We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
With this chapter, we contrast the mainstream explanatory practices with forms of causality that are processual: complex causality. Complex dynamic systems are used as a framework, incorporating principles such as emergence, self-organization, circular causality, and perturbations. With this alternative, processes themselves are seen as causes, making causality a moving and dynamic phenomenon. We conclude with descriptions of various concrete causal models that can be used to help researchers understand causality via processes.
Depression is commonly associated with fronto-amygdala dysfunction during the processing of emotional face expressions. Interactions between these regions are hypothesized to contribute to negative emotional processing biases and as such have been highlighted as potential biomarkers of treatment response. This study aimed to investigate depression associated alterations to directional connectivity and assess the utility of these parameters as predictors of treatment response.
Methods
Ninety-two unmedicated adolescents and young adults (mean age 20.1; 56.5% female) with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder and 88 healthy controls (mean age 19.8; 61.4% female) completed an implicit emotional face processing fMRI task. Patients were randomized to receive cognitive behavioral therapy for 12 weeks, plus either fluoxetine or placebo. Using dynamic causal modelling, we examined functional relationships between six brain regions implicated in emotional face processing, comparing both patients and controls and treatment responders and non-responders.
Results
Depressed patients demonstrated reduced inhibition from the dlPFC to vmPFC and reduced excitation from the dlPFC to amygdala during sad expression processing. During fearful expression processing patients showed reduced inhibition from the vmPFC to amygdala and reduced excitation from the amygdala to dlPFC. Response was associated with connectivity from the amygdala to dlPFC during sad expression processing and amygdala to vmPFC connectivity during fearful expression processing.
Conclusions
Our study clarifies the nature of face processing network alterations in adolescents and young adults with depression, highlighting key interactions between the amygdala and prefrontal cortex. Moreover, these findings highlight the potential utility of these interactions in predicting treatment response.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.