Cognitive load and autonomic response patterns under negative priming demand in depersonalization-derealization disorder.
Cognitive load and autonomic response patterns under negative priming demand in depersonalization-derealization disorder.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/ejn.13183
复制
发表时间：
2016-04
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Giampietro VP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lemche E;Sierra-Siegert M;David AS;Phillips ML;Gasston D;Williams SC;Giampietro VP
先前的研究已经提供了人格解体-现实解体障碍（DPRD）中认知处理异常和自主功能改变的证据。然而，尚未进行多模式神经影像学和心理生理学研究来测试 DPRD 患者在认知压力下的功能和有效连接。 DPRD 和非参考对照受试者接受了 Stroop/负启动联合任务，并确定了两组的 Stroop 干扰效应、负启动效应、错误率、认知负荷跨度和皮肤电导反应平均幅度的神经相关性。比较了基本 Stroop/负启动激活的诱发血液动力学反应。对于基本 Stroop 到中性对比，DPRD 患者所涉及的顶叶区域的位置（下小叶与上小叶）不同，但在左额叶区域显示出相似的激活。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)，这也被发现是主要的组间差异区域。这些区域还显示出与人格解体状态频率的连通性。从感兴趣区域提取的诱发血流动力学反应表明，30-40% 的时间点存在显着的组间差异。大脑行为相关性主要在偏侧性方面存在差异，但在区域方面仅有轻微差异。 DPRD 患者的认知负荷跨度的自主神经模式逆转变得明显，表明认知压力下的唤醒抑制效果较差——DPRD 患者表现出认知负荷与自主反应的正相关，而对照组则表现出相应的负相关。总体而言，本研究的结果仅显示出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。
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.