Auditory Feedback Processing in the Orbitofrontal Cortex
Abstract number :
3.265
Submission category :
5. Neuro Imaging / 5B. Functional Imaging
Year :
2022
Submission ID :
2204689
Source :
www.aesnet.org
Presentation date :
12/5/2022 12:00:00 PM
Published date :
Nov 22, 2022, 05:26 AM
Authors :
Daniel Janko, BS – University of Alabama at Birmingham; Adam Goodman, PhD – University of Alabama at Birmingham; Kaitlyn Davis, MS – University of Alabama at Birmingham; John Magnotti, PhD – University of Pennsylvania; Zhengjia Wang, PhD – University of Pennsylvania; Diana Pizarro, MS – University of Alabama at Birmingham; Melissa Thye, MS – University of Edinburgh; Jerzy Szaflarski, MD, PhD – University of Alabama at Birmingham
Rationale: Psychological disorder comorbidities, such as anxiety and depression, have a lifetime prevalence rate estimated as high 50% across all epilepsies. Aberrant processing of psychosocial evaluative feedback is a hallmark of these emotion disorders and may reflect common etiology underlying these comorbidities. Gamma frequency oscillations play an important role in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) modulation of performance monitoring. Further, distinct OFC regions have been demonstrated to respond differentially to positive/negative visual feedback. Both gyrus rectus (GR) and lateral orbitofrontal cortex showed higher increases in activity after negative feedback whereas the medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC) responded more to positive feedback. We examined different regions of the OFC, using sEEG to assess whether their responses to auditory feedback can be differentiated based on the valence of the feedback. We hypothesized that auditory feedback processing would show similar patterns of activation as did visual feedback. Further, we expect that participants would be able to make valence distinction between conditions 1s after feedback onset.
Methods: 5 patients undergoing sEEG monitoring completed the Montreal Imaging Stress Tasks (MIST) that consists of a control math task (CMT) and a stress math task (SMT). Regardless of performance, positive and negative auditory feedback were presented during CMT and SMT, respectively. A combination of MATLAB, FreeSurfer and R Analysis and Visualization of iEEG (RAVE) were used to localize electrodes (70 electrodes in total) and analyze the data. We looked at both hemispheres separately and compared the ROIs. The analysis was divided into two windows (0-1s and 1-2s). Notch filter at 60Hz was applied to raw EEG data and we then downsampled the data to 200Hz. Linear mixed effects (LME) analyses were was to compared feedback conditions by analysis windows separately for each region.
Results: The LME for the first time window (0-1s) revealed that all ROIs, besides the right mOFC, were significantly activated by both conditions, but there was no significant difference found in any region. In the second time window, both left and right GR and lOFC showed a significant power percent change after both stimuli (pall < 0.01) but there were no within region nor between hemispheres differences. Left and right mOFCs were significantly activated only after positive feedback (pleft < 0.01, pright < 0.04). The difference between negative and positive feedback was significant only in the left hemisphere (ppos >neg < 0.01). The difference between left and right mOFC for positive feedback failed to reach the threshold for significance (p=0.7)._x000D_
Neuro Imaging