University of Groningen
P.303 Adjusting ruminative thinking? Effects of positive fantasizing vs. stress induction on
perseverative cognition in individuals with varying vulnerability for depression
Besten, M.; Van Tol, M. J.; Van Rij, J. C.; Van Vugt, M. K.
Published in:
European Neuropsychopharmacology
DOI:
10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.09.228
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Besten, M., Van Tol, M. J., Van Rij, J. C., & Van Vugt, M. K. (2020). P.303 Adjusting ruminative thinking?
Effects of positive fantasizing vs. stress induction on perseverative cognition in individuals with varying
vulnerability for depression. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 40, S174-S175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.09.228
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
S174 Abstracts
gender and education level) underwent 3T fMRI scanning during an Emotion Regulation Task. During this task, par-ticipants were instructed to passively attend to neutral, negativeor positiveimages,or todownregulate negative, andupregulatepositiveimages,usingcognitivereappraisal techniques.Furthermore,theyunderwentassessmentof at-tentionalbiases(usingamodifiedattentionaldot-probetask withbothdisengagement andengagementbiasindicesfor negativeandpositivestimuli[4])andofruminationonboth negative (Rumination on Sadness Scale) and positive (Re-sponses toPositive Affect Scale) content. Following stan-dardpreprocessingandevent-relatedmodelingoffMRI-data (using SPM12, implemented in MATLAB(R2015a)), contrast imagesreflectingbrainactivationduringattend(>fixation) andregulate(>attend)conditionswereenteredin nonpara-metricpermutation-basedgroupcomparisonsandmultiple regression analyses with attentional bias and rumination scores as predictors (using FSL Randomise). Effects were consideredsignificantatp<0.05,TFCE-corrected.
RMDD patients showed no attentional biases, but re-portedhigherruminationonsadnessanddampeningof pos-itiveaffect,andlowerself-related savoringofpositive af-fectthanHC.Duringimplicitprocessingemotional informa-tion,rMDDpatientsshoweddecreasedactivationinthe oc-cipitalcortex,precuneus,posteriorcingulatecortex(PCC), inferior frontal gyrus and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)thanHC.Duringexplicitemotionregulation(vs at-tending),rrMDDpatientsshowedincreasedprecuneus,PCC, frontalpole,andamygdalaactivityfornegativeemotions, and decreased right insula activity for positive emotions, though belowcorrected threshold(uncorrected p<0.001). WithinrMDDpatients,duringdownregulatingnegative emo-tions, higherruminationwasrelatedtolower PCC activa-tion,and lowersavoring ofpositive affect wasrelated to higher amygdala,hippocampus, anteriorcingulate cortex, DLPFC,precentralgyrusandoccipitallobeactivation. Dur-ing upregulating positive emotions, higher dampening of positiveaffectwasrelatedtohigherright ventralanterior insulaactivation.
Our results suggest that rMDD patients tend to engage moreinnegativeruminationstylesandlessinpositive ru-minationstyles,andshowabnormalfrontolimbicactivation duringprocessingandregulatingemotionalinformation. In-adequateruminationandregulationstylesinrMDDpatients mightrelatetoaberrantself-relatedprocessingand regula-torycontroloveremotionalprocessingduringnegative emo-tion regulation, and interoceptive awareness during posi-tive emotion regulation. Understandingthese neurocogni-tiveabnormalitiesinrMDDmayaddtotheclinical improve-mentofpreventivetreatment.
Noconflictofinterest
References
[1]Disner,S.,Beevers,E.,Haigh,E.A.P.,Beck,A.T.,2011.Neural mechanismsofthecognitivemodelofdepression.Nature Re-viewsNeuroscience12,467–477.
[2]Marchetti,I.,Koster,E.H.W.,Sonuga-Barke,E.J.,DeRaedt,R., 2012. TheDefaultModeNetworkandrecurrentdepression:a neurobiologicalmodelofcognitiveriskfactors. Neuropsychol-ogyReview22,229–251.
[3]VanKleef,R.S.,Bockting,C.L.H.,VanValen,E., Aleman,A., Marsman,J.B.C.,VanTol,M.J.,2019.Neurocognitiveworking mechanismsofthepreventionofrelapseinremittedrecurrent depression (NEWPRIDE):protocol ofa randomized controlled neuroimagingtrialofpreventivecognitivetherapy.BMC Psychi-atry19(1),409.
[4]Grafton,B.,MacLeod, C., 2014. Enhanced probing of atten-tionalbias:theindependenceofanxiety-linked selectivity in attentionalengagementwithanddisengagementfromnegative information.CognitionandEmotion28(7),1287–1302. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.09.227
P.303
Adjusting ruminative thinking? Effects of positive fantasizingvs.stress inductionon perseverative cog-nition in individuals with varying vulnerability for depression
M.Besten1,M.J.VanTol1,J.C.VanRij2,M.K.VanVugt2
1University Medical Center Groningen, Cognitive Neuro-scienceCenter,Groningen,TheNetherlands
2UniversityofGroningen,ArtificialIntelligenceand Cogni-tiveEngineering,Groningen,TheNetherlands
Background:KeycharacteristicsofMajorDepressive Disor-der are repetitive negative thinking and rumination (i.e. perseverative cognition [PC]). This maladaptive type of thinkinghasbeenassociatedwithahighrisktodevelopand maintain Major Depressive Disorder [1,2]. Becauseof the relation betweenPCand depressiverelapse, targetingPC couldbeapowerfulwayofpreventingrecurrenceof depres-sion.Atherapysuccessfulinpreventingdepressiverelapse and reducingdepressive symptoms is the Preventive Cog-nitiveTherapy[3].Oneofthecore techniquesinthe Pre-ventiveCognitiveTherapyispositivefantasising,a positive-mood inducingtechnique aimedat enhancingpositive at-titudesand/or beliefs bypositive future-related thinking. WhereaspositivefantasizsngmayreducePC,stressmay in-creasePC.Inourstudy,wecontrastedtheeffectsofa sin-gle session of positive fantasizing and stress induction on PC, quantified in a novel task-based assay, toinvestigate whetherpositivefantasisingispotentinaffectingPCin con-trasttoPCfollowingstress-inductioninindividualsvarying intheirvulnerabilityfordepression.
Methods: Groupshigh (n=40)and low (n=40) on neuroti-cism andworrying, measured usingthe Neuroticism scale oftheNEO-Five-FactorInventoryandthePennStateWorry Questionnaire indicating vulnerability for negative affect and depression, performed a Sustained Attention to Re-sponse Task after a single session of positive fantasising andasinglesessionofstress inductionina cross-over de-sign. The Sustained Attention to Response Task is a bor-inggo-/no-go task withinterspersed self-reportquestions about the content of thoughts, frequently used in mind-wanderingstudies.Affectivestates weremeasured before andaftertheinterventionsusingthePositiveandNegative AffectSchedule.
Findings:Apairedt-testshowedincreasednegativeaffect after stress and increased positive and reduced negative affectafterfantasisingcomparedtobaseline.Additionally,
Abstracts S175
thoughts were more on-taskand future-related, easier to disengagefromandlessnegativeafterfantasisingcompared toafterstress.However,theseeffectsdecreasedovertime andwereonlyfoundwhenfantasisingwasthefirst interven-tion.NosignificantinteractionwasfoundinPCbetween in-tervention(afterstressvs.afterfantasising)andgroup(high vs.lowvulnerabilityfordepression).
Discussion: ResultsindicatethatPCcanbeadjustedin in-dividuals bothcharacterised byahigh andlow vulnerabil-ity for depression, and that these effects on PC can be measured behaviorally. Interestingly, changes in PC were onlyfoundwhenfantasisingwasthefirstintervention, sug-gestingthatfantasisingmakesthoughtcontentmore reac-tivetosubsequentnegativeaffect.Fantasisingfurthermore had beneficial effects onboth positive andnegative self-reportedaffect. TheseresultssuggestschangingPCby in-terventions such aspositive fantasising may be potent in reducing the vulnerabilityfor depression. Futureresearch shouldinvestigatewhetherpositivefantasisingcouldserve asaninterventiontotreatorpreventrecurrenceof depres-sionthroughmanipulationofPC.
Noconflictofinterest
References
[1] Brosschot,J.F.,Verkuil, B.,Thayer, J.F.,2010.Consciousand unconscious perseverative cognition: Is a large part of pro-longedphysiologicalactivitydueto unconsciousstress? Jour-nal of Psychosomatic Research 69, 407–416. doi:10.1016/j. jpsychores.2010.02.002.
[2] Nolen-Hoeksema,S.,Wisco, B.E., Lyubomirsky, S.,2008. Re-thinkingRumination.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience3, 400–424.doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x.
[3] Bockting,C.L.H.,Spinhoven,P.,Wouters,L.F.,Koeter,M.W.J., Schene,A.H.,2009.Long-TermEffectsofPreventiveCognitive TherapyinRecurrentDepression.TheJournalofClinical Psy-chiatry70,1621–1628.doi:10.4088/jcp.08m04784blu.
doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.09.228
P.304
Aberrantpsychophysiologicalandcognitiveresponses toinfantsignalsofemotioninmotherswithaffective disordersandimplicationsfortheinfant
A.Bjertrup1,M.Moszkowicz2,I.Pedersen3,
A.Kjærbye-Thygesen4,R.Nielsen5,C.Parsons6,
L.Kessing7,A.K.Pagsberg8,M.Væver3,K.Miskowiak1
1Copenhagen Affective Disorders research Center CADIC, PsychiatricCentreCopenhagen-FacultyofHealthand Med-icalSciences-UniversityofCopenhagen-Copenhagen- Den-mark,Copenhagen,Denmark
2ChildandAdolescentPsychiatricCenter-InfantPsychiatric Unit,FacultyofHealthandMedicalSciences-Universityof Copenhagen,Copenhagen,Denmark
3Center for Early Intervention and Family Studies, De-partmentofPsychology-UniversityofCopenhagen, Copen-hagen,Denmark
4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences- University of Copenhagen, Hvidovre,Denmark
5Aalborg University Hospital, Psychiatry- North Denmark Region,Aalborg,Denmark
6Interacting Minds Center, Department of Clinical Medicine-AarhusUniversity,Aarhus,Denmark
7Copenhagen Affective Disorders research Center CADIC, PsychiatricCentreCopenhagen-FacultyofHealthand Med-icalSciences-UniversityofCopenhagen,Copenhagen, Den-mark
8Child and Adolescent Mental Health Centre- Mental Health Services Capital Region of Denmark, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences- University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen,Denmark
Background: Affective disorders arehighly heritable, but it is unclear how subtle mother-infant interaction adver-sitycontributestothetransmissionofrisk.Healthymothers showadaptiveneurocognitivechangesindicating thatthey “tunein” toinfants[1,2].However,corefeaturesof affec-tivedisordersareaberrantneurocognitiveand psychophys-iologicalresponsestoemotionalstimuli.Whereasunipolar disorder (UD) is associated with negative cognitive bias, whichappliestoprocessingofinfantstimuliamongmothers inadepressivestate[3],emergingevidenceindicate posi-tivelybiasedemotionprocessinginbipolardisorder(BD)[4]. Biasedemotionprocessingmayinfluencemother-infant in-teractionsandhaveadverseeffectsoninfantdevelopment
[3,5].
Aim: This study aimed to investigate psychophysiological and cognitive responses to emotional infant stimuli and theirrelationtomother-infantinteractionandinfant devel-opmentformotherswithBDorUDinfullorpartialremission comparedwithhealthycontrolmothers(HC).
Methods: Mothers and their infants were assessed during home visits around four months after birth. First, moth-ers wereinterviewed withclinical ratingscales toensure that motherswithBD or UDwere in full or partial remis-sionat the timeof testing. Then,mothers’ psychophysio-logicalandcognitiveresponsestoemotionalinfantstimuli wereassessedoncomputerisedtasksduringwhichtheir fa-cialexpression,galvanicskinresponses(GSR)andeye-gazes andfixationswererecorded.Lastly,weassessedinfant de-velopmentandmother-infant-interaction.Groupand inter-action effects wereanalysed using one-wayandrepeated measures ANOVA, andassociations wereinvestigatedwith correlationanalyses.
Weincluded85mothers:27withBD,13withUDand36 whowerehealthy,andtheirinfants.
Results: Mothers with affective disorders had fewer GSR peaksin responsetoinfantvideos(F(1,70)=4.86,p=0.03, ηp2=0.07)andspentlesstimegazingandfixatingatinfant videosandfaces(videos:gaze:F(1,58)=20.44,p <0.001, ηp2=0.26, fixation: F(1,58)=4.53,p=0.04, ηp2=0.07; im-ages:gaze:F(1.72)=17.73,p<0.001,ηp2=0.20).Mothers with BD showed more incongruent positive facial expres-sions to infantdistress vs. laughter videos (F(1,58)=4.47, p=0.04, ηp2=0.07) and rated infant cry less negatively than HC mothers (F(2.0,120.5)=3.37, p=0.04, ηp2=0.07; t=2.37, df=60, p=0.02). Mothers with UD displayed more negative facial expression when listening to infant
