Association of Neighborhood Opportunity with Infant Brain Activity and Cognitive Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with lower neurocognitive scores and differences in brain structure among school-age children. Associations between positive neighborhood characteristics, infant brain activity, and cognitive development are underexplored. We examined direct and indirect associations between neighborhood opportunity, brain activity, and cognitive development. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study included infants from 2 primary care clinics in Boston and Los Angeles. Using a sample of 65 infants, we estimated path models to examine associations between neighborhood opportunity (measured by the Child Opportunity Index), infant electroencephalography (EEG) at 6 months, and infant cognitive development (measured using the Mullen Scales of Early Learning) at 12 months. A mediation model tested whether EEG power explained associations between neighborhood opportunity and infant cognition. RESULTS: Neighborhood opportunity positively predicted infant absolute EEG power across multiple frequency bands: low ( b = 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.24, p = 0.04, = 0.21); high ( b = 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-0.21, p = 0.03, = 0.23); ( b = 0.10, 95% CI 0.00-0.19, p = 0.04, = 0.20); and ( b = 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.22, p = 0.02, = 0.24). The results remained statistically significant after applying a Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate of 0.10 to adjust for multiple comparisons. No significant associations emerged between neighborhood opportunity, relative EEG power, and infant cognition. Mediation was not significant. CONCLUSION: Neighborhood opportunity is positively associated with some forms of infant brain activity, suggesting that positive neighborhood characteristics may play a salient role in early development.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".