ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2018
Decoding moral emotions in obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heightened but Inefficient Thought-Action Fusion in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: New Insight From a Multiple Trial Version of the Classic Thought-Action Fusion Experiment.Psychiatry investigation · 2023Article
- Moral Emotions and Their Brain Structural Correlates Across Neurodegenerative Disorders.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2023Article
- Abnormal resting-state functional connectivity of the insula in medication-free patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Social Cognition and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Review of Subdomains of Social Functioning.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Review
- Psychiatric neuroimaging research in Brazil: historical overview, current challenges, and future opportunities.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) exhibit abnormal neural responses when they experience particular emotions or when they evaluate stimuli with emotional value. Whether these brain responses are sufficiently distinctive to discriminate between OCD patients and healthy controls is unknown. The present study is the first to investigate the discriminative power of multivariate pattern analysis of regional fMRI responses to moral and non-moral emotions. Method: To accomplish this goal, we performed a searchlight-based multivariate pattern analysis to unveil brain regions that could discriminate 18 OCD patients from 18 matched healthy controls during provoked guilt, disgust, compassion, and anger. We also investigated the existence of distinctive neural patterns while combining those four emotions (herein termed Results: We found that different frontostriatal regions discriminated OCD patients from controls based on individual emotional experiences. Most notably, the left nucleus accumbens (NAcc) discriminated OCD patients from controls during both disgust and the multiemotion analysis. Among other regions, the angular gyrus responses to anger and the lingual and the middle temporal gyri in the multi-emotion analysis were highly discriminant between samples. Additional BOLD analyses supported the directionality of these findings. Conclusions: In line with previous studies, differential activity in regions beyond the frontostriatal circuitry differentiates OCD from healthy volunteers. The finding that the response of the left NAcc to different basic and moral emotions is highly discriminative for a diagnosis of OCD confirms current pathophysiological models and points to new venues of research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.