在非临床样本中,错误相关的 ERP 与特质焦虑之间没有关联:包括大规模单变量统计在内的各种分析方法的趋同性。

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Zelin Chen, Roxane J Itier
{"title":"在非临床样本中,错误相关的 ERP 与特质焦虑之间没有关联:包括大规模单变量统计在内的各种分析方法的趋同性。","authors":"Zelin Chen, Roxane J Itier","doi":"10.1111/psyp.14645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Enhanced error monitoring, as indexed by increased amplitude of the error-related negativity (ERN) event-related potential (ERP) component, has been suggested to reflect a vulnerability neuro-marker of anxiety disorders. Another error-related ERP component is the error positivity (Pe), which reflects late-stage error processing. The associations between heightened ERN and Pe amplitudes and anxiety levels in the nonclinical population have been inconsistent. In this preregistered study, we examined the association between anxiety, ERN, and Pe, using different analytical methods (mass-univariate analyses, MUAs and conventional analyses), self-reported anxiety scales (STAI and STICSA), and trial numbers (all correct trials and equal numbers of correct and error trials). In a sample of 82 healthy adults, both conventional and MUAs demonstrated a robust enhancement of the ERN and Pe to errors relative to the correct-response ERPs. However, the mass-univariate approach additionally unveiled a wider array of electrodes and a longer effect duration for this error enhancement. Across the analytic methods, the results showed a lack of consistent correlation between trait anxiety and error-related ERPs. Findings were not modulated by trial numbers, analyses, or anxiety scales. The present results suggest a lack of enhancement of error monitoring by anxious traits in individuals with subclinical anxiety and those with clinical anxiety but without a clinical diagnosis. Importantly, the absence of such correlation questions the validity of the ERN as a neural marker for anxiety disorders. Future studies that investigate neuro-markers of anxiety may explore alternative task designs and employ robust statistics to provide a more comprehensive understanding of anxiety vulnerability.</p>","PeriodicalId":20913,"journal":{"name":"Psychophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No association between error-related ERPs and trait anxiety in a nonclinical sample: Convergence across analytical methods including mass-univariate statistics.\",\"authors\":\"Zelin Chen, Roxane J Itier\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/psyp.14645\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Enhanced error monitoring, as indexed by increased amplitude of the error-related negativity (ERN) event-related potential (ERP) component, has been suggested to reflect a vulnerability neuro-marker of anxiety disorders. Another error-related ERP component is the error positivity (Pe), which reflects late-stage error processing. The associations between heightened ERN and Pe amplitudes and anxiety levels in the nonclinical population have been inconsistent. In this preregistered study, we examined the association between anxiety, ERN, and Pe, using different analytical methods (mass-univariate analyses, MUAs and conventional analyses), self-reported anxiety scales (STAI and STICSA), and trial numbers (all correct trials and equal numbers of correct and error trials). In a sample of 82 healthy adults, both conventional and MUAs demonstrated a robust enhancement of the ERN and Pe to errors relative to the correct-response ERPs. However, the mass-univariate approach additionally unveiled a wider array of electrodes and a longer effect duration for this error enhancement. Across the analytic methods, the results showed a lack of consistent correlation between trait anxiety and error-related ERPs. Findings were not modulated by trial numbers, analyses, or anxiety scales. The present results suggest a lack of enhancement of error monitoring by anxious traits in individuals with subclinical anxiety and those with clinical anxiety but without a clinical diagnosis. Importantly, the absence of such correlation questions the validity of the ERN as a neural marker for anxiety disorders. Future studies that investigate neuro-markers of anxiety may explore alternative task designs and employ robust statistics to provide a more comprehensive understanding of anxiety vulnerability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14645\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14645","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与错误有关的负性(ERN)事件相关电位(ERP)成分的振幅增大表明错误监测增强,这被认为反映了焦虑症的易感性神经标记。另一个与错误相关的ERP成分是错误阳性(Pe),它反映了后期的错误处理。在非临床人群中,ERN 和 Pe 振幅的增强与焦虑水平之间的关系并不一致。在这项预先登记的研究中,我们采用了不同的分析方法(大规模单变量分析、MUAs 和常规分析)、自我报告焦虑量表(STAI 和 STICSA)以及试验次数(所有正确试验和相同次数的正确与错误试验),考察了焦虑、ERN 和 Pe 之间的关联。在 82 名健康成人样本中,传统分析和 MUAs 都显示出 ERN 和 Pe 相对于正确反应 ERPs 对错误的有力增强。然而,大规模单变量方法还揭示了更广泛的电极阵列和更长的错误增强效应持续时间。在所有分析方法中,结果显示特质焦虑与错误相关的 ERPs 之间缺乏一致的相关性。研究结果不受试验次数、分析或焦虑量表的影响。本研究结果表明,在亚临床焦虑症患者和有临床焦虑症但未被临床诊断的患者中,焦虑特质对错误监测的增强作用并不明显。重要的是,这种相关性的缺失质疑了ERN作为焦虑症神经标志物的有效性。未来研究焦虑症的神经标记物时,可以探索其他任务设计并采用稳健的统计方法,以便更全面地了解焦虑症的易感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No association between error-related ERPs and trait anxiety in a nonclinical sample: Convergence across analytical methods including mass-univariate statistics.

Enhanced error monitoring, as indexed by increased amplitude of the error-related negativity (ERN) event-related potential (ERP) component, has been suggested to reflect a vulnerability neuro-marker of anxiety disorders. Another error-related ERP component is the error positivity (Pe), which reflects late-stage error processing. The associations between heightened ERN and Pe amplitudes and anxiety levels in the nonclinical population have been inconsistent. In this preregistered study, we examined the association between anxiety, ERN, and Pe, using different analytical methods (mass-univariate analyses, MUAs and conventional analyses), self-reported anxiety scales (STAI and STICSA), and trial numbers (all correct trials and equal numbers of correct and error trials). In a sample of 82 healthy adults, both conventional and MUAs demonstrated a robust enhancement of the ERN and Pe to errors relative to the correct-response ERPs. However, the mass-univariate approach additionally unveiled a wider array of electrodes and a longer effect duration for this error enhancement. Across the analytic methods, the results showed a lack of consistent correlation between trait anxiety and error-related ERPs. Findings were not modulated by trial numbers, analyses, or anxiety scales. The present results suggest a lack of enhancement of error monitoring by anxious traits in individuals with subclinical anxiety and those with clinical anxiety but without a clinical diagnosis. Importantly, the absence of such correlation questions the validity of the ERN as a neural marker for anxiety disorders. Future studies that investigate neuro-markers of anxiety may explore alternative task designs and employ robust statistics to provide a more comprehensive understanding of anxiety vulnerability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.10%
发文量
225
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1964, Psychophysiology is the most established journal in the world specifically dedicated to the dissemination of psychophysiological science. The journal continues to play a key role in advancing human neuroscience in its many forms and methodologies (including central and peripheral measures), covering research on the interrelationships between the physiological and psychological aspects of brain and behavior. Typically, studies published in Psychophysiology include psychological independent variables and noninvasive physiological dependent variables (hemodynamic, optical, and electromagnetic brain imaging and/or peripheral measures such as respiratory sinus arrhythmia, electromyography, pupillography, and many others). The majority of studies published in the journal involve human participants, but work using animal models of such phenomena is occasionally published. Psychophysiology welcomes submissions on new theoretical, empirical, and methodological advances in: cognitive, affective, clinical and social neuroscience, psychopathology and psychiatry, health science and behavioral medicine, and biomedical engineering. The journal publishes theoretical papers, evaluative reviews of literature, empirical papers, and methodological papers, with submissions welcome from scientists in any fields mentioned above.
×
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