The effects of early-life stress are permanent alterations in the child’s brain circuitry and function

The sobering application of this 2013 rodent study’s finding was that if the limbic systems of human children weren’t already permanently damaged before they entered an orphanage, the orphanage experience would probably do that to them:

“The current study manipulates the type and timing of a stressor and the specific task and age of testing to parallel early-life stress in humans reared in orphanages.

The results provide evidence of both early and persistent alterations in amygdala circuitry and function following early-life stress.

These effects are not reversed when the stressor is removed nor diminished with the development of prefrontal regulation regions.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18274.full “Early-life stress has persistent effects on amygdala function and development in mice and humans”

One way that mothers cause fear and emotional trauma in their infants

This 2014 rodent study showed that infants learned to fear specific items in the environment that their mothers feared. The imprinting memory happened at a stage in the infants’ lives when they hadn’t yet developed the physiology to respond to the environment with fear on their own.

The learning cue was the mothers’ fear response – in this case, her distress odor, even when the mother was not present – coupled with the infants’ stress. The fear memory was stored in the infants’ amygdalae:

“These memories are acquired at younger ages compared with amygdala-dependent odor-shock conditioning and are more enduring following minimal conditioning.

Our results provide clues to understanding transmission of specific fears across generations and its dependence upon maternal induction of pups’ stress response paired with the cue to induce amygdala-dependent learning plasticity.”

There’s no scientific reason why this and related studies shouldn’t inform researchers who ignore the earliest stages of human life when studying limbic system disorders in humans.

For an example of researchers choosing to NOT be informed, look at Is this science, or a PC agenda? Problematic research on childhood maltreatment and its effects.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/12222.full “Intergenerational transmission of emotional trauma through amygdala-dependent mother-to-infant transfer of specific fear”

Is this science, or a PC agenda? Problematic research on childhood maltreatment and its effects

This 2013 Wisconsin human study’s goal was to assess effects of childhood trauma using both functional MRI scans and self-reported answers to a questionnaire. The families of the study’s subjects (64 18-year-olds) participated with researchers before some of the teenagers were born.

How could the teenagers give answers that described events that may have taken place early in their lives, before their cerebrums were developed, around age 4? Even if the subjects were old enough to remember, would they give accurate answers to statements such as:

“My parents were too drunk or high to take care of the family.

Somebody in my family hit me so hard that it left me with bruises or marks.”

knowing that affirmative answers would prompt a visit to their family from a government employee?

Although some data may have been available, data from the teenagers’ prenatal, birth term, infancy, and early childhood wasn’t part of the study design. Intentional dismissal of early influencing factors ignored applicable research!

No

Was the study’s limited window due to the political incorrectness of placing importance in the development environment provided by the subjects’ mothers? The evidence was there for those willing to see.


One clue of ignored early traumatic events was provided by the lead researcher’s quote in news coverage:

“These kids seem to be afraid everywhere,” he says. “It’s like they’ve lost the ability to put a contextual limit on when they’re going to be afraid and when they’re not.”

This finding of “fear without context” possibly described the later-life effects of traumas that were encountered in utero and during infancy. A pregnant woman’s terror and fear can register on the fetus’ lower brain and the amygdala from the third trimester onward.

Storing a memory’s context is one of the functions that the hippocampus performs. Because the hippocampus develops later than the amygdala, though, it would be unable to provide a context for any earlier feelings and sensations such as fear and terror.

The researchers attempted to place the finding of unfocused fear into later stages of child development without doing the necessary research. They tried to force this finding into the subjects’ later development years by citing rat fear-extinction and other marginally related studies.

But citing these studies didn’t make them applicable to the current study. Cause and effect wasn’t demonstrated by noting various “is associated with” findings.


Was this science? Was it part of furthering an agenda like protecting publicly funded jobs?

Was this study published to make a contribution to science? Were the peer reviewers even interested in advancing science?

And what about the 64 18-year-old subjects? If the lead researcher’s statement was accurate, did these teenagers receive help that addressed what they really needed?

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/47/19119.full “Childhood maltreatment is associated with altered fear circuitry and increased internalizing symptoms by late adolescence”


This page has somehow become a target for spammers, and I’ve disabled comments. Readers can comment on other pages or posts and indicate that they want their comment to apply here, and I’ll re-enable comments.

Conserved epigenetic sensitivity to early life experience in the hippocampus

This 2012 human study was done by McGill University, whose researchers in Canada are at the forefront of epigenetic studies. The subject was epigenetic DNA methylation in the hippocampus of people who experienced abuse as children and who also committed suicide.

Comparisons were made with rats that were stressed in early life to identify genomic regions that are epigenetically changeable in response to a range of early life experiences.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_2/17266.full “Conserved epigenetic sensitivity to early life experience in the rat and human hippocampus”

Rebooting the brain with anesthesia: Implications for Primal Therapy and evolution

Here are some paragraphs from a 2013 summary article of 105 studies entitled Evolution of consciousness: Phylogeny, ontogeny, and emergence from general anesthesia:

“The emergence of consciousness (from anesthesia) (as judged by the return of a response to command) was correlated primarily with activity of the brainstem (locus coeruleus), hypothalamus, thalamus, and anterior cingulate (medial prefrontal area). Surprisingly, there was limited neocortical involvement that correlated with this primitive form of consciousness.

In the sleep study, midline arousal structures of the thalamus and brainstem also recovered function well before cortical connectivity resumed. Thus, the core of human consciousness appears to be associated primarily with phylogenetically ancient structures mediating arousal and activated by primitive emotions, in conjunction with limited connectivity patterns in frontal–parietal networks.

The emergence from general anesthesia may be of particular interest to evolutionary biology, as it is observed clinically to progress:

  1. from primitive homeostatic functions (such as breathing)
  2. to evidence of arousal (such as responsiveness to pain or eye opening)
  3. to consciousness of the environment (as evidenced by the ability to follow a command)
  4. to higher cognitive function.

Regarding ontogeny of H. sapiens, peripheral sensory receptors are thought to be present from 20 wk of gestation in utero. The developmental anlage of the thalamus is present from around day 22 or 23 postconception, and thalamocortical connections are thought to be formed by 26 wk of gestation. Around the same time of gestation (25–29 wk), electrical activity from the cerebral hemispheres shifts from an isolated to a more continuous pattern, with sleep–wake distinctions appreciable from 30 wk of gestation.

Both the structural and functional prerequisites for consciousness are in place by the third trimester, with implications for the experience of pain during in utero or neonatal surgery.


I recently came out of anesthesia after being anesthetized for three hours during rotator cuff surgery. I felt pain, and went into a primal reliving of a painful memory.

I interpret the event as a reliving of my birth experience because of the following:

  • The beginning point was complete anesthetization as it was at my birth. My mother was completely anesthetized, so I, weighing less than one twentieth of her, was also completely anesthetized.
  • I felt a great urge and impulse to “get out” as it was at my birth. The attending nurse told me the next day that she called over another person to help her restrain me in the post-op chair.
  • I had a great need for oxygen and started breathing rapidly as it could have been at my birth. The nurse told me the next day that she was already giving me oxygen, and per the monitors, I didn’t need more oxygen.
  • I had to frequently “spit up” as it could have been at my birth. There was nothing in my current situation to cause me to expectorate.
  • My lower brain and limbic system were in control, as I thrashed, cried and moaned. I probably used primarily the same brain areas as what were the developed parts of my brain at birth.

The attending nurse told me the next day when I called her that she followed the established protocol, which was to get me out of the experience. She intentionally distracted me away from my pain. I was instructed to sit still, to think of some place pleasant, and to calm down.

I heard her as though she was at the other end of a tunnel at first, and then started to comply as I regained cognitive awareness.


I understand how such a powerful event could present a danger to a patient. It didn’t occur to me until the next day to tell the nurse of relevant history, that I’ve had relivings while in therapy, and wasn’t in the same danger that her regular patients may have been.

Even if I had said something, however:

  • Neither the anesthesiologist nor the attending nurse had a method of understanding how an evolutionary-determined sequential process – such as rebooting a person’s brain after prolonged anesthesia – may have therapeutic benefits.
  • They had no training to recognize aspects of neurobiologic therapeutic value in what was going on inside of me during this event, as a therapist in Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy has.
  • The default response per medical protocol would be to shut down a patient’s expressions of their feelings.

As a result, my experience of this event was pretty much the opposite of what happens in Primal Therapy. Although I didn’t feel harmed, my reliving wasn’t therapeutic, as previous re-experiencings had been. The reliving’s progression through my levels of consciousness was purposely interrupted, and approached from a non-therapeutic direction.

Unlike my experience of coming out of anesthesia, Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy isn’t something the patient is thrown into and potentially overwhelmed by their feelings. It’s a gradual process where the patient is in control.

This summary study showed that existing science is already in alignment with the background of Primal Therapy, that the core of human consciousness is in the limbic system and lower brain structures. My anesthesia experience showed that medical professionals are familiar with at least the outward signs of a primal reliving.

The challenge seems to be how to use this complementary knowledge for people’s benefit. What can be done with therapeutic re-experiencing so that people aren’t burdened with the continuing adverse effects of traumas?

How can scientists and medical professionals get the eyes to see what’s in front of them?

Early emotional experiences change our brains: Childhood maltreatment is associated with reduced volume in the hippocampus

This 2011 human study by the grandfather of hippocampus stress studies, Martin Teicher, quantified childhood maltreatment using the Adverse Childhood Experiences study and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire scores:

“The strongest associations between maltreatment and volume were observed in the left CA2-CA3 and CA4-DG [dentate gyrus] subfields, and were not mediated by histories of major depression or posttraumatic stress disorder.

These findings support the hypothesis that exposure to early stress in humans, as in other animals, affects hippocampal subfield development.”

The evidence is clear that early emotional experiences change our brains. There are seldom valid reasons for researchers to exclude emotional content when designing human brain studies, especially studies that involve the hippocampus.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/9/E563.full “Childhood maltreatment is associated with reduced volume in the hippocampal subfields CA3, dentate gyrus, and subiculum”

Similarity in form and function of the hippocampus in rodents, monkeys, and humans

This 2013 study had something for the anti-evolutionists to chew on.

Is it anti-evolutionary for human brain and behavior researchers to not be informed by animal studies such as those that show prenatal hippocampal damage done to the fetus by the mother’s environment?

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_2/10365.full “Similarity in form and function of the hippocampus in rodents, monkeys, and humans”

Are 50 Shades of Grey behaviors learned in infancy?

Ever wonder how someone could become attached to their early childhood abuser?

Ever wonder what underlying neurobiological conditions may account for the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey?

This 2014 rodent study “Enduring good memories of infant trauma” linked below showed how trauma changed infants’ limbic system and lower brains. As adults, they derived a neurochemical benefit from re-experiencing the traumatic conditions:

“Trauma and pain experienced in infancy clearly led to higher rates of adult rat depression-like behavior..(but) the infant brain has limited ability to link trauma to fear areas in the brain, such as the amygdala.

These results are surprising because cues associated with trauma experienced as adults provoke fear and do not rescue depressive behavior.

It is possible that giving SSRI medications to children could be detrimental to mental health in adulthood,” Dr. Sullivan says. “We believe that our research offers the first evidence for the impact of serotonin pathways.

The infant trauma increases serotonin to produce brain programming of later life depression, and the infant trauma cue increases serotonin to alleviate the adult depressive like symptoms.”


As the study may apply to humans, let’s say that as an infant, someone was traumatized by a caregiver who, for example, bound them too tightly and left them alone for too long. What adult behaviors and other symptoms may develop as results? The person may:

  • Show depression-like symptoms that would strangely be alleviated by being bound tightly and left alone for an extended period.
  • Develop attachments to people who treated them poorly in a way that triggered them to re-experience their early childhood traumas.
  • Feel their mood lift when their infancy traumas were cued.
  • Be unable to explain and integrate with their cerebrum what was going on with their limbic system and lower brains.
  • Be caught in a circle of acting out their feelings and impulses, with unfulfilling results.

Isn’t it curious that this acting-out behavior – driven by unconscious memories of traumatic conditions – is a subject for popular entertainment? It may have resonated with personal experiences of the people who read the books and watched the movie.


What about people who want to be relieved of their symptomatic behavior? Is it a justifiable practice:

  • To pass affected people over to talk therapies that aren’t interested in directly treating the cause – a neurobiological condition that exists in the limbic system and lower brains – only the symptoms?
  • To drug affected people with the neurochemicals that their condition makes scarce – the symptoms – instead of addressing the source?

A principle of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy is that people are capable of treating their own originating neurobiological conditions. One of the therapeutic results is that the patient is relieved of being caught in endless circles of acting-out behavior.

That way we can have our own lives, and not be driven by what happened during early stages of our lives.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/3/881.full “Enduring good memories of infant trauma: Rescue of adult neurobehavioral deficits via amygdala serotonin and corticosterone interaction”

The need for a mother’s love

BabyGorilla
This 2014 wild chimpanzee study demonstrated how necessary it was to have a mother’s “nourishment, transportation, warmth, protection, and socialization,” in other words, a mother’s love, during infancy and early childhood.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/51/18189.full “Early social exposure in wild chimpanzees: Mothers with sons are more gregarious than mothers with daughters”

Problematic research on human brain development

This 2013 UK human study provided details of the growths of infants’ cerebral and limbic system structures. With 55 of the 65 infants in the study born prematurely, the UK researchers found:

“Rapidly developing cortical microstructure is vulnerable to the effects of premature birth, suggesting a mechanism for the adverse effects of preterm delivery on cognitive function.”

The infants’ first set of measurements were taken from 27 to 46 weeks after birth. Follow-up measurements were taken when the infants were two years old.

Only the politically-correct adverse effects on brain development were included in the study, which led to the researchers making only politically-correct findings. Is this what we want from publicly funded scientific research?

  • Although 40 of the 65 infants experienced Caesarian deliveries, no attempt was made by the researchers to study any effects on brain development of their delivery method, an omission presumably due to the political incorrectness of suggesting any adverse effects to non-vaginal deliveries.
  • Similarly disregarded for analysis were the effects on brain development in 14 infants of preeclampsia, a serious complication of pregnancy associated with the development of high blood pressure and protein in the urine.
  • Also disregarded for analysis were the effects on brain development in 13 infants of chorioamnionitis, a condition in pregnant women in which the membranes that surround the fetus and the amniotic fluid are infected by bacteria.

Further, was this all we should expect from the peer review process? The data was presumably there for the reviewers to go back to the researchers and suggest analysis of something other than the predetermined agenda.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/23/9541.full “Development of cortical microstructure in the preterm human brain”