Tanisha Shetty, Himani Kashyap, Urvakhsh Meherwan Mehta, Binu V S
{"title":"Executive Function and Emotion Regulation in Depressive and Anxiety Disorders: A Cross-sectional Study.","authors":"Tanisha Shetty, Himani Kashyap, Urvakhsh Meherwan Mehta, Binu V S","doi":"10.1177/02537176251340586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Executive function (EF) and emotion regulation (ER) deficits are prevalent in depressive and anxiety disorders, suggesting a transdiagnostic role. Given their role in treatment engagement, symptom reduction, and relapse prevention, we examine EF and ER interrelationships in these disorders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (<i>n</i> = 27 depressive/anxiety disorders, <i>n</i> = 27 nonclinical group) underwent psychiatric screening and assessments of symptom severity, EF (set-shifting, response inhibition [RI], working memory [WM], verbal fluency, planning), and ER (severity, strategies, situational ER following emotion induction). Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>-test/<i>t</i>-test was used for group comparisons, and Pearson's/Spearman's test was used for correlations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The clinical group showed lower WM (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.94, <i>p</i> = .001), verbal fluency (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.7, <i>p</i> = .01), and RI (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.35, <i>p</i> = .02); greater ER difficulties (Cohen's <i>d</i> = -1.40, <i>p</i> < .001), greater negative ER strategy use of catastrophizing (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.55, <i>p</i> < .001); and on the emotion-induction task-higher use of acceptance, other-blame, but no positive reappraisal. The nonclinical group showed greater positive ER strategy use of refocus on plan (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.53, <i>p</i> < .001) and no use of rumination on the emotion-induction task. The severity of ER difficulties correlated with poorer WM (<i>p</i> = .006); acceptance as an ER strategy correlated with poorer RI (<i>p</i> = .02). EF and ER difficulties and maladaptive strategies were significantly higher in the depression/anxiety group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings extend prior research by providing actionable insights for tailored interventions and merit testing in larger samples. With poorer WM linked to greater ER difficulties and inefficient RI to passive acceptance, interventions such as cognitive training may enhance ER.</p>","PeriodicalId":13476,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"02537176251340586"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12162532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176251340586","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Executive function (EF) and emotion regulation (ER) deficits are prevalent in depressive and anxiety disorders, suggesting a transdiagnostic role. Given their role in treatment engagement, symptom reduction, and relapse prevention, we examine EF and ER interrelationships in these disorders.
Methods: Participants (n = 27 depressive/anxiety disorders, n = 27 nonclinical group) underwent psychiatric screening and assessments of symptom severity, EF (set-shifting, response inhibition [RI], working memory [WM], verbal fluency, planning), and ER (severity, strategies, situational ER following emotion induction). Mann-Whitney U-test/t-test was used for group comparisons, and Pearson's/Spearman's test was used for correlations.
Results: The clinical group showed lower WM (Cohen's d = 0.94, p = .001), verbal fluency (Cohen's d = 0.7, p = .01), and RI (Cohen's d = 0.35, p = .02); greater ER difficulties (Cohen's d = -1.40, p < .001), greater negative ER strategy use of catastrophizing (Cohen's d = 0.55, p < .001); and on the emotion-induction task-higher use of acceptance, other-blame, but no positive reappraisal. The nonclinical group showed greater positive ER strategy use of refocus on plan (Cohen's d = 0.53, p < .001) and no use of rumination on the emotion-induction task. The severity of ER difficulties correlated with poorer WM (p = .006); acceptance as an ER strategy correlated with poorer RI (p = .02). EF and ER difficulties and maladaptive strategies were significantly higher in the depression/anxiety group.
Conclusions: The findings extend prior research by providing actionable insights for tailored interventions and merit testing in larger samples. With poorer WM linked to greater ER difficulties and inefficient RI to passive acceptance, interventions such as cognitive training may enhance ER.
背景:执行功能(EF)和情绪调节(ER)缺陷在抑郁和焦虑障碍中普遍存在,提示其具有跨诊断作用。鉴于它们在治疗参与、症状减轻和复发预防中的作用,我们研究EF和ER在这些疾病中的相互关系。方法:对27名抑郁/焦虑症患者(非临床组27名)进行精神病学筛查,评估症状严重程度、EF(设定转移、反应抑制、工作记忆、语言流畅性、计划)和ER(严重程度、策略、情绪诱导后情境ER)。组间比较采用Mann-Whitney u检验/t检验,相关性采用Pearson /Spearman检验。结果:临床组WM (Cohen’s d = 0.94, p = 0.001)、言语流畅性(Cohen’s d = 0.7, p = 0.01)、RI (Cohen’s d = 0.35, p = 0.02)较低;更大的ER困难(Cohen’s d = -1.40, p < .001),更大的灾难性负面ER策略使用(Cohen’s d = 0.55, p < .001);在情绪诱导任务中,接受和责备的使用频率更高,但没有积极的重新评价。非临床组表现出更积极的ER策略,即重新关注计划(Cohen’s d = 0.53, p < .001),并且在情绪诱导任务中没有使用反刍。ER困难的严重程度与较差的WM相关(p = 0.006);接受作为ER策略与较差的RI相关(p = 0.02)。抑郁/焦虑组的EF和ER困难以及适应不良策略显著高于抑郁/焦虑组。结论:研究结果通过提供可操作的见解,为量身定制的干预措施和更大样本的优点测试提供了扩展先前的研究。较差的WM与更大的急诊困难和低效的RI与被动接受有关,认知训练等干预措施可能会提高急诊。
期刊介绍:
The Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (ISSN 0253-7176) was started in 1978 as the official publication of the Indian Psychiatric Society South Zonal Branch. The journal allows free access (Open Access) and is published Bimonthly. The Journal includes but is not limited to review articles, original research, opinions, and letters. The Editor and publisher accept no legal responsibility for any opinions, omissions or errors by the authors, nor do they approve of any product advertised within the journal.