Properties (14)

Id 6216d2bb-2964-4fa5-8967-ed28876f2d9f

Year 2019

Cssclasses

purpleRed

Aliases

(Eijsker et al., 2019)

Import Date 03-13-2024

Dissertation Source Tags

neuro
cognitive control
fMRI
response inhibition

Quick Cites 2

Checked For Zettle Notes true

Zotero Note Link Generated true

Dv Initial Source Misophonia MOCMisophonia

Dv Status #status/reviewed

Dv Limitations • Small sample limits generalizability of results • Use of visual stimuli unrelated to Misophonia triggers means that the study does not look at the impact of triggers on response inhibition, it just shows the inhibition trends in general. • This study lacked variable jitter between trails, a future commonly used to avoid anticipation in subsequent go-trials • Failed to probe response inhibition in the manner they meant to, so this limits the statements that can be made about it. • Used the A-MISO-S despite questionable validity

Dv Future Directions • Replication of findings with larger samples. • Use of auditory SST with trigger sounds to enhance ecological validity. • Investigate whether response bias is strategic or due to cognitive inflexibility. • Examine personality traits (e.g., perfectionism, error sensitivity) in misophonia. • Assess DMN connectivity and its interaction with other networks (salience, executive). • Explore misophonia subtypes and validate new symptom-specific scales. • Suggest the utility of endophenotypes (e.g., response bias) in refining diagnostic classification

Dv Relevance • Demonstrates some neurological impairments in Misophonics not seen in controls. • Demonstrates some neurological impairments in Misophonics not seen in controls. specifically, shows a response bias for accuracy of speed on the task. the authors take this to suggest perfectionism and compulsivity as core traits of Misophonia • showed neuro evidence of Misophonics using more cog control for response inhibition compared to controls

Neural Basis of Response Bias on the Stop Signal Task in Misophonia

Status:: #status/reviewed

Metadata

Item Type: #journalArticle
Authors: Nadine Eijsker, Arjan Schröder, Dirk J. A. Smit, Guido van Wingen, Damiaan Denys,
Date:
Date Added: 1590271511000
URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00765/full
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00765
Cite Key: eijskerNeuralBasisResponse2019
Topics: [object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Tags: #Article-review, #Misophonia, #marked, #added-to-Misophonia-data-base, #Fully-reviewd, #reviewed, #Highlighted-source, #annotated, #Neurology, #(SST)-Stop-Signal- #Fmri Task, #selected, #my-dissertation
[PDF Attachments]([Eijsker et al. - 2019 Supplementary Material](file://C:\Users\attra\Zotero\storage\BA8RHS5T\Eijsker%20et%20al.%20-%202019%20%20Supplementary%20Material.pdf))
pdf

Article Review Table: (Eijsker et al., 2019)


Background/Purpose	Background- • Misophonia is not yet included in major diagnostic systems, and its neurobiological basis is poorly understood. • Prior studies suggest hyperactivity in insula, anterior cingulate, auditory cortex, and altered connectivity in emotional and cognitive networks. • Misophonia shares features with both impulsive and compulsive disorders; response inhibition is a common endophenotype in such disorders. Purpose- • To test whether misophonia involves impaired response inhibition or a distinctive response bias. • To identify corresponding neural correlates using fMRI during an SST. • To investigate group differences in behavior (SSRT, SSD, RTs) and neural responses, and their associations. • Goal of addressing the scarcity of evidence for the psychobiological dysfunctions underlying Misophonia • Examined if Misophonics showed impaired response inhibition
Participants/samples	• Participants: 22 misophonia patients and 21 matched healthy controls (age, sex, education). • Inclusion: Diagnosed with misophonia per Schröder et al.'s criteria. • Exclusion: Major psychiatric disorders (e.g., MDD, psychosis), neurological disorders, MRI contraindications. • Comorbidities: Some patients had ADHD or borderline personality disorder. • Sample consisted of 25 Misophonia patients recruited from the Academic Medical Center (AMC) outpatient clinical, and 25 age, sex, and education matched controls recruited via AMC/university of Amsterdam advertisements. • Exclusion criteria included presence of major depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, psychotic disorder, autism spectrum disorder, substance related disorder, hearing loss, epilepsy, structural central nervous system disorder, stroke within the last year, and MRI contraindications
Measures	• Participants completed the Dutch versions of the following questionnaires: • Clinical questionnaires: • A-MISO-S (misophonia severity) • SCL-90 (general psychopathology) • HAM-A, HAM-D (anxiety, depression) • BPAQ (trait aggression) • Behavioral Measures (SST): • SSRT, SSD, Go RTs, Failed Stop RTs, Accuracy • Neuroimaging: • BOLD activation during SST via event-related fMRI recap • Amsterdam Misophonia s scale (A-MISO-S)- assessed misophonia severity • The Symptom Checklist (SCL-90)- assessed mental/physical dysfunction • The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A)- assessed anxiety symptoms • Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D)- assessed depressive symptoms • Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ)- assessed aggressive personality style.
Procedures	• Quantitative design. Use of fMRI during a stop signal task • Participants were screened for Misophonia and other psychiatric conditions by 3 AMC psychiatrists. Accepted participants then completed the 4 questionnaires. Following that they had fMRI data collected while completing a Stop signal task (SST). • Task stimuli: Left/right-pointing airplane (go signal); cross (stop signal) • Trial structure: 279 trials, 25% stop trials, staircase SSD adjustment • Instructions: Equal emphasis on speed and accuracy • fMRI analysis: Whole-brain and ROI-based (control, affect, motor), small volume correction, cluster-level FWE corrected
Results	• Behavioral: • No significant group differences in SSRT or RTs. • Patients had longer SSDs (non-significant after correction). • High SSD correlated with Go RTs and inhibition accuracy. • Neural: • DLPFC: Controls activated left DLPFC during successful inhibition; patients activated it more during correct going. • SMFG & PCC: Patients showed reduced activation during successful inhibition (vs. failed) in both regions, unlike controls. • Correlation: SMFG activity during failed vs. successful inhibition correlated positively with SSD across groups. • Symptoms of misophonia typically emerged around age 12, with an average A-MISO-S score of 15. • Compared to controls, individuals with misophonia scored significantly higher on measures of general psychopathology, anxiety, depression, anger, and hate. • Behaviorally, misophonic participants showed longer stop-signal delays, indicating impaired inhibitory control. • Neurally, they tended to exhibit greater activation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during responding rather than during successful inhibition, a pattern opposite to that observed in controls. • They also lacked inhibition-success–related activity in the posterior cingulate cortex and showed reduced activation of the superior medial frontal gyri during successful inhibition relative to failed inhibition, with this neural pattern correlating with longer stop-signal delays across participants. • Misophonics scored significantly higher than controls on the following : • general psychopathy • anxiety • depression • anger • hate • Misophonics showed longer stop signal delays compared to controls • Misophonics tended to show greater activation of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex more during responding vs successful inhibition compared to controls. • during inhibition success, Misophonics showed greater posterior cingulate and less frontal gyri activation then during inhibition failure. • Misophonics showed increased stop signal delays ( time from stim signal to response initiation/inhibition) compared to controls.
Discussion/Limits	Conclusion- • results do not show impaired response inhibition , but did find a response bias for accuracy over speed, suggesting perfectionism and compulsivity as core traits of Misophonia. • neural activations for the Misophonics support idea of using more attentional resources for successful inhibition and the engagement of more cognitive control for response slowing when compared to controls • Misophonia patients do not show impaired inhibition (no SSRT difference), but a response bias favoring accuracy over speed. • Behavioral pattern aligns with compulsivity/perfectionism, not impulsivity. • Neuroimaging supports increased cognitive control during correct responses (DLPFC), and altered default mode network (DMN) engagement (SMFG, PCC). • Suggests misophonia involves inflexible rule-based behavior, potentially rooted in perfectionism or intolerance of mistakes.
Limitations::	• Small sample limits generalizability of results • Use of visual stimuli unrelated to Misophonia triggers means that the study does not look at the impact of triggers on response inhibition, it just shows the inhibition trends in general. • This study lacked variable jitter between trails, a future commonly used to avoid anticipation in subsequent go-trials • Failed to probe response inhibition in the manner they meant to, so this limits the statements that can be made about it. • Used the A-MISO-S despite questionable validity
Future Directions::	• Replication of findings with larger samples. • Use of auditory SST with trigger sounds to enhance ecological validity. • Investigate whether response bias is strategic or due to cognitive inflexibility. • Examine personality traits (e.g., perfectionism, error sensitivity) in misophonia. • Assess DMN connectivity and its interaction with other networks (salience, executive). • Explore misophonia subtypes and validate new symptom-specific scales. • Suggest the utility of endophenotypes (e.g., response bias) in refining diagnostic classification
Relevance::	• Demonstrates some neurological impairments in Misophonics not seen in controls. • Demonstrates some neurological impairments in Misophonics not seen in controls. specifically, shows a response bias for accuracy of speed on the task. the authors take this to suggest perfectionism and compulsivity as core traits of Misophonia • showed neuro evidence of Misophonics using more cog control for response inhibition compared to controls

my engagement notes

my questions

my comments

reading notes

One point of evidence for misophonia being its own condition is the surprising consistency in symptoms , triggers, and coping mechanisms
possible role of impaired response inhibition and trait anger in misophonia

key terms

Misophonia – A condition in which specific, everyday sounds (e.g., chewing, breathing) trigger strong negative emotions such as anger or disgust.
Stop Signal Task (SST) – A cognitive task used to measure response inhibition; participants respond to a go-signal but must stop their response when a stop-signal appears.
Stop Signal Delay (SSD) – The interval between go and stop signals; longer SSDs increase the difficulty of inhibiting a response.
Stop Signal Reaction Time (SSRT) – An estimate of the latency of the stopping process; used as an index of inhibitory control.
Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) – A region involved in cognitive control, including adjusting speed-accuracy balance.
Superior Medial Frontal Gyrus (SMFG) – A default mode network region implicated in self-reflection and attentional control.
Posterior Cingulate Cortex (PCC) – A region involved in environmental change detection and policy adjustment.
Response Bias – A tendency to prioritize either speed or accuracy in task performance; here, refers to preference for accuracy over speed.