Frontal Alpha Asymmetry in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Group Differences Among Individuals With and Without PTSD During an Inhibitory Control Task.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical EEG and Neuroscience Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-16 DOI:10.1177/15500594211046703
Teresa López-Castro, Laura Martin, Sean Nickley, Tanya C Saraiya, Robert D Melara
{"title":"Frontal Alpha Asymmetry in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Group Differences Among Individuals With and Without PTSD During an Inhibitory Control Task.","authors":"Teresa López-Castro, Laura Martin, Sean Nickley, Tanya C Saraiya, Robert D Melara","doi":"10.1177/15500594211046703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current study examined frontal alpha asymmetry (FAA) as a marker of approach- and avoidance-related prefrontal activity in participants with and without trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We investigated FAA in an inhibitory control paradigm (threatening vs nonthreatening cues) under 2 levels of cognitive demand (baseline: images constant within a block of trials; vs filtering: images varied randomly within a block) in 3 groups of participants: individuals with PTSD (<i>n</i> = 16), exposed to trauma but without PTSD (<i>n</i> = 14), and a control group without PTSD or trauma exposure (<i>n</i> = 15). Under low demand (baseline), both PTSD and trauma-exposed participants exhibited significantly greater relative left than right frontal brain activity (approach) to threatening than to nonthreatening images. Under high demand (filtering), no FAA differences were found between threatening and nonthreatening images, but PTSD participants revealed more relative left than right FAA, whereas trauma-exposed participants showed reduced left relative right FAA. In all conditions, healthy controls exhibited reduced left relative to right FAA and no differences between threatening and nonthreatening images. Study findings suggest dysfunctional prefrontal mechanisms of emotion regulation in PTSD, but adaptive prefrontal regulation in trauma-exposed individuals without PTSD.</p>","PeriodicalId":10682,"journal":{"name":"Clinical EEG and Neuroscience","volume":"54 5","pages":"472-482"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9022109/pdf/nihms-1789773.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical EEG and Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15500594211046703","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The current study examined frontal alpha asymmetry (FAA) as a marker of approach- and avoidance-related prefrontal activity in participants with and without trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We investigated FAA in an inhibitory control paradigm (threatening vs nonthreatening cues) under 2 levels of cognitive demand (baseline: images constant within a block of trials; vs filtering: images varied randomly within a block) in 3 groups of participants: individuals with PTSD (n = 16), exposed to trauma but without PTSD (n = 14), and a control group without PTSD or trauma exposure (n = 15). Under low demand (baseline), both PTSD and trauma-exposed participants exhibited significantly greater relative left than right frontal brain activity (approach) to threatening than to nonthreatening images. Under high demand (filtering), no FAA differences were found between threatening and nonthreatening images, but PTSD participants revealed more relative left than right FAA, whereas trauma-exposed participants showed reduced left relative right FAA. In all conditions, healthy controls exhibited reduced left relative to right FAA and no differences between threatening and nonthreatening images. Study findings suggest dysfunctional prefrontal mechanisms of emotion regulation in PTSD, but adaptive prefrontal regulation in trauma-exposed individuals without PTSD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创伤后应激障碍的额叶α不对称:抑制控制任务中创伤后应激障碍和非创伤后应激障碍个体的组差异。
目前的研究检查了在有或没有创伤暴露和创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的参与者中,额叶α不对称(FAA)作为接近和回避相关的前额叶活动的标志。我们在两种认知需求水平下研究了抑制控制范式(威胁性与非威胁性线索)下的FAA(基线:一组试验中的图像恒定;对比过滤:三组参与者的图像在一个区域内随机变化:有创伤后应激障碍的个体(n = 16),暴露于创伤但没有创伤后应激障碍(n = 14),和没有创伤后应激障碍或创伤暴露的对照组(n = 15)。在低需求(基线)条件下,PTSD和创伤暴露的受试者对威胁性图像的相对左额叶活动明显大于右额叶活动(接近)。在高要求(过滤)条件下,威胁性和非威胁性图像之间没有FAA差异,但创伤后应激障碍参与者的相对左侧FAA多于右侧FAA,而创伤暴露参与者的相对左侧FAA减少。在所有条件下,健康对照组表现出相对于右FAA减少,威胁和非威胁图像之间没有差异。研究结果表明,创伤后应激障碍患者存在功能失调的前额叶情绪调节机制,而非创伤后应激障碍患者存在适应性的前额叶情绪调节机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical EEG and Neuroscience
Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical EEG and Neuroscience conveys clinically relevant research and development in electroencephalography and neuroscience. Original articles on any aspect of clinical neurophysiology or related work in allied fields are invited for publication.
期刊最新文献
Ikelos-RWA. Validation of an Automatic Tool to Quantify REM Sleep Without Atonia. Age-dependent Electroencephalogram Characteristics During Different Levels of Anesthetic Depth. The Clinical Utility of Finding Unexpected Subclinical Spikes Detected by High-Density EEG During Neurodiagnostic Investigations Comparative Analysis of LORETA Z Score Neurofeedback and Cognitive Rehabilitation on Quality of Life and Response Inhibition in Individuals with Opioid Addiction Deep Learning-Based Artificial Intelligence Can Differentiate Treatment-Resistant and Responsive Depression Cases with High Accuracy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1