We used a dot-probe task in conjunction with high-density ERPs and source localization to investigate attentional biases in SAD.
Method. Twelve SAD and 15 control participants performed a modified dot-probe task using angry-neutral and happy-neutral face pairs. The P1 component elicited by face pairs was analyzed to test the hypothesis that SAD participants would display early hypervigilance to threat-related cues. The PI component to probes replacing angry, happy or neutral faces KU55933 concentration was used to evaluate whether SAD
participants show either sustained hypervigilance or decreased visual processing of threat-related cues at later processing Stages.
Results. Compared to controls, SAD participants showed relatively (a) potentiated PI amplitudes and fusiform gyrus (FG) activation to angry-neutral versus happy-neutral face pairs; (b) decreased PI amplitudes to probes replacing emotional (angry and happy) versus neutral faces; and (c) higher sensitivity (d’) to probes following angry-neutral versus happy-neutral face pairs. SAD Dibutyryl-cAMP manufacturer participants also showed significantly shorter reaction times (RTs) to probes replacing angry versus happy faces, but no group differences emerged for RT.
Conclusions. The results provide electrophysiological support for early hypervigilance to angry faces in SAD with involvement of the FG, and reduced
visual processing of emotionally salient locations at later stages of information processing, which might be a manifestation of attentional avoidance.”
“Background. Generalized social phobia (GSP) involves the fear/avoidance Of Social Situations whereas generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) involves an intrusive worry about everyday life circumstances. It remains unclear whether these, highly co-morbid, conditions represent distinct disorders or alternative presentations of a single underlying pathology. In this study, we examined stimulus-reinforcement-based
decision making in GSP and GAD.
Method. Twenty unmedicated patients with GSP, 16 unmedicated patients with GAD and 19 age-, IQ- and gender-matched healthy comparison (HQ individuals completed the Differential Reward/Punishment Learning Task (DRPLT). In this task, the Tideglusib subject chooses between two objects associated with different levels of reward or punishment. Thus, response choice indexes not only reward/punishment sensitivity but also sensitivity to reward/punishment level according to between-object reinforcement distance.
Results. We found that patients with GAD committed a significantly greater number of errors than both the patients with GSP and the HC individuals. By contrast, the patients with GSP and the HC individuals did not differ in performance on this task.
Conclusions. These results link GAD with anomalous non-affective-based decision making. They also indicate that CSP and GAD are associated with distinct pathophysiologies.