| Literature DB >> 36203841 |
Hun Kim1, Byung-Hoon Kim1,2, Min-Kyeong Kim1, Hyojung Eom1, Jae-Jin Kim1,2.
Abstract
Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is a mental disorder characterized by excessive anxiety in social situations. This study aimed to examine the alteration of resting-state functional connectivity in SAD patients related to the virtual reality-based self-training (VRS) which enables exposure to social situations in a controlled environment. Fifty-two SAD patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group who received the VRS, or the control group who did not. Self-report questionnaires and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) were performed to assess clinical symptoms and analyze the resting-state network properties, respectively. Significant decrease in social anxiety and an increase in self-esteem was found in the experimental group. From the resting-state fMRI analysis, alteration of local network properties in the left dorsolateral prefrontal gyrus (-10.0%, p = 0.025), left inferior frontal gyrus (-32.3%, p = 0.044), left insula (-17.2%, p = 0.046), left Heschl's gyrus (-21.2%, p = 0.011), bilateral inferior temporal gyrus (right: +122.6%, p = 0.045; left:-46.7%, p = 0.015), and right calcarine sulcus (+17.0%, p = 0.010) were found in the experimental group. Average shortest path length (+8.3%, p = 0.008) and network efficiency (-7.6%, p = 0.011) are found to be altered from the global network property analysis. In addition, the experimental group displayed more positive and more negative changes in the correlation trend of average shortest path length (p = 0.004) and global network efficiency (p = 0.014) with the severity of social anxiety, respectively. These results suggest potential effectiveness of the VRS, which is possibly related to the change of aberrant processing and control of visual and auditory linguistic stimuli and the adaptive change in rumination pattern.Entities:
Keywords: fMRI; network analysis; resting-state; self-training; social anxiety disorder; virtual reality
Year: 2022 PMID: 36203841 PMCID: PMC9530634 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.959696
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 5.435
Figure 1Flow chart of the experimental process.
Results of statistical analyses on age, gender and self-report questionnaire scores of participants.
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 23.18 (2.04) | 23.75 (2.64) | −0.86 |
| |||
|
| 10 / 18 | 10 / 14 | 0.02 |
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 68.11 (18.94) | 68.85 (20.25) | 73.50 (22.24) | 53.0 (23.61) | Group | 1.45 | 0.236 |
| Time | 11.33 | 0.002* | |||||
| Interaction | 5.84 | 0.020* | |||||
|
| 45.107 (7.83) | 43.10 (7.39) | 45.63 (5.76) | 38.62 (8.46) | Group | 0.36 | 0.552 |
| Time | 12.15 | 0.001* | |||||
| Interaction | 10.30 | 0.003* | |||||
|
| 16.50 (5.18) | 16.50 (4.95) | 14.92 (5.83) | 17.86 (6.52) | Group | 0.01 | 0.930 |
| Time | 4.94 | 0.032 | |||||
| Interaction | 8.55 | 0.006* | |||||
|
| 43.0 (13.28) | 40.75 (13.21) | 47.71 (11.06) | 35.48 (15.46) | Group | 0.03 | 0.869 |
| Time | 29.44 | <0.001* | |||||
| Interaction | 11.70 | 0.001* | |||||
|
| 8.82 (2.89) | 8.25 (3.01) | 10.21 (4.22) | 8.29 (3.95) | Group | 0.27 | 0.606 |
| Time | 6.86 | 0.013* | |||||
| Interaction | 1.01 | 0.322 | |||||
|
| 8.54 (3.67) | 7.70 (3.54) | 8.17 (4.74) | 6.33 (3.85) | Group | 0.77 | 0.385 |
| Time | 8.13 | 0.007* | |||||
| Interaction | 0.48 | 0.494 | |||||
LSAS, Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale; BFNE, Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; RSES, Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale; SIAS, Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Asterisks indicate p < 0.05. Average values of the control and the experimental groups are presented with standard deviation in the round brackets.
Figure 2Box plots of the psychometric scale score results. The whiskers indicate the farthest data from the box within the 1.5 inter-quartile range.
Significant results of the mixed-design ANOVA for the local network metrics at different thresholds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| |||||||
| Inferior frontal gyrus | Left | Nodal efficiency | 0.1 | 12.82 | 0.044 | 2.37 | 0.014 |
| Heschl's gyrus | Left | Clustering coefficient | 0.15 | 18.57 | 0.011 | 2.80 | 0.006 |
| AUC | 15.22 | 0.035 | 1.54 | 0.070 | |||
| Local efficiency | 0.15 | 17.80 | 0.014 | 2.66 | 0.008 | ||
| AUC | 10.30 | 0.049 | 1.47 | 0.079 | |||
| Nodal efficiency | 0.1 | 12.81 | 0.044 | 2.22 | 0.019 | ||
| Inferior temporal gyrus | Left | Degree centrality | 0.2 | 14.81 | 0.020 | 2.24 | 0.019 |
| 0.25 | 15.61 | 0.015 | 2.18 | 0.021 | |||
| 0.3 | 14.02 | 0.024 | 1.88 | 0.038 | |||
| Calcarine sulcus | Right | Degree centrality | 0.2 | 17.69 | 0.014 | −2.51 | 0.011 |
| 0.25 | 18.73 | 0.010 | −2.40 | 0.014 | |||
| 0.3 | 14.43 | 0.023 | −2.14 | 0.023 | |||
|
| |||||||
| BA9/46d | Left | Degree centrality | 0.45 | 17.10 | 0.045 | 3.25 | 0.002 |
| 0.5 | 19.01 | 0.025 | 3.36 | 0.002 | |||
| BA20cl | Right | Degree centrality | 0.45 | 15.41 | 0.045 | −4.04 | <0.001 |
| 0.5 | 15.30 | 0.045 | −4.07 | <0.001 | |||
|
| |||||||
| BA9/46d | Left | Nodal efficiency | 0.15 | 16.37 | 0.027 | 3.69 | <0.001 |
| Middle insular area | Left | Nodal efficiency | 0.15 | 19.81 | 0.046 | 3.53 | 0.001 |
AUC, Area under the curve; AAL, Automated Anatomical Labeling; BA9/46d, Dorsal part of the Brodmann area 9/46; BA20cl, Caudolateral part of the Brodmann area 20.
Figure 3Brain regions with significant interaction effects of the local network metrics.
Figure 4Bar plots of the local network metrics at baseline and follow-up with respect to varying thresholds. Statistically significant results after the correction of multiple comparisons are indicated with an asterisk. Each whisker indicates the 95% confidence interval. (A) Results from the AAL atlas. (B) Results from the Brainnetome atlas. (C) Results from the Glasser atlas.
Significant results of the mixed-design ANOVA for the global network metrics at different thresholds.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||||
| Network efficiency | AUC | 4.53 | 0.040 | 1.29 | 0.106 |
| 0.05 | 7.21 | 0.011 | 1.72 | 0.051 | |
| 0.1 | 6.42 | 0.016 | 1.69 | 0.054 | |
| 0.15 | 6.06 | 0.019 | 1.64 | 0.059 | |
| 0.2 | 5.00 | 0.031 | 1.40 | 0.090 | |
| Average shortest path length | AUC | 7.36 | 0.010 | −1.61 | 0.062 |
| 0.05 | 6.73 | 0.014 | −1.66 | 0.057 | |
| 0.1 | 7.89 | 0.008 | −1.73 | 0.050 | |
| 0.15 | 7.64 | 0.009 | −1.68 | 0.055 | |
| 0.2 | 5.75 | 0.022 | −1.39 | 0.090 | |
| 0.25 | 4.54 | 0.040 | −1.16 | 0.131 | |
|
| |||||
| Network efficiency | 0.05 | 4.42 | 0.042 | 1.00 | 0.166 |
| Average shortest path length | AUC | 4.31 | 0.045 | −1.15 | 0.131 |
Figure 5Scatter plot between the psychometric scale scores and the global network metrics at baseline and follow-up which showed significant results from the general linear model analysis. (A) Results from the AAL atlas. (B) Results from the Brainnetome atlas. (C) Results from the Glasser atlas.