Altered Oscillatory Responses to Feedback in Borderline Personality Disorder are Linked to Symptom Severity
Several studies using electroencephalography (EEG) demonstrate that the processing of feedback in patients suffering from borderline personality disorder (BPD) is altered in comparison to healthy controls. Differences occur in the theta (ca. 5 Hz) and high-beta frequency-ranges (ca. 20 Hz) of oscillations in response to negative and positive feedback, respectively. However, alpha (ca. 10 Hz) and low-beta (ca. 15 Hz) oscillations have also been shown to be involved in feedback processing. We hypothesized that additional alterations might occur in these frequency ranges in BPD. Eighteen patients with BPD and twenty-two healthy controls performed a gambling task while 64-channel-EEG was recorded. Induced oscillatory responses to positive (i.e. gain) and negative (i.e. loss) feedback in the alpha and low-beta frequency range were investigated. No significant differences were found in the alpha frequency range. Regarding the low-beta frequency range a significant Group (i.e. BPD vs. healthy controls) × Valence (i.e. gain vs. loss) interaction in the time frame between 600 and 700 milliseconds after feedback was found. This effect showed a significant correlation with symptom severity (assessed with the BSL-23). The results indicate that feedback processing in BPD could be more heavily altered than previously expected, with more severe symptomatology being linked to stronger alterations in oscillatory responses to feedback in the low-beta range.
KeywordsFeedback processing Borderline personality disorder Beta oscillations Symptom severity EEG sLORETA
Parts of this work were prepared in the context of P Schauers doctoral dissertation at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Hamburg, Germany. Special thanks to Julia Kleinert for her preparatory work.
- Marco-Pallares J, Cucurell D, Cunillera T, Garcia R, Andres-Pueyo A, Munte TF, Rodriguez-Fornells A (2008) Human oscillatory activity associated to reward processing in a gambling task. Neuropsychologia 46:241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morey RD (2008) Confidence intervals from normalized data: a correction to Cousineau (2005). Reason 4:61–64Google Scholar
- Pascual-Marqui RD (2002) Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA): technical details. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 24 Suppl D:5–12Google Scholar
- Pornpattananangkul N, Nusslock R (2016) Willing to wait: elevated reward-processing EEG activity associated with a greater preference for larger-but-delayed rewards. Neuropsychologia 91:141–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.07.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schultz W (2006) Behavioral theories and the neurophysiology of reward. Annu Rev Psychol 57:87–115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sheehan D et al (1998) The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 59:22Google Scholar
- Wittchen H, Zaudig M, Fydrich T (1997) Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar