BACKGROUND: Biased causal attribution is a critical factor in the cognitive model of depression. Whereas depressed patients interpret events negatively, healthy people show a self-serving bias (internal attribution of positive events and external attribution of negative events). METHODS: Using fMRI, depressed patients (n=15) and healthy controls (n=15) were confronted with positive and negative social events and made causal attributions (internal vs. external). Functional data were analyzed using a mixed effects model. RESULTS: Behaviourally, controls showed a self-serving bias, whereas patients demonstrated a balanced attributional pattern. Analysis of functional data revealed a significant group difference in a fronto-temporal network. Higher activation of this network was associated with non self-serving attributions in controls but self-serving attributions in patients. Applying a psycho-physiological interaction analysis, we observed reduced coupling between a dorsomedial PFC seed region and limbic areas during self-serving attributions in patients compared to controls. LIMITATIONS: Results of the PPI analysis are preliminary given the liberal statistical threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The association of the behaviourally less frequent attributional pattern with activation in a fronto-temporal network suggests that non self-serving responses may produce a self-related response conflict in controls, while self-serving responses produce this conflict in patients. Moreover, attribution-modulated coupling between the dorsomedial PFC and limbic regions was weaker in patients than controls. This preliminary finding suggests that depression may be associated with disturbances in fronto-limbic coupling during attributional decisions. Our results implicate that treatment of major depression may benefit from approaches that facilitate reinterpretation of emotional events in a more positive, more self-serving way.
BACKGROUND: Biased causal attribution is a critical factor in the cognitive model of depression. Whereas depressedpatients interpret events negatively, healthy people show a self-serving bias (internal attribution of positive events and external attribution of negative events). METHODS: Using fMRI, depressedpatients (n=15) and healthy controls (n=15) were confronted with positive and negative social events and made causal attributions (internal vs. external). Functional data were analyzed using a mixed effects model. RESULTS: Behaviourally, controls showed a self-serving bias, whereas patients demonstrated a balanced attributional pattern. Analysis of functional data revealed a significant group difference in a fronto-temporal network. Higher activation of this network was associated with non self-serving attributions in controls but self-serving attributions in patients. Applying a psycho-physiological interaction analysis, we observed reduced coupling between a dorsomedial PFC seed region and limbic areas during self-serving attributions in patients compared to controls. LIMITATIONS: Results of the PPI analysis are preliminary given the liberal statistical threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The association of the behaviourally less frequent attributional pattern with activation in a fronto-temporal network suggests that non self-serving responses may produce a self-related response conflict in controls, while self-serving responses produce this conflict in patients. Moreover, attribution-modulated coupling between the dorsomedial PFC and limbic regions was weaker in patients than controls. This preliminary finding suggests that depression may be associated with disturbances in fronto-limbic coupling during attributional decisions. Our results implicate that treatment of major depression may benefit from approaches that facilitate reinterpretation of emotional events in a more positive, more self-serving way.
Authors: Yvette I Sheline; Deanna M Barch; Joseph L Price; Melissa M Rundle; S Neil Vaishnavi; Abraham Z Snyder; Mark A Mintun; Suzhi Wang; Rebecca S Coalson; Marcus E Raichle Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-01-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jonathan P Stange; Katie L Bessette; Lisanne M Jenkins; Amy T Peters; Claudia Feldhaus; Natania A Crane; Olusola Ajilore; Rachel H Jacobs; Edward R Watkins; Scott A Langenecker Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: L Schilbach; F Hoffstaedter; V Müller; E C Cieslik; R Goya-Maldonado; S Trost; C Sorg; V Riedl; R Jardri; I Sommer; L Kogler; B Derntl; O Gruber; S B Eickhoff Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 4.881