Childhood socioeconomic status and childhood maltreatment: Distinct associations with brain structure

PLoS One. 2017 Apr 17;12(4):e0175690. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175690. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

The present study examined the relationship between childhood socioeconomic status (SES), childhood maltreatment, and the volumes of the hippocampus and amygdala between the ages of 25 and 36 years. Previous work has linked both low SES and maltreatment with reduced hippocampal volume in childhood, an effect attributed to childhood stress. In 46 adult subjects, only childhood maltreatment, and not childhood SES, predicted hippocampal volume in regression analyses, with greater maltreatment associated with lower volume. Neither factor was related to amygdala volume. When current SES and recent interpersonal stressful events were also considered, recent interpersonal stressful events predicted smaller hippocampal volumes over and above childhood maltreatment. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed a significant sex by childhood SES interaction, with women's childhood SES showing a significantly more positive relation (less negative) with hippocampus volume than men's. The overall effect of childhood maltreatment but not SES, and the sex-specific effect of childhood SES, indicate that different forms of stressful childhood adversity affect brain development differently.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Adult Survivors of Child Abuse*
  • Amygdala / growth & development
  • Amygdala / pathology
  • Brain / growth & development*
  • Brain / pathology*
  • Child
  • Child Abuse*
  • Female
  • Hippocampus / growth & development
  • Hippocampus / pathology
  • Humans
  • Life Change Events
  • Male
  • Organ Size
  • Poverty
  • Social Class
  • Stress, Psychological / pathology

Grants and funding

This work was funded by National Institutes of Health, Award #: R01-HD055689, received by MJF, URL: https://www.nih.gov; and Institute of Education Sciences Predoctoral Fellowship Grant through Penn GSE awarded to GML. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.