Isabelle E Bauer1, Thomas W Frazier2, Thomas D Meyer1, Eric Youngstrom3, Giovana B Zunta-Soares1, Jair C Soares1. 1. 1 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston , Houston, Texas. 2. 2 Cleveland Clinic, Pediatric Institute , Cleveland, Ohio. 3. 3 Psychology Department, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BD) is characterized by biased processing of emotional information. However, little research in this area has been conducted in youth with BD and at-risk individuals. The goal of this study was to determine whether children with BD displayed comparable or more severe manifestations of this bias relative to offspring of parents with BD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample (n = 57 children and adolescents) included 18 individuals with BD (age: 13.63 ± 2.99; 8 females), 16 offspring of parents with BD (age: 11.83 ± 2.96; 9 females) and 23 healthy controls (HC) (age: 12.789 ± 3.087; 8 females). All participants performed the Affective Go/No-Go (AGN) and the Rapid Visual Processing (RVP) tasks of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). RESULTS: Relative to HC, individuals with BD responded faster to correct trials and committed an elevated number of commission errors across all affective conditions of the AGN task. By contrast, BD offspring showed intact performance accuracy but quicker response times than HC. Post-hoc analyses revealed that this behavioral pattern was observed in BD offspring with mental health problems but not in healthy BD offspring. Overall, mean reaction times and total number of errors in the RVP task were comparable across groups. CONCLUSIONS: In line with previous findings, subjects with BD encountered difficulties in processing affective information. The tendency toward faster but accurate responses to affective stimuli observed in BD offspring may be a marker of attentional bias toward affective information and constitute a vulnerability marker for mood disorder.
BACKGROUND:Bipolar disorder (BD) is characterized by biased processing of emotional information. However, little research in this area has been conducted in youth with BD and at-risk individuals. The goal of this study was to determine whether children with BD displayed comparable or more severe manifestations of this bias relative to offspring of parents with BD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample (n = 57 children and adolescents) included 18 individuals with BD (age: 13.63 ± 2.99; 8 females), 16 offspring of parents with BD (age: 11.83 ± 2.96; 9 females) and 23 healthy controls (HC) (age: 12.789 ± 3.087; 8 females). All participants performed the Affective Go/No-Go (AGN) and the Rapid Visual Processing (RVP) tasks of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). RESULTS: Relative to HC, individuals with BD responded faster to correct trials and committed an elevated number of commission errors across all affective conditions of the AGN task. By contrast, BD offspring showed intact performance accuracy but quicker response times than HC. Post-hoc analyses revealed that this behavioral pattern was observed in BD offspring with mental health problems but not in healthy BD offspring. Overall, mean reaction times and total number of errors in the RVP task were comparable across groups. CONCLUSIONS: In line with previous findings, subjects with BD encountered difficulties in processing affective information. The tendency toward faster but accurate responses to affective stimuli observed in BD offspring may be a marker of attentional bias toward affective information and constitute a vulnerability marker for mood disorder.
Authors: S A Surguladze; N Marshall; K Schulze; M-H Hall; M Walshe; E Bramon; M L Phillips; R M Murray; C McDonald Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Joana C Narvaez; Cristian P Zeni; Roberta P Coelho; Flavia Wagner; Gabriel F Pheula; Carla R Ketzer; Clarissa M Trentini; Silzá Tramontina; Luis A Rohde Journal: Braz J Psychiatry Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 2.697
Authors: Alessandra M Passarotti; Jacklynn M Fitzgerald; John A Sweeney; Mani N Pavuluri Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Mon-Ju Wu; Benson Mwangi; Isabelle E Bauer; Ives C Passos; Marsal Sanches; Giovana B Zunta-Soares; Thomas D Meyer; Khader M Hasan; Jair C Soares Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Rachel A Vaughn-Coaxum; John Merranko; Boris Birmaher; Daniel P Dickstein; Danella Hafeman; Jessica C Levenson; Fangzi Liao; Mary Kay Gill; Heather Hower; Benjamin I Goldstein; Michael Strober; Neal D Ryan; Rasim Diler; Martin B Keller; Shirley Yen; Lauren M Weinstock; David Axelson; Tina R Goldstein Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Lindsay C Hanford; Kristen Eckstrand; Anna Manelis; Danella M Hafeman; John Merranko; Cecile D Ladouceur; Simona Graur; Alicia McCaffrey; Kelly Monk; Lisa K Bonar; Mary Beth Hickey; Tina R Goldstein; Benjamin I Goldstein; David Axelson; Genna Bebko; Michele A Bertocci; Mary Kay Gill; Boris Birmaher; Mary L Phillips Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 3.240