Journal of affective disorders · 2023
Reward and punishment learning deficits among bipolar disorder subtypes.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pouchon Arnaud, Vinckier Fabien, Dondé Clément, Gueguen Maëlle Cm, Polosan Mircea, Bastin Julien
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Reward sensitivity is an essential dimension related to mood fluctuations in bipolar disorder (BD), but there is currently a debate around hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity hypotheses to reward in BD during remission, probably related to a heterogeneous population within the BD spectrum and a lack of reward bias evaluation. Here, we examine reward maximization vs. punishment avoidance learning within the BD spectrum during remission.
METHODS: Patients with BD-I (n = 45), BD-II (n = 34) and matched (n = 30) healthy controls (HC) were included. They performed an instrumental learning task designed to dissociate reward-based from punishment-based reinforcement learning. Computational modeling was used to identify the mechanisms underlying reinforcement learning performances.
RESULTS: Behavioral results showed a significant reward learning deficit across BD subtypes compared to HC, captured at the computational level by a lower sensitivity to rewards compared to punishments in both BD subtypes. Computational modeling also revealed a higher choice randomness in BD-II compared to BD-I that reflected a tendency of BD-I to perform better during punishment avoidance learning than BD-II.
LIMITATIONS: Our patients were not naive to antipsychotic treatment and were not euthymic (but in syndromic remission) according to the International Society for Bipolar Disorder definition.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with the reward hyposensitivity theory in BD. Computational modeling suggests distinct underlying mechanisms that produce similar observable behaviors, making it a useful tool for distinguishing how symptoms interact in BD versus other disorders. In the long run, a better understanding of these processes could contribute to better prevention and management of BD.
METHODS: Patients with BD-I (n = 45), BD-II (n = 34) and matched (n = 30) healthy controls (HC) were included. They performed an instrumental learning task designed to dissociate reward-based from punishment-based reinforcement learning. Computational modeling was used to identify the mechanisms underlying reinforcement learning performances.
RESULTS: Behavioral results showed a significant reward learning deficit across BD subtypes compared to HC, captured at the computational level by a lower sensitivity to rewards compared to punishments in both BD subtypes. Computational modeling also revealed a higher choice randomness in BD-II compared to BD-I that reflected a tendency of BD-I to perform better during punishment avoidance learning than BD-II.
LIMITATIONS: Our patients were not naive to antipsychotic treatment and were not euthymic (but in syndromic remission) according to the International Society for Bipolar Disorder definition.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with the reward hyposensitivity theory in BD. Computational modeling suggests distinct underlying mechanisms that produce similar observable behaviors, making it a useful tool for distinguishing how symptoms interact in BD versus other disorders. In the long run, a better understanding of these processes could contribute to better prevention and management of BD.