Structural plasticity of the social brain: Differential change after socio-affective and cognitive mental training

Abstract

Although neuroscientific research has revealed experience-dependent brain changes across the life span in sensory, motor, and cognitive domains, plasticity relating to social capacities remains largely unknown. To investigate whether the targeted mental training of different cognitive and social skills can induce specific changes in brain morphology, we collected longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data throughout a 9-month mental training intervention from a large sample of adults between 20 and 55 years of age. By means of various daily mental exercises and weekly instructed group sessions, training protocols specifically addressed three functional domains: (i) mindfulness-based attention and interoception, (ii) socio-affective skills (compassion, dealing with difficult emotions, and prosocial motivation), and (iii) socio-cognitive skills (cognitive perspective-taking on self and others and metacognition). MRIbased cortical thickness analyses, contrasting the different training modules against each other, indicated spatially diverging changes in cortical morphology. Training of present-moment focused attention mostly led to increases in cortical thickness in prefrontal regions, socio-affective training induced plasticity in frontoinsular regions, and sociocognitive training included change in inferior frontal and lateral temporal cortices. Module-specific structural brain changes correlated with training-induced behavioral improvements in the same individuals in domain-specific measures of attention, compassion, and cognitive perspective-taking, respectively, and overlapped with task-relevant functional networks. Our longitudinal findings indicate structural plasticity in well-known socio-affective and socio-cognitive brain networks in healthy adults based on targeted short daily mental practices. These findings could promote the development of evidence-based mental training interventions in clinical, educational, and corporate settings aimed at cultivating social intelligence, prosocial motivation, and cooperation.

Population variability in social brain morphology: links to socioeconomic status and health disparity

“…For example, factors that may influence the health status for low-SES individuals may not have the same impact for high-SES individuals, such as living conditions or adequate nutrition (Adler et al 1994). Part of the intermediate network, SMG structure was found to be altered after nine months of cognitive mental training on tasks related to mindfulness, perspective-taking, and emotion (Valk et al, 2017). These structural plasticity findings in the SMG suggest sensitivity to changes in one's social experience.…”

Commentary Regarding Wilson et al. (2018) “Effectiveness of ‘Self-Compassion’ Related Therapies: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” All Is Not as It Seems

“…At no point did the authors discuss the criteria for choosing the compassion focused intervention in contrast to a mindfulness intervention other than a keyword search. Indeed, as noted previously, there are notable and important physiological differences in mindfulness versus compassion training (Valk et al, 2017). Many of their keywords did not actually include compassion (e.g., dialectical behaviour therapy).…”

“…Matos et al, (2017) found that practising compassionate mind skills for two weeks resulted in a range of beneficial psychological changes, reduced fears of compassion and was associated with well-being and changes in heart rate variability. Compassion focused therapy (CFT) and compassionate mind training (CMT) are designed to tap into the physiological and neurobiological systems that underpin evolved caring mechanisms (Gilbert, 2014(Gilbert, , 2017b; hence why changes in heart rate variability (Kirby, Doty, Petrocchi, & Gilbert, Matos et al, 2016) and neurobiological changes associated with training (Vrtička, et al 2017;Valk et al, 2017;Weng et al, 2018) are of interest.…”

“…In fact, there have been numerous studies on the neurophysiological changes associated with lovingkindness and compassion meditations (a number of reviews can be found in Seppälä, et al, 2017, also Galante et al, 2014Hoffman et al, 2010). To mention just one, Vrtička, et al, (2017), and Valk, et al, (2017) compared three forms of training linked to: 1) attention and mindfulness; 2) socio-effective (including compassion training);…”

“…These trainings all produced neurophysiological changes but importantly they differed according to the training type engaged in. This indicates that these different types of trainings are not neurophysiologically equivalent (Vrtička, et al, 2017;Valk et al, 2017). To put this another way trainings are subtle and need fine tuning.…”