Emotion reactivity-related brain network analysis in generalized anxiety disorder: a task fMRI study.
Brain network analysis
Emotion reactivity
Generalized anxiety disorder
Task-based fMRI
Top-down control
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 09 2020
02 09 2020
Historique:
received:
10
11
2019
accepted:
23
08
2020
entrez:
4
9
2020
pubmed:
4
9
2020
medline:
30
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is closely associated with emotional dysregulation. Patients with GAD tend to overreact to emotional stimuli and are impaired in emotional regulation. Using emotional regulation task, studies have found hypo-activation in prefrontal cortex (PFC) of GAD patients and concluded with inadequate top-down control. However, results remain inconsistent concerning PFC and limbic area's reactivity to emotional stimuli. What's more, only a few studies aim to identify how limbic area interacts with PFC in GAD patients. The current study aims to identify the difference in PFC-limbic circuitry response to emotional stimuli between GAD patients and healthy controls (HCs) from the perspective of brain network. Through brain network analysis, it revealed the connectivity between limbic area and PFC, and moreover, the orientation of connectivity, all of which gave a better test of inadequate top-down control hypothesis. During fMRI scanning, participants were required to complete an emotional face identification task (fearful, neutral, happy facial expression). 30 participants (16 GAD patients, 14 HCs) were included in the formal analysis. A Bayesian-network based method was used to identify the brain network consisting of several pre-hypothesized regions of interest (ROIs) under each condition (negative, positive, neutral). In total, six graphs were obtained. Each of them represented the brain network that was common to the group under corresponding condition. Results revealed that GAD patients showed more bottom-up connection but less top-down connection regardless of condition, relative to HCs. Also, the insula was more connected but the amygdala was less connected regardless of condition, relative to HCs. the results also revealed a very different brain network response between GAD patients and HCs even under neutral condition. More bottom-up connection but less top-down connection may indicate that GAD patients are insufficient in top-down control, in keeping with inadequate top-down control hypothesis. The more connected insula may indicate GAD patients' abnormality in interoception processing. Relative to HCs, distinct brain network response pattern in GAD patients under neutral condition suggests GAD patients' abnormality in distinguishing safety from threat and intolerance of uncertainty.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is closely associated with emotional dysregulation. Patients with GAD tend to overreact to emotional stimuli and are impaired in emotional regulation. Using emotional regulation task, studies have found hypo-activation in prefrontal cortex (PFC) of GAD patients and concluded with inadequate top-down control. However, results remain inconsistent concerning PFC and limbic area's reactivity to emotional stimuli. What's more, only a few studies aim to identify how limbic area interacts with PFC in GAD patients. The current study aims to identify the difference in PFC-limbic circuitry response to emotional stimuli between GAD patients and healthy controls (HCs) from the perspective of brain network. Through brain network analysis, it revealed the connectivity between limbic area and PFC, and moreover, the orientation of connectivity, all of which gave a better test of inadequate top-down control hypothesis.
METHODS
During fMRI scanning, participants were required to complete an emotional face identification task (fearful, neutral, happy facial expression). 30 participants (16 GAD patients, 14 HCs) were included in the formal analysis. A Bayesian-network based method was used to identify the brain network consisting of several pre-hypothesized regions of interest (ROIs) under each condition (negative, positive, neutral). In total, six graphs were obtained. Each of them represented the brain network that was common to the group under corresponding condition.
RESULTS
Results revealed that GAD patients showed more bottom-up connection but less top-down connection regardless of condition, relative to HCs. Also, the insula was more connected but the amygdala was less connected regardless of condition, relative to HCs. the results also revealed a very different brain network response between GAD patients and HCs even under neutral condition.
CONCLUSIONS
More bottom-up connection but less top-down connection may indicate that GAD patients are insufficient in top-down control, in keeping with inadequate top-down control hypothesis. The more connected insula may indicate GAD patients' abnormality in interoception processing. Relative to HCs, distinct brain network response pattern in GAD patients under neutral condition suggests GAD patients' abnormality in distinguishing safety from threat and intolerance of uncertainty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32878626
doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02831-6
pii: 10.1186/s12888-020-02831-6
pmc: PMC7466835
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
429Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 81571344
Pays : International
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 81871344
Pays : International
Organisme : Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province
ID : BK20161109
Pays : International
Organisme : the Natural Science Foundation of the Higher Education Institutions of Jiangsu Province, China
ID : 18KJB190003
Pays : International
Organisme : key research and development program (Social Development) project of Jiangsu province
ID : BE20156092015
Pays : International
Références
J Affect Disord. 2014 Apr;158:114-26
pubmed: 24655775
Neuroimage. 2011 Oct 1;58(3):838-48
pubmed: 21745580
Psychol Med. 2018 Mar;48(4):617-628
pubmed: 28735579
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015 Jan 23;11:115-26
pubmed: 25670901
Am J Psychiatry. 2007 Oct;164(10):1476-88
pubmed: 17898336
Am J Psychiatry. 2010 May;167(5):545-54
pubmed: 20123913
Neuroimage. 2012 Jan 16;59(2):1879-87
pubmed: 21920442
Psychiatry Res. 2008 Jan 15;157(1-3):77-85
pubmed: 17804083
Behav Res Ther. 1998 Feb;36(2):215-26
pubmed: 9613027
Neuroimage. 2012 Jul 16;61(4):987-99
pubmed: 22440644
J Affect Disord. 2014;167:336-42
pubmed: 25020268
J Cogn Neurosci. 2002 Nov 15;14(8):1215-29
pubmed: 12495527
Neuroimage. 2011 May 1;56(1):363-72
pubmed: 21316468
Hum Brain Mapp. 2014 Jun;35(6):2543-60
pubmed: 24038636
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013 Mar;52(3):290-299.e2
pubmed: 23452685
Psychol Med. 2010 Jan;40(1):117-24
pubmed: 19419593
Mol Psychiatry. 2001 Jan;6(1):13-34
pubmed: 11244481
J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2016 Apr;28(2):153-8
pubmed: 26192246
Emotion. 2001 Mar;1(1):70-83
pubmed: 12894812
Behav Res Ther. 2005 Oct;43(10):1281-310
pubmed: 16086981
Brain Struct Funct. 2010 Jun;214(5-6):451-63
pubmed: 20490545
Neuroimage Clin. 2016 Oct 05;12:698-706
pubmed: 27761400
Neuroimage. 2002 Jan;15(1):273-89
pubmed: 11771995
Neuroimage. 2014 Feb 1;86:573-82
pubmed: 24140939
Nat Neurosci. 2019 Nov;22(11):1751-1760
pubmed: 31611705
Neuroimage. 2010 Jan 15;49(2):1545-58
pubmed: 19747552
Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Sep;165(9):1193-202
pubmed: 18483136
Neuroimage. 2014 Dec;103:48-54
pubmed: 25234115
Neuroimage. 2004 Jan;21(1):450-5
pubmed: 14741682
Neuron. 2008 Sep 25;59(6):1037-50
pubmed: 18817740
Neuroimage. 2003 Jul;19(3):1233-9
pubmed: 12880848
Neuroimage. 2011 Jan 15;54(2):875-91
pubmed: 20817103
Depress Anxiety. 2012 Apr;29(4):257-63
pubmed: 22447565
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 May;42:1-8
pubmed: 24525267
Brain. 2016 Sep;139(Pt 9):2554-66
pubmed: 27368345
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Jan;64(1):97-106
pubmed: 17199059
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 May;65(5):568-76
pubmed: 18458208
J Neurosci. 1995 Sep;15(9):5879-91
pubmed: 7666173
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;206(3):206-15
pubmed: 25573399
Psychol Med. 2013 Jul;43(7):1475-86
pubmed: 23111120
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Sep 02;7:518
pubmed: 24032009
Depress Anxiety. 2012 Nov;29(11):939-47
pubmed: 22628125
J Anxiety Disord. 2009 Dec;23(8):1011-23
pubmed: 19700258
Am J Psychiatry. 2011 Sep;168(9):968-78
pubmed: 21632648
Biol Psychiatry. 2012 Sep 15;72(6):476-82
pubmed: 22592057
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009 Jan;10(1):59-70
pubmed: 19096369
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014 Sep;9(9):1413-8
pubmed: 23938870
Biol Psychiatry. 2008 May 1;63(9):858-63
pubmed: 17964548
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018 May 09;14:1183-1198
pubmed: 29785110
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Aug 05;8:593
pubmed: 25140143
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2019 Sep;126(9):1203-1216
pubmed: 31222605
J Clin Psychol. 2013 Jun;69(6):630-45
pubmed: 23381685
Biol Psychiatry. 2002 Jan 1;51(1):68-80
pubmed: 11801232
Lancet Psychiatry. 2014 Sep 1;1(4):294-302
pubmed: 25722962
J Neurosci. 2014 Mar 12;34(11):4043-53
pubmed: 24623781
Neuroimage Clin. 2013 Mar 25;2:448-58
pubmed: 24179799
Depress Anxiety. 2013 Mar;30(3):242-50
pubmed: 23139148
PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e25031
pubmed: 21949842
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010 Jan;35(1):136-46
pubmed: 19710632
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1996 Apr;6(2):221-7
pubmed: 8725964
Psychol Med. 2011 May;41(5):1009-18
pubmed: 20716396