Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • We are grateful to Elsevier and the Editors of

    2018-11-07

    We are grateful to Elsevier and the Editors of for devoting this Ki16425 special issue to the inaugural meeting of , which took place on September 19–21, 2013 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The concept and motivation for the Flux Ki16425 Congress emerged from the recognition that our burgeoning discipline, focusing on issues of increasing scientific and health relevance, required a venue for established and emerging investigators to convene. We thought hard about whether we wanted or needed another meeting. For us, the decision was inevitable. The application of neuroimaging approaches to characterize the neural basis of human development has been growing exponentially since the handful of first studies were published in the mid-nineties, to the hundreds of publications now appearing yearly. Despite this growth, the investigators who toil in developmental cognitive neuroscience found no clear conference “home” and only sporadically found each other in satellite venues at larger neuroscience or behavioral developmental meetings where developmental neuroscience was scattered or restricted to small sections. Important, one-time meetings emerged that focused on developmental cognitive neuroscience, reflecting a growing interest and excitement at having a dedicated platform to interact with like-minded colleagues. Additionally, publications in the field were asking similar questions but using diverse/disparate approaches and “reinventing the wheel”, indicating that facilitated communication would certainly help advance the field. These factors motivated us to take a bold step and commit to forming a specialized annual meeting and to establish . We chose the name Flux, which is not an acronym, to emphasize that the primary goal of the discipline of developmental cognitive neuroscience is to investigate in neural systems through development. The purpose of the Flux Society and its annual conference is: . Specifically, Flux has three main aims. The first aim is to advance the field by informing members of the range of work being done and to provide a forum for scientific discourse at oral presentations, posters, and other activities that encourage such discourse. The second aim is to provide a venue that includes colleagues studying animal and postmortem models, levels of investigation that can inform the that underlie neuroimaging findings so we can work, as a discipline, towards bridging levels of investigation to attain an integrative understanding of development. The third aim is to include talks and discussions regarding best practices (i.e., methods and analyses) as well as innovative approaches to advance further our ability to generate outstanding science.
    Introduction Early life experiences—both positive and negative—can have profound effects on brain development in mammals. Rearing environments that are enriched with good parental care, suitable protection, and engaging sensory stimulation offer resilience to insults later in life such as psychological stressors (Francis et al., 2002) or even pathological infection (Johnson et al., 2014). In contrast, early life adversity (ELA) such as parental deprivation, neglect, abuse, or exposure to threats has been repeatedly shown to yield a myriad of deviations in brain circuitry, stress-responsivity, cognitive function, and general health (Anda et al., 2008; Dube et al., 2009; Brown et al., 2010). In this review, we will discuss the current progress in understanding intervening variables that underlie vulnerability, resilience, and behavior after ELA, with a focus on the evolving knowledge of neuroimmune influences. We will present findings from both human and animal research, since a comprehensive and clinically relevant view will only come from a synthesis of both realms. Models of ELA vary widely across studies, and each provides a distinct characteristic of exposure and effects. A full comparison of all models is beyond the scope of this review; therefore we will present different models throughout and highlight the implications of differences when possible.