4.2 Article

Hoarding disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder show different patterns of neural activity during response inhibition

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH-NEUROIMAGING
卷 221, 期 2, 页码 142-148

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2013.11.009

关键词

Hoarding; Obsessive-compulsive disorder; Neuroimaging; Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); Inhibition

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [R01MH074934]
  2. Palo Alto Health Systems
  3. Pfizer
  4. Endo Pharmaceuticals
  5. Merck
  6. Eli Lilly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although hoarding disorder (HD) has been historically conceptualized as a subtype or dimension of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), preliminary evidence suggests that these two disorders have distinct neural underpinnings. The aim of the present study was to compare the hemodynamic responses of HD patients, OCD patients, and healthy controls (HC) during response inhibition on a high-conflict Go/NoGo task that has previously proved sensitive to OCD. Participants comprised 24 HD patients, 24 OCD patients, and 24 HCs who completed a Go/NoGo task during functional magnetic resonance imaging (MARI). Although behavioral data showed no difference among the groups in Go/NoGo task performance, significant differences in hemodynamic activity were noted. During correct rejects (successful response inhibition), HD patients showed greater right precentral gyrus activation, whereas OCD patients exhibited greater right orbitofrontal activation, as assessed using a region of interest approach. During errors of commission (response inhibition failures), OCD patients, but not HD patients, were characterized by excessive activity in left and right orbitofrontal gyrus. The present results lend further support to the biological distinction between HD and OCD, and they are consistent with previous research suggesting frontal hypoactivity in HD patients during hoarding-unrelated tasks. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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