| Literature DB >> 29877060 |
Viola Borchardt1,2, Galina Surova1,3, Johan van der Meer1, Michał Bola4, Jörg Frommer5, Anna Linda Leutritz1,6, Catherine M Sweeney-Reed7, Anna Buchheim8, Bernhard Strauß9, Tobias Nolte10,11, Sebastian Olbrich3,12, Martin Walter1,2,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Affective stimulation entails changes in brain network patterns at rest, but it is unknown whether exogenous emotional stimulation has a prolonged effect on the temporal dynamics of endogenous cortical arousal. We therefore investigated differences in cortical arousal in the listener following stimulation with different attachment-related narratives.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990EEGzzm321990; affective stimulation; attachment; human social interactions; resting state; vigilance
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29877060 PMCID: PMC6043700 DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Behav Impact factor: 2.708
Figure 1Experimental design of the study
Figure 2Behavioral effects of narratives. (a) The participants showed the lowest tendency toward potential social interaction following the dismissing narrative. (b) The dismissing narrative was rated as the least friendly. On each box, the central red mark is the median, the edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers, and outliers are plotted as red crosses. ** indicates p < 0.01, * indicates p < 0.05
Figure 3Temporal evolution of the percentage of subjects in high (red) versus low (blue) vigilance stages per TR at baseline. Linear regressions for both high and low vigilance stages are plotted as black lines
Figure 4Differences in number of TR time lengths spent in high vigilance stages during the whole EEG timecourse. On each box, the central red mark is the median, the edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers. *** indicates p < 0.001, ** indicates p < 0.01
Figure 5(a) Linear regressions for the ratio of percentage of subjects in high to low vigilance stages between all resting states. (b) Temporal evolution of the percentage of subjects in high (red) versus low (blue) vigilance stages for each TR following the three narratives: insecure‐dismissing (left), insecure‐preoccupied (middle), and secure (right). Linear regressions for both high and low vigilance stages are plotted as black lines. The coefficients for the intercept and slope of the ANCOVA model equations differed between narrative conditions: insecure‐dismissing: y = 76.1−0.151x+ε; insecure‐preoccupied: y = 68.8−0.077x+ε; secure: y = 69.6−0.074x+ε and revealed significant differences between the slopes of the regression in insecure‐dismissing versus insecure‐preoccupied as well as insecure‐dismissing versus secure
ANCOVA model coefficient estimates for all narrative conditions
| Term | Estimate | SE |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 71.515 | 0.724 | 98.8 | <0.001 |
| Dismissing | 4.619 | 1.024 | 4.51 | <0.001 |
| Preoccupied | −2.705 | 1.024 | −2.64 | 0.0084 |
| Secure | −1.914 | 1.024 | −1.87 | 0.0619 |
| Slope | −0.101 | 0.005 | −21.82 | <0.001 |
| Dismissing | −0.050 | 0.007 | −7.67 | <0.001 |
| Preoccupied | 0.023 | 0.007 | 3.59 | 0.0004 |
| Secure | 0.027 | 0.007 | 4.08 | <0.001 |
Results of the post hoc tests on ANCOVA results
| Comparison between two conditions | Estimated difference between slopes | 95% confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Dismissing | Preoccupied | −0.0734 | −0.0999 | −0.0469 |
| Dismissing | Secure | −0.0766 | −0.1031 | −0.0501 |
| Preoccupied | Secure | −0.0032 (n.s.) | −0.0297 | 0.0233 |
p < 0.05, and n.s. indicates that only the comparison preoccupied versus secure was not significant at the 0.05 level, because the confidence interval contains 0.0.