Self-blame-selective social conceptual overgeneralization and vulnerability to depression
Fennema, D.; Lawrence, A. J.; Spilling, C. A.; Moll, J.; Lambon Ralph, M. A.; Zahn, R.
Show abstract
BackgroundBeck observed overgeneralized thinking as a key vulnerability factor for excessive self-blame/-criticism in major depressive disorder (MDD). Whilst the contribution of reduced access to specific autobiographical memory episodes has often been considered, the role of more abstract semantic memory systems remains elusive. Here, we investigated the individual ability to differentiate between the meaning of abstract social concepts when interpreting behavior (e.g. "critical" vs. "faultfinding") and its contribution to vulnerability to self-blaming biases and MDD using a previously developed cognitive task. MethodsCognitive testing in 96 participants (n=60 medication-free remitted MDD and n=36 control) and fMRI scanning in 75 participants employed self- and other-blame-evoking conditions. A priori right anterior temporal lobe (ATL) seed and bilateral anterior subgenual cingulate and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex regions-of-interest were defined. ResultsAs expected, the MDD group exhibited greater self-blame-selective conceptual overgeneralization and stronger interdependency of conceptual overgeneralization with negative emotional valence relative to the control group. Individuals with this depressogenic interdependency showed higher self-blame-selective right anterior subgenual cingulate and primary motor cortex activations across groups, potentially corresponding to stronger self-blame and self-agency attributions, respectively, when conceptually overgeneralizing the interpretation of their negative actions. Individuals with higher self-blame-selective conceptual overgeneralization displayed lower right ATL activation for self-vs. other-blame, suggesting reduced access to differentiated conceptual representations. ConclusionsFuture studies are needed to confirm the hypothesis that self-blame-selective conceptual overgeneralization characterizes a distinct neurocognitive subtype of primary MDD vulnerability which may be modulated by depressive state and thus serves as a personalized treatment target.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Effective connectivity during faces processing in major depression – distinguishing markers of pathology, risk, and resilience 97%
- Association between loneliness and hippocampal responses to dynamic social stimuli in psychotic disorders 96%
- Distinct neurofunctional alterations during motivational and hedonic processing of natural and monetary rewards in depression – a neuroimaging meta-analysis 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Great Expectations: A Critical Review of and Recommendations for the study of Reward Processing as a Cause and Predictor of Depression 95%
- Brain-based predictions of psychiatric illness-linked behaviors across the sexes 95%
- Heterogeneity in Depression: evidence for distinct clinical and neurobiological profiles 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Ketamine improves anhedonic phenotypes across species: Translational evidence from the Probabilistic Reward Task 95%
- Deviations from normative functioning underlying emotional episodic memory revealed cross-scale neurodiverse alterations linked to affective symptoms in distinct psychiatric disorders 95%
- Altered physiological, affective, and functional connectivity responses to acute stress in patients with alcohol use disorder 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Novel polygenic risk score as a translational tool linking depression-related changes in the corticolimbic transcriptome with neural face processing and anhedonic symptoms 97%
- Neural Correlates of Positive and Negative Valence System Dysfunction in Adolescents Revealed by Data-Driven Parcellation and Resting-State Network Modeling 97%
- Neurovegetative symptom subtypes in young people with major depressive disorder and their structural brain correlates 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.