EEG correlates of attentional control in anxiety disorders: A systematic review of error-related negativity and correct-response negativity findings.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent and cause substantial personal, social and economic burden. Altered attentional control has been shown to be present across anxiety disorders and is associated with specific changes in brain activity which can be recorded by electroencephalogram (EEG). These include changes in the EEG markers of error-related negativity (ERN) and correct-response negativity (CRN), both believed to reflect response monitoring and attentional control pathophysiology in anxiety. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the research on ERN and CRN in attentional control in individuals with clinical anxiety and healthy controls, across emotional and non-emotional attentional control. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies published prior to October 22nd, 2020. Details of the protocol for this systematic review were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019144885). RESULTS: 66 studies had their data extracted. All 66 studies measured ERN, with 85% finding significantly increased ERN amplitudes associated with clinical anxiety. Only 44 of the extracted studies analysed CRN and only ~20% of these found significant changes in CRN amplitude associated with individuals with clinical anxiety. LIMITATIONS: There were several anxiety disorders that had either limited literature (i.e. specific phobia, separation anxiety disorder or agoraphobia) or nil literature (i.e. selective mutism) available. No extracted studies included samples of older adults (i.e. aged 60+ years), and only six extracted studies included measures of emotional attentional control. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate the promising utility of ERN of attentional control as a robust, transdiagnostic trait marker of clinical anxiety.

The Heart-Brain Connection in Depression: Can it inform a personalised approach for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment?

There is growing enthusiasm into the frontal-vagal network theory of major depressive disorder (MDD) and the potential role of a frontal-vagal network in the therapeutic mechanism of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment for MDD. A review of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) in MDD and its role in antidepressant treatment for MDD is timely. The literature supports the well-established notion of ANS dysfunction in MDD and the benign effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but not tricyclic antidepressants, on perturbed ANS function in MDD. Notwithstanding, there is some evidence that ANS measures have the capacity to inform response to antidepressant medication treatment. While there is a paucity of studies on the effects of rTMS on the ANS, critically, there is preliminary support that rTMS may alleviate ANS dysfunction in MDD and that ANS measures are associated with rTMS treatment response. These observations are consistent with the frontal-vagal theory of depression and the emerging literature on the use of ANS measures for personalising and optimising rTMS treatment of MDD.

Investigating high- and low-frequency neuro-cardiac-guided TMS for probing the frontal vagal pathway.

BACKGROUND: Investigating approaches for determining a functionally meaningful dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) stimulation site is imperative for optimising repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) response rates for treatment-resistant depression. One proposed approach is neuro-cardiac-guided rTMS (NCG-TMS) in which high frequency rTMS is applied to the DLPFC to determine the site of greatest heart rate deceleration. This site is thought to index a frontal-vagal autonomic pathway that intersects a key pathway believed to underlie rTMS response. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to independently replicate previous findings of high-frequency NCG-TMS and extend it to evaluate the use of low-frequency rTMS for NCG-TMS. METHODS: Twenty healthy participants (13 female; aged 38.6 ± 13.9) underwent NCG-TMS on frontal, fronto-central (active) and central (control) sites. For high-frequency NCG-TMS, three 5 s trains of 10 Hz were provided at each left hemisphere site. For low-frequency NCG-TMS, 60 s trains of 1 Hz were applied to left and right hemispheres and heart rate and heart rate variability outcome measures were analysed. RESULTS: For high-frequency NCG-TMS, heart rate deceleration was observed at the left frontal compared with the central site. For low-frequency NCG-TMS, accelerated heart rate was found at the right frontal compared with central sites. No other site differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Opposite patterns of heart rate activity were found for high- and low-frequency NCG-TMS. The high-frequency NCG-TMS data replicate previous findings and support further investigations on the clinical utility of NCG-TMS for optimising rTMS site localisation. Further work assessing the value of low-frequency NCG-TMS for rTMS site localisation is warranted.

Low-frequency rTMS is better tolerated than high-frequency rTMS in healthy people: Empirical evidence from a single session study.

Low-frequency and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are similarly efficacious for treatment-resistant depression. Low-frequency is posited to be better tolerated than high-frequency rTMS, however, this is not supported by empirical evidence to date. This study aimed to quantify and compare the tolerability of low-versus high-frequency rTMS. Twenty healthy participants (mean age 38.6 ±â€¯13.9 years) underwent low- and high-frequency rTMS administered on left frontal, fronto-central and central sites at 100% resting motor threshold. For the low-frequency protocol, 60 s of 1 Hz stimulation was applied at each site and for the high-frequency protocol, 3 × 5 s trains of 10 Hz stimulation with a 30 s inter-train interval were applied at each site. Tolerance for each stimulation type was assessed immediately after stimulation through participant ratings of overall intensity of scalp sensations, pain, muscle twitching, discomfort and any other sensation. Low-frequency rTMS was significantly less intense than high-frequency rTMS in overall intensity, pain, muscle twitching (all p < .01) and discomfort (p < .001). Limitations of this study include the healthy participant sample and administration of a single session of rTMS. While further work is needed in clinical samples using typical rTMS treatment protocols, these data provide the first evidence that low-frequency is better tolerated than high-frequency. These findings may inform clinical practice of rTMS treatment for depression (and other illnesses) by supporting the application of low-frequency protocols.