A case-matched study of neurophysiological correlates to attention/working memory in people with somatic hypervigilance. Issue 1 (2nd January 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Berryman, Carolyn; Wise, Vikki; Stanton, Tasha R.; McFarlane, Alexander; Moseley, G. Lorimer
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. Volume 39:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 84
• Page End: 99
• Publication Date: 2017-01-02
• Subjects: Auditory Oddball task -- Event-related potential -- Perceptual processing -- Somatic hypervigilance -- Working memory; Neuropsychology -- Periodicals; Psychophysiology -- Periodicals; Neurosciences -- Periodicals; Psychophysiology -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; 616.89
• DOI: 10.1080/13803395.2016.1203869
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1380-3395

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objective : 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.