D G Dillon1, T Wiecki2, P Pechtel1, C Webb1, F Goer1, L Murray1, M Trivedi3, M Fava4, P J McGrath5, M Weissman5, R Parsey6, B Kurian3, P Adams5, T Carmody3, S Weyandt3, K Shores-Wilson3, M Toups3, M McInnis7, M A Oquendo5, C Cusin4, P Deldin7, G Bruder5, D A Pizzagalli1. 1. Center for Depression, Anxiety and Stress Research,McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School,Belmont,MA,USA. 2. Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences,Brown University,Providence,RI,USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry,University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center,Dallas,TX,USA. 4. Clinical Research Program,Massachusetts General Hospital,Boston,MA,USA. 5. New York State Psychiatric Institute & Department of Psychiatry,College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University,New York,NY,USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science,Stony Brook University,Stony Brook,NY,USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry,University of Michigan Health System,Ann Arbor,MI,USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is characterized by poor executive function, but - counterintuitively - in some studies, it has been associated with highly accurate performance on certain cognitively demanding tasks. The psychological mechanisms responsible for this paradoxical finding are unclear. To address this issue, we applied a drift diffusion model (DDM) to flanker task data from depressed and healthy adults participating in the multi-site Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response for Clinical Care for Depression (EMBARC) study. METHOD: One hundred unmedicated, depressed adults and 40 healthy controls completed a flanker task. We investigated the effect of flanker interference on accuracy and response time, and used the DDM to examine group differences in three cognitive processes: prepotent response bias (tendency to respond to the distracting flankers), response inhibition (necessary to resist prepotency), and executive control (required for execution of correct response on incongruent trials). RESULTS: Consistent with prior reports, depressed participants responded more slowly and accurately than controls on incongruent trials. The DDM indicated that although executive control was sluggish in depressed participants, this was more than offset by decreased prepotent response bias. Among the depressed participants, anhedonia was negatively correlated with a parameter indexing the speed of executive control (r = -0.28, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Executive control was delayed in depression but this was counterbalanced by reduced prepotent response bias, demonstrating how participants with executive function deficits can nevertheless perform accurately in a cognitive control task. Drawing on data from neural network simulations, we speculate that these results may reflect tonically reduced striatal dopamine in depression.
BACKGROUND:Depression is characterized by poor executive function, but - counterintuitively - in some studies, it has been associated with highly accurate performance on certain cognitively demanding tasks. The psychological mechanisms responsible for this paradoxical finding are unclear. To address this issue, we applied a drift diffusion model (DDM) to flanker task data from depressed and healthy adults participating in the multi-site Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response for Clinical Care for Depression (EMBARC) study. METHOD: One hundred unmedicated, depressed adults and 40 healthy controls completed a flanker task. We investigated the effect of flanker interference on accuracy and response time, and used the DDM to examine group differences in three cognitive processes: prepotent response bias (tendency to respond to the distracting flankers), response inhibition (necessary to resist prepotency), and executive control (required for execution of correct response on incongruent trials). RESULTS: Consistent with prior reports, depressed participants responded more slowly and accurately than controls on incongruent trials. The DDM indicated that although executive control was sluggish in depressed participants, this was more than offset by decreased prepotent response bias. Among the depressed participants, anhedonia was negatively correlated with a parameter indexing the speed of executive control (r = -0.28, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Executive control was delayed in depression but this was counterbalanced by reduced prepotent response bias, demonstrating how participants with executive function deficits can nevertheless perform accurately in a cognitive control task. Drawing on data from neural network simulations, we speculate that these results may reflect tonically reduced striatal dopamine in depression.
Authors: Daniel G Dillon; Isabelle M Rosso; Pia Pechtel; William D S Killgore; Scott L Rauch; Diego A Pizzagalli Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Gerard E Bruder; Jorge E Alvarenga; Daniel Alschuler; Karen Abraham; John G Keilp; David J Hellerstein; Jonathan W Stewart; Patrick J McGrath Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Natania A Crane; Lisanne M Jenkins; Runa Bhaumik; Catherine Dion; Jennifer R Gowins; Brian J Mickey; Jon-Kar Zubieta; Scott A Langenecker Journal: Brain Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Matilde M Vaghi; McKenzie P Hagen; Henry M Jones; Jeanette A Mumford; Patrick G Bissett; Russell A Poldrack Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 7.989
Authors: Maedeh Mansoubi; Benjamin David Weedon; Patrick Esser; Nancy Mayo; Mina Fazel; Will Wade; Tomas E Ward; Steve Kemp; Anne Delextrat; Helen Dawes Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Henry W Chase; Jay C Fournier; Haris Aslam; Richelle Stiffler; Jorge R Almeida; Barbara J Sahakian; Mary L Phillips Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 4.157