4.6 Review

An interoceptive model of bulimia nervosa: A neurobiological systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 94, Issue -, Pages 36-46

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.06.009

Keywords

Interoception; Bulimia nervosa; Pain; Gastric distention; Taste; Heartbeat

Categories

Funding

  1. [3R01HD049653-09S1]
  2. [1K23MH10679401A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of our study was to examine the neurobiological support for an interoceptive sensory processing model of bulimia nervosa (BN). To do so, we conducted a systematic review of interoceptive sensory processing in BN, using the PRISMA guidelines. We searched Psychlnfo, Pubmed, and Web of Knowledge databases to identify biological and behavioral studies that examine interoceptive detection in BN. After screening 390 articles for inclusion and conducting a quality assessment of articles that met inclusion criteria, we reviewed 41 articles. We found that global interoceptive sensory processing deficits may be present in BN. Specifically there is evidence of abnormal brain function, structure and connectivity in the interoceptive neural network, in addition to gastric and pain processing disturbances. These results suggest that there may be a neurobiological basis for global interoceptive sensory processing deficits in BN that remain after recovery. Data from taste and heart beat detection studies were inconclusive; some studies suggest interoceptive disturbances in these sensory domains. Discrepancies in findings appear to be due to methodological differences. In conclusion, interoceptive sensory processing deficits may directly contribute to and explain a variety of symptoms present in those with BN. Further examination of interoceptive sensory processing deficits could inform the development of treatments for those with BN. (C) 2017 Elsevier 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available