Why do we Parent? Ancient Brain Circuits for Parental Care

Matt Higgs | 03 MAR 2021

I for one predicted that all the extra time that couples have spent inside last year would result in a 2021 baby boom. In fact, PwC predicts that we might actually be facing a baby bust, since couples are postponing their pregnancy plans to later dates. While the factors causing couples to delay or pushforward pregnancy are interesting, the question that interests me as a neuroscientist is perhaps more fundamental – I want to understand what happens in our brain to motivate us to care for our children. Essentially – what is parenting and why do we do it?

Now this may seem a silly question but bear with me. It is currently estimated that a human child will cost £152,747 – £185,413 (Hirsch, 2020), consume an estimated 13 million calories, require a lot of attention, and cost you many hours of sleep over an 18-year period (Kohl, 2018). By the numbers, parenting is tough. However, parenting is obviously not without upsides, since – quite predictably – sociological research shows that being a parent “has a substantial and enduring positive effect on life satisfaction” (Pollmann‐Schult, 2014). But for many other people, the work of being a parent tends to outweigh the positives and, on average, parents tend to be similarly or less happy than their childless peers (Glass et al., 2016). Yet many still willingly choose the burden of parenthood. What in our brain motivates us to do this?

When we look across the animal kingdom, we see that many animals have a set of behaviours directed at their offspring to support their survival. This is particularly true for the class of animals that humans belong to – mammals. Mammalian offspring are particularly helpless and mammals are the only animals that feed their young directly from the teat. This means that both the parent and the offspring become tied into an intimate relationship from birth and to further see their offspring to adulthood requires a lot of parental motivation. Since this intensive parenting behaviour is crucial to the continuation of a species, yet is poorly rewarding and distinctly sacrificial for the caregiver, parenting is seen as an innate behaviour in most mammals (i.e. a neurally hardwired behaviour that an animal is able to perform, at least partially, in advance of experience). This is particularly telling since most mammals are able to take up parenting with little training or experience. They suddenly become motivated to care for their young and know how to feed and protect them. This combination of motivation for and instinctual knowledge of parenting suggests to neuroscientists that the basis of this behaviour across mammals is likely evolutionary shaped neural circuits ready to motivate us when we first become parents.

And this is exactly what has been found.

By focusing on mice and rats, and utilising the abundance of behavioural neuroscience technology available to them, scientists have been able to identify what is happening in rodent brains while performing parenting behaviour. Like humans and most other mammals, mice are heavily motivated to care for their offspring post-birth. This involves a more modest 3-5 weeks of feeding, grooming and protection but they perform these behaviours diligently in spite of the costs. So, what exactly is happening in their brains?

Several decades of research on rodents has shown that a structure within the hypothalamus of the brain (a region commonly associated with regulating core function such as body temperature, sleep and appetite – see image below for location of hypothalamus in the human brain) called the medial preoptic area (MPOA) is of central importance for some of the most fundamental motivated behaviours such as mating and parenting (Numan & Insel, 2003). When researchers specifically destroy this area of the brain, parenting behaviour is abolished, whilst other behaviours are left intact (Lee et al., 2000). This is all well and good, but scientists Johannes Kohl and Catherine Dulac recently went one step further and identified the specific neuronal populations within the MPOA in mice that are active during parenting behaviour – aka the parenting neurons.

These neurons were found to express the protein Galanin, which has become a useful marker to identify these cells. They make up a comparatively small population (10,000 neurons), especially when compared to the 100 million neurons in the whole mouse brain (Wu et al., 2014). Are these neurons really the hub of such a crucial behaviour? Specifically inactivating these neurons in mice caused disruption in parenting behaviour similar to destroying the whole MPOA, which was a good start. Taking it further, Kohl et al. (2018) used viruses to infect the Galanin neurons in the MPOA which can then infect, and allow us to visualise, the input neurons and the output neurons to the MPOA. This revealed the brain regions connected to the MPOA which formed the basis of a parenting circuit in the brain. The Galanin neurons were the hub of this circuit and, when tested, were active during all forms of parenting behaviour, while other parts of the circuit were only active for distinct parts of the parenting repertoire. For example, MPOA neurons projecting to the Ventral Tegmental Area and Nucleus Accumbens (key dopamine regions of the brain) are responsible for ‘motivating’ the parent to care for their offspring, while others projecting to the Periaqueductal gray (a region associated with motor control) are involved in mechanical behaviours such as grooming pups.

This parenting circuit appears to be present in both males and females, but in females the MPOA is heavily influenced by the rising concentrations of hormones of late pregnancy (e.g. estrogen, prolactin). These hormones travel through the maternal bloodstream and are detected by receptors in the MPOA. This hormonal signal primes the MPOA, and the mother, for caregiving behaviour just prior to birth (Rilling & Young, 2014). Life experience and physiological state also go a long way to changing these behaviours/circuits despite their evolutionary origin (Kohl, 2018). Yet this core motivational circuit is a powerful driver and likely does a lot of the heavy lifting to convince a mouse to negate its own wellbeing in favour of its offspring.

One of the core goals for behavioural neuroscientists is to understand the neural mechanisms and the evolution of complex social behaviours. The discovery of this neural network orchestrating parenting behaviour,  with a central coordinating hub (the MPOA) and pools of neurons responsible for producing distinct aspects of this complex behaviour, gives an insight into how neural circuits for complex behaviours can be organized. Hence, this finding can be utilised when it comes to investigating other motivated behaviours such as mating and feeding (Kohl, 2020).

However, to return to our question – why do we parent? Humans are not mice, and the existence of this parenting hub in the human hypothalamus is not confirmed. But since the hypothalamus is deeply conserved across mammals, and it is of central importance to all non-human mammals studied (Numan, 2017), it is highly likely this circuit exists in humans and is performing a similar function.

This combination of motivation for and instinctual knowledge of parenting suggests to neuroscientists that the basis of this behaviour across mammals is likely evolutionary shaped neural circuits ready to motivate us when we first become parents.

For humans, parenting behaviour was never going to be as simple as the output of a highly conserved hypothalamic behaviour circuit. For example, we know there is a strong sense of intentional and chosen effort to rise to the task of parenting. We also know from brain imaging studies that parenting behaviour in humans additionally relies on the cortical areas of the brain, likely infusing our parenting behaviour with feelings of love, devotion and care (Numan 2017; Rilling, 2013). However, this work suggests that an instinctual urge to care for children is driven by an evolutionarily conserved brain structure and not only is it fundamental to most mammals but perhaps to humans as well.  

This research is still a way off having clinical applications but considering the impact that aberrant parenting can have on the parent and offspring (Joseph & John, 2008; Letourneau et al., 2012), understanding this behaviour is a crucial step in the right direction. As to why we parent, naturally we have the capability to decide whether to be a parent or not, and many people chose to skip the ordeal completely, but it is highly likely that deep in your brain lies the ancient circuit that will contribute to the great reward and meaning that being a parent will likely bring you if you choose that path in life.

Editors: Ian Fox and Uroosa Chughtai


  • Glass, J., Simon, R. W., & Andersson, M. A. (2016). Parenthood and happiness: Effects of work-family reconciliation policies in 22 OECD countries. American Journal of Sociology, 122(3), 886-929.
  • Hirsch, D (2020) The Cost of a Child in 2020, Child Poverty Action Group
  • Joseph, M. V., & John, J. (2008). Impact of parenting styles on child development. Global Academic Society Journal: Social Science Insight1(5), 16-25.
  • Kohl, J. (2018). Circuits for care. Science, 362(6411), 168-169.
  • Kohl J, Babayan BM, Rubinstein ND, Autry AE, Marin-Rodriguez B, Kapoor V, Miyamichi K, Zweifel LS, Luo L and Dulac C (2018). Functional circuit architecture underlying parental behaviour. Nature 556(7701):326-331.
  • Kohl J. (2020) Parenting – a paradigm for investigating the neural circuit basis of behavior. Current Opinions Neurobiology. 60:84-91.
  • Lee, A., Clancy, S., & Fleming, A. S. (2000). Mother rats bar-press for pups: effects of lesions of the MPOA and limbic sites on maternal behavior and operant responding for pup-reinforcement. Behavioural brain research, 108(2), 215-231
  • Letourneau, N. L., Dennis, C. L., Benzies, K., Duffett-Leger, L., Stewart, M., Tryphonopoulos, P. D., … & Watson, W. (2012). Postpartum depression is a family affair: addressing the impact on mothers, fathers, and children. Issues in mental health nursing33(7), 445-457.
  • Numan, M. (2017). Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology: Parental Behavior.
  • Numan, M., & Insel, T. R. (2003). The Neurobiology of Parental Behavior (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Pollmann‐Schult, M. (2014). Parenthood and life satisfaction: Why don’t children make people happy? Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 319-336.
  • Rilling, J. K. (2013). The neural and hormonal bases of human parental care. Neuropsychologia51(4), 731-747.
  • Rilling, J. K., & Young, L. J. (2014). The biology of mammalian parenting and its effect on offspring social development. science345(6198), 771-776
  • Wu, Z., Autry, A. E., Bergan, J. F., Watabe-Uchida, M., & Dulac, C. G. (2014). Galanin neurons in the medial preoptic area govern parental behaviour. Nature509(7500), 325-330.

The Sixth Sense: How Your Brain Tells Time

Steliana Yanakieva | 17 FEB 2021

Every day we experience the world through our senses – we see colours, hear sounds, taste, and smell food, and feel the sun or the rain on our skin. But how do we sense time? It is certain that we do experience a sense of time, both consciously, for example when we look at a clock, and subconsciously (e.g. in the order in which we do things), and that our sense of time is highly integrated with our other senses. However, even if we lost our ability to see, smell or hear, we would still have a sense of time passing.

Sensing time (time perception) seems to be a product of evolution. As far as we know, humans are the only species consciously aware of the passage of time and our own mortality. Despite how it might seem, we do not perceive time itself, but rather we perceive changes in events occurring in time. Hence, unlike our other senses, time perception does not have a dedicated sensory system. Instead, time is a construction of the brain that enables us to perceive a unified sensory picture of the world, which underlies our conscious experience. This idiosyncratic sixth sense is fundamental to our understanding of sequential events, allowing us to perceive our lives as an uninterrupted stream of events.

We are only truly aware of a few seconds of time at any one moment, a phenomenon termed “specious present” by E.R. Clayand and later elaborated by William James (James, 1890). For example, whilst we can plan for events that have not yet occurred, we are incapable of perceiving durations in the future. In fact, durations of events (intervals) can only be perceived after they have ended, so technically the “specious present” moment you are aware of has already happened. David Eagleman (2009) explains this in his famous essay “Brain Time”. He argues that different types of information are not only processed by distinct neural pathways, but also at different speeds. In order to perceive a continuous unified picture, our brain has to overcome this difference by waiting for the slowest sensory information to arrive before making us aware of what is happening ‘now’. This delay of around 100 milliseconds allows us to watch TV unaware of the fact that our brain processes auditory stimuli faster than visual stimuli. So, if you have ever experienced the frustration of unsynchronised TV audio and video, there is a delay of over 100 milliseconds, that your brain is programmed to pay attention to.

In a cognitive sense, attention is a mental process that allows you to selectively attend to information relative to completing a task. Hence, if you are in a boring class, thinking about how long you have got to the end of it – you will be more aware of the passage of time and therefore overestimate its duration (e.g. time appears to pass slower). On the other hand, time will appear to pass much faster when you are having fun. This goes to show that intact perception of small intervals of times is essential to our day-to-day functioning.

Mechanisms of Time Perception

Durations in the milliseconds to seconds ranges, in psychology, are referred to as interval timing. Impairments have been observed in psychiatric disorders marked by disruptions of consciousness, such as schizophrenia (Allman & Meck, 2012), dissociative disorders (Simeon, et al., 2007; Spiegel et al., 2013), Parkinson’s disease (te Woerd et al., 2014; Gulberti et al., 2015) and Huntington’s disease (Beste et al., 2007). Specifically, impairments in time perception are associated with symptoms such as tremor and hallucinations. Therefore, understanding the neural mechanisms of interval timing would allow scientists to develop new therapies for these symptoms underlined by timing deficits. Over the years, there have been several theories about the neural mechanism of time perception (Gibbon, 1977; Matell & Meck, 2004), and even though scientists cannot agree on a unified model of interval timing, one thing we know for sure is that time perception is a multifaceted process, dependant on other cognitive process, particularly attention.

Both schizophrenia and Parkinson’s disease are associated with aberrant dopamine concentrations in the brain (Brisch et al., 2014; Davie, 2008), which, interestingly, have been linked to the speed of our “internal-clock” (Cheng et al., 2007). Excessive dopamine, as seen in schizophrenia, appears to lead to overestimation of time intervals whilst dopamine depletion, as seen in Parkinson’s disease, appears to lead to its underestimation (Hass & Durstewitz, 2016; Meck, 1996). We can see these effects without relying on neurological conditions because stimulant drugs, such as caffeine, cocaine and amphetamines, increase brain dopamine levels and can lead to overestimating time intervals, while depressant drugs, such as ketamine, have the opposite effect, likely through the effects such psychoactive substances have on attention.

One way of understanding this phenomenon is that psychoactive drugs will either excite or inhibit the firing of dopaminergic neurons in the brain. Whilst stimulants increase the rate of neuronal firing, allowing the brain to register more events within a given time interval and leading to the perception of time speeding up, inhibitory drugs decrease the firing rate of neurons, resulting in a slowing down perceived time. However, since such drugs also impact attention, it is difficult to disentangle whether the observed effects on timings are due to the dopaminergic manipulation, per se, or if they are caused indirectly due to increased/decreased attention to time.

A promising solution to this problem appears to be microdosing of hallucinogens, such as LSD, which appear to alter interval time
perception without marked disturbances to attention, concentration, and memory (Yanakieva, et al., 2018).

In a cognitive sense, attention is a mental process that allows you to selectively attend to information relative to completing a task.

Overall, our perception of time is one of the most fascinating sensory experiences. Despite research literature on timing dating back 150 years, how our brains process time is still a mystery. Can understanding the neural basis of time perception unravel the hard problem of consciousness? Can it explain the altered states of consciousness observed in schizophrenia and the dissociative disorders? Are animals aware of passage of time and does this make them conscious? These are just a few of the questions that remain to be answered. However, each scientific experiment raises more questions than answers, all highly intriguing and deserving of attention.

Editors: Matt Higgs and Uroosa Chughtai


  • Allman, M. J., & Meck, W. H. (2012). Pathophysiological distortions in time perception and timed performance. Brain, 135(3), 656–677.doi:/10.1093/brain/awr210
  • Beste, C., Saft, C., Andrich, J., Müller, T., Gold, R., Falkenstein, M., (2007). Time processing in Huntington’s disease: a group-control study. PLoS One, 2, e1263.
  • Brisch, R., Saniotis, A., Wolf, R. Bielau, H., Bernstein, H., Steiner, J., et al. (2014). The Role of Dopamine in Schizophrenia from a Neurobiological and Evolutionary Perspective: Old Fashioned, but Still in Vogue. Frontiers of Psychiatry, 5, 47. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00047
  • Cheng, R.K., Ali, Y.M. &, Meck, W.H (2007). Ketamine “unlocks” the reduced clock-speed effect of cocaine following extended training: evidence for dopamine-glutamate interactions in timing and time perception. Neurobiolology of Learning and Memory, 88,149-159.
  • Davie, C.A. (2008). A review of Parkinson’s disease. British Medical Bulletin, 86(1), 109-127. Doi:10.1093/bmb/ldn013.
  • Dormal, V., Javadi, A.H., Pesenti, M., Walsh, V., & Cappelletti, M. (2016). Enhancing duration processing with parietal brain stimulation. Neuropsychologia, 85, 272-277.
  • Eagleman, D.M. (2009) Brain Time, in What’s Next? Dispatches on the Future of Science. Ed. M. Brockman. New York: Vintage.
  • Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar expectancy theory and Weber’s law in animal timing. Psychological Review, 84, 279–325.
  • Gulberti, A., Moll, C. K. E., Hamel, W., Buhmann, C., Koeppen, J. A., Boelmans, K., Zittel, S., Gerloff, C., Westphal, M., Schneider, T. R., & Engel, A. K. (2015). Predictive timing functions of cortical beta oscillations are impaired in Parkinson’s disease and influence by L-DOPA and deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. NeuroImage: Clinical, 9, 436-449.
  • Hass, J., & Durstewitz, D. (2016). Time at the center, or time at the side? Assessing current models of time perception. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 238–244. doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.02.030
  • James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology, New York: Henry Holt.
  • Mattel, M. S., & Meck, W. H. (2004). Cortico-striatal circuits and interval timing: coincident detection of oscillatory processes. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 21(2), 139-170.
  • Simeon, D., Hwu, R., & Knutelska, M. (2007). Temporal disintegration in depersonalization disorder. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 8(1), 11-24. doi: 10.1300/J229v08n01_02.
  • Spiegel, D., Lewis-Fernandez, R., Lanius, R., Vermetten, E., Simeon, D., & Friedman, M. (2013). Dissociative disorders in DSM-5. Annual review of clinical psychology, 9, 299-326. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185531
  • te Woerd, E.S., Oostenveld, R., de Lange, F. P., & Praamstra, P. (2014). A shift from prospective to reactive modulation of beta-band oscillations in Parkinson’s disease. NeuroImage, 100, 507 -519.
  • Yanakieva, S., Polychroni, N., Family, N., Williams, L.T.J., Luke, D.P., Terhune, D.B. (2018). The effects of microdose LSD on time perception: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Psychopharmacology, 236(4), 1159–1170. 10.1007/s00213-018-5119-x