4.7 Article

Intact alternation performance in high lethality suicide attempters

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 219, Issue 1, Pages 129-136

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.04.050

Keywords

Neuropsychological; Depression; Affective disorders; Object Alternation; Ventral Prefrontal Cortex

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [MH62155, MH48514, MH59710]
  2. Conte Center for the Neurobiology of Mental Disorders [5 P50 MH062185]
  3. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Suicide attempters often perform poorly on tasks linked to ventral prefrontal cortical (VPFC) function. Object Alternation (OA) - a VPFC probe - has not been used in these studies. In this study, currently depressed medication-free past suicide attempters whose most severe attempt was of high (n=31) vs. low (n=64) lethality, 114 medication-free depressed non-attempters, and 86 non-patients completed a computerized OA task. Participants also completed comparison tasks assessing the discriminant validity of OA (Wisconsin Card Sort), its concurrent validity relative to tasks associated with past attempt status (computerized Stroop task, Buschke Selective Reminding Test), and its construct validity as a VPFC measure (Go-No Go and Iowa Gambling Task). Against expectations, high lethality suicide attempters the majority of whom used non-violent methods in their attempts with some planning - outperformed other depressed groups on OA, with no group differences observed on Wisconsin Card Sort. Despite intact performance on OA, past attempters exhibited deficits on the Stroop and Buschke. OA performance was associated with performance on Go-No Go and Iowa Gambling, confirming that OA measures a similar construct. VPFC dysfunction may not be a characteristic of all suicide attempters, especially those who make more carefully planned, non-violent - though potentially lethal - attempts. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available