BACKGROUND: One of the principal theories regarding the biological basis of major depressive disorder (MDD) implicates a dysregulation of emotion-processing circuitry. Gender differences in how emotions are processed and relative experience with emotion processing might help to explain some of the disparities in the prevalence of MDD between women and men. This study sought to explore how gender and depression status relate to emotion processing. METHODS: This study employed a 2 (MDD status) x 2 (gender) factorial design to explore differences in classifications of posed facial emotional expressions (N=151). RESULTS: For errors, there was an interaction between gender and depression status. Women with MDD made more errors than did nondepressed women and men with MDD, particularly for fearful and sad stimuli (Ps <.02), which they were likely to misinterpret as angry (Ps <.04). There was also an interaction of diagnosis and gender for response cost for negative stimuli, with significantly greater interference from negative faces present in women with MDD compared to nondepressed women (P=.01). Men with MDD, conversely, performed similarly to control men (P=.61). CONCLUSIONS: These results provide novel and intriguing evidence that depression in younger adults (<35 years) differentially disrupts emotion processing in women as compared to men. This interaction could be driven by neurobiological and social learning mechanisms, or interactions between them, and may underlie differences in the prevalence of depression in women and men. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: One of the principal theories regarding the biological basis of major depressive disorder (MDD) implicates a dysregulation of emotion-processing circuitry. Gender differences in how emotions are processed and relative experience with emotion processing might help to explain some of the disparities in the prevalence of MDD between women and men. This study sought to explore how gender and depression status relate to emotion processing. METHODS: This study employed a 2 (MDD status) x 2 (gender) factorial design to explore differences in classifications of posed facial emotional expressions (N=151). RESULTS: For errors, there was an interaction between gender and depression status. Women with MDD made more errors than did nondepressed women and men with MDD, particularly for fearful and sad stimuli (Ps <.02), which they were likely to misinterpret as angry (Ps <.04). There was also an interaction of diagnosis and gender for response cost for negative stimuli, with significantly greater interference from negative faces present in women with MDD compared to nondepressed women (P=.01). Men with MDD, conversely, performed similarly to control men (P=.61). CONCLUSIONS: These results provide novel and intriguing evidence that depression in younger adults (<35 years) differentially disrupts emotion processing in women as compared to men. This interaction could be driven by neurobiological and social learning mechanisms, or interactions between them, and may underlie differences in the prevalence of depression in women and men. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Lisa J Rapport; Sara R Friedman; Angela Tzelepis; Amy Van Voorhis; Sara L Friedman Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Verica Milivojevic; Rajita Sinha; Peter T Morgan; Mehmet Sofuoglu; Helen C Fox Journal: Hum Psychopharmacol Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 1.672
Authors: Aaron C Vederman; Sara L Weisenbach; Lisa J Rapport; Hadia M Leon; Brennan D Haase; Lindsay M Franti; Michael-Paul Schallmo; Erika F H Saunders; Masoud M Kamali; Jon-Kar Zubieta; Scott A Langenecker; Melvin G McInnis Journal: Cortex Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 4.027
Authors: Sara L Weisenbach; Lisa J Rapport; Emily M Briceno; Brennan D Haase; Aaron C Vederman; Linas A Bieliauskas; Robert C Welsh; Monica N Starkman; Melvin G McInnis; Jon-Kar Zubieta; Scott A Langenecker Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: L M Jenkins; A D Kendall; M T Kassel; V G Patrón; J R Gowins; C Dion; S A Shankman; S L Weisenbach; P Maki; S A Langenecker Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Katie L Bessette; Aimee J Karstens; Natania A Crane; Amy T Peters; Jonathan P Stange; Kathleen H Elverman; Sarah Shizuko Morimoto; Sara L Weisenbach; Scott A Langenecker Journal: Neuropsychol Rev Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 7.444
Authors: E M Briceño; S L Weisenbach; L J Rapport; K E Hazlett; L A Bieliauskas; B D Haase; M T Ransom; M L Brinkman; M Peciña; D E Schteingart; M N Starkman; B Giordani; R C Welsh; D C Noll; J-K Zubieta; S A Langenecker Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Emily M Briceño; Lisa J Rapport; Michelle T Kassel; Linas A Bieliauskas; Jon-Kar Zubieta; Sara L Weisenbach; Scott A Langenecker Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 4.105