Neurobehavioral Traits as Transdiagnostic Predictors of Clinical Problems

Abstract

The National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria initiative (Insel et al., 2010) calls for a focus on biologically meaningful dimensional constructs in the study of clinical problems. Examples are needed of how Research Domain Criteria constructs can be linked to clinical problems. We examined how two such constructs, threat sensitivity (THT+) and weak inhibitory control (INH−), operationalized using scale measures of fear/fearlessness and inhibition/disinhibition dimensions from established structural models, predicted symptoms of multiple Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) clinical disorders in 471 community adults. Robust relationships with internalizing disorder symptoms were evident for both trait variables, with THT+ more predictive of fear disorder symptoms and INH− more predictive of distress disorder symptoms. For substance-related problems, prediction was evident only for INH−. Additionally, interactive effects of THT+ and INH− were found for distress disorders, and to a lesser extent, fear disorders. Given their well-established physiological correlates, these dispositional variables represent prime targets for combined psychometric–neurophysiological assessment of broad liabilities to multiple forms of psychopathology.

Methodological issues in the use of individual brain measures to index trait liabilities: The example of noise-probe P3

“…Weak inhibitory control, characterized in individual-difference terms as trait disinhibition (DIS; L. D. Nelson, Strickland, Krueger, Arbisi, & Patrick, 2016; Patrick et al, 2013), has been identified as a liability factor for externalizing problems of various types, including child and adult antisocial behavior and maladaptive substance use (Krueger, Hicks, Patrick, Carlson, Iacono, & McGue, 2002; Yancey et al, 2013). Patrick and colleagues (2013) constructed a “psychoneurometric” index of DIS, incorporating self-report-scale measures along with brain-response variables, that effectively predicted both clinical-symptom and physiological criterion measures.…”

“…Conceptualized in individual-difference terms, this construct connects to the general trait dimension shown to underlie psychological-scale measures of fear versus fearlessness in relation to stimuli and situations of various types (Kramer, Patrick, Krueger, & Gasperi, 2012). When operationalized in terms of scores on this fear/fearlessness dimension, variations in threat sensitivity are independent of (i.e., uncorrelated with) variations in inhibitory control, quantified as trait disinhibition (L. D. Nelson et al, 2016; Venables, Sellbom, et al, 2015). High scores on this fear/fearlessness dimension have been found to be related to anxiety disorders of various types, particularly those involving context-bound fear (L. D. Nelson et al, 2016; Yancey et al, 2016); low scores on this dimension, by contrast, are associated with affective-interpersonal (“Factor 1”) symptoms of psychopathy (Patrick & Bernat, 2009; Patrick & Drislane, 2015).…”

“…Patrick et al, 2006; Yancey et al, 2013). Given the conceptualization of THT as separate from DIS (L. D. Nelson et al, 2016) and involving different neural circuitry (Patrick & Bernat, 2009; Patrick et al, 2012), we hypothesized that the variance in probe P3 related to THT reflects a different process than that related to DIS (i.e., affective, as opposed to cognitive), and thus would be unrelated to oddball-target P3 response.…”

“…Participants were selected for lab testing based on levels of threat sensitivity (THT), as indexed by scores on the Trait Fear Inventory (measure described below), such that half of the test sample (one member of each twin pair) was pre-selected based on THT scores, to ensure comprehensive representation of individuals at high and low levels of threat sensitivity. Specifically, approximately one third were chosen to be high in THT (i.e., highest 18% of screening sample), one third low (lowest 18%), and the remaining third intermediate (19th to 82nd percentile of scorers; see L. D. Nelson et al, 2016, for further details of subject recruitment.) Participants were also screened and determined to be free of visual or hearing impairments as assessed by a screening questionnaire.…”

Procesamiento de errores en la psicopatía subclínica: un estudio de potenciales evocados

“…En esta misma línea, recientemente se ha demostrado una asociación entre síntomas del trastorno de ansiedad generalizada y una mayor amplitud del P300 en la misma versión de la tarea de flancos empleada en este estudio (Meyer y cols., 2017). Así, esta relación podría ser explicada en términos de que las características de bajo miedo que subyacen al fenotipo de audacia del MTP representan una dimensión que se asocia de forma negativa a distintos indicadores de psicopatología internalizante, incluidos síntomas del trastorno de ansiedad generalizada (Nelson, Strickland, Krueger, Arbisi y Patrick, 2016). En este sentido, es evidente la necesidad de más estudios que exploren las relaciones entre el P300 y el rasgo de ausencia de miedo.…”