Demographic Features and Severity of Depression.

*<p>HRSD-25∶25-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.</p

Within-group decoding accuracy in Healthy Controls (HC) and Depressed Patients (DP).

*<p>Overall Accuracy is the mean between emotional accuracy (emotional correctly classified as emotional) and neutral accuracy (neutral correctly classified as neutral).</p

Table_1_Age-Related Developmental and Individual Differences in the Influence of Social and Non-social Distractors on Cognitive Performance.PDF

<p>This study sought to examine age-related differences in the influences of social (neutral, emotional faces) and non-social/non-emotional (shapes) distractor stimuli in children, adolescents, and adults. To assess the degree to which distractor, or task-irrelevant, stimuli of varying social and emotional salience interfere with cognitive performance, children (N = 12; 8–12y), adolescents (N = 17; 13–17y), and adults (N = 17; 18–52y) completed the Emotional Identification and Dynamic Faces (EIDF) task. This task included three types of dynamically-changing distractors: (1) neutral-social (neutral face changing into another face); (2) emotional-social (face changing from 0% emotional to 100% emotional); and (3) non-social/non-emotional (shapes changing from small to large) to index the influence of task-irrelevant social and emotional information on cognition. Results yielded no age-related differences in accuracy but showed an age-related linear reduction in correct reaction times across distractor conditions. An age-related effect in interference was observed, such that children and adults showed slower response times on correct trials with socially-salient distractors; whereas adolescents exhibited faster responses on trials with distractors that included faces rather than shapes. A secondary study goal was to explore individual differences in cognitive interference. Results suggested that regardless of age, low trait anxiety and high effortful control were associated with interference to angry faces. Implications for developmental differences in affective processing, notably the importance of considering the contexts in which purportedly irrelevant social and emotional information might impair, vs. improve cognitive control, are discussed.</p

Mean predictive probabilities (with standard error to the mean) for the comparison between healthy bipolar offspring with and without future onset of Axis I disorder, which in this sample was major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders.

<p>Mean predictive probabilities (with standard error to the mean) for the comparison between healthy bipolar offspring with and without future onset of Axis I disorder, which in this sample was major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders.</p

Summary of results from pattern recognition analyses.

<p>A. Decision boundary and individual predictive probabilities. B. GPC weights overlaid on an anatomical template. The color code shows the relative weight of each voxel for the decision boundary (red scales: higher weights for healthy bipolar offspring and blue scales: higher weights for healthy controls). The discriminating pattern included clusters with higher weights for healthy bipolar offspring in the superior temporal sulcus (STS; x, y, z: -50, 11, -5) and in a posterior region of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC(p); x, y, z,: 0, 29, -14) and a cluster with higher weights for healthy controls in the anterior region of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC (a); x, y, z: -2, 51, -19) (x, y, z, are in Talairach coordinates).</p

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Healthy Offspring Having a Parent with Bipolar Disorder and Age- and Sex- Matched Control Offspring of Healthy Parents.

<p>Abbreviations: HBO = healthy offspring having a parent diagnosed with bipolar disorder; HC = healthy control offspring of healthy parents; MFQ, Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (range, 0–68); SCARED, Screen for Childhood Anxiety and Related Disorders (range, 0–82); CALS, Child Affect Lability Scale (range, 0–80).</p

Summary of pattern recognition analyses.

<p>(1) Feature Extraction: the information from the beta images were transformed into an input vector. (2) Nested leave one out (LOO) Approach. We employed a nested (3-way) cross-validation, where we first excluded one matched pair of subjects to comprise the test set (test loop in light blue). We then performed a second split (validation loop in dark blue), where we removed 5000 voxels each iteration and repeatedly repartitioned the remaining 15 subject pairs into a validation set (1 pair) and training set (14 pairs) to compute the mean accuracy on the validation set. This procedure (removing voxels and computing mean accuracy) was repeated until all voxels were removed. We then selected the number of voxels that produced maximal accuracy on the validation set before applying it to the test set. The final accuracy was the mean accuracy over all test subjects (outer test loop in light blue). (3) We then generated a map training the GPC with all subjects and removing voxels until we obtained the mean number of voxels.</p

We used the predictive probabilities from the classifier at-risk adolescents vs. controls as a score for the at-risk adolescents.

<p>An ROC curve was used to evaluate if this score could be used to predict which of at-risk adolescents developed a future mood disorder. Each point on the ROC curve represents a sensitivity/specificity pair corresponding to a particular decision threshold. A test with perfect discrimination has a ROC curve that passes through the upper left corner (100% sensitivity, 100% specificity). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.78 (p<0.05).</p

Figure 1

<p><i>a</i>. Significant difference observed in hypothalamus among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls. <i>b</i>. Z-scores of hypothalamic activity among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls.</p

Figure 2

<p><i>a</i>. Significant differences observed in ventral prefrontal regions (VMPFC and VLPFC-left) among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls. <i>b</i>. Z-scores of VMPFC activity among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls. <i>c</i>. Z-scores of VLPFC-left activity among anxious with caregiver group, anxious without caregiver group and controls.</p