Evangelos Papanastasiou1, Elias Mouchlianitis1, Dan W Joyce1, Philip McGuire2, Tobias Banaschewski3, Arun L W Bokde4, Uli Bromberg5, Christian Büchel5, Erin Burke Quinlan6,7, Sylvane Desrivières6,7, Herta Flor8,9, Vincent Frouin10, Hugh Garavan11,12, Philip Spechler11,12, Penny Gowland13, Andreas Heinz14, Bernd Ittermann15, Jean-Luc Martinot16, Marie-Laure Paillère Martinot17,18, Eric Artiges16,19, Frauke Nees3, Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos10, Luise Poustka20,21, Sabina Millenet3, Juliane H Fröhner22, Michael N Smolka22, Henrik Walter14, Robert Whelan23, Gunter Schumann6, Sukhwinder Shergill1. 1. Cognition Schizophrenia and Imaging Laboratory, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. 4. Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Department of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 6. Centre for Population Neuroscience and Stratified Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 7. Medical Research Council, Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 8. Department of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. 9. Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. 10. NeuroSpin, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. 11. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington. 12. Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington. 13. Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 14. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 15. Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Berlin, Germany. 16. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Neuroimaging & Psychiatry, University Paris Saclay, DIGITEO Labs, Gif sur Yvette, France. 17. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Neuroimaging & Psychiatry, University Paris Sud - Paris Saclay, University Paris Descartes, Paris, France. 18. Department of Adolescent Psychopathology and Medicine, Maison de Solenn, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France. 19. Psychiatry Department, Orsay Hospital, Orsay, France. 20. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 21. Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 22. Department of Psychiatry and Neuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 23. School of Psychology and Global Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
Importance: Psychoticlike experiences (PLEs) are subclinical manifestations of psychotic symptoms and may reflect an increased vulnerability to psychotic disorders. Contemporary models of psychosis propose that dysfunctional reward processing is involved in the cause of these clinical illnesses. Objective: To examine the neuroimaging profile of healthy adolescents at 14 and 19 years old points with PLEs, using a reward task. Design, Setting, and Participants: A community-based cohort study, using both a cross-sectional and longitudinal design, was conducted in academic centers in London, Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Dublin, Ireland; Paris, France; and Berlin, Hamburg, Mannheim, and Dresden, Germany. A group of 1434 healthy adolescent volunteers was evaluated, and 2 subgroups were assessed at ages 14 and 19 years. Those who scored as either high or low PLE (based on the upper and lower deciles) on the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences Questionnaire (CAPE-42) at age 19 years were included in the analysis. The study was conducted from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants were assessed at age 14 and 19 year points using functional magnetic resonance imaging while performing a monetary incentive delay reward task. A first-level model focused on 2 predefined contrasts of anticipation and feedback of a win. The second-level analysis examined activation within the reward network using an a priori-defined region of interest approach. The main effects of group, time, and their interaction on brain activation were examined. Results: Of the 1434 adolescents, 2 groups (n = 149 each) (high PLEs, n = 149, 50 [33.6%] male; low PLEs, n = 149, 84 [56.4%] male) were compared at ages 14 and 19 years. Two regions within the left and right middle frontal gyri showed a main effect of time on brain activation (F1, 93 = 5.559; P = .02; F1, 93 = 5.009; P = .03, respectively); there was no main effect of group. One region within the right middle frontal gyrus demonstrated a significant time × group interaction (F1, 93 = 7.448; P = .01). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings are consistent with evidence implicating alterations in prefrontal and striatal function during reward processing in the etiology of psychosis. Given the nature of this nonclinical sample this may reflect a combination of aberrant salience yielding abnormal experiences and a compensatory cognitive control mechanism necessary to contextualize them.
Importance: Psychoticlike experiences (PLEs) are subclinical manifestations of psychotic symptoms and may reflect an increased vulnerability to psychotic disorders. Contemporary models of psychosis propose that dysfunctional reward processing is involved in the cause of these clinical illnesses. Objective: To examine the neuroimaging profile of healthy adolescents at 14 and 19 years old points with PLEs, using a reward task. Design, Setting, and Participants: A community-based cohort study, using both a cross-sectional and longitudinal design, was conducted in academic centers in London, Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Dublin, Ireland; Paris, France; and Berlin, Hamburg, Mannheim, and Dresden, Germany. A group of 1434 healthy adolescent volunteers was evaluated, and 2 subgroups were assessed at ages 14 and 19 years. Those who scored as either high or low PLE (based on the upper and lower deciles) on the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences Questionnaire (CAPE-42) at age 19 years were included in the analysis. The study was conducted from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants were assessed at age 14 and 19 year points using functional magnetic resonance imaging while performing a monetary incentive delay reward task. A first-level model focused on 2 predefined contrasts of anticipation and feedback of a win. The second-level analysis examined activation within the reward network using an a priori-defined region of interest approach. The main effects of group, time, and their interaction on brain activation were examined. Results: Of the 1434 adolescents, 2 groups (n = 149 each) (high PLEs, n = 149, 50 [33.6%] male; low PLEs, n = 149, 84 [56.4%] male) were compared at ages 14 and 19 years. Two regions within the left and right middle frontal gyri showed a main effect of time on brain activation (F1, 93 = 5.559; P = .02; F1, 93 = 5.009; P = .03, respectively); there was no main effect of group. One region within the right middle frontal gyrus demonstrated a significant time × group interaction (F1, 93 = 7.448; P = .01). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings are consistent with evidence implicating alterations in prefrontal and striatal function during reward processing in the etiology of psychosis. Given the nature of this nonclinical sample this may reflect a combination of aberrant salience yielding abnormal experiences and a compensatory cognitive control mechanism necessary to contextualize them.
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Stefan Borgwardt; Andreas Bechdolf; Jean Addington; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Matcheri Keshavan; Stephen Wood; Stephan Ruhrmann; Larry J Seidman; Lucia Valmaggia; Tyrone Cannon; Eva Velthorst; Lieuwe De Haan; Barbara Cornblatt; Ilaria Bonoldi; Max Birchwood; Thomas McGlashan; William Carpenter; Patrick McGorry; Joachim Klosterkötter; Philip McGuire; Alison Yung Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Robert Whelan; Richard Watts; Catherine A Orr; Robert R Althoff; Eric Artiges; Tobias Banaschewski; Gareth J Barker; Arun L W Bokde; Christian Büchel; Fabiana M Carvalho; Patricia J Conrod; Herta Flor; Mira Fauth-Bühler; Vincent Frouin; Juergen Gallinat; Gabriela Gan; Penny Gowland; Andreas Heinz; Bernd Ittermann; Claire Lawrence; Karl Mann; Jean-Luc Martinot; Frauke Nees; Nick Ortiz; Marie-Laure Paillère-Martinot; Tomas Paus; Zdenka Pausova; Marcella Rietschel; Trevor W Robbins; Michael N Smolka; Andreas Ströhle; Gunter Schumann; Hugh Garavan Journal: Nature Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Lucy D Vanes; Elias Mouchlianitis; Tracy Collier; Bruno B Averbeck; Sukhi S Shergill Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 10.592
Authors: Diana Wotruba; Karsten Heekeren; Lars Michels; Roman Buechler; Joe J Simon; Anastasia Theodoridou; Spyros Kollias; Wulf Rössler; Stefan Kaiser Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 3.558
Authors: Michael I Demidenko; Alexander S Weigard; Karthikeyan Ganesan; Hyesue Jang; Andrew Jahn; Edward D Huntley; Daniel P Keating Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Joanne B Newbury; Louise Arseneault; Sean Beevers; Nutthida Kitwiroon; Susanna Roberts; Carmine M Pariante; Frank J Kelly; Helen L Fisher Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 21.596