Veronika I Müller1, Edna C Cieslik1, Ilinca Serbanescu2, Angela R Laird3, Peter T Fox4, Simon B Eickhoff1. 1. Institute of Clinical Neuroscience and Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany2Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany. 2. Institute of Clinical Neuroscience and Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany. 3. Department of Physics, Florida International University, Miami. 4. Research Imaging Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio5Research Service, South Texas Veterans Administration Medical Center, San Antonio6State Key Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: During the past 20 years, numerous neuroimaging experiments have investigated aberrant brain activation during cognitive and emotional processing in patients with unipolar depression (UD). The results of those investigations, however, vary considerably; moreover, previous meta-analyses also yielded inconsistent findings. OBJECTIVE: To readdress aberrant brain activation in UD as evidenced by neuroimaging experiments on cognitive and/or emotional processing. DATA SOURCES: Neuroimaging experiments published from January 1, 1997, to October 1, 2015, were identified by a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using different combinations of the terms fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), neural, major depression, depression, major depressive disorder, unipolar depression, dysthymia, emotion, emotional, affective, cognitive, task, memory, working memory, inhibition, control, n-back, and Stroop. STUDY SELECTION: Neuroimaging experiments (using fMRI or PET) reporting whole-brain results of group comparisons between adults with UD and healthy control individuals as coordinates in a standard anatomic reference space and using an emotional or/and cognitive challenging task were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Coordinates reported to show significant activation differences between UD and healthy controls during emotional or cognitive processing were extracted. By using the revised activation likelihood estimation algorithm, different meta-analyses were calculated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Meta-analyses tested for brain regions consistently found to show aberrant brain activation in UD compared with controls. Analyses were calculated across all emotional processing experiments, all cognitive processing experiments, positive emotion processing, negative emotion processing, experiments using emotional face stimuli, experiments with a sex discrimination task, and memory processing. All meta-analyses were calculated across experiments independent of reporting an increase or decrease of activity in major depressive disorder. For meta-analyses with a minimum of 17 experiments available, separate analyses were performed for increases and decreases. RESULTS: In total, 57 studies with 99 individual neuroimaging experiments comprising in total 1058 patients were included; 34 of them tested cognitive and 65 emotional processing. Overall analyses across cognitive processing experiments (P > .29) and across emotional processing experiments (P > .47) revealed no significant results. Similarly, no convergence was found in analyses investigating positive (all P > .15), negative (all P > .76), or memory (all P > .48) processes. Analyses that restricted inclusion of confounds (eg, medication, comorbidity, age) did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Inconsistencies exist across individual experiments investigating aberrant brain activity in UD and replication problems across previous neuroimaging meta-analyses. For individual experiments, these inconsistencies may relate to use of uncorrected inference procedures, differences in experimental design and contrasts, or heterogeneous clinical populations; meta-analytically, differences may be attributable to varying inclusion and exclusion criteria or rather liberal statistical inference approaches.
IMPORTANCE: During the past 20 years, numerous neuroimaging experiments have investigated aberrant brain activation during cognitive and emotional processing in patients with unipolar depression (UD). The results of those investigations, however, vary considerably; moreover, previous meta-analyses also yielded inconsistent findings. OBJECTIVE: To readdress aberrant brain activation in UD as evidenced by neuroimaging experiments on cognitive and/or emotional processing. DATA SOURCES: Neuroimaging experiments published from January 1, 1997, to October 1, 2015, were identified by a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using different combinations of the terms fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), neural, major depression, depression, major depressive disorder, unipolar depression, dysthymia, emotion, emotional, affective, cognitive, task, memory, working memory, inhibition, control, n-back, and Stroop. STUDY SELECTION: Neuroimaging experiments (using fMRI or PET) reporting whole-brain results of group comparisons between adults with UD and healthy control individuals as coordinates in a standard anatomic reference space and using an emotional or/and cognitive challenging task were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Coordinates reported to show significant activation differences between UD and healthy controls during emotional or cognitive processing were extracted. By using the revised activation likelihood estimation algorithm, different meta-analyses were calculated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Meta-analyses tested for brain regions consistently found to show aberrant brain activation in UD compared with controls. Analyses were calculated across all emotional processing experiments, all cognitive processing experiments, positive emotion processing, negative emotion processing, experiments using emotional face stimuli, experiments with a sex discrimination task, and memory processing. All meta-analyses were calculated across experiments independent of reporting an increase or decrease of activity in major depressive disorder. For meta-analyses with a minimum of 17 experiments available, separate analyses were performed for increases and decreases. RESULTS: In total, 57 studies with 99 individual neuroimaging experiments comprising in total 1058 patients were included; 34 of them tested cognitive and 65 emotional processing. Overall analyses across cognitive processing experiments (P > .29) and across emotional processing experiments (P > .47) revealed no significant results. Similarly, no convergence was found in analyses investigating positive (all P > .15), negative (all P > .76), or memory (all P > .48) processes. Analyses that restricted inclusion of confounds (eg, medication, comorbidity, age) did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Inconsistencies exist across individual experiments investigating aberrant brain activity in UD and replication problems across previous neuroimaging meta-analyses. For individual experiments, these inconsistencies may relate to use of uncorrected inference procedures, differences in experimental design and contrasts, or heterogeneous clinical populations; meta-analytically, differences may be attributable to varying inclusion and exclusion criteria or rather liberal statistical inference approaches.
Authors: Greg J Siegle; Wesley Thompson; Cameron S Carter; Stuart R Steinhauer; Michael E Thase Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2006-10-06 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Simon B Eickhoff; Angela R Laird; Christian Grefkes; Ling E Wang; Karl Zilles; Peter T Fox Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Turhan Canli; Heidi Sivers; Moriah E Thomason; Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli; John D E Gabrieli; Ian H Gotlib Journal: Neuroreport Date: 2004-12-03 Impact factor: 1.837
Authors: Cynthia H Y Fu; Steven C R Williams; Anthony J Cleare; Michael J Brammer; Nicholas D Walsh; Jieun Kim; Chris M Andrew; Emilio Merlo Pich; Pauline M Williams; Laurence J Reed; Martina T Mitterschiffthaler; John Suckling; Edward T Bullmore Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2004-09
Authors: Paul B Fitzgerald; Anusha Srithiran; Jessica Benitez; Zafiris Z Daskalakis; Tom J Oxley; Jayashri Kulkarni; Gary F Egan Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Veronika I Müller; Edna C Cieslik; Angela R Laird; Peter T Fox; Joaquim Radua; David Mataix-Cols; Christopher R Tench; Tal Yarkoni; Thomas E Nichols; Peter E Turkeltaub; Tor D Wager; Simon B Eickhoff Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: L M Jenkins; A D Kendall; M T Kassel; V G Patrón; J R Gowins; C Dion; S A Shankman; S L Weisenbach; P Maki; S A Langenecker Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Ivan Grahek; Amitai Shenhav; Sebastian Musslick; Ruth M Krebs; Ernst H W Koster Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Hanna Keren; Georgia O'Callaghan; Pablo Vidal-Ribas; George A Buzzell; Melissa A Brotman; Ellen Leibenluft; Pedro M Pan; Liana Meffert; Ariela Kaiser; Selina Wolke; Daniel S Pine; Argyris Stringaris Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Tobias Wensing; Edna C Cieslik; Veronika I Müller; Felix Hoffstaedter; Simon B Eickhoff; Thomas Nickl-Jockschat Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Masoud Tahmasian; Simon B Eickhoff; Kathrin Giehl; Frank Schwartz; Damian M Herz; Alexander Drzezga; Thilo van Eimeren; Angela R Laird; Peter T Fox; Habibolah Khazaie; Mojtaba Zarei; Carsten Eggers; Claudia R Eickhoff Journal: Cortex Date: 2017-04-08 Impact factor: 4.027