4.5 Article

Risk for depression is associated with neural biases in emotional categorisation

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 46, 期 12, 页码 2896-2903

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.05.030

关键词

fMRI; neuroticism; superior parietal; anterior cingulate

资金

  1. Esther Yewpick Lee Millennium Scholarship
  2. Hruska Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Negative biases in emotional processing are a major characteristic of depression. Recent research has shown that Such negative biases are evident in high risk individuals even in the absence of personal history of depression, suggesting that they may serve as key vulnerability markers of depression. However, the neural basis of these behavioural observations has not been fully explored. This study therefore aimed to (I) illustrate the neural processes involved in the categorisation of emotional personality-trait words; and (2) examine whether these neural mechanisms are biased towards negative information in high risk individuals. Risk for depression was defined by high neuroticism (N). We recruited a sample of high risk (high N) and low Fisk (low N) never-depressed young adults. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was acquired during the categorisation and memory for positive and negative self-referent personality-trait Words (e.g. honest, rude). High risk volunteers showed greater responses in the right superior parietal cortex than low risk Volunteers specifically during the categorisation of negative words. Moreover, neuroticism score was positively correlated with neural responses in the left anterior cingulate during the categorisation of negative words but negatively correlated within the same region during the retrieval of these words. These results highlight a role of the fronto-parietal circuitry in emotional processing and further Suggest that negative biases in these neural processes may be involved in risk for depression. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据