Sanne J H van Rooij1, Arthur R Rademaker1, Mitzy Kennis1, Matthijs Vink2, René S Kahn2, Elbert Geuze1. 1. Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht and the Research Centre, Military Mental Healthcare, Ministry of Defence, the Netherlands. 2. Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is often associated with impaired fear inhibition and decreased safety cue processing; however, studies capturing the cognitive aspect of inhibition and contextual cue processing are limited. In this fMRI study, the role of contextual cues in response inhibition was investigated. METHODS: Male medication-naive war veterans with PTSD, male control veterans (combat controls) and healthy nonmilitary men (healthy controls) underwent fMRI while performing the stop-signal anticipation task (SSAT). The SSAT evokes 2 forms of response inhibition: reactive inhibition (outright stopping) and proactive inhibition (anticipation of stopping based on contextual cues). RESULTS: We enrolled 28 veterans with PTSD, 26 combat controls and 25 healthy controls in our study. Reduced reactive inhibition was observed in all veterans, both with and without PTSD, but not in nonmilitary controls, whereas decreased inhibition of the left pre/postcentral gyrus appeared to be specifically associated with PTSD. Impaired behavioural proactive inhibition was also specific to PTSD. Furthermore, the PTSD group showed a reduced right inferior frontal gyrus response during proactive inhibition compared with the combat control group. LIMITATIONS: Most patients with PTSD had comorbid psychiatric disorders, but such comorbidity is common in patients with PTSD. Also, the education level (estimate of intelligence) of participants, but not of their parents, differed among the groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings of reduced proactive inhibition imply that patients with PTSD show reduced contextual cue processing. These results complement previous findings on fear inhibition and demonstrate that contextual cue processing in patients with PTSD is also reduced during cognitive processes, indicating a more general deficit.
BACKGROUND:Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is often associated with impaired fear inhibition and decreased safety cue processing; however, studies capturing the cognitive aspect of inhibition and contextual cue processing are limited. In this fMRI study, the role of contextual cues in response inhibition was investigated. METHODS: Male medication-naive war veterans with PTSD, male control veterans (combat controls) and healthy nonmilitary men (healthy controls) underwent fMRI while performing the stop-signal anticipation task (SSAT). The SSAT evokes 2 forms of response inhibition: reactive inhibition (outright stopping) and proactive inhibition (anticipation of stopping based on contextual cues). RESULTS: We enrolled 28 veterans with PTSD, 26 combat controls and 25 healthy controls in our study. Reduced reactive inhibition was observed in all veterans, both with and without PTSD, but not in nonmilitary controls, whereas decreased inhibition of the left pre/postcentral gyrus appeared to be specifically associated with PTSD. Impaired behavioural proactive inhibition was also specific to PTSD. Furthermore, the PTSD group showed a reduced right inferior frontal gyrus response during proactive inhibition compared with the combat control group. LIMITATIONS: Most patients with PTSD had comorbid psychiatric disorders, but such comorbidity is common in patients with PTSD. Also, the education level (estimate of intelligence) of participants, but not of their parents, differed among the groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings of reduced proactive inhibition imply that patients with PTSD show reduced contextual cue processing. These results complement previous findings on fear inhibition and demonstrate that contextual cue processing in patients with PTSD is also reduced during cognitive processes, indicating a more general deficit.
Authors: Bram B Zandbelt; Mirjam Bloemendaal; Sebastiaan F W Neggers; René S Kahn; Matthijs Vink Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: John P Christianson; Anushka B P Fernando; Andy M Kazama; Tanja Jovanovic; Linnaea E Ostroff; Susan Sangha Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Delin Sun; Matthew R Peverill; Chelsea S Swanson; Katie A McLaughlin; Rajendra A Morey Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-12-25 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Michael Esterman; Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Meghan E Pierce; Jennifer R Fonda; Joseph DeGutis; William Milberg; Regina McGlinchey Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sanne J H van Rooij; Jennifer S Stevens; Timothy D Ely; Rebecca Hinrichs; Vasiliki Michopoulos; Sterling J Winters; Yvonne E Ogbonmwan; Jaemin Shin; Nicole R Nugent; Lauren A Hudak; Barbara O Rothbaum; Kerry J Ressler; Tanja Jovanovic Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 13.382