Parent-to-child anxiety transmission in early childhood: Capturing in-the-moment mechanisms through emotion modeling and biological synchrony

先前的研究已经确定了父母对孩子的焦虑传播的三个中心途径：（1）共享 遗传负荷，（2）通过母亲怀孕期间的经历进行的胎儿编程，以及（3）父母 行为，模型和形状焦虑相关的认知，行为和情绪概况。到目前为止， 我们可以干预前两种途径的一些易处理的机制。然而，一个广泛而强大的 文献描述了与儿童焦虑出现相关的特定养育行为， 这是一个可翻译的目标。这些文献大多侧重于根据调查表衡量的广泛概况 或者是行为随时间平均的汇总总结。因此，我们对那一刻知之甚少- 每时每刻的互动，作为代际传递的行为管道。每日重复 与看护者的互动，通过二元社会动力学引导，使孩子与父母和谐相处。 恐惧和痛苦的表达影响了孩子对周围事件的反应。当前 纵向研究将集中在两个实例的二元社会动力学的机制，焦虑 传输第一种是二元同步，这是一个在离散微观层面的时间协调中捕获的过程。 在不同层次的分析中，二元合作伙伴之间的信号是显而易见的。其次是情感建模， 观察到的父母情绪、痛苦和应对模式被孩子内化，并得到以下因素的支持： 心理生理同步，然后反映在他们自己随后的行为中。4至6岁儿童， 他们的父母，包括母亲和父亲，将在五个时间点进行评估，间隔6个月， 模态电池亲子二人组会进行轻微的压力互动，让我们能够捕捉到神经元 （fNIRS）、心理生理学（RSA）、注意力（移动的眼动跟踪）和行为（明显的情绪和 （图为synchrony）。此外，我们将评估监管（EEG δ-β耦合），认知 (ERP N2分量），和注意力（威胁偏见）标记的社会情绪发展和焦虑风险。 最后，我们评估了孩子的恐惧气质，这与对社会环境的敏感性有关。 环境和后来出现的焦虑。因此，我们可以问（1）同时，如何做模式的并矢 社会动力学在父母和孩子之间是不同的(2)在不同的任务中， 模式有助于预测焦虑风险？(3)随着时间的推移，我们能否预测社会情绪概况和焦虑风险， 早期的动态二元互动模式为了反映研究领域标准，我们整合了 通过研究社会和唤醒/调节系统是如何通过二元关系耦合的多层次机制， 社会动力学通过认知（对威胁的关注，认知控制）影响焦虑的出现， 唤醒/调节（δ-β耦合）和负价（恐惧气质）系统。我们这样做 注意到将发展和环境作为“双向影响”来检查的呼吁， 精神病理学的过程，以便将我们的发现转化为二元治疗方法。

Previous studies have identified three central pathways of parent-to-child anxiety transmission: (1) shared genetic load, (2) fetal programming through maternal experiences during pregnancy, and (3) parental behaviors that model and shape anxiety-linked cognitive, behavioral, and emotional profiles. To date, we have few tractable mechanisms by which we can intervene upon the first two pathways. However, a wide and robust literature has characterized specific parenting behaviors linked to the emergence of childhood anxiety, making it a translatable target. Much of this literature has focused on broad profiles based on questionnaire measures or aggregate summaries of behaviors averaged over time. As a result, we know little regarding the moment- by-moment interactions that serve as a behavioral conduit for intergenerational transmission. Repeated daily interactions with caregivers, channeled through dyadic social dynamics, attune the child to parental expressions of fear and distress influencing the child's own responses to surrounding events. The current longitudinal study will focus on two instances of dyadic social dynamics as mechanisms for anxiety transmission. First is dyadic synchrony, a process captured in the temporal co-ordination of discrete microlevel signals between dyadic partners evident across levels of analysis. Second is emotion modeling, in which observed patterns of parental emotion, distress, and coping are internalized by the child, supported by psychophysiological synchrony, and then reflected in their own subsequent behavior. Children ages 4 to 6 and their parent, including both mothers and fathers, will be assessed at five time points, 6 months apart in a multi- modal battery. Parent-child dyads will engage in mildly stressful interactions that allow us to capture neural (fNIRS), psychophysiological (RSA), attentional (mobile eye-tracking), and behavioral (overt emotion and distress) patterns of synchrony. In addition, we will assess regulatory (EEG delta-beta coupling), cognitive (ERP N2 component), and attentional (threat bias) markers of socioemotional development and anxiety risk. Finally, we asses child fearful temperament, which is associated with greater sensitivity to the social environment and the later emergence of anxiety. Thus, we can ask (1) Concurrently, how do patterns of dyadic social dynamics vary across parent-child pairs? (2) Across tasks, to what extent does variation in dyadic patterns help predict anxiety risk? (3) Over time, can we predict socioemotional profiles and anxiety risk from earlier patterns of dynamic dyadic interactions? Reflecting the Research Domain Criteria, we integrate multilevel mechanisms by examining how social and arousal/regulatory systems are coupled through dyadic social dynamics to influence the emergence of anxiety via the cognitive (attention to threat, cognitive control), arousal/regulatory (delta-beta coupling), and negative valence (fearful temperament) systems. In doing so we heed the call to examine development and the environment as “bidirectional influences” on transdiagnostic processes of psychopathology in order to translate our findings to dyadic treatment approaches.