4.1 Article

The functional magnetic resonance imaging-based verbal fluency test in obsessive-compulsive disorder

Journal

NEUROCASE
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages 424-440

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13554794.2011.627342

Keywords

Verbal fluency; Controlled oral word association test; Obsessive-compulsive disorder; Functional neuroimaging; Neuropsychology; Pre-supplementary motor area; Individual differences; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; fMRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is limited by a relative absence of fMRI task development, standardization, and normative performance databases. We investigated the fMRI-based verbal fluency test (f-VFT) by quantitatively evaluating brain activation patterns in OCD participants (8 females and 4 males) compared with a normative database (16 females and 16 males). At the group level, OCD participants and references had highly similar activation in left-hemisphere language regions, including the precentral/premotor cortex, thalamus, basal ganglia, and inferior frontal gyrus/frontal operculum. At the interindividual level, however, the OCD group had highly variable activation patterns in the dorsal and ventral regions of the pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) that may correspond with differences in demographic and clinical variables. Further, there were significant correlations in the OCD participants between pre-SMA dorsal and ventral activation and between dorsal pre-SMA activation and perfectionism. Our findings suggest considerable functional anatomical overlap in left-hemisphere language regions between OCD participants and references but significantly higher pre-SMA interindividual variability in OCD compared to the reference group that may be relevant in clinical fMRI application and the theoretical understanding of OCD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available