Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27133468›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2016

Data-driven analysis of simultaneous EEG/fMRI reveals neurophysiological phenotypes of impulse control.

Lena Schmüser, Alexandra Sebastian, Arian Mobascher, Klaus Lieb, Bernd Feige, Oliver Tüscher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Impulsivity and Cluster B Personality Disorders.Current psychiatry reports · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lena SchmüserEmotion Regulation and Impulse Control Group, Focus Program Translational Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Alexandra SebastianEmotion Regulation and Impulse Control Group, Focus Program Translational Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Arian MobascherEmotion Regulation and Impulse Control Group, Focus Program Translational Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Klaus LiebEmotion Regulation and Impulse Control Group, Focus Program Translational Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Bernd FeigeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany.
Oliver TüscherEmotion Regulation and Impulse Control Group, Focus Program Translational Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Response inhibition is the ability to suppress inadequate but prepotent or ongoing response tendencies. A fronto-striatal network is involved in these processes. Between-subject differences in the intra-individual variability have been suggested to constitute a key to pathological processes underlying impulse control disorders. Single-trial EEG/fMRI analysis allows to increase sensitivity for inter-individual differences by incorporating intra-individual variability. Thirty-eight healthy subjects performed a visual Go/Nogo task during simultaneous EEG/fMRI. Of 38 healthy subjects, 21 subjects reliably showed Nogo-related ICs (Nogo-IC-positive) while 17 subjects (Nogo-IC-negative) did not. Comparing both groups revealed differences on various levels: On trait level, Nogo-IC-negative subjects scored higher on questionnaires regarding attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; on a behavioral level, they displayed slower response times (RT) and higher intra-individual RT variability while both groups did not differ in their inhibitory performance. On the neurophysiological level, Nogo-IC-negative subjects showed a hyperactivation of left inferior frontal cortex/insula and left putamen as well as significantly reduced P3 amplitudes. Thus, a data-driven approach for IC classification and the resulting presence or absence of early Nogo-specific ICs as criterion for group selection revealed group differences at behavioral and neurophysiological levels. This may indicate electrophysiological phenotypes characterized by inter-individual variations of neural and behavioral correlates of impulse control. We demonstrated that the inter-individual difference in an electrophysiological correlate of response inhibition is correlated with distinct, potentially compensatory neural activity. This may suggest the existence of electrophysiologically dissociable phenotypes of behavioral and neural motor response inhibition with the Nogo-IC-positive phenotype possibly providing protection against impulsivity-related dysfunction. Hum Brain Mapp 37:3114-3136, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

AdultBrainDisruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct DisordersElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImpulsive BehaviorInhibition, PsychologicalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleSignal Processing, Computer-Assistedelectrophysiological phenotypesGo/Nogoindependent component analysis (ICA)inter-individual differencesresponse inhibitionsimultaneous EEG/fMRI

Identifiers

PMID27133468
PMCPMC6867467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.