Common Measures for National Institute of Mental Health Funded Research

Deanna, M; Gotlib, Ian H.; Bilder, Robert M.; Pine, Daniel S.; Smoller, Jordan W.; Brown, C. Hendricks; Huggins, Wayne; Hamilton, Carol M.; Haim, Adam; Farber, Gregory K.

doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.07.006

Cited by 31 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An early study (van den Wildenberg et al, 2006) was not able to show a significant difference (P = 0.08) between DBS On and Off conditions when examining rate of NoGo commission errors. However, two subsequent studies (Ballanger et al, 2009;Hershey et al, 2010) did show that stimulation impaired inhibitory control, making subjects respond to NoGo signals more frequently. Notably, Hershey et al (2010) used an innovative strategy of recruiting only subjects who had STN electrodes placed at different depths on contralateral sides, enabling them to fine map the anatomy most relevant to impulse control.…”

Section: Inhibitory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This definition implies that impulsivity is a multifaceted construct requiring assessment with multiple distinct paradigms. The most widely used paradigms assess impulsivity as: (1) impaired negative feedback learning, e.g., the Iowa Gambling Task (Bechara et al, 1997) or the Probabilistic Selection Task (Frank et al, 2007); (2) a preference for small immediate reward over larger delayed reward, i.e., delayed discounting tasks (Loewenstein, 1988); (3) making responses that are premature or should be withheld, e.g., the Go/No Go Task (Ballanger et al, 2009) or Stroop test (Stroop, 1935).…”

Section: Impulsivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Impulsivity defined as premature responding to stimuli was measured in a total of 130 STN-DBS PD patients (Table 3; Jahanshahi et al, 2000;Dujardin et al, 2001;Schroeder et al, 2002;van den Wildenberg et al, 2006;Page and Jahanshahi, 2007;Ballanger et al, 2009;Hershey et al, 2010;Georgiev et al, 2016;Aiello et al, 2017). An early study (van den Wildenberg et al, 2006) was not able to show a significant difference (P = 0.08) between DBS On and Off conditions when examining rate of NoGo commission errors.…”

Section: Inhibitory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impulsivity and Compulsivity After Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease

Scherrer

Smith

Gowatsky

et al. 2020

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impulsivity and compulsivity are prominent non-motor problems in Parkinson's disease (PD). Despite 20 years of research, there is still an ongoing debate as to whether subthalamic deep brain stimulation (STN DBS) for PD exacerbates or improves these symptoms. Here, we review how STN DBS affects clinical symptoms and neurocognitive aspects of impulsivity and compulsivity. When comparing patients post-to pre-surgery, in the majority of studies STN DBS for PD is associated with a decrease in clinically diagnosed impulse-control disorders and disorders of compulsivity. To avoid confounds, such as post-surgical decreases in dopaminergic medication doses, comparisons can also be made between DBS "On" versus "Off" conditions. These experimentally assayed effects of STN DBS with respect to neurocognitive aspects of impulsivity and compulsivity are more mixed. STN DBS improves behavioral flexibility without impairing negative feedback learning, delay discounting, or inhibitory control, as long as stimulation is restricted to the dorsal STN. However, STN DBS may drive impulsive actions when a subject is faced with competing choices. We discuss how motivated responses may be either enhanced or impaired by STN DBS depending on engagement of dorsal or ventral STN-mediated circuits. Future studies should combine structural and functional circuit measures with behavioral testing in PD patients on and off medication and stimulation. A more sophisticated understanding of how to modulate corticostriatal-thalamo-cortical loops will increase the likelihood that these circuit manipulation techniques can successfully be applied to a wider range of neuropsychiatric disorders.

show abstract

Section: Inhibitory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impulsivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inhibitory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impulsivity and Compulsivity After Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease

Scherrer

Smith

Gowatsky

et al. 2020

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The NIMH Data Archive ( https://data-archive.nimh.nih.gov ) is one such resource available to support data sharing [ 186 ]. Current expectations are that all NIMH-supported clinical research studies (not only clinical trials) will deposit and share data through this resource.…”

Section: Clinical Trial Design and Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigor and reproducibility in research with transcranial electrical stimulation: An NIMH-sponsored workshop

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNeuropsychiatric disorders are a leading source of disability and require novel treatments that target mechanisms of disease. As such disorders are thought to result from aberrant neuronal circuit activity, neuromodulation approaches are of increasing interest given their potential for manipulating circuits directly. Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) with direct currents (transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS) or alternating currents (transcranial alternating current stimulation, tACS) represent novel, safe, well-tolerated, and relatively inexpensive putative treatment modalities.ObjectiveThis report seeks to promote the science, technology and effective clinical applications of these modalities, identify research challenges, and suggest approaches for addressing these needs in order to achieve rigorous, reproducible findings that can advance clinical treatment.MethodsThe National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a workshop in September 2016 that brought together experts in basic and human neuroscience, electrical stimulation biophysics and devices, and clinical trial methods to examine the physiological mechanisms underlying tDCS/tACS, technologies and technical strategies for optimizing stimulation protocols, and the state of the science with respect to therapeutic applications and trial designs.ResultsAdvances in understanding mechanisms, methodological and technological improvements (e.g., electronics, computational models to facilitate proper dosing), and improved clinical trial designs are poised to advance rigorous, reproducible therapeutic applications of these techniques. A number of challenges were identified and meeting participants made recommendations made to address them.ConclusionsThese recommendations align with requirements in NIMH funding opportunity announcements to, among other needs, define dosimetry, demonstrate dose/response relationships, implement rigorous blinded trial designs, employ computational modeling, and demonstrate target engagement when testing stimulation-based interventions for the treatment of mental disorders.

show abstract

“…Here, we define and conceptualize maternal prenatal experience of stress as consisting of a broad, complex array and admixture of related experiences, including perceptions of exposure to stressful negative events alongside self‐reported maternal psychological distress, which strongly correlates with perceptions of stress exposure (Harkness & Monroe, ). Perceptions of stress have been recognized as critical to mental health research (Barch et al., ). Longitudinal naturalistic studies measuring various types of prenatal maternal psychological distress and stress hormone exposure show that prenatal maternal distress predicts numerous negative outcomes in the offspring (Van den Bergh, Mulder, Mennes, & Glover, ), including dysregulated stress responses (Davis, Glynn, Waffarn, & Sandman, ) and child internalizing symptoms (Davis & Sandman, ; O'Donnell, Glover, Barker, & O'Connor, ; Van den Bergh, Van Calster, Smits, Van Huffel, & Lagae, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prenatal Maternal Stress, Child Cortical Thickness, and Adolescent Depressive Symptoms

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prenatal maternal stress predicts subsequent elevations in youth depressive symptoms, but the neural processes associated with these links are unclear. This study evaluated whether prenatal maternal stress is associated with child brain development, and adolescent depressive symptoms using a prospective design with 74 mother child pairs (40 boys). Maternal stress was assessed during pregnancy, child cortical thickness at age 7, and depressive symptoms at age 12. Prenatal maternal stress was associated with less cortical thickness primarily in frontal and temporal regions and with elevated depressive symptoms; child cortical thickness additionally correlated with adolescent depressive symptoms. The observed associations are consistent with the possibility that cortical thickness in superior frontal regions links associations between prenatal maternal stress and adolescent depressive symptoms.

show abstract

Common Measures for National Institute of Mental Health Funded Research

Cited by 31 publications

References 41 publications

Impulsivity and Compulsivity After Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease

Impulsivity and Compulsivity After Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease

Rigor and reproducibility in research with transcranial electrical stimulation: An NIMH-sponsored workshop

Prenatal Maternal Stress, Child Cortical Thickness, and Adolescent Depressive Symptoms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About