Mother-child dyadic interactions shape children’s social brain and theory of mind

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors sought to examine the associations between child age, reports of parent-child relationship quality, and neural activity patterns while children (and also their parents) watched a movie clip. Major methodological strengths include the sample of 3-8 year-old children in China (rare in fMRI research for both age range and non-Western samples), use of a movie clip previously demonstrated to capture theory of mind constructs at the neural level, measurement of caregiver-child neural synchrony, and assessment of neural maturity. Results provide important new information about parent-child neural synchronization during this movie and associations with reports of parent-child relationship quality. The work is a notable advance in understanding the link between the caregiving context and the neural construction of theory of mind networks in the developing brain.

There are several theoretical and methodological limitations of the manuscript in its current form:

(1) We appreciate that the authors wanted to show support for a mediational mechanism. However, we suggest that the authors drop the structural equation modeling because the data are cross-sectional so mediation is not appropriate. Other issues include the weak justification of including the parent-child neural synchronization as part of parenting.... it could just as easily be a mechanism of change or driven by the child rather than a component of parenting behavior. The paper would be strengthened by looking at associations between selected variables of interest that are MOST relevant to the imaging task in a regression type of model. Furthermore, the authors need to be more explicit about corrections for multiple comparisons throughout the manuscript; some of the associations are fairly weak so claims may need to be tempered if they don't survive correction.

(2) Reverse correlation analysis is sensible given what prior developmental fMRI studies have done. But reverse correlation analysis may be more prone to overfitting and noise, and lacks sensitivity to multivariate patterns. Might inter-subject correlation be useful for *within* the child group? This would minimize noise and allow for non-linear patterns to emerge.

(3) No learning effects or temporal lagged effects are tested in the current study, so the results do not support the authors' conclusions that the data speak to Bandura's social learning theory. The authors do mention theories of biobehavioral synchrony in the introduction but do not discuss this framework in the discussion (which is most directly relevant to the data). The data can also speak to other neurodevelopmental theories of development (e.g.,neuroconstructivist approaches), but the authors do not discuss them. The manuscript would benefit from significantly revising the framework to focus more on biobehavioral synchrony data and other neurodevelopmental approaches given the prior work done in this area rather than a social psychology framework that is not directly evaluated.

(4) The significance and impact of the findings would be clearer if the authors more clearly situated the findings in the context of (a) other movie and theory of mind fMRI task data during development; and (b) existing data on parent-child neural synchrony (often uses fNIRS or EEG). What principles of brain and social cognition development do these data speak to? What is new?

(5) There is little discussion about the study limitations, considerations about the generalizability of the findings, and important next steps and future directions. What can the data tell us, and what can it NOT tell us?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the impact of mother-child neural synchronization and the quality of parent-child relationships on the development of Theory of Mind (ToM) and social cognition. Utilizing a naturalistic fMRI movie-viewing paradigm, the authors analyzed inter-subject neural synchronization in mother-child dyads and explored the connections between neural maturity, parental caregiving, and social cognitive outcomes. The findings indicate age-related maturation in ToM and social pain networks, emphasizing the importance of dyadic interactions in shaping ToM performance and social skills, thereby enhancing our understanding of the environmental and intrinsic influences on social cognition.

Strengths:

This research addresses a significant question in developmental neuroscience, by linking social brain development with children's behaviors and parenting. It also uses a robust methodology by incorporating neural synchrony measures, naturalistic stimuli, and a substantial sample of mother-child dyads to enhance its ecological validity. Furthermore, the SEM approach provides a nuanced understanding of the developmental pathways associated with Theory of Mind (ToM).

Weaknesses:

(1) Upon reviewing the introduction, I feel that the first goal - developmental changes of the social brain and its relation to age - seems somewhat distinct from the other two goals and the main research question of the manuscript. The authors might consider revising this section to enhance the overall coherence of the manuscript. Additionally, the introduction lacks a clear background and rationale for the importance of examining age-related changes in the social brain.

(2) The manuscript uses both "mother-child" and "parent-child" terminology. Does this imply that only mothers participated in the fMRI scans while fathers completed the questionnaires? If so, have the authors considered the potential impact of parental roles (father vs. mother)?

(3) There is inconsistent usage of the terms ISC and ISS in the text and figures, both of which appear to refer to synchronization derived from correlation analysis. It would be beneficial to maintain consistency throughout the manuscript.

(4) Of the 50 dyads, 16 were excluded due to data quality issues, which constitutes a significant proportion. It would be helpful to know whether these excluded dyads exhibited any distinctive characteristics. Providing information on demographic or behavioral differences-such as Theory of Mind (ToM) performance and age range between the excluded and included dyads would enhance the assessment of the findings' generalizability.

(5) The article does not adhere to the standard practice of using a resting state as a baseline for subtracting from task synchronization. Is there a rationale for this approach? Not controlling for a baseline may lead to issues, such as whether resting state synchronization already differs between subjects with varying characteristics.

(6) The title of the manuscript suggests a direct influence of mother-child interactions on children's social brain and theory of mind. However, the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) may not fully establish causal relationships. It is possible that the development of children's social brain and ToM also enhances mother-child neural synchronization. The authors should address this alternative hypothesis of the potential bidirectional relationship in the discussion and exercise caution regarding terms that imply causality in the title and throughout the manuscript.

(7) I would appreciate more details about the 14 Theory of Mind (ToM) tasks, which could be included in supplemental materials. The authors score them on a scale from 0 to 14 (each task 1 point); however, the tasks likely vary in difficulty and should carry different weights in the total score (for example, the test and the control questions should have different weights). Many studies have utilized the seven tasks according to Wellman and Liu (2004), categorizing them into "basic ToM" and "advanced ToM." Different components of ToM could influence the findings of the current study, which should be further examined by a more in-depth analysis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The article explores the role of mother-child interactions in the development of children's social cognition, focusing on Theory of Mind (ToM) and Social Pain Matrix (SPM) networks. Using a naturalistic fMRI paradigm involving movie viewing, the study examines relationships among children's neural development, mother-child neural synchronization, and interaction quality. The authors identified a developmental pattern in these networks, showing that they become more functionally distinct with age. Additionally, they found stronger neural synchronization between child-mother pairs compared to child-stranger pairs, with this synchronization and neural maturation of the networks associated with the mother-child relationship and parenting quality.

Strengths:

This is a well-written paper, and using dyadic fMRI and naturalistic stimuli enhances its ecological validity, providing valuable insights into the dynamic interplay between brain development and social interactions. However, I have some concerns regarding the analysis and interpretation of the findings. I have outlined these concerns below in the order they appear in the manuscript, which I hope will be helpful for the revision.

Weaknesses:

(1) Given the importance of social cognition in this study, please cite a foundational empirical or review paper on social cognition to support its definition. The current first citation is primarily related to ASD research, which may not fully capture the broader context of social cognition development.

(2) It is standard practice to report the final sample size in the Abstract and Introduction, rather than the initial recruited sample, as high attrition rates are common in pediatric studies. For example, this study recruited 50 mother-child dyads, and only 34 remained after quality control. This information is crucial for interpreting the results and conclusions. I recommend reporting the final sample size in the abstract and introduction but specifying in the Methods that an additional 16 mother-child dyads were initially recruited or that 50 dyads were originally collected.

(3) In the "Neural maturity reflects the development of the social brain" section, the authors report the across-network correlation for adults, finding a negative correlation between ToM and SPM. However, the cross-network correlations for the three child groups are not reported. The statement that "the two networks were already functionally distinct in the youngest group of children we tested" is based solely on within-network positive correlations, which does not fully demonstrate functional distinctness. Including cross-network correlations for the child groups would strengthen this conclusion.

(4) The ROIs for the ToM and SPM networks are defined based on previous literature, applying the same ROIs across all age groups. While I understand this is a common approach, it's important to note that this assumption may not fully hold, as network architecture can evolve with age. The functional ROIs or components of a network might shift, with regions potentially joining or exiting a network or changing in size as children develop. For instance, Mark H. Johnson's interactive specialization theory suggests that network composition may adapt over developmental stages. Although the authors follow the approach of Richardson et al. (2018), it would be beneficial to discuss this limitation in the Discussion. An alternative approach would be to apply data-driven analysis to justify the selection of the ROIs for the two networks.

(5) The current sample size (N = 34 dyads) is a limitation, particularly given the use of SEM, which generally requires larger samples for stable results. Although the model fit appears adequate, this does not guarantee reliability with the current sample size. I suggest discussing this limitation in more detail in the Discussion.

(6) Based on the above comment, I believe that conclusions regarding the relationship between social network development, parenting, and support for Bandura's theory should be tempered. The current conclusions may be too strong given the study's limitations.

(7) The SPM (pain) network is associated with empathic abilities, also an important aspect of social skills. It would be relevant to explore whether (or explain why) SPM development and child-mother synchronization are (or are not) related to parenting and the parent-child relationship.