Rethinking strategies for when to acquire neural markers associated with treatment response

Functional brain connectivity changes associated with day-to-day fluctuations in affective states

Affective neuroscience has traditionally relied on cross-sectional studies to uncover the brain correlates of affects, emotions, and moods. Such findings obfuscate intraindividual variability that may reveal meaningful changing affect states. The few functional magnetic resonance imaging longitudinal studies that have linked changes in brain function to the ebbs and flows of affective states over time have mostly investigated a single individual. In this study, we explored how the functional connectivity of brain areas associated with affective processes can explain within-person fluctuations in self-reported positive and negative affects across several subjects. To do so, we leveraged the Day2day dataset that includes 40 to 50 resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging scans along self-reported positive and negative affectivity from a sample of six healthy participants. Sparse multivariate mixed-effect linear models could explain 15% and 11% of the within-person variation in positive and negative affective states, respectively. Evaluation of these models' generalizability to new data demonstrated the ability to predict approximately 5% and 2% of positive and negative affect variation. The functional connectivity of limbic areas, such as the amygdala, hippocampus, and insula, appeared most important to explain the temporal dynamics of affects over days, weeks, and months.

Relations between lab indices of emotion dysregulation and negative affect reactivity in daily life in two independent studies

BACKGROUND

We investigated the extent to which physiological/biological measures of emotion dysregulation collected in the lab, resting respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) in Study 1 and amygdala activation in response to negative stimuli in Study 2, combined with daily measures of interpersonal stressors predicted negative emotional states in outpatients better than the stressors alone.

METHODS

Participants were adult outpatients with emotional distress disorders (N=30 individuals in Study 1, and N=26 women in Study 2). After completing a laboratory session that collected physiological/biological measures of emotion dysregulation, participants then completed 1-3 weeks of ambulatory assessment during which they reported on interpersonal stressors and negative affective states several times per day.

RESULTS

Laboratory measures of emotion dysregulation were largely unrelated to either momentary or mean levels of daily-life hostility, sadness, and fear in both studies. However, resting RSA significantly moderated the association between day-level interpersonal stressors and momentary fear such that low resting RSA strengthened this association. Similarly, amygdala activation tended to moderate this relationship in the predicted direction.

LIMITATIONS

Both samples were relatively small and focused on only a limited set of diagnoses associated with emotion dysregulation. Only two possible physiological/biological markers of emotion dysregulation were examined.

CONCLUSIONS

The current studies support the collection of physiological/biological data on emotion dysregulation when indexing daily-life emotion dysregulation as the degree of emotional reactivity to stressors in daily life among outpatients with emotional distress disorders.