Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25279788›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Patterns of brain activation when mothers view their own child and dog: an fMRI study.

Luke E Stoeckel, Lori S Palley, Randy L Gollub, Steven M Niemi, Anne Eden Evins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Meta-Analysis of the RDoC Social Processing Domain across Units of Analysis in Children and Adolescents.Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Mechanisms of Social Attachment Between Children and Pet Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luke E StoeckelDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Lori S PalleyCenter for Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Randy L GollubDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Steven M NiemiFaculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Anne Eden EvinsDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

HARVARD CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE CENTER (UL1)UL1RR025758 · NCRR · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2008 to 2011
$91.4M
ULTRAHIGH FIELD TECHNOLOGY FOR FUNCTIONAL IMAGINGP41RR014075 · NCRR · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HAMALAINEN, MATTI · 1999 to 2011
$16.4M
Mentoring in Addiction Treatment ResearchK24DA030443 · NIDA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI EVINS, A EDEN · 2010 to 2020
$2.0M
Training in Patient-Oriented Neurobehavioral Addiction ResearchK23DA032612 · NIDA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI STOECKEL, LUKE · 2012 to 2014
$495k
NCRR NIH HHS P41 RR014075NCRR NIH HHS P41RR14075NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR 025758NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025758NIDA NIH HHS K23 DA032612NIDA NIH HHS K23DA032612NIDA NIH HHS K24 DA030443
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neural substrates underlying the human-pet relationship are largely unknown. We examined fMRI brain activation patterns as mothers viewed images of their own child and dog and an unfamiliar child and dog. There was a common network of brain regions involved in emotion, reward, affiliation, visual processing and social cognition when mothers viewed images of both their child and dog. Viewing images of their child resulted in brain activity in the midbrain (ventral tegmental area/substantia nigra involved in reward/affiliation), while a more posterior cortical brain activation pattern involving fusiform gyrus (visual processing of faces and social cognition) characterized a mother's response to her dog. Mothers also rated images of their child and dog as eliciting similar levels of excitement (arousal) and pleasantness (valence), although the difference in the own vs. unfamiliar child comparison was larger than the own vs. unfamiliar dog comparison for arousal. Valence ratings of their dog were also positively correlated with ratings of the attachment to their dog. Although there are similarities in the perceived emotional experience and brain function associated with the mother-child and mother-dog bond, there are also key differences that may reflect variance in the evolutionary course and function of these relationships.

Indexed as

Human-Animal BondMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaternal BehaviorMother-Child RelationsAdultAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsBrainChildChild, PreschoolDogsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25279788
PMCPMC4184794
OpenAlexW2124025619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.