4.2 Article

Attention training modulates resting-state neurophysiological abnormalities in posttraumatic stress disorder

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH-NEUROIMAGING
卷 271, 期 -, 页码 135-141

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2017.11.008

关键词

Magnetoencephalography; MEG; Cortical; PTSD; Treatment; Attention training

资金

  1. nonprofit organization At Ease, USA
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01-MH103220]
  3. NSF [1539067]
  4. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Mental Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent research indicates the relative benefits of computerized attention control treatment (ACT) and attention bias modification treatment (ABMT) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); however, neural changes underlying these therapeutic effects remain unknown. This study examines how these two types of attention training modulate neurological dysfunction in veterans with PTSD. A community sample of 46 combat veterans with PTSD participated in a randomized double-blinded clinical trial of ACT versus ABMT and 32 of those veterans also agreed to undergo resting-state magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings. Twenty-four veterans completed psychological and MEG assessments at pre- and post-training to evaluate treatment effects. MEG data were imaged using an advanced Bayesian reconstruction method and examined using statistical parametric mapping. In this report, we focus on the neural correlates and the differential treatment effects observed using MEG; the results of the full clinical trial have been described elsewhere. Our results indicated that ACT modulated occipital and ABMT modulated medial temporal activity more strongly than the comparative treatment. PTSD symptoms decreased significantly from pre- to post-test. These initial neurophysiological outcome data suggest that ACT modulates visual pathways, while ABMT modulates threat-processing regions, but that both are associated with normalizing aberrant neural activity in veterans with PTSD.

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

4.2
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