4.4 Article

Hot and cold cognition in unmedicated depressed subjects with bipolar disorder

期刊

BIPOLAR DISORDERS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 178-189

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2009.00669.x

关键词

bipolar disorder; depression; hot cognition; neuropsychology; unmedicated

资金

  1. NIMH
  2. Medical Research Council [G0001354B, G0001354] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Neuropsychological studies in subjects with bipolar disorder (BD) have reported deficits on a variety of cognitive measures. However, because the majority of subjects were medicated at the time of testing in previous studies, it is currently unclear whether the pattern of deficits reported is related to BD itself or to psychotropic medication. We addressed this issue by examining cognitive performance in a group of unmedicated, currently depressed subjects with BD. Methods: Forty-nine unmedicated subjects who met DSM-IV criteria for BD, depressed phase, and 55 control subjects participated in this study. Most patients were diagnosed with bipolar II disorder. Performance on emotion-dependent, or 'hot', and emotion-independent, or 'cold', cognitive tasks was assessed using tests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. Results: The groups were well matched with respect to general intelligence and demographic variables. Deficits in the unmedicated depressed BD group were apparent on tests tapping 'hot' cognitive processing, for example the Cambridge Gamble task and the Probabilistic Reversal Learning task. However, other than a deficit on the Spatial Span test in the depressed BD subjects, the groups performed equivalently on most measures of 'cold' cognitive processing, for example visual memory, attention, and working memory. Conclusions: These data suggest that deficits on tests involving reward processing, short-term spatial memory storage, and sensitivity to negative feedback in depressed BD subjects represent an effect of the illness itself and not mood-stabilizing medication.

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

4.4
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