| Literature DB >> 36213922 |
Amir Valizadeh1, Mathew Mbwogge2, Anita Rasouli Yazdi3, Nazanin Hedayati Amlashi3, Ainaaz Haadi3, Monir Shayestefar1, Mana Moassefi1.
Abstract
Background: Mirror neuron system (MNS) consists of visuomotor neurons that are responsible for the mirror neuron activity (MNA), meaning that each time an individual observes another individual performing an action, these neurons encode that action, and are activated in the observer's cortical motor system. Previous studies report its malfunction in autism, opening doors to investigate the underlying pathophysiology of the disorder in a more elaborate way and coming up with new rehabilitation methods. The study of MNA function in schizophrenia patients has not been as frequent and conclusive as in autism. In this research, we aimed to evaluate the functional integrity of MNA and the microstructural integrity of MNS in schizophrenia patients.Entities:
Keywords: meta-analysis; mirror neuron activity; mirror neuron system; mirror neurons; schizophrenia; schizophrenia spectrum disorder; systematic review
Year: 2022 PMID: 36213922 PMCID: PMC9532849 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.884828
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 5.435
Figure 1PRISMA Flow diagram of the study. We identified 486 records through database searching and six records through citation searching. Following deduplication, 317 records were screened, from which, 32 relevant studies (34 reports) were found and included in the review.
Figure 2Methodological and reporting quality graph: Review authors' judgments about each methodological and reporting quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 3Methodological and reporting quality summary: review authors' judgments about each methodological and reporting quality item for each included study.
Figure 4Harvest plot of the overall analysis for the primary outcome. The height of each bar represents the sample size, divided by a line into two sections to represent the sample size of each group (case and control). The methodological and reporting quality of each study is presented by the color of the bar; green for good, yellow for fair, and red for poor. The direction of the effect for the studies is mentioned below the bars: ▾ for decreased MNA, ◂▸ for intact MNA, and ▴ for increased MNA. MNA, Mirror neuron activity.
The effect direction of the outcome table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| Tseng et al. ( | Altered | 32/32 | 32 | ✓ | – | – | Inpatient | DSI | Microstructural data |
| ElShahawi et al. ( | Altered | 15/15 | 29 | ✓ | – | – | Mixed | DWI/DTI | Microstructural data |
| Saito et al. ( | Altered | 16/16 | 21 | ✓ | – | – | Mixed | DWI/DTI | Microstructural data |
|
| |||||||||
| Brown et al. ( |
| 17/17 | 40 | ✓ | 19 (7) | 25 (8) | Inpatient | EEG | (a) Rest: inanimate motion, (b) Action-observation: observing video clips of two people sitting at a table, transferring coins from one bowl to the other bowls at the table |
| Horan et al. ( |
| 32/26 | 46 | ✓ | – | – | Outpatient | EEG | (a) Rest: inanimate motion (two bouncing balls), (b) Action-observation: hand movements, people playing a throw and catch game by throwing a ball to themselves, to each other, and to and from the observer |
| McCormick et al. ( |
| 16/16 | 37 | ✓ | 17 (12) | 16 (10) | Inpatient | EEG | (a) Rest: watching snow-fall, (b) Action-observation: bouncing balls and hand movements |
| Mitra et al. ( |
| 15/15 | 29 | × | – | – | Inpatient | EEG | (a) Rest: White screen, (b) Action-observation: video of handshakes, repeated at a rate of 1 per second |
| Möhring et al. ( |
| 15/15 | 35 | ✓ | 16 (4) | 20 (5) | Outpatient | EEG | (a) Action-observation: observing a static image of gestures of a hand for the rock–paper–scissors game, (b) Action-execution: participants actively executed hand gestures when stimuli depicting rock, paper, or scissors were displayed |
| Singh et al. ( |
| 20/12 | 21 | ✓ | 15 (15) | 17 (13) | Outpatient | EEG | (a) Rest: inanimate motion (two bouncing balls), (b) Action-observation: hand movements, point light display animation of a jumping human, people playing a game of throw and catch |
| Zaytseva et al. ( |
| 11/32 | 23 | ✓ | – | – | – | EEG | Imaginary representation of one's own walking on a familiar street (2 min) followed by the subjects' self-reports |
| Varcin et al. ( |
| 25/25 | 42 | ✓ | 15 (13) | 16 (10) | Outpatient | EMG | Watching facial expressions of happiness and anger displayed in 4 male and 4 female faces, while EMG was recorded from zygomaticus major and corrugator supercilii |
| Das et al. ( |
| 20/19 | 34 | ✓ | 10 (3) | 18 (5) | Inpatient | fMRI | 16 blocks: 8 experimental in which two triangles mimicked human behavior (bluffing, persuading, surprising, and mocking), and 8 controls in which two triangles moved randomly |
| Ferri et al. ( |
| 22/22 | 28 | ≈ | 14 (4) | 12 (5) | Outpatient | fMRI | 336 trials where subjects watched either “emotion action,” “emotion,” or “action” stimuli and 32 imitation trials where subjects were given a request to imitate either the action or the emotion |
| He et al. ( |
| 17/18 | 32 | ✓ | 26 (17) | 16 (13) | Inpatient | fMRI | Two runs of 182 trials each. Each run consisted of 3 stimuli: (a) observing videos of an actor making incomprehensible Russian sentences with gestures, (b) making comprehensible German sentences without any gestures, (c) making German sentences with accompanying gestures |
| Horan et al. ( |
| 23/23 | 47 | ✓ | – | – | Outpatient | fMRI | Five runs of 6 blocks, each block consisted of 6 trials (3 fingers and 3 faces). The trials required subjects to either (a) observe: observe finger movements or a facial expression, (b) imitate: imitate the fingers movement or the facial expression, and (c) execute: make the movement or facial expression described by each word. Words included the following in a random order: Lift Index, Lift Middle, Happy, Sad, Angry, Afraid |
| Horan et al. ( |
| 21/21 | 47 | ✓ | – | – | Outpatient | fMRI | Four runs of a mixed blocked/event-related paradigm. Each run consisted of two components: (a): (i) observing videos of patients receiving a painful sound stimulation treatment; (ii) listening to the painful sounds (to create ROIs). (b): manipulations of perspective-taking (imagine “Self” vs. “Other” experiencing pain) and cognitive appraisal (treatment was “Effective” vs. “Not Effective”) |
| Lee et al. ( |
| 15/16 | 37 | ✓ | 10 (3) | 13 (3) | Outpatient | fMRI | 180-trials (0.5 s of watching phase for each); (a) observation phase: subjects watched either facial or word stimuli, (b) expression phase: subjects actively expressed the emotions displayed, (c) returning phase: subjects returned to neutral facial expression after watching a neutral cue on the screen |
| Okruszek et al. ( |
| 25/26 | 35 | ✓ | 11 (3) | 18 (4) | Outpatient | fMRI | 112 trials–each trial consisted of (a) watching phase: watching animations displaying actions of agents presented as point-light walkers, (b) behavioral response phase: responding to the question “Are the two persons acting together or separately?,” (c) ISI phase |
| Park et al. ( |
| 15/16 | – | ✓ | 13 (2) | 17 (4) | Outpatient | fMRI | 24 blocks; each block consisted of perceiving, inferring, and selecting appropriate responses (30, 20, and 10 s, respectively), to ambiguous or certain emotional events narrated by a graphical avatar. The neutral certain condition was the control condition |
| Quintana ( |
| 8/8 | 33 | ✓ | – | – | Outpatient | fMRI | Four runs of block-design paradigms–each run consisted of 3 resting blocks scattered among 2 sets (colored circles or drawings of facial expressions) of 6 task trials, where the subject was required to match the cues |
| Stegmayer et al. ( |
| 22/25 | 38 | ✓ | 18 (7) | 19 (5) | Mixed | fMRI | Two runs of event-related paradigm–each run consisted of 3 phases: (a) visual command phase (3 s), (b) planning phase (3 s): participants had to plan movements, (c) execution phase (3 s): participants should've executed the gesture that was stated in the visual command phase |
| Thakkar et al. ( |
| 16/16 | 39 | ≈ | 14 (10) | 23 (12) | Inpatient | fMRI | Four runs of 14 blocks–each block consisted of 3 trials (3 movement conditions in each). Subjects were required to either execute actions of pressing buttons while viewing these stimuli or observe (a) a hand pressing buttons, (b) an image of a hand and a button box, (c) inanimate marks |
| Kato et al. ( |
| 15/15 | 33 | × | 18 (4) | 18 (8) | - | MEG | (a) Rest: eyes fixed on a cross, (b) Action-observation: mouth opening movements. |
| Schürmann et al. ( |
| 11/11 | 54 | ✓ | - | - | Outpatient | MEG | (a) Rest: resting in a relaxed state, (b) Action-observation: manipulation of a small object with a hand; (c) Action-execution: participants manipulated the small object with their hand |
| Andereasen et al. ( |
| 18/13 | 30 | × | 12 (11) | 9 (8) | Outpatient | PET | Subjects were asked to say narrative stories explaining a given social situation. The control task required subjects to read aloud a neutral story that was presented on the monitor |
| Choe et al. ( |
| 26/26 | 23 | ≈ | 16 (4) | 16 (4) | Outpatient | rs-fMRI | Resting-State |
| Guo et al. ( |
| 69/62 | 31 | ✓ | 12 (5) | 14 (6) | Inpatient | rs-fMRI | Resting-State |
| Park et al. ( |
| 37/80 | 23 | ≈ | 16 (4) | 17 (5) | Outpatient | rs-fMRI | Resting-State |
| Schilbach et al. ( |
| 116/133 | 34 | ✓ | – | – | Multi-centric | rs-fMRI | Resting-State |
| Sun et al. ( |
| 28/22 | 17 | × | 23 (7) | 17 (7) | Inpatient | rs-fMRI | Resting-State |
| Bagewadi et al. ( |
| 30/28 | 27 | ✓ | 21 (16) | 20 (16) | Inpatient | TMS | (a) Rest: observing a static image, (b) Natural action-observation: a key held in pinch grasp, performing locking and unlocking, (c) Context-based action-observation: observing a video clip of a mother trying to unlock the door of a house that is on fire and her child is stuck in calling for help |
| Enticott et al. ( |
| 15/15 | 38 | ✓ | 15 (4) | 15 (5) | - | TMS | (a) Rest: not specified, (b) Action-observation: non-goal directed and goal-directed finger movements |
| Mehta et al. ( |
| 54/45 | 31 | ≈ | 24 (6) | 23 (9) | Mixed | TMS | (a) Rest: observing a static image, (b) Action-observation: a key held in pinch grasp, performing locking, and unlocking movements |
| Andrews et al. ( |
| 19/19 | 41.0 | ✓ | 16 (6) | 16 (5) | Outpatient | TMS/EEG | (a) Rest: observing a black screen, (b) Action-observation: 6 video clips: 2 static hands; a hand reaching out and clasping a mug; a hand pantomiming clasping a mug; and 2 interactive movements, one with hands from two different people, and a similar movement carried out by one person |
▴ indicates increased mirror neuron activity (MNA) ◂▸ indicates intact MNA, and ▾ indicates decreased MNA. Colors represent the methodological quality of the study (green = good, yellow = fair, red = poor). ✓, Mostly medicated patients; × , Mostly drug-naïve/drug-free for at least a month; ≈, Mixed. + PANSS: + Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores [mean (SD)] round to the nearest integer; –PANSS, –PANSS scores [mean (SD)] round to the nearest integer; DSI, Diffusion spectrum imaging; DTI, Diffusion tensor imaging; DWI, Diffusion-weighted imaging; EEG, Electroencephalography; EMG, Electromyography; fMRI, Functional magnetic resonance imaging; HC, Healthy controls; MEG, Magnetoencephalography; PET, Proton emission tomography; rs-fMRI, Resting-state fMRI; SCZ, Schizophrenia; TMS, Transcranial magnetic stimulation.
The difference in the pattern of activation of different mirror neuron activity (MNA)-specific brain regions between schizophrenia and healthy control participants in task-based fMRI, MEG, and PET studies of MNA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andereasen et al. ( | PET | – | Lower | – | – | – |
| Das et al. ( | Task-Based fMRI | – | Lower | Lower | Lower | – |
| Ferri et al. ( | Task-Based fMRI | – | Lower | Lower | – | Lower |
| Kato et al. ( | MEG | – | - | Lower | – | - |
| Lee et al. ( | Task-Based fMRI | Lower | Lower | Higher | – | Higher |
| Okruszek et al. ( | Task-Based fMRI | – | – | – | Lower | – |
| Park et al. ( | Task-Based fMRI | Lower | Lower | – | – | – |
| Quintana ( | Task-Based fMRI | Higher | Higher | – | – | – |
| Schurmann et al. ( | MEG | Lower | – | – | – | – |
| Stegmayer et al. ( | Task-Based fMRI | – | Lower | Higher | – | – |
| Thakkar et al. ( | Task-Based fMRI | – | – | Higher | Lower | – |
Lower means lower activity in patients compared to controls, while higher means higher activity. IFG, Inferior frontal gyrus; IPL, Inferior parietal lobule; STG, Superior temporal gyrus; PMv, Ventral premotor cortex.
Results of the logistic meta-regression analyses for investigating the possible causes of heterogeneity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direction of | Age | −7.42 | 0.16 | < 0.001 |
| the effect | Female to male ratio | −0.82 | −1.86 | 0.070 |
| Positive PANSS | −4.75 | 0.17 | 0.004 | |
| Negative PANSS | −3.31 | 0.09 | 0.226 |
Figure 5Logistic meta-regression analyses for (A) age, (B) gender (female to male ratio), (C) +PANSS scores, and (D) −PANSS scores of participants in the included studies against the direction of the effect of those studies. PANSS: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.