Forest plot of Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 2c of Temperature Estimates.

<p>Forest plot of Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 2c of Temperature Estimates.</p

Forest plot of Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 2c of Subjective Warmth.

<p>Forest plot of Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 2c of Subjective Warmth.</p

Scatterplots of correlations between lateral-frontal (F7–F8) EEG asymmetry and the Approach, Distress to Limitations, Falling Reactivity, and Soothability scales of the IBQ-R.

<p>Scatterplots of correlations between lateral-frontal (F7–F8) EEG asymmetry and the Approach, Distress to Limitations, Falling Reactivity, and Soothability scales of the IBQ-R.</p

Significant Effects of Linear Model Models designed to predict infant temperament using mid-frontal, lateral-frontal and parietal EEG asymmetry.

<p>N = 22; Note that denominator degrees of freedom are estimated from Satterthwaite approximations without exact F distributions.</p><p>Degrees of freedom were estimated for the population based on a restricted maximum likelihood procedure, and were rounded to the nearest whole number. Over the mid-frontal region, higher EEG asymmetry scores were related to higher Approach, <i>F</i>(1, 201) = 14.27, <i>p</i><.001, <i>r</i> = .29; Distress to Limitations, <i>F</i>(1, 196) = 7.40, <i>p</i><.01, <i>r</i> = .23; Fear, <i>F</i>(1, 200) = 17.65, <i>p</i><.001, <i>r</i> = .36; Perceptual Sensitivity, <i>F</i>(1, 202) = 30.84, <i>p</i><.001, <i>r</i> = .41; and lower Falling Reactivity, <i>F</i>(1, 202) = 49.21, <i>p</i><.001, <i>r</i> = −.44;. Similarly, over the lateral-frontal region, higher EEG asymmetries were related to higher Approach, <i>F</i>(1, 165) = 20.76, <i>p</i><.001, <i>r</i> = .46; Distress to Limitations, <i>F</i>(1, 169) = 14.18, <i>p</i><.001, <i>r</i> = .35; Soothability, <i>F</i>(1, 166) = 23.17, <i>p</i><.001, <i>r</i> = .30; and lower Falling Reactivity, <i>F</i>(1, 179) = 39.75, <i>p</i><.001, <i>r</i> = −.59.</p

Intercorrelations between the dimensions of the IBQ-R scale.

<p>* = p<.05.</p

Scatterplots of correlations between mid-frontal (F3–F4) EEG asymmetry and the Approach, Distress to Limitations, Falling Reactivity, Fear and Perceptual Sensitivity scales of the IBQ-R.

<p>Scatterplots of correlations between mid-frontal (F3–F4) EEG asymmetry and the Approach, Distress to Limitations, Falling Reactivity, Fear and Perceptual Sensitivity scales of the IBQ-R.</p

Figure 2

<p><i>a</i>. Significant differences observed in ventral prefrontal regions (VMPFC and VLPFC-left) among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls. <i>b</i>. Z-scores of VMPFC activity among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls. <i>c</i>. Z-scores of VLPFC-left activity among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls.</p

Symptom contrast of anxiety severity scores SCARED (youth and parent rating) and PARS between anxious groups.

<p>Symptom contrast of anxiety severity scores SCARED (youth and parent rating) and PARS between anxious groups.</p

Figure 1

<p><i>a</i>. Significant difference observed in hypothalamus among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls. <i>b</i>. Z-scores of hypothalamic activity among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls.</p

Regions associated with reduced activity in association with social proximity.

<p><i>Note:</i> Coordinates for each cluster's center-of-mass are presented in Talairach space.</p