Dataset Information

Neural oscillatory responses to performance monitoring differ between high- and low-impulsive individuals, but are unaffected by TMS.

ABSTRACT: Higher impulsivity may arise from neurophysiological deficits of cognitive control in the prefrontal cortex. Cognitive control can be assessed by time-frequency decompositions of electrophysiological data. We aimed to clarify neuroelectric mechanisms of performance monitoring in connection with impulsiveness during a modified Eriksen flanker task in high- (n = 24) and low-impulsive subjects (n = 21) and whether these are modulated by double-blind, sham-controlled intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS). We found a larger error-specific peri-response beta power decrease over fronto-central sites in high-impulsive compared to low-impulsive participants, presumably indexing less effective motor execution processes. Lower parieto-occipital theta intertrial phase coherence (ITPC) preceding correct responses predicted higher reaction time (RT) and higher RT variability, potentially reflecting efficacy of cognitive control or general attention. Single-trial preresponse theta phase clustering was coupled to RT in correct trials (weighted ITPC), reflecting oscillatory dynamics that predict trial-specific behavior. iTBS did not modulate behavior or EEG time-frequency power. Performance monitoring was associated with time-frequency patterns reflecting cognitive control (parieto-occipital theta ITPC, theta weighted ITPC) as well as differential action planning/execution processes linked to trait impulsivity (frontal low beta power). Beyond that, results suggest no stimulation effect related to response-locked time-frequency dynamics with the current stimulation protocol. Neural oscillatory responses to performance monitoring differ between high- and low-impulsive individuals, but are unaffected by iTBS.

SUBMITTER: Barth B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8090766 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveReported rates of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are lower with glimepiride as compared to glyburide. The aim of this study was to determine whether physiologic differences in counterregulatory neuroendocrine and metabolic mechanisms during hypoglycemia provide a basis for the observed clinical differences between glimepiride and glyburide.Research design and methodsNon-diabetic volunteers (age 38±2years, BMI 26±1kg/m(2)) were studied in a single-blind fashion during separate 2day randomized protocols consisting of 2h hyperinsulinemic (9pmol/kg/min) euglycemic (4.9±0.1mmol) and hypoglycemic (2.9±0.1mmol/L) clamps. Individuals received biologically equivalent doses of glimepiride (4mg) or glyburide (10mg) 1h prior to each glucose clamp (n=11) as well as a control group of placebo studies. Glucose kinetics were calculated using D-Glucose-6-6d2.ResultsInsulin and C-peptide levels were increased (p<0.05) during euglycemia in both sulfonylurea groups as compared to placebo. However, despite equivalent hypoglycemia, insulin and C-peptide levels were higher (p<0.05) only after glyburide. Glucagon responses and endogenous glucose production (EGP) were decreased (p<0.05) during hypoglycemia following glyburide administration as compared to glimepiride. Glyburide reduced (p<0.05) norepinephrine responses during euglycemic clamps. In addition combined epinephrine and norepinephrine responses during hypoglycemia were reduced (p<0.05) following glyburide as compared to placebo. Leptin levels fell by a greater amount (p<0.05) during hypoglycemia with both sulfonylureas as compared to placebo.ConclusionsIn summary, glimepiride and glyburide can both similarly increase insulin and C-peptide levels during hyperinsulinemic euglycemia. However, during moderate hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia (2.9mmol/L) glyburide resulted in increased C-peptide and insulin, but blunted glucagon, sympathetic nervous system and EGP responses. We conclude that glyburide can acutely reduce key neuroendocrine and metabolic counterregulatory defenses during hypoglycemia in healthy individuals.

Project description:Individuals can be characterized in a population according to their brain measurements and activity, given the inter-subject variability in brain anatomy, structure-function relationships, or life experience. Many neuroimaging studies have demonstrated the potential of functional network connectivity patterns estimated from resting functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to discriminate groups and predict information about individual subjects. However, the predictive signal present in the spatial heterogeneity of brain connectivity networks is yet to be extensively studied. In this study, we investigate, for the first time, the use of pairwise-relationships between resting-state independent spatial maps to characterize individuals. To do this, we develop a deep Siamese framework comprising three-dimensional convolution neural networks for contrastive learning based on individual-level spatial maps estimated via a fully automated fMRI independent component analysis approach. The proposed framework evaluates whether pairs of spatial networks (e.g., visual network and auditory network) are capable of subject identification and assesses the spatial variability in different network pairs' predictive power in an extensive whole-brain analysis. Our analysis on nearly 12,000 unaffected individuals from the UK Biobank study demonstrates that the proposed approach can discriminate subjects with an accuracy of up to 88% for a single network pair on the test set (best model, after several runs), and 82% average accuracy at the subcortical domain level, notably the highest average domain level accuracy attained. Further investigation of our network's learned features revealed a higher spatial variability in predictive accuracy among younger brains and significantly higher discriminative power among males. In sum, the relationship among spatial networks appears to be both informative and discriminative of individuals and should be studied further as putative brain-based biomarkers.

Dataset Information

Neural oscillatory responses to performance monitoring differ between high- and low-impulsive individuals, but are unaffected by TMS.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets