4.3 Article

Electrophysiologic Evidence for Multilevel Deficits in Emotional Face Processing in Patients With Bulimia Nervosa

Journal

PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE
Volume 74, Issue 7, Pages 736-744

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31825ca15a

Keywords

eating disorders; bulimia nervosa; EEG; emotions; face recognition; N170; N2; P3

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Empirical evidence suggests substantial deficits regarding emotion recognition in bulimia nervosa (BN). The aim of the current study was to investigate electrophysiologic evidence for deficits in emotional face processing in patients with BN. Methods: Event-related potentials were recorded from 13 women with BN and 13 matched healthy controls while viewing neutral, happy, fearful, and angry facial expressions. Participants' recognition performance for emotional faces was tested in a subsequent categorization task. In addition, the degree of alexithymia, depression, and anxiety were assessed via questionnaires. Results: Categorization of emotional faces was hampered in BN (p = .01). Amplitudes of event-related potentials differed during emotional face processing: face-specific N170 amplitudes were less pronounced for angry faces in patients with BN (mean [M] [standard deviation {SD}] = 1.46 [0.56] mu V versus M [SD] = -1.23 [0.61] mu V, p = .02). In contrast, P3 amplitudes were more pronounced in patients with BN as compared with controls (M [SD] = 2.64 [0.46] mu V versus M [SD] = 1.25 [0.39] mu V, p = .04), independent of emotional expression. Conclusions: The study provides novel electrophysiologic data showing that emotional faces are processed differently in patients with BN as compared with healthy controls. We suggest that deficits in early automatic emotion classification in BN are followed by an increased allocation of attentional resources to compensate for those deficits. These findings might contribute to a better understanding of the impaired social functioning in BN.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available