| Literature DB >> 27845326 |
Claudio Imperatori1, Giacomo Della Marca2, Riccardo Brunetti1, Giuseppe Alessio Carbone1, Chiara Massullo1, Enrico Maria Valenti1, Noemi Amoroso1, Giulia Maestoso1, Anna Contardi1, Benedetto Farina1.
Abstract
Recent neuroimaging studies have shown that alexithymia is characterized by functional alterations in different brain areas [e.g., posterior cingulate cortex (PCC)], during emotional/social tasks. However, only few data are available about alexithymic cortical networking features during resting state (RS). We have investigated the modifications of electroencephalographic (EEG) power spectra and EEG functional connectivity in the default mode network (DMN) in subjects with alexithymia. Eighteen subjects with alexithymia and eighteen subjects without alexithymia matched for age and gender were enrolled. EEG was recorded during 5 min of RS. EEG analyses were conducted by means of the exact Low Resolution Electric Tomography software (eLORETA). Compared to controls, alexithymic subjects showed a decrease of alpha power in the right PCC. In the connectivity analysis, compared to controls, alexithymic subjects showed a decrease of alpha connectivity between: (i) right anterior cingulate cortex and right PCC, (ii) right frontal lobe and right PCC, and (iii) right parietal lobe and right temporal lobe. Finally, mediation models showed that the association between alexithymia and EEG connectivity values was directed and was not mediated by psychopathology severity. Taken together, our results could reflect the neurophysiological substrate of some core features of alexithymia, such as the impairment in emotional awareness.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27845326 PMCID: PMC5109184 DOI: 10.1038/srep36653
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Demographic and clinical data of participants.
| TAS+ (n = 18) | TAS− (n = 18) | test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | ||||
| Age - | 25.00 ± 8.12 | 23.89 ± 4.85 | Z-test = 0.33 | 0.90 |
| Alcohol use in the last 6 months - N (%) | 8 (44.4%) | 11 (61.1%) | χ21 = 1.01 | 0.32 |
| Tobacco use in the last 6 months - N (%) | 7 (38.6%) | 8 (44.4%) | χ21 = 1.11 | 0.74 |
| TAS-20 | ||||
| TAS Total Scores - | 61.11 ± 5.11 | 36.83 ± 7.02 | Z-test = 3 | <0.001 |
| DDF subscale - | 19.33 ± 2.01 | 9.50 ± 3.13 | Z-test = 3 | <0.001 |
| DIF subscale - | 22.17 ± 4.06 | 12.11 ± 3.69 | Z-test = 2.5 | <0.001 |
| EOT subscale - | 19.61 ± 4.35 | 15.22 ± 2.46 | Z-test = 1.83 | <0.001 |
| SCL-90-R | ||||
| GSI - | 0.93 ± 0.45 | 0.47 ± 0.38 | Z-test = 1.5 | <0.05 |
| SOM - | 1.07 ± 0.62 | 0.51 ± 0.46 | Z-test = 1.5 | <0.05 |
| O-C - | 1.29 ± 0.65 | 0.58 ± 0.48 | Z-test = 1.68 | <0.01 |
| I-S - | 0.88 ± 0.45 | 0.49 ± 0.42 | Z-test = 1 | 0.27 |
| DEP - | 1.10 ± 0.69 | 0.60 ± 0.54 | Z-test = 1.5 | <0.05 |
| ANX - | 1.08 ± 0.64 | 0.56 ± 0.43 | Z-test = 1.5 | <0.05 |
| HOS - | 0.96 ± 0.84 | 0.35 ± 0.36 | Z-test = 1.5 | <0.05 |
| PHOB - | 0.37 ± 0.53 | 0.21 ± 0.37 | Z-test = 0.68 | 0.77 |
| PAR - | 0.92 ± 0.55 | 0.42 ± 0.50 | Z-test = 1.68 | <0.01 |
| PSY - | 0.50 ± 0.41 | 0.21 ± 0.35 | Z-test = 1.5 | <0.05 |
| OTHER - | 1.04 ± 0.82 | 0.90 ± 1.03 | Z-test = 0.68 | 0.77 |
Note: TAS-20 = Toronto Alexithymia Scale; DDF = Difficulty Describing Feelings; DIF = Difficulty Identifying Feeling; EOT = Externally-Oriented Thinking; SCL-90-R = Symptom Check list-90-Revised; GSI = Global Severity Index; SOM = somatization; O-C = obsessive-compulsive symptoms; I-S = interpersonal sensitivity; DEP = depression; ANX = anxiety; HOS = hostility; PHOB = phobic anxiety; PAR = paranoid ideation; PSY = psychoticism.
Cortical 12 regions of interest (ROIs).
| ROI | eLORETA MNI coordinates | Anatomical regions | Brodmann areas | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −30 | 40 | 25 | Left Frontal Lobe | 8-9-10 |
| 2 | 20 | 35 | 30 | Right Frontal Lobe | 8-9-10 |
| 3 | −45 | −15 | −25 | Left Temporal Lobe | 21-28-36 |
| 4 | 55 | −15 | −20 | Right Temporal Lobe | 21-28-36 |
| 5 | −5 | −5 | 35 | Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex | 23–24 |
| 6 | 5 | −10 | 30 | Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex | 23–24 |
| 7 | −5 | 30 | 20 | Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex | 32 |
| 8 | 5 | 30 | 20 | Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex | 32 |
| 9 | −5 | −55 | 25 | Left Hippocampus | 29-30-31 |
| 10 | 5 | −50 | 25 | Right Hippocampus | 29-30-31 |
| 11 | −45 | −50 | 40 | Left Parietal Lobe | 39–40 |
| 12 | 45 | −50 | 35 | Right Parietal Lobe | 39–40 |
Adapted from Thatcher et al.14.
Note: ROI = Region of Interest; eLORETA = exact Low Resolution Electric Tomography software; MNI = Montreal Neurological Institute.
Figure 1Results of the eLORETA comparison of EEG power spectra in each frequency band.
Threshold values (T) for statistical significance (corresponding to p < 0.05) are reported in the right side of the figure. Blue color indicates reduction of EEG power spectra. Red color (not present) would indicate an increase of EEG power spectra. Compared to TAS− individuals, TAS+ subjects showed a decrease of alpha power in the in right PCC (BA 23; T = −3.28, p < 0.05). Abbreviation: BA = Brodmann areas; PCC = Posterior Cingulate Cortex; A = Anterior; P = Posterior; L = Left; R = Right.
Figure 2Results of the eLORETA comparison of EEG lagged phase synchronization in each frequency bands.
Threshold values (T) for statistical significance (corresponding to p < 0.05) are reported in the right side of the figure. Blue lines indicate connections which presented decrease of connectivity. Red lines (not present) would indicate an increase of connectivity. In this analysis, compared to TAS− individuals, TAS+ subjects showed a decrease of alpha lagged phase synchronization between: (i) ROI 6 (BAs 23–24) and ROI 8 (BA 32) (T = −3.87; p < 0.05), (ii) ROI 2 (BAs 8-9-10) and ROI 6 (BAs 23–24) (T = −4.10; p < 0.05), and (iii) ROI 12 (BAs 39–40) and ROI 4 (BAs 21-28-36) (T = −3.92; p < 0.05). Abbreviation: A = Anterior; P = Posterior; ROI = Region of interest.
Values of Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient among values of interconnected lagged phase synchronization ROIs, TAS-20 and GSI scores in all sample (N = 36).
| TAS-20 Total scores | DDF | DIF | EOT | GSI | ROIs 2–6 | ROIs 8–6 | ROIs 12–4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | ||||||||
| 0.89 | — | |||||||
| 0.90 | 0.85 | — | ||||||
| 0.57 | 0.44 | 0.33 | — | |||||
| 0.60 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.24 | — | ||||
| −0.50 | −0.42 | −0.49 | −0.51 | −0.37 | — | |||
| −0.52 | −0.45 | −0.50 | −0.46 | −0.31 | 0.93 | — | ||
| −0.39 | −0.43 | −0.44 | −0.33 | −0.25 | 0.66 | 0.64 | — |
Significant correlations are indicated by stars (*).
Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; TAS-20 = Toronto Alexithymia Scale; DDF = Difficulty Describing Feelings; DIF = Difficulty Identifying Feeling; EOT = Externally-Oriented Thinking; GSI = Global Severity Index.
Values of partial correlation’s coefficient (controlled for GSI) among values of interconnected lagged phase synchronization ROIs and TAS-20 in all sample (N = 36).
| Controlling for | ROIs 2–6 | ROIs 8–6 | ROIs 12–4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.39 | −0.44 | −0.39 | ||
| −0.32 | −0.35 | −0.37 | ||
| −0.26 | −0.33 | −0.35 | ||
| −0.37 | −0.39 | −0.23 |
Significant correlations are indicated by stars (*).
Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; TAS-20 = Toronto Alexithymia Scale; DDF = Difficulty Describing Feelings; DIF = Difficulty Identifying Feeling; EOT = Externally-Oriented Thinking; GSI = Global Severity Index.
Figure 3Results of the multiple mediation models and related standardized b coefficients.
Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Abbreviation: TAS-20 = Toronto Alexithymia Scale; GSI = Global Severity Index; ROIs = Regions of interest.
Statistical results of mediation models.
Abbreviation: IV = Independent variable; DV = Dependent variable; M = Mediator; TAS-20 = Toronto Alexithymia Scale; GSI = Global Severity Index; ROIs = Regions of interest; CI = Confidence interval.