Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022 Jan 19;135:104531. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104531

Table 1.

Summary of key brain networks implicated in fathers’ parenting (Abraham, Hendler, Zagoory-Sharon, & Feldman, 2016; Feldman, Braun, & Champagne, 2019).

Network Role Key Brain Regions
Reward-motivational networks (also referred to as core-limbic network) Associated with paternal emotional experience and heightened feelings of reward and social bonding towards infants. Circuitry is conserved across species and important for both maternal and paternal care. Mid-brain dopaminergic network (e.g. Nucleus Accumbens, Ventral Tegmental area [VTA]) Globus Pallidus
Amygdala
Putamen
Medial thalamus
Hypothalamus
Lateral Septum
Bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST)
Empathy and embodied simulation networks Supports empathy towards the infant’s affective state. Coupling of perceptual-motor regions (e.g. the IFG and IPL) enable simulation of the infant’s actions. Activation of these networks underlie sensitive caregiving and ground the infant’s experiences to the present moment. Anterior Insula (AI)
Medial/Anterior cingulate cortex (ACC)
Inferior Frontal Gyrus (IFG)
Inferior Parietal Lobe (IPL)
Superior Temporal Sulcus (STS)
Mentalizing and emotion regulation networks Support fathers’ understanding of their infant’s actions and intentions, whilst also supporting executive functions (e.g. multitasking, planning) and emotion regulation. Important to how fathers behave toward their infants. Dorsal medial pre-frontal cortex (dmPFC)
Ventro-medial PFC (vmPFC)
Temporo-Parietal Junction Temporal pole
Superior Temporal Sulcus (STS)
Frontopolar cortex

Note. Interpretation of these networks requires caution, as each area often has multiple functions. The regions listed have been identified based on prior fMRI research as active in fathers in response to infant stimuli. The networks are defined based on meta-analyses of neuroimaging studies indicating common co-activation (Abrahams et al., 2016).