| Literature DB >> 25161823 |
Yuka Kotozaki1, Hikaru Takeuchi2, Atsushi Sekiguchi3, Yuki Yamamoto4, Takamitsu Shinada4, Tsuyoshi Araki1, Kei Takahashi4, Yasuyuki Taki5, Takeshi Ogino6, Masashi Kiguchi7, Ryuta Kawashima8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The day-to-day causes of stress are called daily hassles. Daily hassles are correlated with ill health. Biofeedback (BF) is one of the tools used for acquiring stress-coping skills. However, the anatomical correlates of the effects of BF with long training periods remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to investigate this.Entities:
Keywords: Biofeedback training; daily hassles; hippocampus; orbitofrontal cortex; subgenual anterior cingulate cortex
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25161823 PMCID: PMC4128038 DOI: 10.1002/brb3.241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Behav Impact factor: 2.708
Figure 1Flow chart of the study.
Figure 2Device used for biofeedback training. Subjects in the intervention group performed a biofeedback-training task using this device.
Figure 3Screenshots of the biofeedback-training task The biofeedback-training task aims to maintain cerebral blood flow (CBF) and heart rate (HR) within the designated range by controlling them separately or simultaneously. The blue line differed in width according to training level. Participants were asked to ensure that visual cue was kept inside the blue line for a given length of time and were trained to control a set of the BFT.
Baseline demographic and clinical data of the study subjects
| BF group ( | NI group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Age (years) | 41.7 | 7.7 | 42.9 | 8.1 | 0.680 |
| Years of service | 19.5 | 7.5 | 22.1 | 6.8 | 0.329 |
BF, biofeedback; NI, no intervention; SD, standard deviation.
One-way analysis of variance.
Psychological test scores and salivary cortisol levels before and after biofeedback training
| BF group | NI group | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |||||||
| Measures | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Planned contrast | |
| CES-D score | 8.13 | 6.62 | 7.07 | 6.87 | 11.07 | 6.91 | 14.73 | 12.65 | BF < NI | |
| PANAS-PA score | 27.13 | 5.07 | 26.87 | 5.74 | 20.33 | 7.24 | 22.07 | 8.22 | BF > NI | 0.323 |
| PANAS-NA score | 19.20 | 7.58 | 16.87 | 7.21 | 16.47 | 7.21 | 18.60 | 7.59 | BF < NI | |
| BJSQ psychological work load (quantity) score | 2.80 | 1.37 | 2.73 | 1.39 | 2.60 | 1.35 | 2.73 | 1.03 | BF < NI | 0.312 |
| BJSQ psychological work load (quality) score | 3.00 | 0.76 | 2.93 | 0.80 | 2.60 | 1.18 | 2.53 | 0.99 | BF < NI | 0.300 |
| BJSQ physical work load score | 2.80 | 1.01 | 2.80 | 1.01 | 2.80 | 1.21 | 2.60 | 1.06 | BF < NI | 0.220 |
| BJSQ stressors of personal relations in a workplace score | 3.00 | 1.00 | 3.07 | 1.16 | 2.80 | 1.21 | 2.80 | 0.86 | BF < NI | 0.309 |
| BJSQ stressors of working environment score | 2.73 | 1.16 | 1.67 | 1.40 | 2.60 | 1.18 | 2.93 | 1.22 | BF < NI | |
| BJSQ job control score | 3.60 | 0.99 | 3.67 | 0.98 | 3.27 | 1.03 | 3.47 | 0.83 | BF > NI | 0.475 |
| BJSQ skill utilization score | 3.47 | 0.64 | 3.33 | 0.72 | 3.27 | 0.80 | 2.87 | 0.83 | BF > NI | 0.060 |
| BJSQ aptitude for job score | 2.87 | 0.99 | 3.53 | 1.36 | 3.33 | 1.35 | 3.20 | 1.32 | BF > NI | |
| BJSQ worth working score | 2.60 | 1.18 | 2.73 | 1.33 | 3.27 | 1.44 | 3.20 | 1.08 | BF > NI | 0.433 |
| BJSQ vigor score | 3.20 | 0.77 | 3.40 | 0.74 | 2.73 | 1.22 | 2.73 | 1.28 | BF > NI | 0.101 |
| BJSQ tension score | 3.27 | 1.22 | 2.40 | 1.18 | 3.13 | 1.06 | 3.13 | 1.13 | BF < NI | |
| BJSQ fatigue score | 3.27 | 1.10 | 3.27 | 1.10 | 2.93 | 1.33 | 2.47 | 0.91 | BF < NI | |
| BJSQ anxiety score | 3.00 | 1.20 | 3.13 | 1.41 | 3.13 | 0.92 | 3.20 | 1.08 | BF < NI | 0.446 |
| BJSQ depression score | 3.73 | 1.39 | 2.87 | 1.25 | 3.27 | 1.10 | 3.27 | 1.16 | BF < NI | |
| BJSQ somatic stress response score | 3.27 | 1.33 | 3.20 | 1.32 | 3.33 | 1.05 | 3.33 | 1.29 | BF < NI | 0.340 |
| Salivary cortisol level | 4.14 | 3.48 | 2.18 | 2.69 | 4.04 | 4.52 | 5.44 | 5.05 | BF < NI | |
Bold indicates significantly different values.
BF, biofeedback; NI, no intervention; SD, standard deviation; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; PANAS-PA, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Positive Affect; PANAS-NA, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Negative Affect; BJSQ, Brief Job Stress Questionnaire.
One-way analyses of covariance using pre-/postintervention differences in psychological measures as dependent variables and preintervention scores as covariates (one tailed).
Significant at P < 0.05 level after Bonferroni correction.
P < 0.01.
Figure 4The regional gray matter volume of the right lateral orbitofrontal cortex and an anatomical cluster that included mainly the left hippocampus increased in the BF group compared to the NI group. Results are shown at a significance level of P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons at the cluster level with an underlying voxel level of P < 0.0025. The color density represents the T score.
Figure 5Another area (the left subgenual anterior cingulate cortex) showing an increase in the regional gray matter volume in the BF group. Results are shown for P = 0.0001 corrected for visualization purposes. Note that the cluster may look small compared with the extent of the significant correlation described in the Results section because of the thresholds used in the SVC.