Differential activation in temporal, cingulate and prefrontal cortices during response inhibition in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Increased impulsivity and aberrant response inhibition have been observed in bipolar disorder (BD). This study examined the functional abnormalities and underlying neural processes during response inhibition in BD, and its relationship to impulsivity. Methods: We assessed impulsivity using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) and, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), measured neural activity in response to an Affective Go-NoGo Task, consisting of emotional facial stimuli (fear, happy, anger faces) and non-emotional control stimuli (neutral female and male faces) in euthymic BD (n=23) and healthy individuals (HI; n=25). Results: BD patients were significantly more impulsive, yet did not differ from HI on accuracy or reaction time on the emotional go/no-go task. Comparing neural patterns of activation when processing emotional Go versus emotional NoGo trials yielded increased activation in BD within temporal and cingulate cortices and within prefrontal-cortical regions in HI. Furthermore, higher BIS scores for BD were associated with slower reaction times, and indicative of compensatory cognitive strategies to counter increased impulsivity. Conclusions: These findings illustrate cognition-emotion interference in BD and the observed differences in neural activation indicate potentially altered emotion modulation. Increased activation in brain regions previously shown in emotion regulation and response inhibition tasks could represent a disease-specific marker for BD
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".