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.
It has been suggested that individual differences in temperament could be involved in the (non-)response to antidepressant (AD) treatment. However, how neurobiological processes such as brain glucose metabolism may relate to personality features in the treatment-resistant depressed (TRD) state remains largely unclear.
Methods
To examine how brainstem metabolism in the TRD state may predict Cloninger's temperament dimensions Harm Avoidance (HA), Novelty Seeking (NS), and Reward Dependence (RD), we collected 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG PET) scans in 40 AD-free TRD patients. All participants were assessed with the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI). We applied a multiple kernel learning (MKL) regression to predict the HA, NS, and RD from brainstem metabolic activity, the origin of respectively serotonergic, dopaminergic, and noradrenergic neurotransmitter (NT) systems.
Results
The MKL model was able to significantly predict RD but not HA and NS from the brainstem metabolic activity. The MKL pattern regression model identified increased metabolic activity in the pontine nuclei and locus coeruleus, the medial reticular formation, the dorsal/median raphe, and the ventral tegmental area that contributed to the predictions of RD.
Conclusions
The MKL algorithm identified a likely metabolic marker in the brainstem for RD in major depression. Although 18FDG PET does not investigate specific NT systems, the predictive value of brainstem glucose metabolism on RD scores however indicates that this temperament dimension in the TRD state could be mediated by different monoaminergic systems, all involved in higher order reward-related behavior.
Studies investigating neurocognitive impairment in subjects with eating disorders (EDs) have reported heterogeneous patterns of impairment and, in some instances, no dysfunction. The present study aimed to define the pattern of neurocognitive impairment in a large sample of bulimia nervosa (BN) patients and to demonstrate that neuroendocrine, personality and clinical characteristics influence neurocognitive performance in BN.
Method
Attention/immediate memory, set shifting, perseveration, conditional and implicit learning were evaluated in 83 untreated female patients with BN and 77 healthy controls (HC). Cortisol and 17β-estradiol plasma levels were assessed. Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory – Revised (TCI-R), the Bulimic Investigation Test Edinburgh (BITE) and the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were administered.
Results
No impairment of cognitive performance was found in subjects with BN compared with HC. Cortisol and ‘Self-directedness’ were associated with better performance on conditional learning whereas 17β-estradiol had a negative influence on this domain; ‘Reward dependence’ was associated with worse performance on implicit learning; and depressive symptomatology influenced performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) negatively.
Conclusions
No cognitive impairment was found in untreated patients with BN. Neuroendocrine, personality and clinical variables do influence neurocognitive functioning and might explain discrepancies in literature findings.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.