| Literature DB >> 32652491 |
Hanna Malmberg Gavelin1, Anna Stigsdotter Neely2, Tora Dunås3, Therese Eskilsson4, Lisbeth Slunga Järvholm5, Carl-Johan Boraxbekk6.
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that mental fatigue is a central component of the cognitive and clinical characteristics of stress-related exhaustion disorder (ED). Yet, the underlying mechanisms of mental fatigue in this patient group are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate cortical and subcortical structural neural correlates of mental fatigue in patients with ED, and to explore the association between mental fatigue and cognitive functioning. Fifty-five patients with clinical ED diagnosis underwent magnetic resonance imaging. Mental fatigue was assessed using the Concentration subscale from the Checklist Individual Strength. Patients with high levels of mental fatigue (n = 30) had smaller caudate and putamen volumes compared to patients with low-moderate levels of mental fatigue (n = 25). No statistically significant differences in cortical thickness were observed between the groups. Mediation analysis showed that mental fatigue mediated the relationship between caudate volume and working memory; specifically, smaller caudate volume was associated with higher level of mental fatigue and mental fatigue was positively associated with working memory performance. Our findings demonstrate that the structural integrity of the striatum is of relevance for the subjective perception of mental fatigue in ED, while also highlighting the complex relationship between mental fatigue, cognitive performance and its neural underpinnings.Entities:
Keywords: Burnout; Exhaustion disorder; Mental fatigue; Striatum; Working memory
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32652491 PMCID: PMC7348057 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102337
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Demographic, Clinical and Cognitive Characteristics.
| Measure | High mental fatigue ( | Low-moderate mental fatigue ( | Statistics | Cohen’s |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 42.50 (7.76) | 43.48 (9.89) | t(53) = 0.41, | |
| Sex, | ||||
| Female | 24 (80%) | 22 (88%) | χ2(1) = 0.64, | |
| Education | ||||
| University | 18 (60%) | 16 (64%) | χ2(1) = 0.09, | |
| Verbal ability | 22.43 (3.53) | 22.52 (4.42) | t(53) = 0.08, | |
| Total intracranial volume (mm3) | 1,509,209 (148180) | 1,497,362 (190851) | t(53) = 0.26, | |
| SMBQ | 5.31 (0.65) | 4.55 (0.88) | t(53) = 3.65, | 0.97 |
| PSQ | 78.87 (13.42) | 70.28 (14.35) | t(53) = 2.29, | 0.62 |
| HAD Depression | 7.90 (3.93) | 6.16 (3.24) | t(53) = 1.77, | 0.48 |
| HAD Anxiety | 10.23 (3.84) | 9.48 (3.82) | t(53) = 0.73, | 0.20 |
| CIS Concentration | 32.17 (2.25) | 25.08 (3.30) | t(53) = 9.43, | 2.51 |
| CIS Subjective fatigue | 42.73 (9.05) | 37.72 (9.36) | t(53) = 2.01, | 0.54 |
| CIS Activity | 13.20 (4.14) | 12.32 (3.54) | t(53) = 0.84, | 0.23 |
| CIS Motivation | 18.40 (3.28) | 18.20 (3.34) | t(53) = 0.22, | 0.06 |
| Executive function | 0.14 (0.65) | −0.09 (0.76) | t(52) = 1.19, | 0.32 |
| 3-back | 23.24 (6.79) | 20.12 (8.99) | ||
| Shift cost | 47.73 (26.49) | 50.00 (24.22) | ||
| Inhibition cost | 28.97 (12.03) | 31.20 (10.64) | ||
| Working memory | 0.10 (0.91) | −0.13 (1.07) | t(53) = 0.86, | 0.23 |
| Digit span forward | 7.27 (2.41) | 6.84 (1.84) | ||
| Digit span backward | 6.53 (1.70) | 6.56 (2.50) | ||
| Letter-number sequencing | 10.33 (2.19) | 9.48 (2.57) | ||
Note. Data is shown as mean (standard deviation) unless otherwise indicated. Cognitive constructs are reported as z-scores. Cohen’s d is calculated as (Mhigh − Mlow-moderate)/√[(SDhigh2 + SDlow-moderate2)/2]. SMBQ = Shirom-Melamed Burnout Questionnaire. PSQ = Perceived Stress Questionnaire. HAD = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. CIS = Checklist Individual Strength.
Lower score indicates better performance.
Subcortical Volumes and Cortical Thickness in the Regions of Interest for the High and Low-Moderate Mental Fatigue Groups.
| Volume | High mental fatigue ( | Low-moderate mental fatigue ( | Statistics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caudate (mm3) | 6841.23 (833.95) | 7205.88 (1155.92) | F(1, 52) = 4.99, |
| Putamen (mm3) | 9445.66 (1322.49) | 9931.94 (1672.33) | F(1, 52) = 5.36, |
| dlPFC (mm) | 2.71 (0.11) | 2.73 (0.13) | F(1, 52) = 1.11, |
| vmPFC (mm) | 2.55 (0.09) | 2.54 (0.09) | F(1, 52) = 0.42, |
| ACC (mm) | 2.61 (0.10) | 2.60 (0.10) | F(1, 49) = 0.004, |
Note. Data is shown as mean (standard deviation). dlPFC = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. vmPFC = ventromedial prefrontal cortex. ACC = anterior cingulate cortex.
Analysis of covariance controlling for age, based on log transformed ratios of the respective structural volume and the total intracranial volume.
Analysis of covariance controlling for age.
n = 52
Fig. 1Group differences in subcortical volumes. Ratio of (a) caudate and (b) putamen volume relative to the total intracranial volume in the high and low-moderate mental fatigue group, respectively. TIV = total intracranial volume.
Correlation Between Mental Fatigue, Regions of Interest and Cognitive Performance.
| CIS Concentration score | |
|---|---|
| Caudate volume | |
| Putamen volume | |
| dlPFC cortical thickness | |
| vmPFC cortical thickness | |
| ACC cortical thickness | |
| Executive function | |
| Working memory |
Note. CIS = Checklist Individual Strength. dlPFC = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. vmPFC = ventromedial prefrontal cortex. ACC = anterior cingulate cortex.
Partial correlation, controlling for age.
Fig. 2Associations between mental fatigue and subcortical volumes. Scatterplot of the correlation between CIS Concentration score and the ratio of (a) caudate volume and (b) putamen volume relative to the total intracranial volume. CIS = Checklist Individual Strength. TIV = total intracranial volume.
Fig. 3Mediation model. Mental fatigue mediated the relationship between caudate volume and working memory performance, such that smaller caudate volume was associated with higher level of mental fatigue and better working memory performance.