A case-matched study of neurophysiological correlates to attention /working memory in people with somatic hypervigilance
Files
Date
2017
Authors
Berryman, C.
Wise, V.
Stanton, T.
McFarlane, A.
Lorimer Moseley, G.
Editors
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Journal article
Citation
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 2017; 39(1):84-99
Statement of Responsibility
Carolyn Berryman, Vikki Wise, Tasha R. Stanton, Alexander McFarlane and G. Lorimer Moseley
Conference Name
Abstract
Somatic hypervigilance describes a clinical presentation in which people report more, and more intense, bodily sensations than is usual. Most explanations of somatic hypervigilance implicate altered information processing, but strong empirical data are lacking. Attention and working memory are critical for information processing, and we aimed to evaluate brain activity during attention/working memory tasks in people with and without somatic hypervigilance. Method: Data from 173 people with somatic hypervigilance and 173 controls matched for age, gender, handedness, and years of education were analyzed. Event-related potential (ERP) data, extracted from the continuous electroencephalograph recordings obtained during performance of the Auditory Oddball task, and the Two In A Row (TIAR) task, for N1, P2, N2, and P3, were used in the analysis. Between-group differences for P3 amplitude and N2 amplitude and latency were assessed with two-tailed independent t tests. Between-group differences for N1 and P2 amplitude and latency were assessed using mixed, repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with group and Group × Site factors. Linear regression analysis investigated the relationship between anxiety and depression and any outcomes of significance. Results: People with somatic hypervigilance showed smaller P3 amplitudes—Auditory Oddball task: t(285) = 2.32, 95% confidence interval, CI [3.48, 4.47], p = .026, d = 0.27; Two-In-A-Row (TIAR) task: t(334) = 2.23, 95% CI [2.20; 3.95], p = .021, d = 0.24—than case-matched controls. N2 amplitude was also smaller in people with somatic hypervigilance—TIAR task: t(318) = 2.58, 95% CI [0.33, 2.47], p = .010, d = 0.29—than in case-matched controls. Neither depression nor anxiety was significantly associated with any outcome. Conclusion: People with somatic hypervigilance demonstrated an event-related potential response to attention/working memory tasks that is consistent with altered information processing.
School/Discipline
Dissertation Note
Provenance
Description
Accepted 14 June 2016
Access Status
Rights
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group