4.7 Article

Electroencephalographic and perceptual asymmetry differences between responders and nonresponders to an SSRI antidepressant

Journal

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 49, Issue 5, Pages 416-425

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3223(00)01016-7

Keywords

depression; electroencephalograph; dichotic listening; antidepressant; SSRI; treatment response

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH56058, MH36295, R01 MH036295] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Recent reports suggest the value of electroencephalographic and dichotic listening measures as predictors of response to antidepressants. This study examines the potential of electroencephalographic alpha asymmetry and dichotic measures of perceptual assymmetry as predictors of clinical response to 12 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac), Methods: Resting electroencephalography (eyes open and eyes closed) and dichotic listening with word or complex tone stimuli were assessed in depressed outpatients during a pretreatment period. Results: Fluoxetine responders (n = 34) differed from nonresponders (n = 19) in favoring left over right hemisphere processing of dichotic stimuli. They also differed in their resting electroencephalographic alpha asymmetry, particularly, in the eyes open condition. Nonresponders showed an alpha asymmetry indicative of overall greater activation of the right hemisphere than the left, whereas responders did not. The relationship between hemispheric asymmetry and treatment response interacted with gender, being evident among depressed women but not men. Conclusions: The results are consistent with the hypothesis that a characteristic tendency toward greater left than right hemisphere activation is associated with favorable response to fluoxetine, whereas the opposite hemispheric asymmetry predicts poor response. Biol Psychiatry 2001; 49:416-425 (C) 2001 Society of Biological Psychiatry.

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