Nature | News

Poverty shrinks brains from birth       

Studies show that children from low-income families have smaller brains and lower cognitive abilities.

Article tools

Rights & Permissions

Ian Spanier/Cultura RM/Getty Images

A new study finds that children's cognitive skills are linked to family income. 

The stress of growing up poor can hurt a child’s brain development starting before birth, research suggests — and even very small differences in income can have major effects on the brain.

Researchers have long suspected that children’s behaviour and cognitive abilities are linked to their socioeconomic status, particularly for those who are very poor. The reasons have never been clear, although stressful home environments, poor nutrition, exposure to industrial chemicals such as lead and lack of access to good education are often cited as possible factors. 

In the largest study of its kind, published on 30 March in Nature Neuroscience1, a team led by neuroscientists Kimberly Noble from Columbia University in New York City and Elizabeth Sowell from Children's Hospital Los Angeles, California, looked into the biological underpinnings of these effects. They imaged the brains of 1,099 children, adolescents and young adults in several US cities. Because people with lower incomes in the United States are more likely to be from minority ethnic groups, the team mapped each child’s genetic ancestry and then adjusted the calculations so that the effects of poverty would not be skewed by the small differences in brain structure between ethnic groups.

The brains of children from the lowest income bracket — less than US$25,000 — had up to 6% less surface area than did those of children from families making more than US$150,000, the researchers found. In children from the poorest families, income disparities of a few thousand dollars were associated with major differences in brain structure, particularly in areas associated with language and decision-making skills. Children's scores on tests measuring cognitive skills, such as reading and memory ability, also declined with parental income.

Martha Farah, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, calls the research “unbelievably cool”. Having such a large sample of children allowed the researchers to show the great impact of poverty on developing brains, she says, although the study cannot measure how individual brains change over time.

Nature versus nurture

The findings are in line with unpublished research conducted by Farah and her colleagues that scanned the brains of 44 African American girls, each approximately a month old, from various socioeconomic groups in Philadelphia.

Even at this early age, the researchers found, infants in the lower socioeconomic brackets had smaller brains than their wealthier counterparts. The scientists presented their research on 19 March at the Society for Research in Child Development meeting in Philadelphia.

Jamie Hanson, a psychologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, says that both papers underscore the impact of adversity on child development. “These early life circumstances make it tougher for many children and it's on many of us in society to make sure that children have equal possibilities,” he says. While he praises the cross-sectional studies, he adds that it is important to follow children over time in order to see how individual brains are affected by socioeconomic status.

Farah and her colleagues plan to continue to observe these infants for two years and watch how their brain's surface area change over time. They also plan to visit the infants’ homes in the hopes of pinpointing factors that might contribute to the differences, such as how many stimulating toys they have and how much attention they get from their parents.

Neither study explains the cause of the cognitive differences. Although the authors of both studies admit that genetic factors could be involved, they suspect that environmental exposures such as stress and nutrition are more important and begin even before the babies are born.

"It does make us think the focus should be redirected at gestation and stresses like nutrition and exposure to toxins," says Hallam Hurt, a neonatologist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia who led the infant research study.

Older children may be affected in different ways. For instance, poorer parents who work multiple jobs to make ends meet may have less time to spend with their children, and less money to buy toys to stimulate their children's minds as they grow, says Laura Betancourt, a paediatrician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia who authored the infant study.

And Hanson suggests that epigenetics — modifications to DNA caused by environmental factors such as stress — could also be playing an important role, and can be passed down through generations.

Still, the researchers are hopeful that the impacts could be reversible through interventions such as providing better child care and nutrition. Research in humans and in other animals suggests that is the case: a study in Mexico, for instance, showed that supplementing poor families' income improved their children's cognitive and language skills within 18 months2.

“It’s important for the message not to be that if you're poor your brain is smaller and will be smaller forever,” Sowell says.

Journal name:
Nature
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17227

References

  1. Noble, K. G. et al. Nature Neurosci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.3983 (2015).

  2. Fernald, L., et al. Lancet 371, 82837 (2008).

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments for this thread are now closed.

Comments

18 comments Subscribe to comments

  1. Avatar for Isabella Jackson
    Isabella Jackson
    There are differences in adult versus juvenile brain growth. There is plasticity in adult brains for sure, but there are also “critical periods” in brain development in which, when one is deprived of proper nutrition and social interaction, one may never be able to recover completely. That being said, it’s still correlation and studies which show averages of population. Poverty is bad for poor people – this is not a new concept and we know that much already. Low income parents speak and read thousands of words less to their children (due to a lower education level/vocabulary size) than some middle and high class families. Often lower income families have parents who are less educated and who might not know the serious importance of reading to your children and exposing them to new and different words and experiences. Or may not know what things their child needs to be able to learn/develop.
  2. Avatar for Eros Ferrazzi
    Eros Ferrazzi
    This study adds to the growing body of evidence that living in poverty may have deleterious effects on brain development. Whether poverty driven adverse effects reflect slow or latent viral infections, prolonged and repeated exposure to neurotoxins, developmental stressor events or some other pathological mechanism is waiting for an explanation, but the fact remains that poverty appears to be harmful to brain development. Whatever the causes might be, the authors of this important study found that even very small differences in income can have major effects on the brains of disadvantaged group. This should remind us that any improvement, though small, should count in reversing the negative impact of poverty in this fragile population.
  3. Avatar for Mike Steinberg
    Mike Steinberg
    Note that as the article states, neither study explains the cause of the cognitive differences. It could be entirely due to genetic variation. It would be interesting to know if there were some data from adoption studies that could tease this out.
  4. Avatar for Andrew Ryan
    Andrew Ryan
    The article demonstrates correlation but the headline assumes causation. Isn't it more likely that those with smaller brains are more likely to be poor?
  5. Avatar for Nathan Riccitelli
    Nathan Riccitelli
    I logged on to bring up this same point :) To truly demonstrate what the author's are claiming (and maybe it has been done by others), you would need to image children at birth and then again at later stages in life and compare how the brain sizes have changed relative to the starting point for affluent vs. impoverished children. All this seems to show is that there is a correlation between income and brain size, but it isn't being publicized in that way.
  6. Avatar for Ariel Poliandri
    Ariel Poliandri
    It is very comforting that the authors “suspect that environmental exposures such as stress and nutrition are more important (than genes)” but this proves nothing: I’d like to know how children brains compare with their parents. It is also interesting how the authors (and editors apparently) are happy to forgo the fact that there are racial differences in brain sizes as irrelevant but they are very keen to stress that putative socio-economic differences are extremely important.
  7. Avatar for Gene Partlow
    Gene Partlow
    “Studies show that children from low-income families have smaller brains and lower cognitive abilities”... This is just one of sadly too few studies which, some commenters’ quibbles notwithstanding, highlight once again that poverty is by far the greatest evil. Nothing else comes close. Its wreckage and vast injustice cripples and drags all of us down. Without exception, none of us escape its cruelty.
  8. Avatar for Mike Steinberg
    Mike Steinberg
    You're overlooking the possibility that the causation runs in the other direction. On average people with higher cognitive ability tend to earn more. Cognitive ability is about as heritable as height. Cognitive ability is also correlated with brain size. So you might also expect children of higher earners to have larger brains on average simply due to genetic factors. I'm not sure this study has teased this out?
  9. Avatar for Rebecca Hiner
    Rebecca Hiner
    It is unfortunate that this write-up of the article uses terms that reference brain size (with all the associated baggage of phrenology) at any point, when the article itself examined surface area. I would expect less misleading writing from Nature.
  10. Avatar for Nazri Kamaldin
    Nazri Kamaldin
    If we are to give serious thought to the idea that brain size gives us any meaningful association with intelligence, we should have concluded long ago that sperm whales are the smartest known sentient creatures on Earth. That aside, I am really excited over the work that has been done here. There is a considerable body of evidence pointing towards the notion that poverty cripples the developing minds of the young. Our children and future generations will grow up in a world with unprecedented challenges - climate change, conflict, scarcity and disease, to name just a few. I believe we need to do everything possible to prepare future generations for what lies ahead - and part of that means forging an environment in which their minds can develop and flourish. The science is really good. The evidence is strong enough. The time to act is now.
  11. Avatar for Mike Steinberg
    Mike Steinberg
    There is a pretty well established relationship between brain size and intelligence. Paul Thompson and Jeremy Gray note: "Correlations between intelligence and total brain volume or grey matter volume have been replicated in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, to the extent that intelligence is now commonly used as a confounding variable in morphometric studies of disease. MRI-based studies estimate a moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.40 to 0.51 (REF. 28; see REF. 29 on interpreting this correlation, and REF. 30 for a meta-analysis). intercorrelated substantially — a general factor (the first unrotated principal component in a factor analysis) accounted for 48% of the variance31.We found that g was significantly linked to differences in the volume of frontal grey matter, which were determined primarily by genetic factors." Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5, 471-482 (June 2004) | http://www.yale.edu/scan/GT_2004_NRN.pdf
  12. Avatar for Riccardo Guidi
    Riccardo Guidi
    Brain size research have been in hype across the 19th century, and here comes again. The idea that brain size may have something to do with intelligence is an insult (gently speaking) to our _real_ intelligence. In "The Mismeasure of Man", Stephen Jay Gould tries to put an end on "cognitive skills" tests, which - in his an my understanding - _do_not_ measure intelligence. A million parameters could be pulled out from a brain imaging. Stating that one of these parameters ("surface area") is greater in an arbitrarily-defined group vs another, tells very little about brain biology, or the complicated scenario of different socio-economical status within societies. That children from disadvantaged families have learning disabilities has been reported probably 100 times. I hope confounding factors like child weight have been taken into account, which sounds more reasonable (yet less fashionable) as the "child’s genetic ancestry". Journalistically speaking, "up to 6% reduction" is not an appropriate way to describe data, as "up to 80% discount" is not an appropriate way to advertise for shopping sales. This article will be picked up by the Media and portrayed in all sort of ways, adding another stereotype to low-income individuals: small-headed.
  13. Avatar for Chandan Kumar
    Chandan Kumar
    I agree with this comment, having been primed by the "Mismeasure of Man" by Gould into the pseudoscience of associations between brain size and intelligence. I was naiive to think this kind of research belonged in the same category as its predecessor, phrenology. Guess not. Unhelpfully, the author ends with the disclaimer- "“It’s important for the message not to be that if you're poor your brain is smaller and will be smaller forever,” Sowell says.". The catchy headline title "Poverty shrinks brains from birth" alludes precisely that; "from birth" is not the same as "at birth" which is what the study actually measured.
  14. Avatar for Mike Steinberg
    Mike Steinberg
    You realise that Gould omitted a large meta-analysis from 1974 from his book and then completely ignored more up to date studies in the 1996 follow up right? Even worse he was found to have mismeasured Morton's sample - which is ironic given he was arguing Morton was influenced by his own bias. "In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones. But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong. “Our results resolve this historical controversy, demonstrating that Morton did not manipulate his data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould,” they write in the current PLoS Biology." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=0
  15. Avatar for Chandan Kumar
    Chandan Kumar
    :) I missed this comment and the article. Interesting string of measures and mismeasures there...thanks for sharing! Highlighting the fallibility of science, scientific conclusions, and communication of those conclusions, like a Freudian slip, the article ends with the footnote: "An article on June 14 about the varying conclusions researchers have drawn from the measurements of human skulls collected by Samuel George Morton, a 19th-century physical anthropologist, misidentified the institution where John S. Michael, a researcher who concluded that Morton’s measurements were accurate, was an undergraduate. It is Macalester College in St. Paul, not the University of Pennsylvania." Touche'!
  16. Avatar for Daniel Mertens
    Daniel Mertens
    This is probably trivial, but have the correlations been corrected for parental brain size/surface area? After all, there might be a genetically heritable reason for parents being in the 25k or 150k income bracket.
  17. Avatar for Ishtiyaque Ahmad
    Ishtiyaque Ahmad
    Well, this study gives a scientific face to what has been always felt in the society. It also goes on to corroborate the studies in adults that giving stress free "feel happy" environment improves cognition and delays onset of many neurological disorders. Very likely epigenetics is playing a role here. Stress hormones may have absolutely opposite effect of feel good factor and introduce epigenetic changes which reduce expression of neuroprotective genes.
  18. Avatar for Mike Steinberg
    Mike Steinberg
    As Greg Cochran points out cognitive ability is highly heritable, and since people in higher social classes, or with high income, on average have higher levels, you would expect their kids to be, on average, smarter than kids from low-income groups (and have larger brains, since brain size is correlated with IQ) for genetic reasons.

Recommended

RNA

The weird and wonderful architecture of RNA

Cells contain an ocean of twisting and turning RNA molecules. Now researchers are working out the structures — and how important they could be.

Science jobs from naturejobs