Behavioral Systems and Difficulty with Emotional Regulation Predict Adolescents’ Addiction Potential

Predicting individual differences in behavioral activation and behavioral inhibition from functional networks in the resting EEG

The behavioral activation system (BAS) and behavioral inhibition system (BIS) are thought to underly affective dispositions and self-regulatory processes. The BAS is sensitive to reward and involved in approach behaviors, and the BIS is sensitive to punishment and involved in avoidance behaviors. Trait BAS and BIS relate to distinct behavioral profiles and neural activity, but little is known about how trait BAS and BIS relate to functional networks in EEG. We applied a data-driven method called connectome predictive modeling (CPM) to identify networks relating to trait BAS and BIS and tested whether the strength of those networks predicted trait BAS and BIS in novel subjects using a leave-one-out cross-validation procedure. Adult participants (N = 107) completed a resting state task with eyes closed and eyes open, and trait BAS and BIS were measured via Carver and White's (1994) BIS and BAS scales. We hypothesized distinct positive (more synchronization) and negative (less synchronization) networks would relate to trait BAS and BIS. For eyes closed, we identified two negative networks, one in theta and one in alpha predicted BIS. We identified three positive networks, one in theta and one in beta predicted Fun Seeking and one in theta predicted Drive. For eyes open, negative theta and alpha networks predicted BIS, a positive theta network predicted Fun Seeking, and a negative gamma network predicted mean BAS. Visualization of the networks are presented. Discussion centers on the observed networks and how to advance application of CPM to EEG, including with clinical implications.

Understanding Pain Catastrophizing: Putting Pieces Together

The present narrative review addresses issues concerning the defining criteria and conceptual underpinnings of pain catastrophizing. To date, the concept of pain catastrophizing has been extensively used in many clinical and experimental contexts and it is considered as one of the most important psychological correlate of pain chronicity and disability. Although its extensive use, we are still facing important problems related to its defining criteria and conceptual understanding. At present, there is no general theoretical agreement of what catastrophizing really is. The lack of a consensus on its definition and conceptual issues has important consequences on the choice of the pain management approaches, defining and identifying problems, and promoting novel research. Clinical and research work in absence of a common theoretical ground is often trivial. It is very surprising that clinical and experimental work has grown extensively in the past years, without a common ground in the form of a clear definition of pain catastrophizing and overview of its conceptual basis. Improving the efficacy and efficiency of pan catastrophizing related treatments requires an understanding of the theoretical construct. So far, most interventions have only demonstrated modest effects in reducing pain catastrophizing. Therefore, clarifying the construct may be an important precursor for developing more targeted and effective interventions, thereby easing some of the burden related to this aspect of pain. In our review, we have extracted and de-constructed common elements that emerge from different theoretical models with the aim to understand the concept of catastrophizing, which components can be modulated by psychological interventions, and the general role in pain processing. The analysis of the literature has indicated essential key elements to explain pain catastrophizing: emotional regulation, catastrophic worry (as repetitive negative thinking), rumination, behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation (BIS/BAS) systems, and interoceptive sensitivity. The present paper attempts to integrate these key elements with the aim to re-compose and unify the concept within a modern biopsychosocial interpretation of catastrophizing.