| Literature DB >> 23227242 |
Lei Zhang1, Rong Ye, Fengqiong Yu, Zhaolun Cao, Chunyan Zhu, Zhu Cai, Panpan Hu, Hui Pu, Kai Wang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alexithymia, characterized by difficulties in identifying and describing feelings, is highly indicative of a broad range of psychiatric disorders. Several studies have also discovered the response inhibition ability impairment in alexithymia. However, few studies on alexithymic individuals have specifically examined how emotional context modulates response inhibition procedure. In order to investigate emotion cognition interaction in alexithymia, we analyzed the spatiao-temporal features of such emotional response inhibition by the approaches of event-related potentials and neural source-localization.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23227242 PMCID: PMC3515526 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic data of alexithymic and control group.
| Alexithymics(n = 15) | Controls(n = 15) | |
| Age (years) | 21.2(0.46) | 21.1(0.26) |
| Gender (male/female) | 15 m/18f | 16 m/14f |
| Education (years) | 16.19(0.40) | 16.13(0.34) |
| SDS | 33.12(4.57) | 31.94(3.12) |
| SAS | 28.72(2.61) | 27.64(2.23) |
| TAS-20 (score) | 64.93(7.32) | 36.06(3.34) |
p<.05.
Means and standard deviations of valence (1, negative, to 7 positive) and arousal (1, calming, to 7, arousing) assessments given by the two groups to the three types of emotional context (Negative, Neutral, and Positive).
| Negative context | Neutral context | Positive context | ||||
| Valence | Arousal | Valence | Arousal | Valence | Arousal | |
| Alexithymics | 2.64(0.87) | 4.3(1.69) | 4.67(0.67) | 2.26(1.37) | 6.08(0.64) | 3.44(1.76) |
| Controls | 2.34(0.43) | 5.15(0.36) | 4.3(0.36) | 3.14(1.24) | 6.23(0.57) | 4.04(1.47) |
After asterisks, the IAPS code of employed pictures is provided.
1090 6210 6840 9320 9912.
2840 5510 7002 7009 7150.
1999 2165 5831 5849 7325.
Figure 1Examples of Go and Nogo trials in a positive context block.
Means and standard deviations of reaction times (RTs) of Go stimuli and omission/commission errors under each emotional context (Negative, Neutral, and Positive) in two groups.
| Negative context | Neutral context | Positive context | ||||
| Alexithymics | Controls | Alexithymics | Controls | Alexithymics | Controls | |
| Go RTs (ms) | 383.78(37.56) | 384.87(48.55) | 390.22(46.27) | 381.89(58.07) | 393.90(47.54) | 389.44(73.92) |
| Commission errors | 5.62(4.41) | 4.84(3.67) | 6.85(5.74) | 5.77(4.95) | 5.77(4.59) | 5.15(3.65) |
| Omission errors | 0.85(1.14) | 0.53(1.13) | 0.77(1.48) | 0.08(0.28) | 0.85(1.52) | 0.85(1.14) |
Figure 2The averaged ERP evoked by Nogo (solid lines) and Go (dashed lines) stimuli during negative (red lines), neutral (black lines) and positive (green lines) emotional conditions at Fz, Cz and Pz.
Figure 3The difference ERPs of Nogo minus Go tasks between two groups during 3 emotional conditions at Cz.
A. Difference waveforms recorded at Cz site under 3 emotional contexts (negative, positive and neutral conditions); B. 2-D topographic display of mean voltage of the P3 difference waves (time interval: 450–550 ms) for both alexithymia and control group during 3 emotional conditions.
Figure 4sLORETA solutions on P3 temporal factor scores showing voxels in which the Nogo>Go contrast was significant (p<0.01).