| Literature DB >> 19718457 |
Michael E Silverman1, Peter Muennig, Xun Liu, Zohn Rosen, Martin A Goldstein.
Abstract
Low socio-economic status (SES) is associated with increased morbidity and premature mortality. Because tonic adversity relates to a diminished ability to experience pleasure, we hypothesized that subjects living in poverty would show diminished neural responsivity to positive stimuli in regions associated with positive experience and reward. Visual images were presented to twenty-two subjects in the context of a EPI-BOLD fMRI paradigm. Significant differences in neural responses between SES groups to poverty vs. neutral images were assessed, examining group, condition, and interaction effects. The data suggest that persons living in low-SES have neural experiences consistent with diminished interest in things generally enjoyed and point toward a possible explanation for the relationship between socioeconomic inequalities and mood disorders, such as depression, by SES.Entities:
Keywords: depression; fMRI; mood; socio-economic status.; stress
Year: 2009 PMID: 19718457 PMCID: PMC2731107 DOI: 10.2174/1874440000903010058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Neuroimag J ISSN: 1874-4400
Fig. (1)low SES > high SES, positive vs. neutral. Threshold at p=.05 for visualization. Regions marked in blue (superimposed on an anatomical image) had statistically significant BOLD decreases whereas regions in red indicate significant BOLD increases.
A) Cingulate (anterior and posterior); B) Caudate (yellow), Insula (red); C) Pons; D) Insula.
Mean, Standard Deviation and Significance for Demographic Characteristics of the fMRI Included Sub-Sample by SES Group
| Demographic Measure | Low SES (N=8) | High SES (N=7) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 4 Male | 2 Male | n/a |
| Age | 22.63 (2.77) | 25.57 (2.51) | t=2.15, p=.051 |
| Education | 2.62 (1.06) | 4.14 (0.69) | Z=2.75,p=.006 |
| Current Household Income | $29,956 ($14,543) | $56,714 ($24,464) | t=2.53, p=.031 |
| Num. of People who Sleep in Home | 3.13 (1.55) | 2.14 (1.35) | t=1.30, p=.216 |
| Perceived Stress Scale | 17.38 (5.78) | 16.14 (5.27) | t=0.43, p=.675 |
| Perceived Neighborhood Stress | 30.50 (9.18) | 33.00 (6.14) | t=0.61, p=.553 |
| Rosenberg Self Esteem | 17.75 (8.48) | 16.00 (4.32) | t=0.49, p=.631 |
| Comprehensive Quality of Life Inventory | |||
| Material Well-Being | 8.63 (1.60) | 10.00 (0.82) | t=2.05, p=.061 |
| Health | 13.38 (1.51) | 14.29 (0.49) | t=1.53, p=.151 |
| Productivity | 13.00 (1.85) | 15.43 (1.72) | t=2.62, p=.021 |
| Intimacy | 12.38 (2.26) | 13.86 (0.90) | t=1.62, p=.130 |
| Safety | 11.50 (2.20) | 11.43 (1.27) | t=0.08, p=.941 |
| Emotional Well-Being | 9.00 (2.07) | 10.86 (1.35) | t=2.02, p=.064 |
| MacArthur Psychosocial Ladder | 4.88 (2.23) | 6.00 (2.04) | t=1.01, p=.330 |
| Social Support | 0.87 (0.64) | 1.00 (0.58) | t=0.39, p=.700 |
| Negative Life Events | 2.14 (0.38) | 1.79 (0.39) | t=1.73, p=.109 |
Note. Data are mean (SD) except where indicated.
p<.05
p <.01
Education was measured on a 5-point scale with a higher value indicating a greater level of education (