \u003csup\u003e63,64\u003c/sup\u003e. Overall, these studies demonstrate the long-term effects of the mother's sensitive and intrusive style on social brain functioning in adolescence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to studies that describe the effects of early caregiving on the brain, no study to date have tested the longitudinal impact of the parent's relational style in infancy on interbrain synchrony in later life. Interbrain synchrony considers the temporal concordance of neural dynamics between two or more brains \u003csup\u003e65\u0026ndash;67\u003c/sup\u003e. Studies have shown that interbrain synchrony increases when partners are within an attachment relationship, including parents and children \u003csup\u003e68,69\u003c/sup\u003e, romantic partners \u003csup\u003e70\u003c/sup\u003e, close friends \u003csup\u003e71\u003c/sup\u003e, and patients and therapists \u003csup\u003e72\u003c/sup\u003e. Mother-child dyads in infancy, childhood, and adolescence, have been shown to display strong interbrain synchrony across multiple tasks, including free play \u003csup\u003e68,73\u0026ndash;76\u003c/sup\u003e, joint problem-solving tasks \u003csup\u003e77\u0026ndash;79\u003c/sup\u003e, naturalistic face-to-face and video-chat conversations \u003csup\u003e80\u003c/sup\u003e, and cooperative video-games \u003csup\u003e65,69,81\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterbrain synchrony is sensitive to social behavior and increases when interactions are engaged and reciprocal \u003csup\u003e67,68,70,82\u0026ndash;86\u003c/sup\u003e. Sharing social gaze, joint engagement, empathic resonance, and interpersonal reciprocity enhance interbrain synchrony, particularly during naturalistic, ecologically-valid interactions \u003csup\u003e71,80,87\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the biobehavioral synchrony model \u003csup\u003e88,89\u003c/sup\u003e, children acquire the capacity for brain synchrony within the mother-infant context during sensitive, well-timed social interactions (Feldman, 2017, 2020). Consistent with the model, studies have shown that episodes of brain coupling during infancy and early childhood were aligned with the mother's or female stranger's social behavior, including touch, gaze, or vocalizations \u003csup\u003e67,85\u003c/sup\u003e. As to the two maternal orientations, sensitivity and intrusiveness, it was found that maternal sensitivity at 5\u0026ndash;9 months was associated with higher mother-infant neural synchrony in a frontotemporal network, while maternal intrusiveness was related to attenuated interbrain coupling in that network, pointing to a differential impact of these two styles on mother-child interbrain synchrony \u003csup\u003e51\u003c/sup\u003e. Another recent fNIRs study found association between secure child attachment and higher mother-child interbrain synchrony within temporal regions \u003csup\u003e79\u003c/sup\u003e, indirectly pointing at the effect of parenting on mother-child neural synchrony. Still, to our knowledge, no study to date has examined the long-term effect of parenting on the maturation of interbrain synchrony beyond infancy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e In the current study, we examined the longitudinal associations between early maternal caregiving and the development of interbrain synchrony in adolescence. We focused on maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness during naturalistic interactions in infancy and measured mother-adolescent interbrain synchrony 12 years later using hyperscanning EEG. Our key hypothesis was that maternal sensitivity would predict enhanced interbrain synchrony, while intrusiveness attenuated interbrain coupling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe focused on the frontotemporal network that underpins core socio-cognitive functions \u003csup\u003e91,92\u003c/sup\u003e. Studies of mother-child neural synchrony have shown that this network plays an important role during face-to-face interactions, as well as in remote interactions of zoom or texting \u003csup\u003e80,93\u003c/sup\u003e. In infancy, this network has been associated with the mother's sensitive and intrusive style, respectively \u003csup\u003e51\u003c/sup\u003e. Specifically, we focused on inter-brain synchrony in the right frontotemporal network, and based this hypothesis on the \"right hemisphere hypothesis\" \u003csup\u003e94\u003c/sup\u003e. This hypothesis suggests a general dominance of the right hemisphere in processing emotions, and has been supported by numerous studies demonstrating right- hemisphere dominance in multiple emotional functions \u003csup\u003e95\u0026ndash;102\u003c/sup\u003e. Given its crucial role in survival-related functions and nonverbal communication, right hemisphere dominance is thought to have a more ancient evolutionary origin as well as to mature early in human development \u003csup\u003e103\u0026ndash;106\u003c/sup\u003e. As the mother-child context is the first to facilitate synchrony of brain and behavior, we expected early caregiving to have a more notable impact on the right hemisphere network in connecting the brains of mother and child in adolescence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with prior research, we examined interbrain synchrony in the beta frequency band, due to its role in parent-child attachment processes in both mothers \u003csup\u003e107,108\u003c/sup\u003e and young adolescents \u003csup\u003e61\u003c/sup\u003e. Naturalistic two-brain studies have shown that synchrony of beta rhythms sustains communication between romantic couples and close friends \u003csup\u003e71\u003c/sup\u003e, facilitates empathy and compassion \u003csup\u003e109\u003c/sup\u003e, and is underpinned by social engagement and shared gaze \u003csup\u003e87\u003c/sup\u003e. Importantly, beta synchrony has been found to sustain interactions between mothers and adolescents during naturalistic interactions \u003csup\u003e80,93\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo hypotheses were formulated. First, we expected that the mother-adolescent face-to-face interaction would trigger significant interbrain synchrony within the frontotemporal network relative to surrogate data baseline. We expected interbrain connections of four types; homologue (same area, same hemisphere), same-region cross-brain links (same area, different hemisphere), cross-region same-hemisphere (same hemisphere, different area), and multi-dimensional (cross-region and cross hemisphere). Second, guided by the bio-behavioral synchrony model \u003csup\u003e49,88\u003c/sup\u003e, we expected longitudinal associations between maternal sensitivity in infancy and greater connectivity in the right frontotemporal interbrain network in adolescence and between early maternal intrusiveness and attenuated interbrain synchrony of the same network in adolescence.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants included 60 individuals, comprising 30 mother-firstborn pairs seen over a span of 12 years. Mothers and their infants were initially recruited for the study through ads posted in campus for a study on the transition to parenthood (Time 1). All were the infant's biological mothers, served as the child's primary caregiver, and all children were firstborns. At the first time-point mother-infant dyads were seen when infants were 3\u0026ndash;4 months old and 40% of the infants were male. All mothers had completed at least high-school education and 83% finished college and all were of middle to upper-middle SES. Mothers were all healthy, infants were all born at term without complications, and 87% were breastfeeding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn early adolescence (Time 2) the mothers\u0026rsquo; average age was 41.31 years old (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.40), and the adolescents\u0026rsquo; average age was 12.30 years old (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.25). 40% of the adolescents were males. All participants were healthy, and all adolescents attended state-controlled typical schools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The original study during Time 1 was approved by the Bar-Ilan University ethics committee. The Reichman University institutional ethics committee approved the hyperscanning EEG experiment during Time 2, and all experiments were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. All mothers signed a written informed consent form for themselves and their adolescent children. All procedures were explained to the participants prior to the experiment, and the participants were free to leave the experiment at any time with full compensation. Participants were reimbursed for study participation (\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e30 per hour).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfancy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother-infant dyads were videotaped during a naturalistic interaction. Instructions were \u0026ldquo;play with your infant as you normally do\u0026rdquo; and 10 minutes of free play interaction were filmed for offline coding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdolescence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study utilized hyperscanning dual-EEG during positive-valance interaction. Mother-adolescent dyads set on chairs in the same room, 50 cm apart from each other, in a face-to-face position and were instructed to discuss a positive topic randomly selected by the researchers. Three possible positive topics were counterbalanced; \"plan a fun day to spend together\" \"plan a camping trip\", \"plan a visit to an amusement park\". (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Dual neural and behavioral data acquisition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe EEG activity of both the mother and adolescent was recorded simultaneously and continuously throughout the experiment. The first 2 minutes of the interaction were analyzed, consistent with prior research \u003csup\u003e68,80\u003c/sup\u003e. Data acquisition was performed using a 64-channel BrainAmp amplifier from Brain Products Company (Germany). The EEG system was composed of two Brain product standard subtemporal BrainCap with an integrated chin belt. Each cap included 32 electrodes each, buttoned directly to the cap and arranged according to the international 10/10 system, an extension of the standard 10/20 system (See Supplementary Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e for full list of electrodes and electrode positions. Theta/Phi coordinates are reported, standardized to a Theta of 90 for the plane through Fpz, T7, T8, Oz). Analog 0.1\u0026ndash;500 Hz band-pass was used for filtering, and data was sampled at 1000Hz. Impedances were maintained below 10 kOhm, and the ground electrode was placed on the AFz electrode. Both helmets were connected to the same amplifier to ensure millisecond-range synchrony between the EEG recording of the mother and adolescent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 EEG Preprocessing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreprocessing was conducted using Spyder 5.05 and Python 3.8, utilizing MNE (v0.17.0). First, the EEG data file of each dyad was separated into two data files, one for the mother and one for the child, so that each file could undergo separate preprocessing. Data were then average-referenced, and a 1\u0026ndash;50 Hz bandpass filter was applied to all data files, consistent with prior studies \u003csup\u003e68,71,80\u003c/sup\u003e. Next, the data were segmented into 1000 ms epochs with 500 ms overlap between epochs. Autoreject v0.1 \u003csup\u003e110\u003c/sup\u003e, an unsupervised algorithm with Bayesian optimization as the threshold method, was utilized to remove trials containing transient jumps in isolated EEG channels and artifacts affecting groups of channels. Following AR, a sample of the first 10 epochs of each participant was visually inspected pre- and post-AR correction to verify the algorithm's output. While AutoReject specializes in excluding trials containing transient jumps in specific channels, systematic physiological artifacts that may affect multiple sensors, such as eye blinks or muscular movements are not optimally removed by AR algorithms. Therefore, ICA was used to remove artifact components from the data. To that end, MNE\u0026rsquo;s implementations of fastica and CORRMAP \u003csup\u003e111\u003c/sup\u003e were used to remove systematic physiological artifacts that affected the data. Independent components (IC) were manually selected for exclusion and served as templates for selecting and excluding similar components in all other participants. Such components included non-physiological components, eye blinks, eye movements, and muscle artifacts to control for muscular movements while speaking (see Supplementary Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, following preprocessing and cleaning procedures, an average of 110.08 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;54.31) epochs per dyad remained in the face-to-face condition. Following preprocessing, dyads that did not share a minimum of 30 common epochs in each condition were excluded from the following connectivity analysis, resulting in the exclusion of one dyad.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Connectivity Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterbrain synchrony was calculated using the weighted phase lag index (wPLI), an interbrain connectivity method that has been used in various previous studies of naturalistic social interactions \u003csup\u003e68,80,93,112\u003c/sup\u003e. Interbrain connectivity values were calculated for the beta rhythm (13.5\u0026ndash;29.5 Hz).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with prior research, we divided the EEG cap into pre-defined areas of interest based on the research hypotheses \u003csup\u003e71,80,93,113\u003c/sup\u003e, resulting in a total of 4 ROIs that were examined in this study. Each ROI consisted of 3 electrodes: right frontal (RF - Fp2, F4, F8), left frontal (LF - Fp1, F3, F7), right temporal (RT - T8, TP10, P8), and left temporal (LT - T7, TP9, P7). We were particularly interested in the right frontal and temporal areas. The grouping of channels was used to enhance the reliability of region specification and provide a more meaningful and realistic interpretation of the results \u003csup\u003e114\u003c/sup\u003e. Overall, a total of 4 ROIs were measured in each brain, resulting in 16 possible links between the mother's and adolescent's ROIs in the comparison to surrogate data (control) analysis. The respective wPLI value of the partners' ROIs was calculated as the mean connectivity value of each of the 3 electrodes in one target ROI with each of the 3 electrodes in the second target ROI, resulting in a total of 9 connectivity values averaged for each interbrain link between 2 ROIs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the 30 dyads participating in the experiment, one dyad did not share sufficient common epochs following AutoReject and IC rejection, so connectivity could not be measured, resulting in a total of 29 dyads that were included in the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Behavioral Coding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother-infant interaction was coded offline using the Coding Interactive Behavior manual (CIB, Feldman, 1998). The CIB is a well-validated rating system used for coding social interactions that has yielded over 200 publications across multiple cultures, age range, and pathological conditions (see Feldman, 2012, 2021 for review), including hyper-scanning research \u003csup\u003e68,71,80,93\u003c/sup\u003e. The CIB yields 52 codes, each rated on 5-point scales that aggregate into theoretically-based constructs. Here, we used the two central constructs of maternal behavior. \u003cem\u003eMaternal sensitivity\u003c/em\u003e comprised the following scales: parent gaze, vocal appropriateness, reciprocity, enthusiasm (alpha\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91). \u003cem\u003eMaternal intrusiveness\u003c/em\u003e included the following scales: overriding, imitation, anxiety, constriction (alpha\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89). Coding was conducted by trained coders who were blind to study hypotheses with inter-rater reliability for 20% of the interactions exceeding 90% on all codes (intra-class \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93, range\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89\u0026ndash;99).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7 Statistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7.1 \u0026ndash; Comparing neural synchrony during social interaction vs. surrogate data\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, we conducted a validation analysis of the neural connectivity values of the face-to-face relative to a control condition of surrogate data. Our goal was to evaluate whether face-to-face interaction resulted in increased interbrain connectivity values relative to the surrogate data control, consistent with previous literature on two-brain research \u003csup\u003e65,77,80,116\u003c/sup\u003e. This analysis was conducted on the fronto-temporal network, resulting in 4 areas of interest (RT, LT, RF, LF) in each brain, leading to 16 possible interbrain links between the mother and child brains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurrogate data was created by computing the data of one member of a dyad (mother) with the data of the other member (adolescent) from a different dyad and calculating the wPLI connectivity values for the surrogate dyad. This was done for every possible combinations of mother and other-adolescent in each of the other dyads, resulting in 28 different surrogates for each of the 29 mothers. Overall, this resulted in 812 surrogate mother other-adolescent combinations. Then, the 28 surrogate connectivity values that were created for each mother were averaged, leading to a single, \u0026ldquo;average surrogate\u0026rdquo; for each mother.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average surrogate connectivity values were then examined relative to the data of the real dyads. The analysis was conducted using \"eelbrain\", an open source Python module for accessible statistical analysis of MEG and EEG data (v0.31.7, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://github.com/christianbrodbeck/eelbrain\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://github.com/christianbrodbeck/eelbrain\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, DOI \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5281/zenodo.598150\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5281/zenodo.598150\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). A non- parametric permutation test with mass-univariate was utilized as this test uses the distribution derived from permuting the observed scores of the data and to avoid multiple comparisons \u003csup\u003e117\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe permutation test was used to compute the F value for each of the ROI pairs in order to compare connectivity patterns between the real connectivity scores and the surrogate data. The same procedure was repeated in 1000 random permutations of the two data, shuffling the condition labels (face-to-face, control). For each permutation, the largest F value was retained to form the nonparametric estimate of the distribution under the null hypothesis that condition labels are exchangeable. The p-value was computed for each ROI pair as the proportion of permutations that yielded a comparison with a larger F value than the comparison under question. Following the permutation tests, only ROIs that reached a p-value of 0.05 or smaller are reported in the \u003cspan refid=\"Sec12\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eresults\u003c/span\u003e section.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7.3 Brain-behavior correlations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing, brain-behavior Pearson correlations were used to examine whether maternal behavior during infancy affected neural synchrony in adolescence. Here, we chose to focus on two well-known and validated constructs \u0026ndash; maternal sensitivity and maternal intrusiveness \u003csup\u003e118\u003c/sup\u003e. Consistent with previous research describing the advantage of the right hemisphere in infancy \u003csup\u003e104,119\u003c/sup\u003e, the brain-behavior correlations focused on the right hemisphere network, and were computed between the maternal behavior during the child\u0026rsquo;s infancy and the IBS connectivity values. Notably, IBS values were calculated as the increase in interbrain connectivity relative to control (wPLI of face-to-face interaction \u0026ndash; wPLI of surrogate data\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;ΔwPLI).\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Comparing neural synchrony during Face-to-face relative to surrogate data\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe first compared neural synchrony during face-to-face interaction and the control condition (surrogate data) by using nonparametric permutation test with mass-univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on one-way repeated-measures ANOVA designed to detect effects stemming from the face-to-face interaction compared to control on wPLI scores. The results revealed a significant main effect for the face-to-face condition compared to control (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.83, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.001). (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) inter-brain connections were observed in every one of the possible 16 links of the fronto-temporal network (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The greater neural synchrony in the face-to-face interaction compared to the control condition comprised four sub-groups: (a) \u003cem\u003eHomologous links between mother-child frontal and temporal regions\u003c/em\u003e (b) \u003cem\u003esame hemisphere, cross-regional links between the mother and child\u0026rsquo;s temporal and frontal regions\u003c/em\u003e (c) \u003cem\u003einter-hemispheric same-region linkage of mother and child's frontal and temporal regions\u003c/em\u003e, (d) \u003cem\u003eInter hemisphere inter-region between mother and child\u0026rsquo;s fronto-temporl network\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col style=\"list-style-type:lower-alpha;\"\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eHomologous connections between mother-adolescent frontotemporal network\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; the homolog links included the left-frontal-left-frontal link (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.8, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.36), the right-frontal-right-frontal link (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.26, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.011, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3), the left-temporal-left-temporal link (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.8, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.017, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.28), and the right-temporal-right-temporal link (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.99, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSame-hemisphere, cross-regional connections within mother-adolescent frontotemporal network \u0026ndash;\u003c/em\u003e comprised four links; two in the left hemisphere: between the mother's left frontal region and the adolescent's left temporal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.45), and the mother's left temporal region with the adolescent's left frontal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.9, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33). Two links were also found In the right hemisphere: between the mother's right frontal region and the adolescent's right temporal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.011, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3), and the mother\u0026rsquo;s right temporal region with the adolescent\u0026rsquo;s right frontal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.6, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.31).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSame-region, cross-hemisphere connections within mother \u0026ndash;adolescent frontotemporal network\u003c/em\u003e included four links: between the mother's left frontal region and the adolescent's right frontal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.9, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.016, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.28), between the mother\u0026rsquo;s right frontal and the adolescent\u0026rsquo;s left frontal region (F (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.016, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.28), between the mother\u0026rsquo;s left temporal region and the adolescent\u0026rsquo;s right temporal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.9, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.35), and between the mother\u0026rsquo;s right temporal region and the adolescent\u0026rsquo;s left temporal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.8, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.38).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eCross-region connections within mother-adolescent fronto-temporal network.\u003c/em\u003e This included four links: between the mother's left frontal region and the adolescent's right temporal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.9, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.007, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.32), between the mother's right frontal region and the adolescent's left temporal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.2, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.35), between the mother's left temporal region and the adolescent's right frontal region (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.27), and finally between the mother's right temporal region and the adolescent's left frontal region ((F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.7, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.017, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.28). (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing the findings that mother-child face-to-face interactions facilitated greater interbrain synchrony relative to control across all links, we assessed our next hypothesis on the association between maternal behavior in infancy and interbrain synchrony in adolescence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash; Mean (SD) for Face-to-face and Texting Interactions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterbrain link\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ewPLI Face-to-face (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ewPLI surrogate (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother left frontal - Child left frontal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.138 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.107 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother left frontal - Child right frontal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.134 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.106 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.016 *\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother left frontal - Child left temporal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.139 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.109 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother left frontal - Child right temporal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.136 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.109 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007 **\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother right frontal - Child left frontal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.132 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.107 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.016 *\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother right frontal - Child right frontal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.132 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.108 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011 *\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother right frontal - Child left temporal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.140 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.110 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother right frontal - Child right temporal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.135 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.110 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011 *\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother left temporal - Child left frontal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.137 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.110 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother left temporal - Child right frontal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.134 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.108 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02 *\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother left temporal - Child left temporal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.138 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.111 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.017 *\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother left temporal - Child right temporal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.134 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.109 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother right temporal - Child left frontal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.131 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.109 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.017 *\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother right temporal - Child right frontal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.138 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.109 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01 **\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother right temporal - Child left temporal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.140 (0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.110 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMother right temporal - Child right temporal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.131 (0.04)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.110 (0.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cb\u003eIncreased IBS following face to face interactions relative to control.\u003c/b\u003e Reported here are the significant interbrain links emerging following nonparametric permutation test with mass-univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) to detect differences on wPLI connectivity measures during face to face interactions relative to control. All results were corrected to accommodate multiple comparisons. Inter-brain neural synchrony was found in each link of the fronto-temporal network. *P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 **P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, ***P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Brain-behavior coupling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e3.2.1 Increase in interbrain connectivity within the right hemisphere network is related to maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocusing on the right hemisphere, we then assessed the advantage of the right hemisphere interbrain network over control (averaged across all 4 links that are specific to the right hemisphere \u0026ndash; RF-RF, RT-RT, RF-RT, RT-RF). A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed greater right network synchrony in the face-to-face interaction relative to control (F(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18.47, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.4) (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eC). Following, we investigated the association between maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness and the index of increased right hemisphere interbrain connectivity in the face-to-face condition compared to control (wPLI of face-to-face interaction \u0026ndash; wPLI control\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;ΔwPLI).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMaternal sensitivity predicts greater synchrony in the right frontotemporal interbrain network\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results revealed that the maternal sensitivity strongly correlated with the improvement in face-to-face interbrain synchrony relative to control (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.41, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.026, see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). Following this finding, we next sought to shed light on the links that sustained this correlation within the right hemisphere network in a set of post-hoc tests. Results indicate that maternal sensitivity correlated with both the right frontal homolog link (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.41, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.029) and the mother-right-frontal adolescent-right-temporal link (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.47, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01). The remaining links in the right network did not correlate with maternal sensitivity (see Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;2) (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, to evaluate the achieved power, we examined the correlation using a regression model, with the maternal sensitivity (measured when the children were 3-motths) to predict the frontotemporal IBS in the right hemisphere network. The results indicate that for effect size of \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22, with α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, and a total sample size of N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, with one predictor, the power was 0.688.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMaternal intrusiveness predicts lower synchrony in the right frontotemporal interbrain network\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results revealed that the maternal intrusiveness correlated negatively with the improvement in interbrain synchrony in the face-to-face interaction relative to control (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -0.37 \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.049) (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). Following this finding, we next sought to shed light on the links that sustained this correlation within the right network in a set of post-hoc tests, and revealed that maternal intrusiveness negatively correlated the mother-right-frontal adolescent-right-temporal link (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -0.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02). The remaining links in the right network did not correlate with maternal intrusiveness (see Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;3) (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThen, to evaluate the achieved power, we examined the correlation using a regression model. The results indicate that for effect size of \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.16, with α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, and a total sample size of N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, with one predictor, the power was 0.55.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCross-hemisphere frontotemporal connections associated with maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, based on the findings described by Endelvalt-Shapira \u0026amp; Feldman (2023), who revealed that the mother-left-frontal infant-right-temporal connection correlated negatively with maternal intrusiveness in real-life interactions, the same link has been evaluated in our study. The results indicated that in our study the mother-left-frontal child-right-temporal link also correlated negatively with maternal intrusiveness (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -0.49 \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.007). The same cross-hemisphere connection also correlated positively with maternal sensitivity (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.42 \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.022), (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eMaternal care provides the basis for the child's future development, well-being, social competencies, and brain functioning \u003csup\u003e1,2,120\u0026ndash;122\u003c/sup\u003e. However, despite research on interbrain synchrony flourishing in the last decade, the current study is the first to describe the association between early caregiving and the maturation of interbrain synchrony, that have been proposed as a key mechanism for joint cognitive processes \u003csup\u003e123,124\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral important findings are highlighted by our data. First, consistent with previous literature on mother-child interbrain synchrony from infancy to adulthood \u003csup\u003e68,69,71,77,79\u0026ndash;81,125\u003c/sup\u003e, we found a significant synchrony between mother and child's brain in frontotemporal regions, as indexed by an increase in interbrain synchrony between mother and child in the frontotemporal network during free interaction relative to a control condition. The face-to-face naturalistic interaction tightened a frontotemporal interbrain network that increased the connectivity in each of the 16 possible combinations of connections between mother and child's brains; homologous same-region-same-hemisphere connections, same-hemisphere-different-region connections, same-region-different-hemisphere connections, and frontal-to-temporal or temporal-to-frontal different hemisphere connections.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, results point to the long-term associations between the main maternal caregiving orientations in infancy described in the literature and interbrain synchrony in adolescence. Maternal sensitivity in infancy was associated with the degree of improvement in neural synchrony in the right hemisphere frontotemporal network; more attuned caregiving to the infant's cues linked with greater neural synchrony 12 years later. This brain-behavior link was specific to the partners' right hemisphere and was facilitated by two important connections. The first is the mother-child right-frontal-right-frontal connection, a link that has been found in multiple studies of parent‒child interbrain synchrony \u003csup\u003e65,80,126\u003c/sup\u003e. The second is the connection between the mother\u0026rsquo;s right-frontal region and the adolescent\u0026rsquo;s right-temporal region, a link that is consistent with previous mother-child interbrain studies \u003csup\u003e80,93\u003c/sup\u003e. These findings point to the possibility that sensitivity and intrusiveness may have lingering effects on children's capacity for interbrain synchrony, particularly of the right hemisphere.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe two hemispheres are known to exhibit asymmetrical involvement in various cognitive processes, with such lateralization enabling the right hemisphere to specialize in distinct functions \u003csup\u003e95\u0026ndash;102,127\u003c/sup\u003e. The right hemisphere's advantage in processing non-verbal cues is evident early in life: infants aged 2\u0026ndash;3 months demonstrate right hemispheric activation in response to women's faces \u003csup\u003e128\u003c/sup\u003e, and by 6 months they show a greater activation in the right fronto-temporal cortex following exposure their mother's face relative to unknown faces \u003csup\u003e129\u003c/sup\u003e. Notably, such right-hemisphere advantage extends beyond the visual system, as words spoken with emotional over neutral prosody elicited greater right temporal response in 7-month old infants \u003csup\u003e130\u003c/sup\u003e. These findings support the hypothesis that the right hemisphere specializes in the interpretation of non-verbal cues. This hypothesis is further supported by evidence that right hemisphere damage impairs the ability to recognize and interpret emotional expressions and signals \u003csup\u003e131\u003c/sup\u003e and to understand and produce the emotional tone of speech \u003csup\u003e132,133\u003c/sup\u003e. These non-verbal social signals are critical for understanding social interactions and play an important role in emotional and attentional processes (for review see Hartikainen, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn line with these findings, the right-hemisphere lateralized network is crucial for various social functions, including empathy \u003csup\u003e135\u003c/sup\u003e, emotional processing \u003csup\u003e136,137\u003c/sup\u003e, theory of mind \u003csup\u003e138\u003c/sup\u003e, and understanding others \u003csup\u003e139\u003c/sup\u003e. The right hemisphere has been proposed to be a pivotal center for interpersonal emotional communication, particularly in early infancy when the non-verbal emotional interactions between the mother-infant dyad take place \u003csup\u003e137\u003c/sup\u003e. This pre-verbal communication relies on facial emotional expressions, gestures, and prosody, which collectively provide the groundwork for attachment formation. Through sensitive caregiving, in which mother monitors and adjusts her behavior to the infant's emotional state, the mother can regulate the infant\u0026rsquo;s emotions, a process that depends on the aforementioned right-hemispheric functions of both individuals. Over time, these mother-infant social interactions facilitate the maturation of the infant's social and emotional functions, including the brain regions and networks that support these functions, such as the right TPJ \u003csup\u003e140\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings may suggest that the joint activation of the right-hemisphere network begins in early infancy and extends into adolescence. Possibly, the maternal right brain influences the development of the infant's right brain, resulting in a consistent pattern of right-lateralized processing years after infancy. This pattern is dependent on the mother's ability to respond to and regulate the child's brain throughout development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, our findings underscore the centrality of right frontal areas to mother-child interbrain coupling and their association with maternal sensitivity. The frontal-frontal connection between parents and children have been well-established across multiple studies using both hyperscanning EEG and fNIRS methodologies. Mother-child fNIRS studies reported right frontal-frontal synchrony during recovery as compared to a frustration task (Qui\u0026ntilde;ones-Camacho et al., 2020), during cooperation tasks (Miller et al., 2019), and in both cooperation and competition tasks \u003csup\u003e126\u003c/sup\u003e. In addition, mother-child dyads exhibited greater right frontal-frontal synchrony as compared to stranger-child dyads in both competition and cooperation tasks \u003csup\u003e141\u003c/sup\u003e. The frontal areas implicate higher-order social functions, including social cognition, mental state knowledge, and social decision-making \u003csup\u003e142,143\u003c/sup\u003e, abilities that are known to develop in the context of maternal care \u003csup\u003e144\u003c/sup\u003e. Overall, our findings add to the existing literature and suggest that the mother\u0026rsquo;s frontal areas play an important role in monitoring, adjusting, and regulating the two-brain dynamics with her child and adjust in real-time to the child's signals and needs. This tunes the developing brain to social life, partly through interbrain synchrony mechanisms \u003csup\u003e49,145\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings indicate interbrain synchrony of beta rhythms. This aligns with extensive research pointing to the crucial role of beta rhythm in parent-child interactions and attachment processes \u003csup\u003e61,80,93,107,108\u003c/sup\u003e. Beta rhythms are also involved in higher social functions related to the frontotemporal network and to right-hemisphere functions, including empathy \u003csup\u003e146\u003c/sup\u003e, mentalization \u003csup\u003e147\u003c/sup\u003e, the prediction of others' behavior \u003csup\u003e148\u003c/sup\u003e, and active information processing \u003csup\u003e149\u003c/sup\u003e. Consistent with the theory that mothers adjust their behavior in real-time to match their child's cues and regulate the child through sensitive caregiving, the beta frequency is further linked with continuous adaptation and updating of predictions \u003csup\u003e150\u003c/sup\u003e. Overall, we propose that the neural synchrony in the beta frequency observed here may be related to the ongoing adaptation and mutual adjustment of the mother-child dyad, processes that are essential for interbrain coordination \u003csup\u003e151\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross the development from infancy to adolescence the brain undergoes significant changes, particularly in regions involved in social functions, such as the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS) \u003csup\u003e152\u003c/sup\u003e. In our study, we identified a network of interconnections between the mother\u0026rsquo;s and child\u0026rsquo;s right and left frontal and temporal regions in various combinations. Their joint activations across a variety of connection suggests that this frontotemporal network supports joint socio-cognitive functions \u003csup\u003e91,92\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite the rapid maturation and changes these regions experience during adolescence, we found that the neural coherence of the dyad correlated with maternal behaviors measured years earlier. Our findings are consistent with previous hyperscanning studies that have reported frontal-temporal neural synchrony during social interactions (P\u0026eacute;rez et al., 2017; Schwartz et al., 2022; Tang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2017), and further extend the existing literature by showing that increased connectivity in the right frontotemporal network during face-to-face interactions could be predicted by maternal behavior measured many years earlier.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations of the study should be noted. First, we base our findings on a relatively small sample. Although the uniqueness of our study lies in the longitudinal follow-up of over 12 years, future longitudinal studies are needed to validate the findings in larger samples. Studies should also examine the longitudinal impact of fathering and of early difficulties to bonding, in conditions such as postpartum depression, premature birth, or environmental adversity. Our study points to the potential enduring effects of early maternal behavior on the development of interbrain synchrony processes. Much further research is needed to explore these longitudinal links and shed light on the mechanisms by which maternal behavior tunes the child's brain to the social world.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eLS -conceptualization, study design, wrote the main manuscript, performed statistical analysis, and run the experiment at timepoint 2.OH - conceptualization, study design, wrote the main manuscript, performed statistical analysis, and run the experiment at timepoint 2. J. L - Conceptualization, experimental designI. G - Conceptualization, study design, running experiment at timepoint 1R. F - Conceptualization, writing, study design, statistical analysis, supervision\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data generated during the current study are not publicly available due to participants' privacy but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. \u0026amp; Eidelman, A. I. Biological and environmental initial conditions shape the trajectories of cognitive and social-emotional development across the first years of life. \u003cem\u003eDev. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 194\u0026ndash;200 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Der Voort, A., Juffer, F. \u0026amp; J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. Sensitive parenting is the foundation for secure attachment relationships and positive social-emotional development of children. \u003cem\u003eJ. Child. Serv.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 165\u0026ndash;176 (2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLugo‐Gil, J. \u0026amp; Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S. Family resources and parenting quality: Links to children\u0026rsquo;s cognitive development across the first 3 years. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e79\u003c/strong\u003e, 1065\u0026ndash;1085 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoehlmann, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Preterm infants who are prone to distress: differential effects of parenting on 36‐month behavioral and cognitive outcomes. \u003cem\u003eJ. Child Psychol. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e53\u003c/strong\u003e, 1018\u0026ndash;1025 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRankin Williams, L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Impact of behavioral inhibition and parenting style on internalizing and externalizing problems from early childhood through adolescence. \u003cem\u003eJ. Abnorm. Child Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e, 1063\u0026ndash;1075 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKok, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Normal variation in early parental sensitivity predicts child structural brain development. \u003cem\u003eJ. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e54\u003c/strong\u003e, 824\u0026ndash;831 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSethna, V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Mother\u0026ndash;infant interactions and regional brain volumes in infancy: an MRI study. \u003cem\u003eBrain Struct. Funct.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e222\u003c/strong\u003e, 2379\u0026ndash;2388 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraham, A. M., Pfeifer, J. H., Fisher, P. A., Carpenter, S. \u0026amp; Fair, D. A. Early life stress is associated with default system integrity and emotionality during infancy. \u003cem\u003eJ. Child Psychol. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e56\u003c/strong\u003e, 1212\u0026ndash;1222 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD\u0026eacute;geilh, F., Bernier, A., Leblanc, \u0026Eacute;., Daneault, V. \u0026amp; Beauchamp, M. H. Quality of maternal behaviour during infancy predicts functional connectivity between default mode network and salience network 9 years later. \u003cem\u003eDev. Cogn. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e34\u003c/strong\u003e, 53\u0026ndash;62 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAinsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E. \u0026amp; Wall, S. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. (1978).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBigelow, A. E. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Maternal sensitivity throughout infancy: Continuity and relation to attachment security. \u003cem\u003eInfant Behav. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e33\u003c/strong\u003e, 50\u0026ndash;60 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBehrens, K. Y., Hart, S. L. \u0026amp; Parker, A. C. Maternal sensitivity: Evidence of stability across time, contexts, and measurement instruments. \u003cem\u003eInfant Child Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e21\u003c/strong\u003e, 348\u0026ndash;355 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. \u0026amp; Eidelman, A. I. Parent-infant synchrony and the social-emotional development of triplets. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e40\u003c/strong\u003e, 1133\u0026ndash;1147 (2004).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKivij\u0026auml;rvi, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Maternal sensitivity behavior and infant behavior in early interaction. \u003cem\u003eInfant Ment. Heal. J. Off. Publ. World Assoc. Infant Ment. Heal.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e, 627\u0026ndash;640 (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsabella, R. A. \u0026amp; Belsky, J. Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant‐mother attachment: A replication study. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e62\u003c/strong\u003e, 373\u0026ndash;384 (1991).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. \u0026amp; Juffer, F. Less is more: meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Bull.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e129\u003c/strong\u003e, 195 (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaker, J. K., Messinger, D. S., Lyons, K. K. \u0026amp; Grantz, C. J. A pilot study of maternal sensitivity in the context of emergent autism. \u003cem\u003eJ. Autism Dev. Disord.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e40\u003c/strong\u003e, 988\u0026ndash;999 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtkinson, L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Maternal sensitivity and infant and mother adrenocortical function across challenges. \u003cem\u003ePsychoneuroendocrinology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e38\u003c/strong\u003e, 2943\u0026ndash;2951 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNievar, M. A. \u0026amp; Becker, B. J. Sensitivity as a privileged predictor of attachment: A second perspective on De Wolff and van IJzendoorn\u0026rsquo;s meta‐analysis. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, 102\u0026ndash;114 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJaffee, S. R. Sensitive, stimulating caregiving predicts cognitive and behavioral resilience in neurodevelopmentally at-risk infants. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychopathol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 631\u0026ndash;647 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcElwain, N. L. \u0026amp; Booth-LaForce, C. Maternal sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress as predictors of infant-mother attachment security. \u003cem\u003eJ. Fam. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e, 247 (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoran, G., Forbes, L., Evans, E., Tarabulsy, G. M. \u0026amp; Madigan, S. Both maternal sensitivity and atypical maternal behavior independently predict attachment security and disorganization in adolescent mother\u0026ndash;infant relationships. \u003cem\u003eInfant Behav. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 321\u0026ndash;325 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchoenmaker, C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e From maternal sensitivity in infancy to adult attachment representations: A longitudinal adoption study with secure base scripts. \u003cem\u003eAttach. Hum. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, 241\u0026ndash;256 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStams, G.-J. J. M., Juffer, F. \u0026amp; Van IJzendoorn, M. H. Maternal sensitivity, infant attachment, and temperament in early childhood predict adjustment in middle childhood: the case of adopted children and their biologically unrelated parents. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e38\u003c/strong\u003e, 806 (2002).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaby, K. L., Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C. \u0026amp; Simpson, J. A. The enduring predictive significance of early maternal sensitivity: Social and academic competence through age 32 years. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e86\u003c/strong\u003e, 695\u0026ndash;708 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJaffari-Bimmel, N., Juffer, F., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. \u0026amp; Mooijaart, A. Social development from infancy to adolescence: longitudinal and concurrent factors in an adoption sample. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 1143 (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. \u0026amp; Masalha, S. Parent-Child and Triadic Antecedents of Children\u0026rsquo;s Social Competence: Cultural Specificity, Shared Process. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e46\u003c/strong\u003e, 455\u0026ndash;467 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlandon, A. Y. \u0026amp; Scrimgeour, M. B. Child, parenting, and situational characteristics associated with toddlers\u0026rsquo; prosocial behaviour. \u003cem\u003eInfant Child Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e, 643\u0026ndash;660 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBouvette-Turcot, A.-A., Bernier, A. \u0026amp; Leblanc, \u0026Eacute;. Maternal psychosocial maladjustment and child internalizing symptoms: Investigating the modulating role of maternal sensitivity. \u003cem\u003eJ. Abnorm. Child Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e45\u003c/strong\u003e, 157\u0026ndash;170 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradley, R. H. \u0026amp; Corwyn, R. F. Externalizing problems in fifth grade: relations with productive activity, maternal sensitivity, and harsh parenting from infancy through middle childhood. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e, 1390 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Voort, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The development of adolescents\u0026rsquo; internalizing behavior: Longitudinal effects of maternal sensitivity and child inhibition. \u003cem\u003eJ. Youth Adolesc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e, 528\u0026ndash;540 (2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeerkes, E. M., Blankson, A. N. \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Brien, M. Differential effects of maternal sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress on social‐emotional functioning. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e80\u003c/strong\u003e, 762\u0026ndash;775 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaw, D. S., Keenan, K. \u0026amp; Vondra, J. I. Developmental precursors of externalizing behavior: Ages 1 to 3. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e, 355 (1994).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I. \u0026amp; Haltigan, J. D. The legacy of early experiences in development: formalizing alternative models of how early experiences are carried forward over time. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e, 109 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBernier, A., Carlson, S. M. \u0026amp; Whipple, N. From external regulation to self‐regulation: Early parenting precursors of young children\u0026rsquo;s executive functioning. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e81\u003c/strong\u003e, 326\u0026ndash;339 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFearon, R. M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e In search of shared and nonshared environmental factors in security of attachment: a behavior-genetic study of the association between sensitivity and attachment security. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 1026 (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. The relational basis of adolescent adjustment: Trajectories of mother-child interactive behaviors from infancy to adolescence shape adolescents\u0026rsquo; adaptation. \u003cem\u003eAttach. Hum. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 173\u0026ndash;192 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYirmiya, K., Motsan, S., Zagoory-Sharon, O. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Human attachment triggers different social buffering mechanisms under high and low early life stress rearing. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Psychophysiol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e152\u003c/strong\u003e, 72\u0026ndash;80 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEgeland, B., Pianta, R. \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;brien, M. A. Maternal intrusiveness in infancy and child maladaptation in early school years. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychopathol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, 359\u0026ndash;370 (1993).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIspa, J. M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Maternal intrusiveness, maternal warmth, and mother\u0026ndash;toddler relationship outcomes: Variations across low‐income ethnic and acculturation groups. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e75\u003c/strong\u003e, 1613\u0026ndash;1631 (2004).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEgeland, B. \u0026amp; Farber, E. A. Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its development and changes over time. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 753\u0026ndash;771 (1984).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A. \u0026amp; Egeland, B. The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. \u003cem\u003eMonogr. Soc. Res. child Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 147\u0026ndash;166 (1985).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhiteside-Mansell, L., Bradley, R. H., Owen, M. T., Randolph, S. M. \u0026amp; Cauce, A. M. Parenting and children\u0026rsquo;s behavior at 36 months: Equivalence between African American and European American mother-child dyads. \u003cem\u003eParent. Sci. Pract.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, 197\u0026ndash;234 (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGranat, A., Gadassi, R., Gilboa-Schechtman, E. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Maternal depression and anxiety, social synchrony, and infant regulation of negative and positive emotions. \u003cem\u003eEmotion\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, 11 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBroomell, A. P. R., Smith, C. L., Calkins, S. D. \u0026amp; Bell, M. A. Context of maternal intrusiveness during infancy and associations with preschool executive function. \u003cem\u003eInfant Child Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e29\u003c/strong\u003e, e2162 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraziano, P. A., Keane, S. P. \u0026amp; Calkins, S. D. Maternal behaviour and children\u0026rsquo;s early emotion regulation skills differentially predict development of children\u0026rsquo;s reactive control and later effortful control. \u003cem\u003eInfant Child Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 333\u0026ndash;353 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConway, L. J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Maternal communicative behaviours and interaction quality as predictors of language development: Findings from a community‐based study of slow‐to‐talk toddlers. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Lang. Commun. Disord.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e53\u003c/strong\u003e, 339\u0026ndash;354 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUlmer-Yaniv, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Synchronous caregiving from birth to adulthood tunes humans\u0026rsquo; social brain. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e118\u003c/strong\u003e, (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. Social Behavior as a Transdiagnostic Marker of Resilience. \u003cem\u003eAnnu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, 153\u0026ndash;180 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilgrom, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Early sensitivity training for parents of preterm infants: impact on the developing brain. \u003cem\u003ePediatr. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e67\u003c/strong\u003e, 330\u0026ndash;335 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEndevelt-Shapira, Y. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Mother\u0026ndash;Infant Brain-to-Brain Synchrony Patterns Reflect Caregiving Profiles. \u003cem\u003eBiology (Basel).\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 284 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoutsiana, C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Insecure attachment during infancy predicts greater amygdala volumes in early adulthood. \u003cem\u003eJ. Child Psychol. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e56\u003c/strong\u003e, 540\u0026ndash;548 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRifkin-Graboi, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Maternal sensitivity, infant limbic structure volume and functional connectivity: a preliminary study. \u003cem\u003eTransl. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, e668\u0026ndash;e668 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLupien, S. J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Larger amygdala but no change in hippocampal volume in 10-year-old children exposed to maternal depressive symptomatology since birth. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e108\u003c/strong\u003e, 14324\u0026ndash;14329 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhittle, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Positive parenting predicts the development of adolescent brain structure: A longitudinal study. \u003cem\u003eDev. Cogn. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 7\u0026ndash;17 (2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBernier, A., Calkins, S. D. \u0026amp; Bell, M. A. Longitudinal associations between the quality of mother\u0026ndash;infant interactions and brain development across infancy. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e87\u003c/strong\u003e, 1159\u0026ndash;1174 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuby, J. L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Maternal support in early childhood predicts larger hippocampal volumes at school age. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e109\u003c/strong\u003e, 2854\u0026ndash;2859 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBernier, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Mother\u0026ndash;infant interaction and child brain morphology: A multidimensional approach to maternal sensitivity. \u003cem\u003eInfancy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e, 120\u0026ndash;138 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUlmer-Yaniv, A., Waidergoren, S., Shaked, A., Salomon, R. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Neural representation of the parent\u0026ndash;child attachment from infancy to adulthood. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, 609\u0026ndash;624 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevy, J., Goldstein, A. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. The neural development of empathy is sensitive to caregiving and early trauma. \u003cem\u003eNat. Commun.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 1905 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePratt, M., Goldstein, A. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Child brain exhibits a multi-rhythmic response to attachment cues. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e, 957\u0026ndash;966 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePratt, M., Goldstein, A., Levy, J. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Maternal Depression Across the First Years of Life Impacts the Neural Basis of Empathy in Preadolescence. \u003cem\u003eJ. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e56\u003c/strong\u003e, 20-29.e3 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeev-Wolf, M., Levy, J., Goldstein, A., Zagoory-Sharon, O. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Chronic Early Stress Impairs Default Mode Network Connectivity in Preadolescents and Their Mothers. \u003cem\u003eBiol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 72\u0026ndash;80 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeev-Wolf, M., Dor-Ziderman, Y., Pratt, M., Goldstein, A. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Investigating default mode network connectivity disruption in children of mothers with depression. \u003cem\u003eBr. J. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e220\u003c/strong\u003e, 130\u0026ndash;139 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReindl, V., Gerloff, C., Scharke, W. \u0026amp; Konrad, K. Brain-to-brain synchrony in parent-child dyads and the relationship with emotion regulation revealed by fNIRS-based hyperscanning. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e178\u003c/strong\u003e, 493\u0026ndash;502 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCzeszumski, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Hyperscanning: A Valid Method to Study Neural Inter-brain Underpinnings of Social Interaction. \u003cem\u003eFront. Hum. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;17 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarkova, G., Nguyen, T. \u0026amp; Hoehl, S. Neurobehavioral interpersonal synchrony in early development: The role of interactional rhythms. \u003cem\u003eFront. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 2078 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEndevelt-Shapira, Y., Djalovski, A., Dumas, G. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Maternal chemosignals enhance infant-adult brain-to-brain synchrony. \u003cem\u003eSci. Adv.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;12 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReindl, V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Multimodal hyperscanning reveals that synchrony of body and mind are distinct in mother-child dyads. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e251\u003c/strong\u003e, 118982 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKinreich, S., Djalovski, A., Kraus, L., Louzoun, Y. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Brain-to-Brain Synchrony during Naturalistic Social Interactions. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;12 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDjalovski, A., Dumas, G., Kinreich, S. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Human attachments shape interbrain synchrony toward efficient performance of social goals. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e226\u003c/strong\u003e, 117600 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, Y., Meng, T., Hou, Y., Pan, Y. \u0026amp; Hu, Y. Interpersonal brain synchronization associated with working alliance during psychological counseling. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatry Res. - Neuroimaging\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e282\u003c/strong\u003e, 103\u0026ndash;109 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, T., Zimmer, L. \u0026amp; Hoehl, S. Your turn, my turn. Neural synchrony in mother\u0026ndash;infant proto-conversation. \u003cem\u003ePhilos. Trans. R. Soc. B\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e378\u003c/strong\u003e, 20210488 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQui\u0026ntilde;ones-Camacho, L. E., Hoyniak, C. P., Wakschlag, L. S. \u0026amp; Perlman, S. B. Getting in synch: Unpacking the role of parent\u0026ndash;child synchrony in the development of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychopathol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e34\u003c/strong\u003e, 1901\u0026ndash;1913 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorgan, J. K. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Mother\u0026ndash;child neural synchronization is time linked to mother\u0026ndash;child positive affective state matching. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e, nsad001 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAzhari, A., Bizzego, A. \u0026amp; Esposito, G. Parent\u0026ndash;child dyads with greater parenting stress exhibit less synchrony in posterior areas and more synchrony in frontal areas of the prefrontal cortex during shared play. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, 520\u0026ndash;531 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, T. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The effects of interaction quality on neural synchrony during mother-child problem solving. \u003cem\u003eCortex\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e124\u003c/strong\u003e, 235\u0026ndash;249 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoyniak, C. P. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Adversity is Linked with Decreased Parent-Child Behavioral and Neural Synchrony. \u003cem\u003eDev. Cogn. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e48\u003c/strong\u003e, (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, T., Kungl, M. T., Hoehl, S., White, L. O. \u0026amp; Vrtička, P. Visualizing the invisible tie: Linking parent\u0026ndash;child neural synchrony to parents\u0026rsquo; and children\u0026rsquo;s attachment representations. \u003cem\u003eDev. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 1\u0026ndash;17 (2024) doi:10.1111/desc.13504.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwartz, L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Technologically-assisted communication attenuates inter-brain synchrony. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e264\u003c/strong\u003e, 119677 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, J. G. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Inter-brain synchrony in mother-child dyads during cooperation: An fNIRS hyperscanning study. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychologia\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e124\u003c/strong\u003e, 117\u0026ndash;124 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoah, J. A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Real-Time Eye-to-Eye Contact Is Associated With Cross-Brain Neural Coupling in Angular Gyrus. \u003cem\u003eFront. Hum. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;10 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirsch, J., Zhang, X., Noah, J. A. \u0026amp; Ono, Y. Frontal temporal and parietal systems synchronize within and across brains during live eye-to-eye contact. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e157\u003c/strong\u003e, 314\u0026ndash;330 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoike, T., Sumiya, M., Nakagawa, E., Okazaki, S. \u0026amp; Sadato, N. What makes eye contact special? Neural substrates of on-line mutual eye-gaze: A hyperscanning fMRI study. \u003cem\u003eeNeuro\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeong, V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Speaker gaze increases information coupling between infant and adult brains. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e114\u003c/strong\u003e, 13290\u0026ndash;13295 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiazza, E. A., Hasenfratz, L., Hasson, U. \u0026amp; Lew-Williams, C. Infant and Adult Brains Are Coupled to the Dynamics of Natural Communication. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 6\u0026ndash;17 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDikker, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Crowdsourcing neuroscience: Inter-brain coupling during face-to-face interactions outside the laboratory. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e227\u003c/strong\u003e, (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. The Neurobiology of Human Attachments. \u003cem\u003eTrends Cogn. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e21\u003c/strong\u003e, 80\u0026ndash;99 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. What is resilience: an affiliative neuroscience approach. \u003cem\u003eWorld Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 132\u0026ndash;150 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. The neurobiology of mammalian parenting and the biosocial context of human caregiving. \u003cem\u003eHorm. Behav.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e77\u003c/strong\u003e, 3\u0026ndash;17 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrith, U. \u0026amp; Frith, C. The biological basis of social interaction. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 151\u0026ndash;155 (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHastings, P. D., Miller, J. G., Kahle, S. \u0026amp; Zahn-Waxler, C. \u003cem\u003eThe neurobiological bases of empathic concern for others\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Moral Development, Second Edition\u003c/em\u003e (2013). doi:10.4324/9780203581957.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwartz, L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Generation WhatsApp: inter-brain synchrony during face-to-face and texting communication. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;14 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGainotti, G. Emotional behavior and hemispheric side of the lesion. \u003cem\u003eCortex\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 41\u0026ndash;55 (1972).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNomura, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Functional association of the amygdala and ventral prefrontal cortex during cognitive evaluation of facial expressions primed by masked angry faces: an event-related fMRI study. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e21\u003c/strong\u003e, 352\u0026ndash;363 (2004).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDimberg, U. L. F. \u0026amp; Petterson, M. Facial reactions to happy and angry facial expressions: Evidence for right hemisphere dominance. \u003cem\u003ePsychophysiology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e, 693\u0026ndash;696 (2000).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSato, W. \u0026amp; Aoki, S. Right hemispheric dominance in processing of unconscious negative emotion. \u003cem\u003eBrain Cogn.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e62\u003c/strong\u003e, 261\u0026ndash;266 (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCostafreda, S. G., Brammer, M. J., David, A. S. \u0026amp; Fu, C. H. Y. Predictors of amygdala activation during the processing of emotional stimuli: a meta-analysis of 385 PET and fMRI studies. \u003cem\u003eBrain Res. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e58\u003c/strong\u003e, 57\u0026ndash;70 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBalconi, M. \u0026amp; Lucchiari, C. Consciousness and arousal effects on emotional face processing as revealed by brain oscillations. A gamma band analysis. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Psychophysiol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e67\u003c/strong\u003e, 41\u0026ndash;46 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHung, Y. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Unattended emotional faces elicit early lateralized amygdala\u0026ndash;frontal and fusiform activations. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e50\u003c/strong\u003e, 727\u0026ndash;733 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoes, A. D. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Right ventromedial prefrontal cortex: a neuroanatomical correlate of impulse control in boys. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;9 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Aacute;lvarez-Fern\u0026aacute;ndez, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Emotional processing in patients with single brain damage in the right hemisphere. \u003cem\u003eBMC Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, 8 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeschwind, A. \u0026amp; Galaburda, M. Cerebral lateralization. Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: I. A hypothesis and a program for research. \u003cem\u003eArch. Neurol\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 428\u0026ndash;459 (1985).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChiron, C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The right brain hemisphere is dominant in human infants. \u003cem\u003eBrain a J. Neurol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e120\u003c/strong\u003e, 1057\u0026ndash;1065 (1997).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTanaka, C., Matsui, M., Uematsu, A., Noguchi, K. \u0026amp; Miyawaki, T. Developmental trajectories of the fronto-temporal lobes from infancy to early adulthood in healthy individuals. \u003cem\u003eDev. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e34\u003c/strong\u003e, 477\u0026ndash;487 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUda, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Normal development of human brain white matter from infancy to early adulthood: a diffusion tensor imaging study. \u003cem\u003eDev. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e, 182\u0026ndash;194 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHern\u0026aacute;ndez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, M., Hidalgo-Aguirre, R. M., Guevara, M. A., P\u0026eacute;rez-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, M. \u0026amp; Amezcua-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez, C. Observing videos of a baby crying or smiling induces similar, but not identical, electroencephalographic responses in biological and adoptive mothers. \u003cem\u003eInfant Behav. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;10 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKringelbach, M. L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e A specific and rapid neural signature for parental instinct. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCiaramidaro, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Multiple-Brain Connectivity during Third Party Punishment: An EEG Hyperscanning Study. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;13 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJas, M., Engemann, D. A., Bekhti, Y., Raimondo, F. \u0026amp; Gramfort, A. Autoreject: Automated artifact rejection for MEG and EEG data. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e159\u003c/strong\u003e, 417\u0026ndash;429 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eViola, F. C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Semi-automatic identification of independent components representing EEG artifact. \u003cem\u003eClin. Neurophysiol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e120\u003c/strong\u003e, 868\u0026ndash;877 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevy, J., Goldstein, A. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Perception of social synchrony induces mother-child gamma coupling in the social brain. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 1036\u0026ndash;1046 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J. \u0026amp; Garnero, L. Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAzhari, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Parenting Stress Undermines Mother-Child Brain-to-Brain Synchrony: A Hyperscanning Study. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;9 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. Coding Interactive Behavior (CIB) Manual. (1998).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, T., B\u0026aacute;nki, A., Markova, G. \u0026amp; Hoehl, S. Studying parent-child interaction with hyperscanning. \u003cem\u003eProg. Brain Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e254\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;24 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaris, E. \u0026amp; Oostenveld, R. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. \u003cem\u003eJ. Neurosci. Methods\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e164\u003c/strong\u003e, 177\u0026ndash;190 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. Parenting behavior as the environment where children grow. (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLema\u0026icirc;tre, H. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Rest functional brain maturation during the first year of life. \u003cem\u003eCereb. Cortex\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 1776\u0026ndash;1785 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. Parent\u0026ndash;infant synchrony: Biological foundations and developmental outcomes. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 340\u0026ndash;345 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHari, R., Henriksson, L., Malinen, S. \u0026amp; Parkkonen, L. Centrality of Social Interaction in Human Brain Function. \u003cem\u003eNeuron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e88\u003c/strong\u003e, 181\u0026ndash;193 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHasson, U., Ghazanfar, A. A., Galantucci, B., Garrod, S. \u0026amp; Keysers, C. Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. \u003cem\u003eTrends Cogn. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 114\u0026ndash;121 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWard, L. M. Synchronous neural oscillations and cognitive processes. \u003cem\u003eTrends Cogn. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, 553\u0026ndash;559 (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalva, J. M., Palva, S. \u0026amp; Kaila, K. Phase synchrony among neuronal oscillations in the human cortex. \u003cem\u003eJ. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e, 3962\u0026ndash;3972 (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQui\u0026ntilde;ones-Camacho, L. E. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Parent\u0026ndash;child neural synchrony: a novel approach to elucidating dyadic correlates of preschool irritability. \u003cem\u003eJ. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e61\u003c/strong\u003e, 1213\u0026ndash;1223 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKruppa, J. A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Brain and motor synchrony in children and adolescents with ASD - A fNIRS hyperscanning study. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 103\u0026ndash;116 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGazzaniga, M. S. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? \u003cem\u003eBrain\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e123\u003c/strong\u003e, 1293\u0026ndash;1326 (2000).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTzourio-Mazoyer, N. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Neural correlates of woman face processing by 2-month-old infants. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e, 454\u0026ndash;461 (2002).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarlsson, J., Lagercrantz, H., Olson, L., Printz, G. \u0026amp; Bartocci, M. Activation of the right fronto‐temporal cortex during maternal facial recognition in young infants. \u003cem\u003eActa Paediatr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e97\u003c/strong\u003e, 1221\u0026ndash;1225 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrossmann, T., Oberecker, R., Koch, S. P. \u0026amp; Friederici, A. D. The developmental origins of voice processing in the human brain. \u003cem\u003eNeuron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e65\u003c/strong\u003e, 852\u0026ndash;858 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorod, J. C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Right hemisphere emotional perception: evidence across multiple channels. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 446 (1998).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoss, E. D. \u0026amp; Monnot, M. Affective prosody: What do comprehension errors tell us about hemispheric lateralization of emotions, sex and aging effects, and the role of cognitive appraisal. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychologia\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e, 866\u0026ndash;877 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuranski, K. \u0026amp; Podemski, R. Emotional prosody expression in acoustic analysis in patients with right hemisphere ischemic stroke. \u003cem\u003eNeurol. Neurochir. Pol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e, 113\u0026ndash;120 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHartikainen, K. M. Emotion-attention interaction in the right hemisphere. \u003cem\u003eBrain Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, 1006 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson, P. L., Brunet, E., Meltzoff, A. N. \u0026amp; Decety, J. Empathy examined through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychologia\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e44\u003c/strong\u003e, 752\u0026ndash;761 (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLettieri, G. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Emotionotopy in the human right temporo-parietal cortex. \u003cem\u003eNat. Commun.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 5568 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchore, A. N. The interpersonal neurobiology of intersubjectivity. \u003cem\u003eFront. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 648616 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaxe, R. \u0026amp; Wexler, A. Making sense of another mind: the role of the right temporo-parietal junction. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychologia\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e, 1391\u0026ndash;1399 (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaxe, R. Uniquely human social cognition. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Opin. Neurobiol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 235\u0026ndash;239 (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVrtička, P. \u0026amp; Vuilleumier, P. Neuroscience of human social interactions and adult attachment style. \u003cem\u003eFront. Hum. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 212 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReindl, V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Multimodal hyperscanning reveals that synchrony of body and mind are distinct in mother-child dyads. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e251\u003c/strong\u003e, 118982 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmodio, D. M. \u0026amp; Frith, C. D. Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and social cognition. \u003cem\u003eNat. Rev. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, 268\u0026ndash;277 (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRilling, J. K. \u0026amp; Sanfey, A. G. The neuroscience of social decision-making. \u003cem\u003eAnnu. Rev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e62\u003c/strong\u003e, 23\u0026ndash;48 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonroy, E., Hern\u0026aacute;ndez-Torres, E. \u0026amp; Flores, G. Maternal separation disrupts dendritic morphology of neurons in prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and nucleus accumbens in male rat offspring. \u003cem\u003eJ. Chem. Neuroanat.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e40\u003c/strong\u003e, 93\u0026ndash;101 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R. The adaptive human parental brain: Implications for children\u0026rsquo;s social development. \u003cem\u003eTrends Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e38\u003c/strong\u003e, 387\u0026ndash;399 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevy, J., Goldstein, A., Pratt, M. \u0026amp; Feldman, R. Maturation of pain empathy from child to adult shifts from single to multiple neural rhythms to support interoceptive representations. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;9 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoto-Icaza, P., Vargas, L., Aboitiz, F. \u0026amp; Billeke, P. Beta oscillations precede joint attention and correlate with mentalization in typical development and autism. \u003cem\u003eCortex\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e113\u003c/strong\u003e, 210\u0026ndash;228 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoelewijn, T., van Schie, H. T., Bekkering, H., Oostenveld, R. \u0026amp; Jensen, O. Motor-cortical beta oscillations are modulated by correctness of observed action. \u003cem\u003eNeuroimage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e40\u003c/strong\u003e, 767\u0026ndash;775 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonner, T. H. \u0026amp; Siegel, M. A framework for local cortical oscillation patterns. \u003cem\u003eTrends Cogn. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e, 191\u0026ndash;199 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSedley, W. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Neural signatures of perceptual inference. \u003cem\u003eElife\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, e11476 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHasson, U. \u0026amp; Frith, C. D. Mirroring and beyond: coupled dynamics as a generalized framework for modelling social interactions. \u003cem\u003ePhilos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e371\u003c/strong\u003e, 20150366 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlakemore, S. J. The social brain in adolescence. \u003cem\u003eNat. Rev. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 267\u0026ndash;277 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez, A., Carreiras, M. \u0026amp; Du\u0026ntilde;abeitia, J. A. Brain-To-brain entrainment: EEG interbrain synchronization while speaking and listening. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;12 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTang, H. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Interpersonal brain synchronization in the right temporo-parietal junction during face-to-face economic exchange. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, 23\u0026ndash;32 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, M., Liu, T., Pelowski, M., Jia, H. \u0026amp; Yu, D. Social risky decision-making reveals gender differences in the TPJ: A hyperscanning study using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. \u003cem\u003eBrain Cogn.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e119\u003c/strong\u003e, 54\u0026ndash;63 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Social Neuroscience, Hyperscanning, EEG, Synchrony, Technological Communication, Mother-Child Relationships, Zoom","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4717524/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4717524/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCaregiving plays a critical role in children's cognitive, emotional, and psychological well-being. In the current longitudinal study, we investigated the enduring effects of early maternal behavior on processes of interbrain synchrony in adolescence. Mother-infant naturalistic interactions were filmed when infants were 3 months old and interactions were coded for maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness using the Coding Interactive Behavior. In early adolescence (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.30, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.25), mother-adolescent interbrain synchrony was measured using hyperscanning EEG during a naturalistic interaction of positive valance. Consistent with prior hyperscanning research, we focused on interbrain connections within the right frontotemporal network. Results indicate that maternal sensitivity in early infancy was longitudinally associated with interbrain synchrony in the right frontotemporal network. Post-hoc comparisons highlighted enhancement of mother-adolescent frontal-frontal connectivity, a connection implicated in parent-child social communication. In contrast, maternal intrusiveness in infancy linked with attenuation of interbrain synchrony in the right frontotemporal network. Sensitivity and intrusiveness are key maternal social orientations that are individually stable in the mother-child relationship from infancy to adulthood and foreshadow children's positive and negative social-emotional outcomes, respectively. Our findings are the first to demonstrate that these two maternal orientations play a role in enhancing or attenuating the child's frontotemporal interbrain network that sustains social communication and affiliation. Results suggest that the long-term impact of the mother's sensitive and intrusive style may relate, in part, to its effects on tuning the child's interbrain network to sociality.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Sensitive Infant Care Tunes a Frontotemporal Interbrain Network in Adolescence","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-08-10 12:19:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4717524/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-08-08T04:32:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-08-06T17:58:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-26T12:00:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"137273617234606907674031371503113420927","date":"2024-07-16T22:08:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"91416766684082588133556252964919737234","date":"2024-07-15T19:47:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-07-15T17:56:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-07-15T17:11:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-07-12T04:32:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-07-11T10:12:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2024-07-10T10:59:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2401eb8e-568b-4002-b518-6069f1cb4df6","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 10th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":35418492,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour"},{"id":35418493,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience"},{"id":35418494,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Social behaviour"},{"id":35418495,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Social neuroscience"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-10-07T16:10:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4717524","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73630-2","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2024-09-30 15:56:57","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 30th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-08-10 12:19:39","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-024-73630-2","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73630-2","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4717524","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4717524","identity":"rs-4717524","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}