4.3 Article

Healthy brooders employ more attentional resources when disengaging from the negative: an event-related fMRI study

Journal

COGNITIVE AFFECTIVE & BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 207-216

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13415-011-0022-5

Keywords

Depressive brooding; go/no-go; Emotional disengagement; DLPFC; Emotion regulation

Funding

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) [FWO08/PDO/168]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Depressive brooding is considered a maladaptive ruminative-thinking style that has been shown to be highly correlated with major depression. The present study in healthy participants employed event-related fMRI to uncover the neural underpinnings of emotional disengagement as it relates to depressive brooding. Thirty-four healthy, never depressed individuals performed an emotional go/no-go task with a rapid presentation of emotional faces. We focused on the contrast of inhibiting sad (happy/no-go) versus inhibiting happy (sad/no-go) information. This contrast allowed us to assess possible difficulties in disengaging from emotionally negative, as compared with emotionally positive, faces. At the behavioral level, only in high brooders were higher self-reported brooding scores correlated with more errors when sad information was inhibited, relative to happy information. At the neural level, across all participants, brooding scores were positively correlated with activity in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC; BA 46), implying that high brooders show higher DLPFC involvement when successfully disengaging from a series of negative stimuli. These results may suggest that healthy individuals who report a high brooding thinking style need to recruit more attentional control in order to disengage successfully from negative information, in a way that may be related to emotion regulation strategies. These mechanisms might protect them from developing depressive symptoms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available