4.4 Article

fMRI during affect discrimination in bipolar affective disorder

期刊

BIPOLAR DISORDERS
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 237-248

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-5618.2000.20304.x

关键词

affect; amygdala; bipolar; fMRI; prefrontal cortex

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH 51918] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: It has been hypothesized that disturbances in affect may represent distinct etiologic factors for bipolar affective disorder. The neural mechanisms mediating affective processes and their relationship to brain development and the pathophysiology of bipolar affective disorder remain to be clarified. Recent advances in neuroimaging techniques have made possible the non-invasive examination of specific brain regions during cortical challenge paradigms. This study reports findings based on fMRI data acquired during fearful and happy affect recognition paradigms in patients with bipolar affective disorder and in healthy adult subjects. Methods: Prior to the scan, subjects were instructed to view the stimuli and to identify the type of facial expression presented. Echo planar scanning was performed on a 1.5 Tesla scanner which had been retrofitted with a whole body echo planar coil, using a head coil. Results: The data indicate that in adult subjects with bipolar affective disorder, there is a reduction in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation and an increase in amygdalar activation in response to fearful facial affect. In a healthy comparison group, signal intensity changes were not found in these regions. In addition, although the patients with bipolar affective disorder completed the task demands, they demonstrated an impaired ability to correctly identify fearful facial affect but not the happy facial affect displayed. Conclusion: These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that in some patients with bipolar affective disorder, there may be a reduction of frontal cortical function which may be associated with affective as well as attentional processing deficits.

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