4.6 Article

Delay Discounting and Frontostriatal Fiber Tracts: A Combined DTI and MTR Study on Impulsive Choices in Healthy Young Adults

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 1695-1702

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhs163

关键词

delay discounting; DTI; frontostriatal tracts; impulsivity; testosterone

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [NWO-Veni 451-10-007]
  2. European Research Council [ERC-2010-StG-263234]
  3. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Delay discounting, a measure of impulsive choice, has been associated with decreased control of the prefrontal cortex over striatum responses. The anatomical connectivity between both brain regions in delaying gratification remains unknown. Here, we investigate whether the quality of frontostriatal (FS) white matter tracts can predict individual differences in delay-discounting behavior. We use tract-based diffusion tensor imaging and magnetization transfer imaging to measure the microstructural properties of FS fiber tracts in 40 healthy young adults (from 18 to 25 years). We additionally explored whether internal sex hormone levels affect the integrity of FS tracts, based on the hypothesis that sex hormones modulate axonal density within prefrontal dopaminergic circuits. We calculated fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), longitudinal diffusivity, radial diffusivity (RD), and magnetization transfer ratio (MTR), a putative measure of myelination, for the FS tract. Results showed that lower integrity within the FS tract (higher MD and RD and lower FA), predicts faster discounting in both sexes. MTR was unrelated to delay-discounting performance. In addition, testosterone levels in males were associated with a lower integrity (higher RD) within the FS tract. Our study provides support for the hypothesis that enhanced structural integrity of white matter fiber bundles between prefrontal and striatal brain areas is associated with better impulse control.

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

4.6
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