Katherine R Luking1, David Pagliaccio2, Joan L Luby3, Deanna M Barch3. 1. Neuroscience Program at Washington University in St. Louis. Electronic address: katherine.luking@gmail.com. 2. Neuroscience Program at Washington University in St. Louis. 3. Washington University in St. Louis.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reduced reward responsiveness and altered response to loss of reward are observed in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and adolescents at increased risk for MDD based on family history. However, it is unclear whether altered behavioral responsiveness to reward/loss is a lifelong marker of MDD risk, which is evident before the normative adolescent increase in incentive responding. METHOD: Healthy 7- to 10-year-old children of mothers with MDD (high risk: n = 27) or without MDD (low risk: n = 42) performed 2 signal detection tasks assessing response bias toward reward (approach) and away from loss (avoidance). Differences in approach/avoidance were related to MDD risk, child general depressive symptoms (maternal report), child-reported anhedonic symptoms, and child-reported negative mood symptoms via repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: MDD risk did not significantly relate to gain approach or loss avoidance. However, within high-risk children, higher numbers of maternal depressive episodes predicted blunted loss avoidance. Blunted gain approach was related to elevated anhedonic symptoms, whereas enhanced loss avoidance was related to elevated negative mood. Elevated negative mood was further related to blunted gain approach in high-risk children but related to enhanced gain approach in low-risk children. CONCLUSION: In children, individual differences in specific depressive symptoms and recurrence of maternal depression significantly predicted gain approach/loss avoidance, but the presence/absence of maternal MDD did not. Child depressive symptoms characterized by low positive affect (anhedonia) were related to blunted gain responsiveness, whereas elevated depressed/negative mood was related to enhanced loss responsiveness. Findings suggest that relations between gain approach and negative mood may be an important distinction between those at high versus low risk for MDD.
OBJECTIVE: Reduced reward responsiveness and altered response to loss of reward are observed in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and adolescents at increased risk for MDD based on family history. However, it is unclear whether altered behavioral responsiveness to reward/loss is a lifelong marker of MDD risk, which is evident before the normative adolescent increase in incentive responding. METHOD: Healthy 7- to 10-year-old children of mothers with MDD (high risk: n = 27) or without MDD (low risk: n = 42) performed 2 signal detection tasks assessing response bias toward reward (approach) and away from loss (avoidance). Differences in approach/avoidance were related to MDD risk, child general depressive symptoms (maternal report), child-reported anhedonic symptoms, and child-reported negative mood symptoms via repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS:MDD risk did not significantly relate to gain approach or loss avoidance. However, within high-risk children, higher numbers of maternal depressive episodes predicted blunted loss avoidance. Blunted gain approach was related to elevated anhedonic symptoms, whereas enhanced loss avoidance was related to elevated negative mood. Elevated negative mood was further related to blunted gain approach in high-risk children but related to enhanced gain approach in low-risk children. CONCLUSION: In children, individual differences in specific depressive symptoms and recurrence of maternal depression significantly predicted gain approach/loss avoidance, but the presence/absence of maternal MDD did not. Childdepressive symptoms characterized by low positive affect (anhedonia) were related to blunted gain responsiveness, whereas elevated depressed/negative mood was related to enhanced loss responsiveness. Findings suggest that relations between gain approach and negative mood may be an important distinction between those at high versus low risk for MDD.
Authors: Christopher S Monk; Rachel G Klein; Eva H Telzer; Elizabeth A Schroth; Salvatore Mannuzza; John L Moulton; Mary Guardino; Carrie L Masten; Erin B McClure-Tone; Stephen Fromm; R James Blair; Daniel S Pine; Monique Ernst Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2007-11-06 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Diego A Pizzagalli; Dan Iosifescu; Lindsay A Hallett; Kyle G Ratner; Maurizio Fava Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2008-04-22 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Erika E Forbes; Neal D Ryan; Mary L Phillips; Stephen B Manuck; Carol M Worthman; Donna L Moyles; Jill A Tarr; Samantha R Sciarrillo; Ronald E Dahl Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Rebecca Kerestes; Christopher G Davey; Katerina Stephanou; Sarah Whittle; Ben J Harrison Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Andy C Belden; Kelsey Irvin; Greg Hajcak; Emily S Kappenman; Danielle Kelly; Samantha Karlow; Joan L Luby; Deanna M Barch Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Katherine R Luking; David Pagliaccio; Joan L Luby; Deanna M Barch Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: N S Corral-Frías; D A Pizzagalli; J M Carré; L J Michalski; Y S Nikolova; R H Perlis; J Fagerness; M R Lee; E Drabant Conley; T M Lancaster; S Haddad; A Wolf; J W Smoller; A R Hariri; R Bogdan Journal: Genes Brain Behav Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.449
Authors: Wen-Hua Liu; Jonathan P Roiser; Ling-Zhi Wang; Yu-Hua Zhu; Jia Huang; David L Neumann; David H K Shum; Eric F C Cheung; Raymond C K Chan Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Hanna Keren; Gang Chen; Brenda Benson; Monique Ernst; Ellen Leibenluft; Nathan A Fox; Daniel S Pine; Argyris Stringaris Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 6.556