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

项目摘要 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、痛苦和应对方式被孩子内化， 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， 他们的父母将在五个时间点进行评估，间隔6个月，在多模式电池。父母-孩子二人组将 参与轻度压力的互动，使我们能够捕捉神经（fNIRS），心理生理（RSA）， 注意力（移动的眼球跟踪）和行为（明显的情绪和痛苦）同步模式。在 此外，我们还将评估调节（EEG δ-β耦合）、认知（ERP N2分量）和注意力 （威胁偏见）社会情绪发展和焦虑风险的标志。最后，我们评估孩子的恐惧 气质，这是与更大的敏感性，社会环境和后来出现的， 焦虑因此，我们可以问：（1）同时，二元社会动力学的模式在父母之间是如何变化的？ 孩子对吗？(2)在不同的任务中，二元模式的变化在多大程度上有助于预测焦虑风险？（三） 随着时间的推移，我们能否从早期的动态二元模式中预测社会情绪特征和焦虑风险？ 互动？反映研究领域的标准，我们整合多层次的机制，研究如何 社会和唤醒/调节系统通过二元社会动力学耦合以影响出现 焦虑通过认知（注意威胁，认知控制），唤醒/调节（delta-beta耦合），和 负效价（恐惧气质）系统。在这样做的时候，我们注意到审查发展和 环境作为“双向影响”的心理病理学的transdiagnosis过程，以翻译 我们的研究结果对双元治疗方法。

Project Summary 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 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.