Cognitive load and autonomic response patterns under negative priming demand in depersonalization‐derealization disorder

E. Lemche, Mauricio Sierra‐Siegert, A. David, M. Phillips, D. Gasston, Steven C. R. Williams, V. Giampietro
{"title":"Cognitive load and autonomic response patterns under negative priming demand in depersonalization‐derealization disorder","authors":"E. Lemche, Mauricio Sierra‐Siegert, A. David, M. Phillips, D. Gasston, Steven C. R. Williams, V. Giampietro","doi":"10.1111/ejn.13183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous studies have yielded evidence for cognitive processing abnormalities and alterations of autonomic functioning in depersonalization‐derealization disorder (DPRD). However, multimodal neuroimaging and psychophysiology studies have not yet been conducted to test for functional and effective connectivity under cognitive stress in patients with DPRD. DPRD and non‐referred control subjects underwent a combined Stroop/negative priming task, and the neural correlates of Stroop interference effect, negative priming effect, error rates, cognitive load span and average amplitude of skin conductance responses were ascertained for both groups. Evoked haemodynamic responses for basic Stroop/negative priming activations were compared. For basic Stroop to neutral contrast, patients with DPRD differed in the location (inferior vs. superior lobule) of the parietal region involved, but showed similar activations in the left frontal region. In addition, patients with DPRD also co‐activated the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (BA9) and posterior cingulate cortex (BA31), which were also found to be the main between‐group difference regions. These regions furthermore showed connectivity with frequency of depersonalization states. Evoked haemodynamic responses drawn from regions of interest indicated significant between‐group differences in 30–40% of time points. Brain‐behaviour correlations differed mainly in laterality, yet only slightly in regions. A reversal of autonomic patterning became evident in patients with DPRD for cognitive load spans, indicating less effective arousal suppression under cognitive stress – patients with DPRD showed positive associations of cognitive load with autonomic responses, whereas controls exhibit respective inverse association. Overall, the results of the present study show only minor executive cognitive peculiarities, but further support the notion of abnormalities in autonomic functioning in patients with DPRD.","PeriodicalId":79424,"journal":{"name":"Supplement ... to the European journal of neuroscience","volume":"533 1","pages":"971 - 978"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supplement ... to the European journal of neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Previous studies have yielded evidence for cognitive processing abnormalities and alterations of autonomic functioning in depersonalization‐derealization disorder (DPRD). However, multimodal neuroimaging and psychophysiology studies have not yet been conducted to test for functional and effective connectivity under cognitive stress in patients with DPRD. DPRD and non‐referred control subjects underwent a combined Stroop/negative priming task, and the neural correlates of Stroop interference effect, negative priming effect, error rates, cognitive load span and average amplitude of skin conductance responses were ascertained for both groups. Evoked haemodynamic responses for basic Stroop/negative priming activations were compared. For basic Stroop to neutral contrast, patients with DPRD differed in the location (inferior vs. superior lobule) of the parietal region involved, but showed similar activations in the left frontal region. In addition, patients with DPRD also co‐activated the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (BA9) and posterior cingulate cortex (BA31), which were also found to be the main between‐group difference regions. These regions furthermore showed connectivity with frequency of depersonalization states. Evoked haemodynamic responses drawn from regions of interest indicated significant between‐group differences in 30–40% of time points. Brain‐behaviour correlations differed mainly in laterality, yet only slightly in regions. A reversal of autonomic patterning became evident in patients with DPRD for cognitive load spans, indicating less effective arousal suppression under cognitive stress – patients with DPRD showed positive associations of cognitive load with autonomic responses, whereas controls exhibit respective inverse association. Overall, the results of the present study show only minor executive cognitive peculiarities, but further support the notion of abnormalities in autonomic functioning in patients with DPRD.
人格解体障碍患者负启动需求下的认知负荷与自主反应模式
先前的研究已经提供了认知加工异常和自主神经功能改变在人格解体-现实感丧失障碍(DPRD)中的证据。然而,尚未开展多模式神经影像学和心理生理学研究来测试DPRD患者认知应激下的功能性和有效连通性。研究了两组受试者的Stroop干扰效应、负启动效应、误差率、认知负荷广度和平均皮肤电导反应幅度的神经相关关系。比较了基本Stroop/负启动激活引起的血流动力学反应。对于基本Stroop与中性对比,DPRD患者受损伤的顶叶区域(下小叶与上小叶)的位置不同,但在左额叶区域表现出相似的激活。此外,DPRD患者还共同激活了背内侧前额叶皮层(BA9)和后扣带皮层(BA31),这也是组间差异的主要区域。这些区域进一步显示出与去人格化状态频率的联系。来自感兴趣区域的诱发血流动力学反应表明,在30-40%的时间点上,两组之间存在显著差异。脑-行为相关性主要在偏侧性上存在差异,但在区域上差异不大。在认知负荷范围内,自主神经模式的逆转在DPRD患者中变得明显,这表明认知应激下的觉醒抑制效果较差——DPRD患者表现出认知负荷与自主神经反应的正相关,而对照组则表现出各自的负相关。总的来说,本研究的结果只显示了轻微的执行认知特征,但进一步支持了DPRD患者自主神经功能异常的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信