BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is often associated with attention allocation and emotional regulation difficulties, but the brain dynamics underlying these deficits are unknown. The emotional Stroop task (EST) is an ideal means to monitor these difficulties, because participants are asked to attend to non-emotional aspects of the stimuli. In this study, we used magnetoencephalography (MEG) and the EST to monitor attention allocation and emotional regulation during the processing of emotionally charged stimuli in combat veterans with and without PTSD. METHOD: A total of 31 veterans with PTSD and 20 without PTSD performed the EST during MEG. Three categories of stimuli were used, including combat-related, generally threatening and neutral words. MEG data were imaged in the time-frequency domain and the network dynamics were probed for differences in processing threatening and non-threatening words. RESULTS: Behaviorally, veterans with PTSD were significantly slower in responding to combat-related relative to neutral and generally threatening words. Veterans without PTSD exhibited no significant differences in responding to the three different word types. Neurophysiologically, we found a significant three-way interaction between group, word type and time period across multiple brain regions. Follow-up testing indicated stronger theta-frequency (4-8 Hz) responses in the right ventral prefrontal (0.4-0.8 s) and superior temporal cortices (0.6-0.8 s) of veterans without PTSD compared with those with PTSD during the processing of combat-related words. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicated that veterans with PTSD exhibited deficits in attention allocation and emotional regulation when processing trauma cues, while those without PTSD were able to regulate emotion by directing attention away from threat.
BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is often associated with attention allocation and emotional regulation difficulties, but the brain dynamics underlying these deficits are unknown. The emotional Stroop task (EST) is an ideal means to monitor these difficulties, because participants are asked to attend to non-emotional aspects of the stimuli. In this study, we used magnetoencephalography (MEG) and the EST to monitor attention allocation and emotional regulation during the processing of emotionally charged stimuli in combat veterans with and without PTSD. METHOD: A total of 31 veterans with PTSD and 20 without PTSD performed the EST during MEG. Three categories of stimuli were used, including combat-related, generally threatening and neutral words. MEG data were imaged in the time-frequency domain and the network dynamics were probed for differences in processing threatening and non-threatening words. RESULTS: Behaviorally, veterans with PTSD were significantly slower in responding to combat-related relative to neutral and generally threatening words. Veterans without PTSD exhibited no significant differences in responding to the three different word types. Neurophysiologically, we found a significant three-way interaction between group, word type and time period across multiple brain regions. Follow-up testing indicated stronger theta-frequency (4-8 Hz) responses in the right ventral prefrontal (0.4-0.8 s) and superior temporal cortices (0.6-0.8 s) of veterans without PTSD compared with those with PTSD during the processing of combat-related words. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicated that veterans with PTSD exhibited deficits in attention allocation and emotional regulation when processing trauma cues, while those without PTSD were able to regulate emotion by directing attention away from threat.
Authors: Ahmad R Hariri; Venkata S Mattay; Alessandro Tessitore; Francesco Fera; Daniel R Weinberger Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Thomas Dresler; Catherine Hindi Attar; Carsten Spitzer; Bernd Löwe; Jürgen Deckert; Christian Büchel; Ann-Christine Ehlis; Andreas J Fallgatter Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: J Gross; J Kujala; M Hamalainen; L Timmermann; A Schnitzler; R Salmelin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-01-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jennie M Kuckertz; Nader Amir; Joseph W Boffa; Ciara K Warren; Susan E M Rindt; Sonya Norman; Vasudha Ram; Lauretta Ziajko; Jennifer Webb-Murphy; Robert McLay Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2014-09-16
Authors: A P Georgopoulos; H-R M Tan; S M Lewis; A C Leuthold; A M Winskowski; J K Lynch; B Engdahl Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: David A Balota; Melvin J Yap; Michael J Cortese; Keith A Hutchison; Brett Kessler; Bjorn Loftis; James H Neely; Douglas L Nelson; Greg B Simpson; Rebecca Treiman Journal: Behav Res Methods Date: 2007-08
Authors: Timothy J McDermott; Amy S Badura-Brack; Katherine M Becker; Tara J Ryan; Maya M Khanna; Elizabeth Heinrichs-Graham; Tony W Wilson Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Amy Badura-Brack; Timothy J McDermott; Elizabeth Heinrichs-Graham; Tara J Ryan; Maya M Khanna; Daniel S Pine; Yair Bar-Haim; Tony W Wilson Journal: Biol Psychol Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.251
Authors: Fiona L Weathersby; Jace B King; J Chancelor Fox; Amy Loret; Jeffrey S Anderson Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 2.376
Authors: Abel S Mathew; Salahadin Lotfi; Kenneth P Bennett; Sadie E Larsen; Caron Dean; Christine L Larson; Han-Joo Lee Journal: J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry Date: 2021-12-06
Authors: Marilyne Joyal; Tobias Wensing; Jean Levasseur-Moreau; Jean Leblond; Alexander T Sack; Shirley Fecteau Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 3.240