Introduction: Past research has found differences in the brain activation of batterers vs. other offenders in response to depictions of violence, but it is not known whether these functional differences are associated with structural brain abnormalities (SBAs).
Objective: Investigate the prevalence and nature of SBAs in batterers using neuroimaging methods.
Method: Two neuroradiologists independently diagnosed SBAs based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans for the 21 batterers and 20 other offenders. All participants had been screened to ensure that they had no obvious brain damage secondary to neurological injury or insult, including traumatic brain injury.
Results: One participant had both a major and minor SBA; 13 had one or more minor SBAs. Most were judged to be not clinically relevant.
Conclusion: SBAs are not strongly or specifically associated with IPV, and it is unlikely they are responsible for the differences in brain functioning between batterers and other offenders observed in past research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
2.
Becerra-GarcíaJ. A. (2015). Neuropsychology of domestic violence: A comparative preliminary study of executive functioning. Medicine, Science and the Law, 55(1), 35–39.
3.
BerhoumaM.NiH.DelabarV.TahhanN.SalemS. M.MottoleseC.ValleeB. (2015). Update on the management of pineal cysts: Case series and a review of the literature. Neuro-Chirurgie, 61(2-3), 201–207.
4.
BosD.PoelsM. M. F.AdamsH. H. H.AkoudadS.CremersL. G. M.ZonneveldH. I.VernooijM. W. (2016). Prevalence, clinical management, and natural course of incidental findings on brain MR images: The population-based Rotterdam Scan Study. Radiology, 281 (2), 507–515.
5.
Bueso-IzquierdoN.HartS. D.Hidalgo-RuzzanteN.KroppP. R.Pérez-GarcíaM. (2015). The mind of the male batterer: A neuroscience perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 243–251.
6.
Bueso-IzquierdoN.Verdejo-RománJ.Contreras-RodríguezO.Carmona-PereraM.Pérez-GarcíaM.Hidalgo-RuzzanteN. (2016). Are batterers different from other criminals? An fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(5), 852–862.
7.
CohenR. A.BrummV.ZawackiT. M.PaulR.SweetL.RosenbaumA. (2003). Impulsivity and verbal deficits associated with domestic violence. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(05), 760–770.
8.
CorvoK.JohnsonP. (2013). Sharpening Ockham’s Razor: The role of psychopathology and neuropsychopathology in the perpetration of domestic violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 175–182.
9.
ChesterD. S.DeWallC. N. (2018). The roots of intimate partner violence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 55–59.
10.
ChoudhuryS.NagelS. K.SlabyJ. (2009). Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. BioSocieties, 4(1), 61–77.
11.
EastmanN.CampbellC. (2006). Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(4), 311.
12.
EvansR. W. (2017). Incidental findings and normal anatomical variants on MRI of the brain in adults for primary headaches. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 57(5) , 780–791.
13.
FarrerT. J.FrostR. B.HedgesD. W. (2012). Prevalence of traumatic brain injury in intimate partner violence offenders compared to the general population: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 13(2) , 77–82.
14.
FilippiM.RoccaM. A.CiccarelliO.De StefanoN.EvangelouN.KapposL.BarkhofF. (2016). MRI criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines. The Lancet Neurology, 15(3), 292–303.
15.
FirstM., B.SpitzerR., L.GibbonM.WilliamsJ. B. W. (1999). Guía Del Usuario Para La Entrevista Clínica Estructurada Para Los Trastornos De La Personalidad Del Eje I Del DSM-IV. Madrid: Masson.
16.
GazzanigaM. S. (2008). The law and neuroscience. Neuron, 60(3), 412–415.
17.
GeorgeD. T.PhillipsM. J.DotyL.UmhauJ. C.RawlingsR. R. (2006). A model linking biology, behavior and psychiatric diagnoses in perpetrators of domestic violence. Medical Hypotheses, 67(2) , 345–353.
18.
GoodenoughO. R.TuckerM. (2010). Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6(1), 61–92.
19.
GondolfE. (2007). Cautions about applying neuroscience to batterer intervention. Court Review, 43, 178–182.
20.
GondolfE. W. (2011). The weak evidence for batterer program alternatives. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 347–353.
21.
HarperL.BarkhofF.FoxN. C.SchottJ. M. (2015). Using visual rating to diagnose dementia: A critical evaluation of MRI atrophy scales. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 86(1), 1225–1233.
22.
HartS., D.DouglasK. S.GuyL. S. (2016). The structured professional judgment approach to violence risk assessment: Origins, nature and advances. In CraigL.RettenbergerM.BoerD. (Series Ed.). The Wiley handbook on the theories, assessment, treatment of sexual offending: Volume II. Assessment (pp. 643–666). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
23.
HartS., D.LoganC. (2011). Formulation of violence risk using evidence-based assessments: The structured professional judgment approach. In SturmeyP.McMurranM. (Eds.), Forensic case formulation (pp. 83–106). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
24.
KatzmanG. L.DagherA. P.PatronasN. J. (1999). Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging from 1000 asymptomatic volunteers. JAMA, 282(), 36–39.
25.
KaufmanN., L.CorderoC.CalongeI. (1997). K-BIT: Test Breve De Inteligencia De Kaufman. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
26.
KnabbJ. J.WelshR. K.ZiebellJ. G.ReimerK. S. (2009). Neuroscience, moral reasoning, and the law. Behavioral Sciences the Law, 27(2), 219–236.
27.
KrugE.DahlbergL. L.MercyJ. A.ZwiA. B.LozanoR. (2002). (Eds.). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
28.
LeeT. M. C.ChanS. C.RaineA. (2008). Strong limbic and weak frontal activation to aggressive stimuli in spouse abusers. Molecular Psychiatry, 13(7), 655–656.
29.
LeeT. M.ChanS. C.RaineA. (2009). Hyperresponsivity to threat stimuli in domestic violence offenders: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 70(1), 36–45.
30.
MájovskýM.NetukaD.BenešV. (2016). Clinical management of pineal cysts: A worldwide online survey. Acta Neurochirurgica, 158(4), 663–669.
31.
McHughM. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
32.
OsbornR. E.AlderD. C.MitchellC. S. (1991). MR imaging of the brain in patients with migraine headaches. Ajnr. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 12(3), 521–524.
33.
OsbornA., G.SalzmanK., L.JhaveriM., D.BarkovichA., J. (2015). Diagnostic imaging: Brain e-book. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences.
34.
PintoL. A.SullivanE. L.RosenbaumA.WyngardenN.UmhauJ. C.MillerM. W.TaftC. T. (2010). Biological correlates of intimate partner violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 387–398.
35.
Romero-MartínezÁ.Moya-AlbiolL. (2013). Neuropsychology of perpetrators of domestic violence: The role of traumatic brain injury and alcohol abuse and/or dependence. Revista Neurología, 57(1), 515–522.
36.
SeifertC. L.WoellerA.ValetM.ZimmerC.BertheleA.TölleT.SprengerT. (2008). Headaches and pineal cyst: A case-control study. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 48(3), 448–452.
37.
SempereA. P.Porta-EtessamJ.MedranoV.Garcia-MoralesI.ConcepciónL.RamosA.BotellaC. (2005). Neuroimaging in the evaluation of patients with non-acute headache. Cephalalgia : An International Journal of Headache, 25(1), 30–35.
38.
SlotterE. B.FinkelE. J. (2011). I3 theory: Instigating, impelling, and inhibiting factors in aggression. In ShaverP. R.MikulincerM. (Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 35–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
39.
StrausM. A.HambyS. L.Boney-McCoyS.SugarmanD. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.
40.
TöpperR.JürgensE.ReulJ.ThronA. (1999). Clinical significance of intracranial developmental venous anomalies. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 67(2), 234–238.
41.
VernooijM. W.IkramM. A.TangheH. L.VincentA. J. P. E.HofmanA.KrestinG. P.van der LugtA. (2007). Incidental findings on brain MRI in the general population. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357(18), 1821–1828.
42.
VincentN. A. (2013). (Ed.). Neuroscience and legal responsibility. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
43.
WahlundL. O.BarkhofF.FazekasF.BrongeL.AugustinM.SjögrenM.ScheltensP. (2001). A new rating scale for age-related white matter changes applicable to MRI and CT. Stroke, 32(6), 1318–1322.
44.
WikströmP. O.TreiberK. H. (2009). Violence as situational action. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 3(1), 75–96.
