In the United States, >40% of children are either poor or near-poor. As a group, children in poverty are more likely to experience worse health and more developmental delay, lower achievement, and more behavioral and emotional problems than their more advantaged peers; however, there is broad variability in outcomes among children exposed to similar conditions. Building on a robust literature from animal models showing that environmental deprivation or enrichment shapes the brain, there has been increasing interest in understanding how the experience of poverty may shape the brain in humans. In this review, we summarize research on the relationship between socioeconomic status and brain development, focusing on studies published in the last 5 years. Drawing on a conceptual framework informed by animal models, we highlight neural plasticity, epigenetics, material deprivation (eg, cognitive stimulation, nutrient deficiencies), stress (eg, negative parenting behaviors), and environmental toxins as factors that may shape the developing brain. We then summarize the existing evidence for the relationship between child poverty and brain structure and function, focusing on brain areas that support memory, emotion regulation, and higher-order cognitive functioning (ie, hippocampus, amygdala, prefrontal cortex) and regions that support language and literacy (ie, cortical areas of the left hemisphere). We then consider some limitations of the current literature and discuss the implications of neuroscience concepts and methods for interventions in the pediatric medical home.

Longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to mature well into the 20s. This has prompted intense interest in linking neuromaturation to maturity of judgment. Public policy is struggling to keep up with burgeoning interest in cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging. However, empirical evidence linking neurodevelopmental processes and adolescent real-world behavior remains sparse. Nonetheless, adolescent brain development research is already shaping public policy debates about when individuals should be considered mature for policy purposes. With this in mind, in this article we summarize what is known about adolescent brain development and what remains unknown, as well as what neuroscience can and cannot tell us about the adolescent brain and behavior. We suggest that a conceptual framework that situates brain science in the broader context of adolescent developmental research would help to facilitate research-to-policy translation. Furthermore, although contemporary discussions of adolescent maturity and the brain often use a deficit-based approach, there is enormous opportunity for brain science to illuminate the great strengths and potentialities of the adolescent brain. So, too, can this information inform policies that promote adolescent health and well-being.

Young children who experience toxic stress are at high risk for a number of health outcomes in adulthood, including cardiovascular disease, cancers, asthma, and depression. The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently called on pediatricians, informed by research from molecular biology, genomics, immunology, and neuroscience, to become leaders in science-based strategies to build strong foundations for children's life-long health. In this report, we provide an overview of the science of toxic stress. We summarize the development of the neuroendocrine-immune network, how its function is altered by early life adversity, and how these alterations then increase vulnerability to disease. The fact that early environments shape and calibrate the functioning of biological systems very early in life is both a cautionary tale about overlooking critical periods in development and reason for optimism about the promise of intervention. Even in the most extreme cases of adversity, well-timed changes to children's environments can improve outcomes. Pediatricians are in a unique position to contribute to the public discourse on health and social welfare by explaining how factors that seem distal to child health may be the key to some of the most intractable public health problems of our generation. We consider the challenges and opportunities for preventing toxic stress in the context of contemporary pediatric practice.

No abstract