| Literature DB >> 29527493 |
Elena Makovac1, Jonathan Smallwood2, David R Watson3, Frances Meeten4, Hugo D Critchley5, Cristina Ottaviani6.
Abstract
Background: The Cognitive Avoidance Theory of Worry argues that worry is a cognitive strategy adopted to control the physiological arousal associated with anxiety. According to this theory, pathological worry, as in Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), is verbal in nature, negative and abstract, rather than concrete. Neuroimaging studies link the expression of worry to characteristic modes of brain functional connectivity, especially in relation to the amygdala. However, the distinctive features of worry (verbal, abstract, negative), and their relationship to physiological arousal, have not so far been mapped to brain function.Entities:
Keywords: Amygdala; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; BOLD, blood oxygenation level dependent; DMN, default mode network; EPI, echoplanar imaging; Functional connectivity; GAD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder; Generalized anxiety disorder; HC, Healthy Controls; HR, heart rate; Heart rate; NYC-Q, New York Cognition Questionnaire; New York Cognition Questionnaire; PCC, posterior cingulate cortex; PSWQ, Penn State Worry Questionnaire; RRS, Ruminative Response Scale; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM; STAI, Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory; Worry; rsfMRI, resting-state functional magnetic resonance neuroimaging
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29527493 PMCID: PMC5842731 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.12.014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 1Differences between patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Healthy Controls (HC) on the examined New York Cognition Questionnaire (NYC-Q) factors.
Spearman's intercorrelations among NYC-Q factors in the two groups and Spearman's intercorrelations between NYC-Q factors and a) depression (BDI), b) trait and state measures of anxiety (STAI), c) trait rumination (RRS), d) trait worry (PSWQ); and e) cardiac responses at baseline and in response to the induction.
| Words | Images | Negative | Vague | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAD | Words | − 0.20 | 0.56 | − 0.34 | ||
| Images | − 0.20 | 0.40 | 0.14 | |||
| Negative | 0.56 | 0.40 | − 0.14 | |||
| Vague | − 0.34 | 0.14 | − 0.14 | |||
| HC | Words | − 0.12 | 0.40 | 0.24 | ||
| Images | − 0.12 | 0.48 | − 0.46 | |||
| Negative | 0.40 | 0.48 | − 0.23 | |||
| Vague | 0.24 | − 0.46⁎ | − 0.23 | |||
| BDI | PSWQ | RRS | STAIy1 | STAIy2 | ||
| Words | 0.39⁎ | 0.22 | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.35 | |
| Images | 0.13 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.33 | 0.23 | |
| Negative | 0.54 | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0.61 | 0.55 | |
| Vague | − 0.05 | − 0.07 | − 0.02 | 0.04 | − 0.05 | |
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001. GAD = Generalized anxiety disorder; HC = Healthy controls; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; PSWQ = Penn State Worry Questionnaire; RRS = Ruminative Response Scale; STAI Y1 = state subscale of the State-trait anxiety inventory; STAI Y2 = trait subscale of the State-trait anxiety inventory.
Brain areas showing significant associations between baseline or pre- to post-induction changes in amygdala functional connectivity (Δ FC) and the examined New York Cognition Questionnaire (NYC-Q) factors, the shift in HR from pre- to post-induction (Δ HR), and the interaction of these two variables.
| Cluster | Voxel | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contrast of interest | Brain area | Seed | |||||
| (1) WORDS | |||||||
| ΔFC (post-pre induction) | |||||||
| Pos. correlation with WORDS | |||||||
| Precentral gyrus | LA | 131 | 0.012 | R | 6.17 | 34–16 50 | |
| (2) WORDS × ΔHR | |||||||
| Baseline | |||||||
| WORDS × △HR | |||||||
| Precuneus | 270 | 0.000 | R | 4.86 | 16–54 48 | ||
| Superior frontal gyrus | RA | 305 | 0.001 | L | 5.09 | − 20 36 54 | |
| Middle frontal gyrus | L | 5.00 | − 38 26 46 | ||||
| Temporal fusiform cortex | 308 | 0.017 | R | 5.08 | 40–18 -30 | ||
| Temporal fusiform cortex | 105 | 0.002 | L | 4.85 | − 36 -14 -34 | ||
| Words/Images factor × Group (GAD, HC) | |||||||
| Parietal opercular cortex | RA | 184 | 0.003 | R | 4.63 | 42–26 16 | |
| ΔFC (post-pre induction) | |||||||
| WORDS × △HR | |||||||
| Frontal pole | RA | 112 | 0.025 | R | 5.28 | 26 48–2 | |
| Frontal pole | 1482 | 0.000 | L | 6.15 | − 28 48 36 | ||
| Cerebelllum | 464 | 0.000 | L | 5.65 | − 2 -40 − 16 | ||
| Inferior temporal gyrus | 135 | 0.000 | R | 5.45 | 50–56 -18 | ||
| Middle temporal gyrus | 207 | 0.001 | R | 5.16 | 56–22 -10 | ||
| Putamen | 124 | 0.000 | R | 5.42 | 32–4 -12 | ||
| Lat occipital cortex | 151 | 0.006 | R | 4.97 | 30–74 -28 | ||
| Precentral gyrus | LA | 144 | 0.006 | R | 6.33 | 38–12 52 | |
| Cerebellum, V | 242 | 0.000 | L | 6.40 | -16 -44 -18 | ||
| Paracingulate gyrus | 158 | 0.022 | R | 3.68 | 10 24 36 | ||
| Superior frontal gyrus | 215 | 0.000 | L | 6.14 | − 8 -38 52 | ||
| Posterior inf temporal gyrus | 198 | 0.000 | R | 6.04 | 46–28 -10 | ||
| Temporooccipital inf temporal gyrus | 192 | 0.004 | R | 5.97 | 56–66 -10 | ||
| Words/Images factor × Group (GAD, HC) | |||||||
| Precentral gyrus | RA/LA | 163 | 0.003 | L | 5.86 | − 44 -18 62 | |
| Postcentral gyrus | L | 5.14 | − 52 -18 52 | ||||
| Occipital cortex | 181 | 0.002 | R | 5.24 | 52–72 -8 | ||
| 124 | 0.016 | R | 5.34 | 28 38 30 | |||
| Sup frontal gyrus | 167 | 0.002 | R | 4.97 | 12 34 50 | ||
| (3) NEGATIVE | |||||||
| Baseline | |||||||
| Group × NEGATIVE interaction | |||||||
| Temporal pole | LA | 233 | 0.001 | R | 6.14 | 26 10–30 | |
| Middle temporal gyrus | 162 | 0.007 | R | 4.90 | 50 4–26 | ||
| Central opercular cortex | 185 | 0.003 | L | 5.97 | − 50 6–4 | ||
| 121 | 0.029 | R | 4.32 | 58 2 4 | |||
| ΔFC (post-pre induction) | |||||||
| Neg. correlation with NEGATIVE | |||||||
| Anterior cingulate cortex | RA | 104 | 0.041 | L | 6.16 | − 12 38 18 | |
| (4) VAGUE | |||||||
| Baseline | |||||||
| Neg. correlation with VAGUE | |||||||
| LA | 349 | 0.000 | R | 5.37 | 0 50–10 | ||
| ΔFC (post-pre induction) | |||||||
| Precuneus | 74 | 0.014 | R | 4,59 | 6–46 14 | ||
Fig. 2Upper panel: brain regions showing significant correlations between the ‘Words’ factor of the New York Cognition Questionnaire (NYC-Q) and the shift in amygdala FC from pre- to post-induction (Δ FC) in HC and patients with GAD.
Fig. 3Upper panel: brain regions showing a significant interaction between the ‘Words’ factor of the New York Cognition Questionnaire (NYC-Q) and the shift in HR from pre to post-induction (Δ HR) on left and right amygdala functional connectivity (FC) at baseline (i.e., pre-induction) in Healthy Controls (HC) and patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Lower panel: brain regions showing a significant interaction between the ‘Words’ factor of the New York Cognition Questionnaire (NYC-Q) and the shift in amygdala FC from pre- to post-induction (Δ FC) in HC and patients with GAD.
Fig. 4Upper panel: brain regions showing significant correlations between the ‘Negative’ factor of the New York Cognition Questionnaire (NYC-Q) and left and right amygdala functional connectivity (FC) at baseline (i.e., pre-induction) in Healthy Controls (HC) and patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Lower panel: brain regions showing significant correlations between the ‘Negative’ factor of the New York Cognition Questionnaire (NYC-Q) and the shift in amygdala FC from pre- to post-induction (Δ FC) in HC and patients with GAD.
Fig. 5Upper panel: brain regions showing significant correlations between the ‘Vague’ factor of the New York Cognition Questionnaire (NYC-Q) and left and right amygdala functional connectivity (FC) at baseline (i.e., pre-induction) in Healthy Controls (HC) and patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Lower panel: brain regions showing significant correlations between the ‘Vague’ factor of the New York Cognition Questionnaire (NYC-Q) and the shift in amygdala FC from pre- to post-induction (Δ FC) in HC and patients with GAD.