Emotion regulation in children with behavior problems: Linking behavioral and brain processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past studies have shown that aggressive children exhibit rigid (rather than flexible) parent-child interactions; these rigid repertoires may provide the context through which children fail to acquire emotion-regulation skills. Difficulties in regulating emotion are associated with minimal activity in dorsal systems in the cerebral cortex, for example, the anterior cingulate cortex. The current study aimed to integrate parent-child and neurocognitive indices of emotion regulation and examine their associations for the first time. Sixty children (8-12 years old) referred for treatment for aggression underwent two assessments. Brain processes related to emotion regulation were assessed using dense-array EEG with a computerized go/no-go task. The N2 amplitudes thought to tap inhibitory control were recorded, and a source analysis was conducted. In the second assessment, parents and children were videotaped while trying to solve a conflict topic. State space grids were used to derive two dynamic flexibility parameters from the coded videotapes: (a) the number of transitions between emotional states and (b) the dispersion of emotional states, based on proportional durations in each state. The regression results showed that flexibility measures were not related to N2 amplitudes. However, flexibility measures were significantly associated with the ratio of dorsal to ventral source activation: for transitions, ΔR 2 = .27, F (1, 34) = 13.13, p = .001; for dispersion, ΔR 2 = .29, F (1, 35) = 14.76, p < .001. Thus, in support of our main hypothesis, greater dyadic flexibility was associated with a higher ratio of dorsomedial to ventral activation, suggesting that children with more flexible parent-child interactions are able to recruit relatively more dorsomedial activity in challenging situations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".