Autonomic factors do not underlie the elevated self-disgust levels in Parkinson’s disease

Autonomic factors do not underlie the elevated self-disgust levels in Parkinson’s disease

Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Vasileia Aristotelidou,  arianna Tsatali, Paul G. Overton, Ana B. Vivas

Published: September 2, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256144

Abstract

Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is manifested along with non-motor symptoms such as impairments in basic emotion regulation, recognition and expression. Yet, self-conscious emotion (SCEs) such as self-disgust, guilt and shame are under-investigated. Our previous research indicated that Parkinson patients have elevated levels of self-reported and induced self-disgust. However, the cause of that elevation–whether lower level biophysiological factors, or higher level cognitive factors, is unknown.

Methods

To explore the former, we analysed Skin Conductance Response (SCR, measuring sympathetic activity) amplitude and high frequency Heart Rate Variability (HRV, measuring parasympathetic activity) across two emotion induction paradigms, one involving narrations of personal experiences of self-disgust, shame and guilt, and one targeting self-disgust selectively via images of the self. Both paradigms had a neutral condition.

Results

Photo paradigm elicited significant changes in physiological responses in patients relative to controls—higher percentages of HRV in the high frequency range but lower SCR amplitudes, with patients to present lower responses compared to controls. In the narration paradigm, only guilt condition elicited significant SCR differences between groups.

Conclusions

Consequently, lower level biophysiological factors are unlikely to cause elevated self-disgust levels in Parkinson’s disease, which by implication suggests that higher level cognitive factors may be responsible.

Citation: Aristotelidou V, Tsatali M, Overton PG, Vivas AB (2021) Autonomic factors do not underlie the elevated self-disgust levels in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 16(9): e0256144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256144

Editor: Zezhi Li, National Institutes of Health, UNITED STATES

Received: March 4, 2021; Accepted: July 30, 2021; Published: September 2, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Aristotelidou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are available in figshare: https://figshare.com/s/b080cc80e88d832f18ce.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of unknown aetiology, with a prevalence of .1-.2% in the general population, rising to 1% among people above 60 year of age [1]. The disorder affects all domains, motor, cognitive and emotional [2]. Parkinson’s disease is typically characterised by the motor symptoms of resting tremor, “cog-wheel” rigidity and bradykinesia [3–6]. Affective and cognitive symptoms, such as depression, anxiety and dementia have received far less attention and are often underestimated as peripheral although they are associated with high societal and healthcare costs [7].

Amongst the cognitive symptoms, deficits in recognition and expression of basic emotions (e.g., fear, disgust, sadness, happiness etc.) have been relatively well researched and documented [5, 6, 8–11]. For instance, there is high comorbidity between Parkinson’s disease and alexithymia [12–15], and studies have reported reduced facial and verbal expressivity [16–21], difficulties in emotional regulation [22–24] and emotion recognition [25] in patients with Parkinson’s disease. However, we know very little about how more cognitively complex emotions, namely self-conscious emotions (SCEs), are affected in these patients.

SCEs are different from basic emotions in that they require self-evaluation/appraisal in relation to other’s feedback [26–29]. These emotions (e.g., shame, guilt, self-disgust) are thought to play a key role in social regulation and adjustment by suppressing and promoting socially undesirable and desirable behaviours, respectively [30–34]. Research has suggested that this category of emotions, unlike basic emotions, involve sophisticated cognitive processes such as self-awareness [35–37] and the ability to recognize one’s own and also others’ mental states [38]. In this study, we assess the emotions of shame [26, 39] and guilt [40], which are relatively well studied, and self-disgust which has recently attracted scientific attention [41]

Shame refers to a negative evaluation of the whole self as “inadequate”, in other words, the person embodies the feeling of a “flawed self” [26, 39]. Subsequent behaviour involves hiding and isolating the self [26, 39]. During shame, empathy towards the self is supplanted by a feeling of self- distress, leaving the self exposed [40]. Abnormally heightened levels of shame have been associated with poorer anger and aggression management skills [42], depression [43], substance abuse [44], personality disorders [45], post-traumatic stress disorder [46], anxiety disorders [47], eating disorders [48] and suicidal/self-injury idealization [49].

On the other hand, guilt refers to a part of the self visible and vulnerable to judgment from the society [50]. In effect, one’s behaviour is considered to be inappropriate. The ultimate goal of guilt is to make the self a better, more productive and valued member of society, so it is powerfully associated with the feeling of empathy towards others. Higher trait levels of guilt have been associated with altered body language and affective social interactions [51]. When blended with other self-blaming emotions [52], excessive traits of guilt can facilitate affective disorders. Depression was once characterized as the “constant feeling of inappropriate guilt” [53]. On the other hand, the absence of remorse has been shown to independently predict aggressive conduct and antisocial disorders [54, 55].

Finally, a third negative SCE, self-disgust, refers to feelings of repulsiveness and loathing directed at the self [39, 56, 57]. From early on, self-disgust was proposed to act as a mediator in several psychiatric disorders [27]. Elevated levels of this emotion appear to mediate the relationship between dysfunctional cognition and depression [58], and are associated with social anxiety [59], psychoticism [60], eating disorders [61], obsessive compulsive disorder [62], and decreased levels of psychological wellbeing [63].

In relation to Parkinson’s disease, research suggests that self-awareness, a key cognitive process in SCEs, is altered [64–68]. Specifically, reduced self-awareness of memory (dys)function was positively correlated with disease severity, degree of memory decline and cognitive control deficits [69]. These results are in line with reports of anosognosia in Parkinson patients, who are unable to recognize and precisely express their physical symptoms [65]. Vann-Ward and colleagues [68] suggest that the concept of self is potentially maladaptive in Parkinson’s disease. Specifically, newly diagnosed patients are unable to adjust and preserve self-strategies such as the ability to develop relationships, envision the future, cope with everyday emotional discrepancies, perform self-evaluation tasks and have goals and aspirations.

Thus, it is not surprising that the limited research so far has reported altered SCEs in Parkinson’s disease. For instance, it has been suggested that Parkinson’s disease can be characterized as a “problem of shame”, and that increased shame may be associated with altered dopamine activity in key brain areas (e.g., prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex) underlying cognitive and affective processing [70]. Furthermore, guilt, as part of the psychotic symptomatology in Parkinson’s disease [71, 72], often appears as a subtype of hallucinations/delusions of the type “I am a sinister, I am guilty”. Other studies report feelings of guilt due to the disease’s progression and due to the extended disability of the patient [73, 74]. Self-disgust on the other hand, until very recently, was completely overlooked in Parkinson’s disease. In a recent study by Tsatali and colleagues [75], patients with Parkinson’s disease were found to have increased levels of self-reported and experimentally induced self-disgust, as compared to matched healthy controls, and when controlling for the confound effects of depression and anxiety. In contrast, self-reported and experimentally induced levels of shame and guilt were similar to those of the control participants. In the present study, we analysed physiological responses recorded during the experimental induction of SCEs, from the same group of patients and matched controls, to further investigate why self-disgust is elevated in Parkinson’s disease (see Tables 2 & 3 in [75] for differences between patients and controls in self-reported and experiementally induced levels of SCEs).

Schachter and Singer [76] were the first to introduce the two-factor theory of emotion, suggesting that the experience of basic emotions can be decoded as the interaction of physiological arousal and cognitive appraisal. Later on, Ekman and colleagues proposed that emotions could be related to distinct autonomic responses of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system [77, 78]. Nowadays, this hypothesis is widely accepted [79–82]. Specifically, heart rate variability (HRV), or in other words, time and speed fluctuations between heart beats, refers to a metrics system of neurocardiac homeostasis [83], and HRV in the higher frequency band is considered to be an index of parasympathetic activity [84, 85]. In terms of basic emotions, elevated HRV seems to be elicited by happiness, anxiety, anger, contamination disgust, and intense sadness [86], while HRV decreases with disgust and mild sadness [87, 88]. Whilst high frequency band HRV is considered to be an index of parasympathetic activity, galvanic skin response (alterations in the electrical properties of the skin) depends almost solely on sympathetic activation [89]. The majority of studies report elevated levels of skin conductance response -SCR- to basic emotions, regardless of valence (e.g., fear, anger, disgust, happiness) [90]. In addition, enhanced skin conductance is also linked with successful emotional engagement, feelings of rejection, emotional distress and anticipation [91].

The majority of studies investigating physiological responses to emotional experiences have focused on basic emotions, and thus our knowledge on physiology of SCEs is scarce. As expected, the experience of SCEs also activates the autonomic nervous system, but research suggests a more general physiological arousal, which lacks emotion type-specificity [37, 92, 93]. Van ‘t Wout et al. [94] used the Ultimatum Game paradigm (unfair offers condition) to induce guilt in healthy participants while skin conductance was measured. The study reported significantly higher skin conductance response to rejections of unfair offers than to acceptance of fair offers. The authors concluded that participants experienced more emotional arousal when confronted with an unfair offer, but increased SCR could have resulted from the attempt to down-regulate guilt. Fourie et al. [95] found decreased HRV and increased SCR, during narration-induction of guilt relative to a neutral condition, in healthy participants. Accordingly, Pennebaker and Chew [96] reported that behavioural inhibition (mostly facial expression and voice tonality) to achieve deception, during a guilt induction paradigm, was associated with phasic increases in skin conductance. To our knowledge, there are only two studies investigating the physiology of shame. Kassam and Mendes [97] found higher HRV during a shame induction paradigm involving a mathematical task, compared to a neutral condition. Likewise, Harley et al., [98] reported a positive correlation between skin conductance level and shame, after completing a diagnostic reasoning task. Only one study has measured HRV in a self-disgust inducing mirror paradigm in participants with Body Dysmorphic Disorder and controls [99]. Although there were no differences between the groups in HRV and self-reported self-disgust, HRV was increased in 2 (out of 5) of the mirror inducing trials in the control participants. Thus, although the evidence so far is very limited, induction of guilt and shame seems to be associated with an increase in skin conductance, whilst HRV may increase (shame, self-disgust) or decrease (guilt).

In this study we tested the hypothesis that increased levels of experimentally induced self-disgust (narrations and self-photo) in Parkinson’s disease patients, relative to matched healthy controls [75], may result from altered physiological responses in patients. To do so, we analysed HRV (high frequency band) and SCR (amplitude) data that were obtained from the same group of patients and their matched controls, during the emotion-induction paradigms. We analysed both measures, and in addition created a composite score of the overall physiological response [100, 101]. If increased levels of self-disgust in Parkinson patients result from a heightened physiological response to this specific emotion, then we should find heightened physiological scores for the self-disgust induction conditions in the patients as compared to the matched controls. Furthermore, since the patients and control participants did not significantly differ in shame and guilt levels, there should not be significant differences in physiological responses between the groups for the shame and guilt induction conditions.

Materials and methods

Participants

Physiological data were analysed from the 40 patients with Parkinson’s disease (17 males and 23 females, with average age 71.73, SD = 9.93) and 40 controls (18 males and 22 females, with average age 71.87, SD = 9.02; matched for age and educational level) included in Tsatali et al. (75; see Table 1 for demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients and the control participants). The inclusion criteria for the control participants were: (i) a score in the Mini-Mental State Examination [102] (MMSE) equivalent to or higher than 24, (ii) absence of psychiatric disease or sustained head trauma, as self-reported by the participants, (iii) absence of alcohol, or drug or any other substance addictive behaviour, as self-reported by the participants, (iv) no history of hypothyroidism, which can affect skin conductance [103]. In the procedure, all the participants were instructed to breathe freely.

The inclusion criteria for the patients were: i) a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis according to the UK Parkinson’s Disease Society Brain Bank Clinical Diagnostic Criteria [104], ii) mild or moderate stage of disease progression, based on the UPDRS, iii) a MMSE examination with an outcome equal to or more than 24, iv) absence of any underlying mental or psychiatric disorder, or sustained head trauma; and v) absence of alcohol, or drug or any other substance addictive behaviour. Prior to the experimental procedure, patients with Parkinson’s disease were clinically evaluated by a neurologist. Almost all patients were under medication (combinations of levodopa, inhibitors of dopamine catabolism and dopamine receptor agonists) at the time of the study. Since the Parkinson patients had significantly higher anxiety and depressive symptoms than control participants (see Table 1 in 75), we included the total score of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale as a co-variate in the analyses. ANCOVA analyses were reported only when there was a change in the results.

From the initial sample of eighty participants, SC and HRV were reliably extracted from 49 (24 PD, 25 HC) and 58 (24 PD, 34 HC) in the narration and photo paradigms, respectively. The remaining participants were excluded because the signal was not of sufficient quality due to noise that could not be eliminated [119].

The study was approved by the University of Sheffield Ethics Committee, and all participants provided their written consent.

Measures and procedure

Narration emotion induction paradigm.

Participants were asked to narrate orally past personal experiences in which they had felt guilty (Guilt narration), ashamed (Shame narration) and self-disgusted (Self-disgust narration). In the control condition (neutral narration), participants were asked to narrate what they did the day before, describing only the facts (see 75 for the detailed instructions). No time limit was set.

As the narrations were completed, participants were asked to report how they felt by using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0 (Not at all) to 100 (Extremely) for the target emotion (self- disgust, guilt and shame) and other non-target emotions (anger, happiness and sadness), as well as their arousal levels.

Photo induction paradigm.

As described in Tsatali et al., [75], two consecutive images were presented to participants, one of themselves (sitting in a chair in a neutral pose) and a neutral one acquired from the IAPS (International Affective Picture System, 2005). The participants were told to look carefully at the images. Each image was presented for 3 s, and followed by a blank screen for 20 s. Then, the participant was asked to report how they felt using a VAS, as described above. The order of the images (neutral and self) was counterbalanced across participants.

Physiological data analysis methods

Before the beginning of the emotion induction paradigms, participants sat in a chair and the electrocardiogram (ECG) and electrodermal activity (EDA) sensors were applied. A Nexus wireless portable physiology recording device (Mind Media Nl, 2008 V2) was used to record the physiological data. The Nexus device was connected to a computer via Bluetooth, and heart physiology and skin conductance data were recorded by BioTrace+ running on Windows (XP/Vista). The recordings were acquired without interruption during the experiment, and the data display was screened from the participants. The sampling rate was adjusted to 256 Hz.

The ECG was measured using two disposable pre-gelled Ag-AgCl electrodes that were placed on the participant’s wrists, as well as on the inner elbow. Electrodermal activity was recorded with two Ag-AgCl electrodes, placed on the middle and ring fingers of the non-dominant hand, which were sanitized with alcohol [105, 106].

Studies support that short recording times are reliable to obtain HRV measures. In the frequency domain, for high frequency measures (HF), 40–50 s seem to be sufficient to obtain accurate results [107, 108]. Given that the narrations varied in length, the paradigm of Ho et al. [109] was adopted; that is, we analysed the first 60 s from the onset of the narration, which is also within the recommended interval for SCR analysis of a minimum of 4 s and a maximum of 5 min [110–113]. In the photo induction paradigm, we analysed the full recording interval from the onset of the photo, which was 23 s in line with similar previous studies [114–116].

Heart rate values were extracted with Artiifact software [117], following two steps: 1) Manual detection of R-R peaks to identify missing or false detected R-R peaks. 2) Automatic artifacts correction using cubic interpolation method, which follows a nonlinear approach and provides better results than deletion or linear correction [118]. The interpolation method acts also as a low pass filter, and thus no further low/high pass filters were used [119–121]. The main measure was the percentage of the variance in heart rate that occurred in the high frequency range (0.15 to 0.40 Hz).

The EDA raw data were analyzed with Ledalab v.3.2.9 [110, 111, 122] using the Continuous Decomposition Analysis method to distinguish the phasic (driver) information from the underlying tonic sudomotor nerve activity. This method was followed to enable a distinction from a “zero” baseline, so any disruptions in the signal are represented as distinct fluctuations. These features offer the advantage of unbiased experimental manipulation and they are useful especially in cases with high phasic activity, whether induced by an experimental setup or relevant in a clinical context [110]. Raw EDA data were smoothed via convolution with a Hann window to reduce error noise and fitted to a bi-exponential Bateman function. Data were optimized by a conjugated gradient descent algorithm to reduce the error between them and the inbuilt skin conductance model [123]. The main measure was the mean amplitude of fluctuations (peaks) above baseline. We employed a typical threshold for peak detection of 0.05μS [124–126].

Based on Sturm [127] and Olney et al. [128] we calculated a composite unique score of overall physiological response for each participant [100, 101]. That is, we extracted the standardized scores (z- value) for the sympathetic (SCR) and parasympathetic (HRV) indexes, mean amplitude and HF, respectively. Then the absolute values were calculated, so greater values will represent higher physiological responses.

Results

Composite physiological activation score

Narration induction.

Composite values for self-disgust, guilt and shame were submitted to three separate 2 x 2 ANOVAs with Condition (neutral vs SCE) as the within-subjects factor and Group (HC and PD) as the between-subject factor. None of the effects reached statistical significance (see Fig 1). Self-disgust: F(1, 35) = 1.08, p = .30, ηp2 = .03, F(1, 35) = .39, p = .53, ηp2 = .01, and F(1, 35) = 2.90, p = .09, ηp2 = .07, for the main effects of Condition, Group and their interaction, respectively; Guilt: F(1, 40) = .64, p = .42, ηp2 = .01, F(1, 40) = .02, p = .87, ηp2 = .00, and F(1, 40) = .16, p = .69, ηp2 = .00, for the main effects of condition and group and their interaction, respectively; Shame: F(1, 29) = .15, p = .70, ηp2 = .00, F(1, 29) = .12, p = .72, ηp2 = .00, and F(1, 29) = .15, p = .69, ηp2 = .00, for the main effects of Condition and Group and their interaction, respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 1. Composite physiology scores (szcores) as a function condition (emotion and neutral) and group (HC = Healthy Control, PD = Parkinson’s Disease patients).

Panels A-C: Physiological response for self-disgust, guilt and shame narration paradigms, respectively. Panel D: Physiological responses for the photo paradigm (self-disgust induction). Error bars represent standard error, and asterisk significant differences (p < .05).

 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256144.g001

Self-photo induction.

The composite values were submitted to a 2 x 2 ANOVA with Condition (neutral vs self-photo) as the within-subjects factor and Group (HC and PD) as the between-subject factor. The main effects of Condition and Group were significant, F(1, 34) = 6.21, p = .01, ηp2 = .15, and F(1, 34) = 6.8, p = .01, ηp2 = .16, respectively (see Fig 1). That is, there was a significantly higher overall physiological response for the self-photo condition (0.79) than the neutral photo condition (0.53), and for PD patients (0.81) than for HC participants (0.52). However, the interaction between Condition and Group was not significant, F(1, 34) = .22, p = .63, ηp2 = .00. The main effect of Condition for was no longer significant when adjusting for the influence of anxiety and depressive symptoms, F(1, 33) = 3.04, p = .090, ηp2 = .035.

SCR-mean amplitude analyses

Narration induction.

Mean amplitude data for self-disgust, guilt and shame were submitted to three 2 x 2 ANOVAs with Condition (neutral vs SCE) as the within-subject factor and Group (HC and PD) as the between-subject factor (see Fig 2). The main effect of Condition was significant for the three analyses, for self-disgust F(1,37) = 4.84, p = .034, ηp2 = .116, for guilt F(1,43) = 16.22, p< 0.001, ηp2 = .274, and for shame F(1,31) = 12.79, p = .001, ηp2 = .292. That is, the mean amplitude was significantly lower for the self-disgust condition (.22 μS) and the shame condition (.12 μS) than their respective neutral conditions (.35 and .34 μS, respectively, see Fig 2); whereas the mean amplitude was higher for the guilt condition (.64 μS) than for the neutral condition (.38 μS). The main effect of Condition for self-disgust was no longer significant when adjusting for the influence of anxiety and depressive symptoms, F(1, 36) = 1.79, p = 0.189, ηp2 = .023.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 2. Peak amplitude (μS) of the skin conductance response as a function of condition (emotion and neutral) and group (HC = Healthy Controls and PD = Parkinson’s Disease patients).

Panels A-C: Physiological responses for self-disgust, guilt and shame narration paradigms, respectively. Panel D: Physiological responses for the photo paradigm (self-disgust induction). Error bars represent standard error and asterisk significant differences (p < .05).

 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256144.g002

The main effect of Group was also significant for guilt F(1,43) = 4.32, p = .04, ηp2 = .09, but not for self-disgust, F(1,37) = .70, p = .40, ηp2 = .01, or shame, F(1,31) = 1.96, p = .17, ηp2 = .06. That is, the mean amplitude was higher for PD patients (.58 μS) than for HC participants (.44 μS). Finally, the interaction between Condition and Group was not significant for any of the analyses, F(1,37) = 1.85, p = .18, ηp2 = .04, F(1,43) = .07, p = .78, ηp2 = .00, F(1,31) = .00, p = .96, ηp2< .00, for self-disgust, guilt and shame, respectively.

Photo-induction paradigm.

Mean amplitude data were submitted to a 2 x 2 ANOVA with Condition (neutral vs self-photo) as the within-subjects factor and Group (HC and PD) as the between-subject factor. Results showed significant main effects of Condition, F(1,56) = 15.76, p< 0.01, ηp2 = .22, and Group, F(1,56) = 17.95, p< 0.01, ηp2 = .24. That is, the mean amplitude was higher for the HC group (.76 μS) than the PD group (.24 μS), and for the self-photo condition (.73 μS) than the neutral condition (.27 μS). The interaction Condition by Group was also significant, F(1,56) = 24.13, p< 0.01, ηp2 = .30. The analysis of the interaction showed that the two groups significantly differed in the self-photo condition (MeanHC = 1.27 μS, MeanPD = .19 μS, t = -4.73 (56), p< .001), but not in the neutral condition (MeanHC = .25 μS, MeanPD = .30 μS, t = -.79 (56), p = .43). In the self-photo condition, the group of HC had larger amplitude than the PD group (see Fig 2). The main effect of Condition was no longer significant when adjusting for the influence of anxiety and depressive symptoms, F(1, 55) < .01, p = 0.995, ηp2< .001.

HRV-HF band analyses

Narration induction.

Mean percentage of HF band activity for self-disgust, guilt and shame were submitted to three separate 2 x 2 ANOVAs with Condition (neutral vs SCE) as the within-subjects factor and Group (HC and PD) as the between-subject factor. None of the effects reached statistical significance (see Fig 3). Self-disgust: F(1, 43) = 1.78, p = .18, ηp2 = .04, F(1, 43) = .03, p = .85, ηp2 = .00, and F(1, 43) = .03, p = .85, ηp2< .001, for the main effects of Condition, Group and their interaction respectively. Guilt: F(1, 42) = 2.49, p = .12, ηp2 = .05, F(1, 42) = .42, p = .51, ηp2 = .01, and F(1, 42) = .30, p = .58, ηp2 = .00, for the main effects of Condition and Group and their interaction, respectively. Shame: F(1, 43) = .43, p = .51, ηp2 = .01, F(1, 43) <1, p = .99, ηp2< .001, and F(1, 43) = 1.26, p = .26, ηp2 = .02, for the main effects of Condition and Group and their interaction, respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 3. Percentage of high frequency band heart rate variability (HF) as a function of condition (emotion and neutral) and group (HC = Healthy Controls and PD = Parkinson’s Disease patients).

Panels A-C: Physiological responses for self-disgust, guilt and shame narration paradigms, respectively. Panel D: Physiological responses for the photo paradigm (self-disgust induction). Error bars represent standard error and asterisk significant differences (p < .05).

 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256144.g003

Photo-induction paradigm.

Mean percentages οf HF band activity were submitted to a 2 x 2 ANOVA (see Fig 3). The main effects of Condition, F(1, 37) = 4.75, p = .03, ηp2 = .11, and Group, F (1, 37) = 4.28, p = .04, ηp2 = .10, were significant. That is, the percentage of HF band activity was significantly higher for PD patients (50.10%) than for HC participants (38.60%), and for the neutral photo condition (50.20%) than for the self-photo condition (38.47%). However, the interaction Condition by Group was not significant, F(1, 34) = .57, p = .45, ηp2 = .01. The main effect of Group was no longer significant when adjusting for the influence of anxiety and depressive symptoms, F(1, 37) = 1.72, p = 0.198, ηp2 = .026.

Discussion

To determine the extent to which bottom up, biophysiological, processes may have contributed to the increased self-disgust levels in patients with Parkinson’s disease reported in Tsatali et al. [75], we examined heart rate (HRV) and skin conductance (EDA) responses [79–82] in two emotion induction paradigms; narration and photo induction. The former, based on Dickerson et al. [129], required participants to narrate past experiences of self-disgust, guilt and shame, whilst the latter was designed to elicit disgust towards self- image Overton et al. [58] by presenting self-photos [130]. Tsatali et al. [75] reported increased levels of self-reported and experimentally induced self-disgust in patients with Parkinson’s disease relative to control participants, but no differences in guilt and shame. The differences in self-disgust were significant after adjusting for the effects of depression.

Overall, the results suggest that altered bottom up biophysiological activation, in response to emotion-induction, is unlikely to have contributed to increased self-disgust in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Specifically, we found that the images in the photo induction paradigm resulted in significant changes in physiological responses in patients with Parkinson’s disease relative to healthy controls. The images produced higher composite responses, higher percentages of HRV in the high frequency range but lower SCR amplitudes. The differences in SCR for the photo induction were also significantly modulated by condition (self vs neutral image). That is, patients with Parkinson’s disease mainly differed from healthy controls in the self condition, where responses in the patient group were significantly lower. Hence, contrary to our prediction, the analysis of the interaction showed that patients had a significantly smaller sympathetic response (SCR amplitude) to the self-disgust induction than the healthy controls (see Fig 2). This suggests that the physiological response to self-disgust, as elicited by the self-photo, was actually diminished in the group of patients. The remaining differences in physiological response as a function of emotion induction condition were not modulated by group. Indeed, several of the differences in physiological response as a function of emotion induction condition were lost when adjusting for the influence of anxiety and depressive symptoms. Thus, findings do not support the hypothesis that increased self-disgust in Parkinson’s patients, relative to healthy controls, may have resulted from heightened physiological response to this emotion.

With regard to the other two emotions investigated, shame and guilt, there were significant changes in physiological responses in patients with Parkinson’s disease relative to the healthy controls, only for SCR in the guilt condition. Guilt yielded significantly higher SCR amplitudes in patients than healthy controls, whereas shame showed no differences. In line with our predictions, and the lack of significant differences between the groups in self-report measures guilt, this difference was not modulated by condition (guilt vs neutral narration). Previous research indeed indicates that elevated levels of guilt are positively correlated with augmented SCR variables [94–96]. However, our findings contrast with Harley et al. [98] who also reported elevated levels of SCR during shame. This difference might be attributed to the difference in the experimental induction paradigms, as Harley et al. [98] used questionnaires and not instructed narrations. Overall, our findings suggest that SCR may be differentially affected by guilt and shame/self-disgust. This dissociation may reflect the distinction between SCEs that are likely to trigger adaptive behaviours (e.g. apologising) to undo the harm that has been done, as with the case of guilt, or maladaptive ones, as with shame and self-disgust which are more pathogenic emotions without a clear adaptive function [39, 131, 132].

In the majority of the analyses in which the factor group did not significantly interact with the emotion-induction condition, there were nevertheless significant differences between the overall physiological response of patients with Parkinson’s disease and healthy controls. As secondary findings our results suggest that, in the main Parkinson patients had higher overall autonomic activity than matched healthy controls. The findings were consistent across the analyses; Parkinson patients had higher composite scores, higher percentages of HRV in the high frequency range in the photo-induction paradigm and SCR amplitudes in the guilt narration paradigm than control participants. These findings do not seem to be in agreement with previous studies that show decreased HRV in Parkinson’s disease due to dysautonomia, levodopa medication and progression of motor symptoms [133–136]. Some studies have also reported diminished SCR amplitude in Parkinson patients [3, 137], but others have not found differences between Parkinson patients and healthy controls in skin conductance measures [138]. Our group of patients was in early-moderate stages of Parkinson, so some of the discrepancies with previous studies may be related to progression of the disease, medication or other clinical characteristics such as depressive and anxiety symptoms.

Limitations of the study have been largely covered by Tsatali et al. [75], relating to the use of self-report measures to determine the levels of SCEs in the patients and the study’s cross sectional design. In terms of limitations that are specifically relevant to the current study however, the high level of exclusions from the participant pool due to poorer quality recordings is the principal concern. Although the cause of those cases where recording quality was poorer is unknown, electrodermal responses tend to be smaller overall in the elderly [139], and sweat gland activity differs in the elderly [140], which may lead to high epidermal resistance. Presumably, the latter can also affect heart rate recordings as well. Importantly for the present study, drop outs occurred in similar proportions from both the patient and control groups.

To conclude, the present study suggests that altered physiological response in patients with Parkinson’s disease is unlikely to contribute to the increased, experimentally induced, self-reported levels of self-disgust. Considering to the two-factor theory of emotion [76], the absence of altered physiological responses by inference suggests that the source of elevated self-disgust levels in Parkinson’s disease may instead lie at the cognitive level. Parkinson’s disease is characterised by frontal lobe degeneration [141, 142], specifically in the οrbitofrontal cortex, which plays a key role in cognitive control and emotional regulation [22–24]. Also, given dopamine’s presence in frontal areas such as the prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate insula [143], its absence in Parkinson’s disease is likely to affect frontal processing. Hence, not surprisingly, frontal lobe deficits have been collectively reported in Parkinson’s disease [123]. We hypothesise that because SCEs have a cognitive component [35–37], frontal lobe deficits in Parkinson’s disease may give rise to the increased levels of self-disgust in patients with the disorder. This contention is supported by previous research in neurological population (with fronto-temporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease), which suggested that executive function may contribute to emotion regulation in the context of SCEs [144, 145]. The selective impact of Parkinson’s disease on some SCEs rather than others may relate to the specific circuitry underlying these emotions and/or the precise nature of the cognitive deficits induced by the disorder.

References

  1. 1. Reeve A, Simcox E, Turnbull D. Ageing and Parkinson’s disease: Why is advancing age the biggest risk factor? Ageing Research Reviews. 2014 Mar;14:19–30. pmid:24503004
  2. 2. Tadaiesky MT, Dombrowski PA, Figueiredo CP, Cargnin-Ferreira E, Da Cunha C, Takahashi RN. Emotional, cognitive and neurochemical alterations in a premotor stage model of Parkinson’s disease. Neuroscience. 2008 Oct;156(4):830–40. pmid:18817851
  3. 3. Balconi M, Pala F, Manenti R, Brambilla M, Cobelli C, Rosini S, et al. Facial feedback and autonomic responsiveness reflect impaired emotional processing in Parkinson’s Disease. Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 11;6(1):1–9. pmid:28442746
  4. 4. Braak H, Del Tredici K. [Pathophysiology of sporadic Parkinson’s disease]. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2010 Mar;78 Suppl 1:S2–4. pmid:20195936
  5. 5. Dan R, Růžička F, Bezdicek O, Roth J, Růžička E, Vymazal J, et al. Impact of dopamine and cognitive impairment on neural reactivity to facial emotion in Parkinson’s disease. European Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019 Nov;29(11):1258–72. pmid:31607424
  6. 6. Šumec R, Rektorová I, Jech R, Menšíková K, Roth J, Růžička E, et al. Motion and emotion: anxiety–axial connections in Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm. 2017 Mar 1;124(3):369–77. pmid:27878585
  7. 7. Todorova A, Jenner P, Ray Chaudhuri K. Non-motor Parkinson’s: integral to motor Parkinson’s, yet often neglected. Pract Neurol. 2014 Oct;14(5):310–22. pmid:24699931
  8. 8. Bell PT, Gilat M, Shine JM, McMahon KL, Lewis SJG, Copland DA. Neural correlates of emotional valence processing in Parkinson’s disease: dysfunction in the subcortex. Brain Imaging and Behavior. 2019 Feb;13(1):189–99. pmid:28812218
  9. 9. Pietschnig J, Schröder L, Ratheiser I, Kryspin-Exner I, Pflüger M, Moser D, et al. Facial emotion recognition and its relationship to cognition and depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr. 2016 Jul;28(7):1165–79. pmid:26987816
  10. 10. Santangelo G, D’Iorio A, Piscopo F, Cuoco S, Longo K, Amboni M, et al. Assessment of apathy minimising the effect of motor dysfunctions in Parkinson’s disease: a validation study of the dimensional apathy scale. Qual Life Res. 2017 Sep 1;26(9):2533–40. pmid:28389975
  11. 11. Vogt BA. Chapter 13—Cingulate cortex in Parkinson’s disease. In: Vogt BA, editor. Handbook of Clinical Neurology [Internet]. Elsevier; 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 5]. p. 253–66. (Cingulate Cortex; vol. 166). Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444641960000133
  12. 12. Assogna F, Cravello L, Orfei MD, Cellupica N, Caltagirone C, Spalletta G. Alexithymia in Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review of the literature. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;28:1–11. pmid:27086264
  13. 13. Costa A, Peppe A, Carlesimo GA, Pasqualetti P, Caltagirone C. Alexithymia in Parkinson’s disease is related to severity of depressive symptoms. Eur J Neurol. 2006 Aug;13(8):836–41. pmid:16879293
  14. 14. Costa A, Carlesimo GA, Caltagirone C. Prevalence and Characteristics of Alexithymia in Parkinson’s Disease. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2010;51(1):3. pmid:20118437
  15. 15. Enrici I, Adenzato M, Ardito RB, Mitkova A, Cavallo M, Zibetti M, et al. Emotion Processing in Parkinson’s Disease: A Three-Level Study on Recognition, Representation, and Regulation. PLOS ONE. 2015 Jun 25;10(6):e0131470. pmid:26110271
  16. 16. Gunnery SD, Habermann B, Saint-Hilaire M, Thomas CA, Tickle-Degnen L. The Relationship between the Experience of Hypomimia and Social Wellbeing in People with Parkinson’s Disease and their Care Partners. J Parkinsons Dis. 2016 Jun 3;6(3):625–30. pmid:27285568
  17. 17. Gunnery SD, Naumova EN, Saint-Hilaire M, Tickle-Degnen L. Mapping spontaneous facial expression in people with Parkinson’s disease: A multiple case study design. Cogent Psychol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Aug 4];4. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5875435/ pmid:29607351
  18. 18. Livingstone SR, Vezer E, McGarry LM, Lang AE, Russo FA. Deficits in the Mimicry of Facial Expressions in Parkinson’s Disease. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2016 Jun 7 [cited 2020 Aug 4];7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4894910/ pmid:27375505
  19. 19. Möbes J, Joppich G, Stiebritz F, Dengler R, Schröder C. Emotional speech in Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders. 2008;23(6):824–9. pmid:18307245
  20. 20. Schröder C, Nikolova ZT, Dengler R. Changes of emotional prosody in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Sci. 2010 Feb 15;289(1–2):32–5. pmid:19732910
  21. 21. Sotgiu I, Rusconi ML. Investigating emotions in Parkinson’s disease: what we know and what we still don’t know. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2013 Jun 10 [cited 2020 Aug 4];4. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3677123/ pmid:23772218
  22. 22. Ille R, Wabnegger A, Schwingenschuh P, Katschnig-Winter P, Kögl-Wallner M, Wenzel K, et al. Intact emotion recognition and experience but dysfunctional emotion regulation in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2016 Feb 15;361:72–8. pmid:26810520
  23. 23. Hooker CI, Knight RT. The role of lateral orbitofrontal cortex in the inhibitory control of emotion. In: Zald D, Rauch S, editors. The Orbitofrontal Cortex [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 2006 [cited 2020 Aug 4]. p. 307–24. Available from: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198565741.001.0001/acprof-9780198565741-chapter-12
  24. 24. Ille R, Wabnegger A, Schwingenschuh P, Katschnig-Winter P, Kögl-Wallner M, Wenzel K, et al. Role of Disgust Proneness in Parkinson’s Disease: A Voxel-Based Morphometry Study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2015 Apr;21(4):314–7. pmid:25908177
  25. 25. Argaud S, Vérin M, Sauleau P, Grandjean D. Facial emotion recognition in Parkinson’s disease: A review and new hypotheses. Mov Disord. 2018 Apr;33(4):554–67. pmid:29473661
  26. 26. Lewis HB. Shame and guilt in neurosis. Psychoanal Rev. 1971;58(3):419–38. pmid:5150685
  27. 27. Phillips ML, Senior C, Fahy T, David AS. Disgust—the forgotten emotion of psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry. 1998 May;172:373–5. pmid:9747394
  28. 28. Power MJ, Dalgleish T. Cognition and emotion: from order to disorder. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press; 1997. 496 p.
  29. 29. Somerville LH, Heatherton TF, Kelley WM. Anterior cingulate cortex responds differentially to expectancy violation and social rejection. Nat Neurosci. 2006 Aug;9(8):1007–8. pmid:16819523
  30. 30. Baumeister RF, Stillwell AM, Heatherton TF. Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin. 1994;115(2):243–67. pmid:8165271
  31. 31. Gilbert P, Pehl J, Allan S. The phenomenology of shame and guilt: An empirical investigation. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 1994;67(1):23–36. pmid:8204541
  32. 32. Miller RS, Leary MR. Social sources and interactive functions of emotion: The case of embarrassment. In: Emotion and social behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1992. p. 202–21. (Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 14).
  33. 33. Niedenthal PM, Tangney JP, Gavanski I. ‘If only I weren’t’ versus ‘If only I hadn’t’: Distinguishing shame and guilt in conterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;67(4):585–95. pmid:7965606
  34. 34. Shame Management Through Reintegration—Eliza Ahmed, Nathan Harris, John Braithwaite, Valerie Braithwaite—Βιβλία Google [Internet]. [cited 2020 Feb 16]. Available from: https://books.google.gr/books?id=T9hl8q51bIIC&pg=PA340&lpg=PA340&dq=Ferguson,+Stegge,+%26+Damahuis,+1991&source=bl&ots=G4gHh3oaZ9&sig=ACfU3U3SCn1CsKEacdOdzZQpafeRcsV2MQ&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv54uq49XnAhVaAxAIHftVBfMQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ferguson%2C%20Stegge%2C%20%26%20Damahuis%2C%201991&f=false
  35. 35. Lewis M. Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. New York: Guilford Press. 2000;623–36.
  36. 36. Tracy JL, Robins RW, Tangney JP, editors. The self-conscious emotions: theory and research. New York: Guilford Press; 2007. 493 p.
  37. 37. Tracy JL, Robins RW. Emerging Insights Into the Nature and Function of Pride. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2007 Jun;16(3):147–50.
  38. 38. Gilead M, Katzir M, Eyal T, Liberman N. Neural correlates of processing “self-conscious” vs. “basic” emotions. Neuropsychologia. 2016 Jan;81:207–18. pmid:26707717
  39. 39. Rozin P, Haidt J, McCauley CR. Disgust. In: Handbook of emotions, 3rd ed. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2008. p. 757–76.
  40. 40. Tangney JP, Stuewig J, Mashek DJ. Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:345–72. pmid:16953797
  41. 41. Clarke A, Simpson J, Varese F. A systematic review of the clinical utility of the concept of self-disgust. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. 2019;26(1):110–34. pmid:30251455
  42. 42. Tangney JP, Wagner PE, Hill-Barlow D, Marschall DE, Gramzow R. Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;70(4):797–809. pmid:8636899
  43. 43. Thompson RJ, Berenbaum H. Shame Reactions to Everyday Dilemmas are Associated with Depressive Disorder. Cogn Ther Res. 2006 Dec 4;30(4):415–25.
  44. 44. Dearing RL, Stuewig J, Tangney JP. On the importance of distinguishing shame from guilt: Relations to problematic alcohol and drug use. Addictive Behaviors. 2005 Aug;30(7):1392–404. pmid:16022935
  45. 45. Schoenleber M, Berenbaum H. Shame aversion and shame-proneness in Cluster C personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2010;119(1):197–205. pmid:20141256
  46. 46. Andrews B, Brewin CR, Rose S, Kirk M. Predicting PTSD symptoms in victims of violent crime: the role of shame, anger, and childhood abuse. J Abnorm Psychol. 2000 Feb;109(1):69–73. pmid:10740937
  47. 47. Fergus TA, Valentiner DP, McGrath PB, Jencius S. Shame- and guilt-proneness: Relationships with anxiety disorder symptoms in a clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2010 Dec;24(8):811–5. pmid:20591613
  48. 48. Troop NA, Allan S, Serpell L, Treasure JL. Shame in women with a history of eating disorders. Eur Eat Disorders Rev. 2008 Nov;16(6):480–8. pmid:18240123
  49. 49. Brown MZ, Linehan MM, Comtois KA, Murray A, Chapman AL. Shame as a prospective predictor of self-inflicted injury in borderline personality disorder: A multi-modal analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2009 Oct;47(10):815–22. pmid:19596223
  50. 50. Tangney JP, Stuewig J, Mashek DJ. Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:345–72. pmid:16953797
  51. 51. Moré A. [The Transmission of Trauma and Guilt Feelings Between Generations]. Praxis (Bern 1994). 2019 Apr;108(6):425–30. pmid:31039706
  52. 52. Kochanska G, Gross JN, Lin M-H, Nichols KE. Guilt in Young Children: Development, Determinants, and Relations with a Broader System of Standards. Child Development. 2002 Mar;73(2):461–82. pmid:11949903
  53. 53. American Association of Psychiatric. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub; 2013. 1520 p.
  54. 54. Frick PJ, White SF. Stuewig. J Child Psychol & Psychiat. 2008 Apr;49(4):359–75.
  55. 55. Stuewig J, Tangney JP, Heigel C, Harty L, McCloskey L. Shaming, blaming, and maiming: Functional links among the moral emotions, externalization of blame, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality. 2010 Feb;44(1):91–102. pmid:20369025
  56. 56. Blaney PH. M. Power and T. Dalgleish (1997). Cognition and Emotion From Order to Disorder. Hove: Psychology Press. ISBN 0-86377-738-4. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. 2000;7(4):340–340.
  57. 57. Ille R, Schöggl H, Kapfhammer H-P, Arendasy M, Sommer M, Schienle A. Self-disgust in mental disorders—symptom-related or disorder-specific? Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2014 May;55(4):938–43. pmid:24480418
  58. 58. Overton PG, Markland FE, Taggart HS, Bagshaw GL, Simpson J. Self-disgust mediates the relationship between dysfunctional cognitions and depressive symptomatology. Emotion. 2008 Jun;8(3):379–85. pmid:18540753
  59. 59. Amir N, Najmi S, Bomyea J, Burns M. Disgust and Anger in Social Anxiety. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy. 2010 Mar 1;3(1):3–10.
  60. 60. Ille R, Schöggl H, Kapfhammer H-P, Arendasy M, Sommer M, Schienle A. Self-disgust in mental disorders—symptom-related or disorder-specific? Compr Psychiatry. 2014 May;55(4):938–43. pmid:24480418
  61. 61. Fox JRE, Froom K. Eating disorders: A basic emotion perspective. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2009 Jul;16(4):328–35. pmid:19639651
  62. 62. Olatunji BO, Cox R, Kim EH. Self-Disgust Mediates the Associations Between Shame and Symptoms of Bulimia and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2015 Mar 1;34(3):239–58.
  63. 63. Azlan HA, Overton PG, Simpson J, Powell PA. Differential disgust responding in people with cancer and implications for psychological wellbeing. Psychol Health. 2017;32(1):19–37. pmid:27615058
  64. 64. Buchwitz TM, Maier F, Greuel A, Eggers C. Improving Self-Awareness of Motor Symptoms in Patients With Parkinson’s Disease by Using Mindfulness–A Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 4];11. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00743/full pmid:32362861
  65. 65. Leritz E, Loftis C, Crucian G, Friedman W, Bowers D. Self-Awareness of Deficits in Parkinson Disease. The Clinical Neuropsychologist. 2004 Jan 1;18(3):352–61. pmid:15739807
  66. 66. Mack J, Okai D, Brown RG, Askey-Jones S, Chaudhuri KR, Martin A, et al. The role of self-awareness and cognitive dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease with and without impulse-control disorder. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2013;25(2):141–9. pmid:23686032
  67. 67. Tickle-Degnen L, Saint-Hilaire M, Thomas CA, Habermann B, Martinez LSS, Terrin N, et al. Emergence and evolution of social self-management of Parkinson’s disease: study protocol for a 3-year prospective cohort study. BMC Neurol. 2014 May 2;14:95. pmid:24885181
  68. 68. Vann-Ward T, Morse JM, Charmaz K. Preserving Self: Theorizing the Social and Psychological Processes of Living With Parkinson Disease. Qual Health Res. 2017 Jun 1;27(7):964–82. pmid:28818020
  69. 69. Sitek EJ, Sołtan W, Wieczorek D, Robowski P, Sławek J. Self-awareness of memory function in Parkinson’s disease in relation to mood and symptom severity. Aging & Mental Health. 2011 Mar 1;15(2):150–6. pmid:20924825
  70. 70. Nijhof G. Parkinson’s Disease as a problem of shame in public appearance. Sociol Health & Illness. 1995 Mar;17(2):193–205.
  71. 71. Friedman JH. Parkinson’s disease psychosis 2010: a review article. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2010 Nov;16(9):553–60. pmid:20538500
  72. 72. Ravina B, Marder K, Fernandez HH, Friedman JH, McDonald W, Murphy D, et al. Diagnostic criteria for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease: report of an NINDS, NIMH work group. Mov Disord. 2007 Jun 15;22(8):1061–8. pmid:17266092
  73. 73. Maffoni M, Giardini A, Pierobon A, Ferrazzoli D, Frazzitta G. Stigma Experienced by Parkinson’s Disease Patients: A Descriptive Review of Qualitative Studies [Internet]. Vol. 2017, Parkinson’s Disease. Hindawi; 2017 [cited 2020 Mar 5]. p. e7203259. Available from: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/pd/2017/7203259/
  74. 74. Miller N, Noble E, Jones D, Burn D. Hard to swallow: dysphagia in Parkinson’s disease. Age Ageing. 2006 Nov 1;35(6):614–8. pmid:17047007
  75. 75. Tsatali M, Overton PG, Vivas AB. Self-reported and experimentally induced self-disgust is heightened in Parkinson’s disease: Contribution of behavioural symptoms. Mostile G, editor. PLoS ONE. 2019 Oct 16;14(10):e0223663. pmid:31618239
  76. 76. Schachter S, Singer JE. Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review. 1962 Sep;69:379–99. pmid:14497895
  77. 77. Ekman P, Levenson R, Friesen W. Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science. 1983 Sep 16;221(4616):1208–10. pmid:6612338
  78. 78. Zajonc RB, McIntosh DN. Emotions Research: Some Promising Questions and Some Questionable Promises. Psychol Sci. 1992 Jan;3(1):70–4.
  79. 79. Fawcett C, Liszkowski U. Social Referencing during Infancy and Early Childhood across Cultures. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences [Internet]. Elsevier; 2015 [cited 2020 Oct 21]. p. 556–62. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780080970868231693
  80. 80. Nicolle A, Goel V. Differential impact of beliefs on valence and arousal. Cognition and Emotion. 2013 Feb 1;27(2):263–72. pmid:22783982
  81. 81. Philippot P. The Regulation of Emotion [Internet]. 1st ed. Psychology Press; 2004 [cited 2020 Oct 10]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781410610898
  82. 82. Reddy RP, Korde SP, Kanungo S, Thamodharan A, Rajeswaran J, Bharath RD, et al. Neural Correlates of Emotion: Acquisition versus Innate View Point. Indian J Psychol Med. 2014;36(4):385–91. pmid:25336770
  83. 83. Berntson GG, Bigger JT, Eckberg DL, Grossman P, Kaufmann PG, Malik M, et al. Heart rate variability: origins, methods, and interpretive caveats. Psychophysiology. 1997 Nov;34(6):623–48. pmid:9401419
  84. 84. Chapleau MW, Sabharwal R. Methods of assessing vagus nerve activity and reflexes. Heart Fail Rev. 2011 Mar;16(2):109–27. pmid:20577901
  85. 85. Malik M, Bigger JT, Camm AJ, Kleiger RE, Malliani A, Moss AJ, et al. Heart rate variabilityStandards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Eur Heart J. 1996 Mar 1;17(3):354–81. pmid:8737210
  86. 86. Bradley MM, Lang PJ. Measuring emotion: Behavior, feeling, and physiology. In: Cognitive neuroscience of emotion. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 242–76. (Series in affective science).
  87. 87. Cacioppo J, Berntson G, Larsen J, Poehlmann K, Ito T. The Psychophysiology of Emotion. In: The Handbook of Emotion. 2000. p. 173–91.
  88. 88. Kreibig SD. Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A review. Biological Psychology. 2010 Jul;84(3):394–421. pmid:20371374
  89. 89. Posada-Quintero HF, Chon KH. Innovations in Electrodermal Activity Data Collection and Signal Processing: A Systematic Review. Sensors. 2020 Jan 15;20(2):479. pmid:31952141
  90. 90. Henriques R, Paiva A, Antunes C. On the Need of New Methods to Mine Electrodermal Activity in Emotion-Centered Studies. In: Cao L, Zeng Y, Symeonidis AL, Gorodetsky VI, Yu PS, Singh MP, editors. Agents and Data Mining Interaction [Internet]. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013 [cited 2020 Oct 29]. p. 203–15. (Hutchison D, Kanade T, Kittler J, Kleinberg JM, Mattern F, Mitchell JC, et al., editors. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 7607). Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-36288-0_18
  91. 91. Bryn Farnsworth. GSR and Emotions: What Our Skin Can Tell Us About How We Feel [Internet]. imotions. 2018 [cited 2020 Oct 29]. Available from: https://imotions.com/blog/gsr-emotions/
  92. 92. Bagozzi RP. The role of social and self‐conscious emotions in the regulation of business‐to‐business relationships in salesperson‐customer interactions. Hausman A, editor. Jnl of Bus & Indus Marketing. 2006 Dec;21(7):453–7.
  93. 93. Lagattuta K.H., & Thompson R.A. The development of self- conscious emotions: Cognitive processes and social influences. New York: Guilford. 2007. 91–113 p.
  94. 94. van ‘t Wout M, Kahn RS, Sanfey AG, Aleman A. Affective state and decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Exp Brain Res. 2006 Mar;169(4):564–8. pmid:16489438
  95. 95. Fourie MM, Rauch HGL, Morgan BE, Ellis GFR, Jordaan ER, Thomas KGF. Guilt and pride are heartfelt, but not equally so: The psychophysiology of guilt and pride. Psychophysiology. 2011 Jul;48(7):888–99. pmid:21143611
  96. 96. Pennebaker JW, Chew CH. Behavioral inhibition and electrodermal activity during deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1985;49(5):1427–33. pmid:4078683
  97. 97. Kassam KS, Mendes WB. The Effects of Measuring Emotion: Physiological Reactions to Emotional Situations Depend on whether Someone Is Asking. PLoS One [Internet]. 2013 Jun 5 [cited 2020 Sep 14];8(6). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680163/ pmid:23785407
  98. 98. Harley JM, Jarrell A, Lajoie SP. Emotion regulation tendencies, achievement emotions, and physiological arousal in a medical diagnostic reasoning simulation. Instr Sci. 2019 Apr 1;47(2):151–80.
  99. 99. Neziroglu F, Hickey M, McKay D. Psychophysiological and self-report components of disgust in body dysmorphic disorder: the effects of repeated exposure. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy. 2010;3(1):40–51.
  100. 100. Ambach W, Assmann B, Krieg B, Vaitl D. Face and Voice as Social Stimuli Enhance Differential Physiological Responding in a Concealed Information Test. Front Psychology [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 Oct 12];3. Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00510/abstract
  101. 101. Geven LM, Ben-Shakhar G, Kassin S, Verschuere B. Distinguishing true from false confessions using physiological patterns of concealed information recognition–A proof of concept study. Biological Psychology. 2020 Jul;154:107902. pmid:32439359
  102. 102. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1975 Nov 1;12(3):189–98. pmid:1202204
  103. 103. Dolu N, Süer C, Özesmi Ç, Keleştimur F, Özcan Y. Electrodermal Activity in Hypothyroid Patients and Healthy Subjects. Thyroid. 1999 Aug;9(8):787–90. pmid:10482371
  104. 104. Daniel SE, Lees AJ. Parkinson’s Disease Society Brain Bank, London: overview and research. J Neural Transm Suppl. 1993;39:165–72. pmid:8360656
  105. 105. Dawson ME, Schell AM, Filion DL. The electrodermal system. In: Handbook of psychophysiology, 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 200–23.
  106. 106. Dawson ME, Schell AM, Filion DL. The Electrodermal System. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG, Berntson GG, editors. Handbook of Psychophysiology [Internet]. 4th ed. Cambridge University Press; 2016 [cited 2020 Apr 21]. p. 217–43. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781107415782%23CN-bp-10/type/book_part
  107. 107. Munoz ML, Roon A van, Riese H, Thio C, Oostenbroek E, Westrik I, et al. Validity of (Ultra-)Short Recordings for Heart Rate Variability Measurements. PLOS ONE. 2015 Sep 28;10(9):e0138921. pmid:26414314
  108. 108. Salahuddin L, Cho J, Jeong MG, Kim D. Ultra short term analysis of heart rate variability for monitoring mental stress in mobile settings. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:4656–9. pmid:18003044
  109. 109. Ho MW-R, Chien SH-L, Lu M-K, Chen J-C, Aoh Y, Chen C-M, et al. Impairments in face discrimination and emotion recognition are related to aging and cognitive dysfunctions in Parkinson’s disease with dementia. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 9;10(1):1–8. pmid:31913322
  110. 110. Benedek M, Kaernbach C. A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. J Neurosci Methods. 2010 Jun 30;190(1):80–91. pmid:20451556
  111. 111. Benedek M, Kaernbach C. Decomposition of skin conductance data by means of nonnegative deconvolution. Psychophysiology [Internet]. 2010 Mar [cited 2020 Mar 19]; Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00972.x pmid:20230512
  112. 112. Boucsein W. Electrodermal Activity. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. 635 p.
  113. 113. Boucsein W. Methodological issues in electrodermal measurement. In: Progress in electrodermal research. New York, NY, US: Plenum Press; 1993. p. 31–41. (NATO ASI series: Series A: Life sciences, Vol. 249).
  114. 114. C C, A D, M V der L, L A. The effect of ageing on the recollection of emotional and neutral pictures [Internet]. Vol. 12, Memory (Hove, England). Memory; 2004 [cited 2020 Dec 3]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15724356/
  115. 115. Norel R, Agurto C, Rice JJ, Ho BK, Cecchi GA. Speech-based identification of L-DOPA ON/OFF state in Parkinson’s Disease subjects [Internet]. Neuroscience; 2018 Sep [cited 2020 Oct 23]. Available from: http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/420422
  116. 116. Wadlinger HA, Isaacowitz DM. Looking happy: The experimental manipulation of a positive visual attention bias. Emotion. 2008;8(1):121–6. pmid:18266522
  117. 117. Kaufmann T, Sütterlin S, Schulz SM, Vögele C. ARTiiFACT: a tool for heart rate artifact processing and heart rate variability analysis. Behav Res. 2011 Dec;43(4):1161–70. pmid:21573720
  118. 118. Laborde S, Mosley E, Thayer JF. Heart Rate Variability and Cardiac Vagal Tone in Psychophysiological Research–Recommendations for Experiment Planning, Data Analysis, and Data Reporting. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Nov 19];8. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00213/full
  119. 119. Buendía-Fuentes F, Arnau-Vives MA, Arnau-Vives A, Jiménez-Jiménez Y, Rueda-Soriano J, Zorio-Grima E, et al. High-Bandpass Filters in Electrocardiography: Source of Error in the Interpretation of the ST Segment. ISRN Cardiol [Internet]. 2012 Jun 21 [cited 2020 Mar 16];2012. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388307/ pmid:22778996
  120. 120. Parola F. Use of High-Pass and Low-Pass Electrocardiographic Filters in an International Cardiological Community and Possible Clinical Effects. Advanced Journal of Vascular Medicine [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Mar 16]; Available from: https://www.academia.edu/35337760/Use_of_High-Pass_and_Low-Pass_Electrocardiographic_Filters_in_an_International_Cardiological_Community_and_Possible_Clinical_Effects
  121. 121. Morelli D, Rossi A, Cairo M, Clifton DA. Analysis of the Impact of Interpolation Methods of Missing RR-intervals Caused by Motion Artifacts on HRV Features Estimations. Sensors. 2019 Jul 18;19(14):3163. pmid:31323850
  122. 122. Bach DR. A head-to-head comparison of SCRalyze and Ledalab, two model-based methods for skin conductance analysis. Biological Psychology. 2014 Dec 1;103:63–8. pmid:25148785
  123. 123. Farrow TFD, Johnson NK, Hunter MD, Barker AT, Wilkinson ID, Woodruff PW. Neural correlates of the behavioral-autonomic interaction response to potentially threatening stimuli. Front Hum Neurosci [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2020 Mar 19];6. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00349/full pmid:23335893
  124. 124. Tranel D. Electrodermal activity in cognitive neuroscience: Neuroanatomical and neuropsychological correlates. In: Cognitive neuroscience of emotion. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 192–224. (Series in affective science).
  125. 125. Tranel D, Damasio H. Neuroanatomical correlates of electrodermal skin conductance responses. Psychophysiology. 1994 Sep;31(5):427–38. pmid:7972597
  126. 126. Zahn TP, Grafman J, Tranel D. Frontal lobe lesions and electrodermal activity: effects of significance. Neuropsychologia. 1999 Oct;37(11):1227–41. pmid:10530723
  127. 127. Sturm VE, Ascher EA, Miller BL, Levenson RW. Diminished self-conscious emotional responding in frontotemporal lobar degeneration patients. Emotion. 2008;8(6):861–9. pmid:19102597
  128. 128. Olney NT, Goodkind MS, Lomen-Hoerth C, Whalen PK, Williamson CA, Holley DE, et al. Behaviour, physiology and experience of pathological laughing and crying in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Brain. 2011 Dec;134(12):3455–66. pmid:22155983
  129. 129. Dickerson SS, Kemeny ME, Aziz N, Kim KH, Fahey JL. Immunological effects of induced shame and guilt. Psychosom Med. 2004 Feb;66(1):124–31. pmid:14747646
  130. 130. Uhrig MK, Trautmann N, Baumgärtner U, Treede R-D, Henrich F, Hiller W, et al. Emotion Elicitation: A Comparison of Pictures and Films. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2016 Feb 17 [cited 2020 Aug 6];7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756121/ pmid:26925007
  131. 131. Powell P, Simpson J, Overton P. An introduction to the revolting self: Self-disgust as an emotion schema. In 2015.
  132. 132. Tangney JP, Wagner P, Fletcher C, Gramzow R. Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992;62(4):669–75. pmid:1583590
  133. 133. Alonso A, Huang X, Mosley TH, Heiss G, Chen H. Heart rate variability and the risk of Parkinson disease: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study: Heart Rate Variability and PD. Ann Neurol. 2015 May;77(5):877–83. pmid:25707861
  134. 134. Guieu JD, Libersa C, Destee A, Devos D, Kroumova M, Bordet R, et al. Heart rate variability and Parkinson?s disease severity. Journal of Neural Transmission. 2003 Sep 1;110(9):997–1011. pmid:12928836
  135. 135. Haapaniemi TH, Pursiainen V, Korpelainen JT, Huikuri HV, Sotaniemi KA, Myllylä VV. Ambulatory ECG and analysis of heart rate variability in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001 Mar;70(3):305–10. pmid:11181850
  136. 136. Rodrigues LD, Oliveira LF, Shinoda L, Scorza CA, Faber J, Ferraz HB, et al. Cardiovascular alterations in rats with Parkinsonism induced by 6-OHDA and treated with Domperidone. Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 20;9(1):8965. pmid:31222185
  137. 137. Hillier A, Beversdorf DQ, Raymer AM, Williamson DJG, Heilman KM. Abnormal emotional word ratings in Parkinson’s disease. Neurocase. 2007;13(2):81–5. pmid:17566939
  138. 138. Ke J-Q, Shao S-M, Zheng Y-Y, Fu F-W, Zheng G-Q, Liu C-F. Sympathetic skin response and heart rate variability in predicting autonomic disorders in patients with Parkinson disease: Medicine. 2017 May;96(18):e6523. pmid:28471954
  139. 139. Bari DS, Yacoob Aldosky HY, Martinsen ØG. Simultaneous measurement of electrodermal activity components correlated with age-related differences. J Biol Phys. 2020 Jun;46(2):177–88. pmid:32444917
  140. 140. Garwood M, Engel BT, Kusterer JP. Skin Potential Level: Age and Epidermal Hydration Effects. J Gerontol. 1981 Jan 1;36(1):7–13. pmid:7451840
  141. 141. Lewis MM, Smith AB, Styner M, Gu H, Poole R, Zhu H, et al. Asymmetrical lateral ventricular enlargement in Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurol. 2009 Apr;16(4):475–81. pmid:19187264
  142. 142. Taylor AE, Saint-Cyr JA, Lang AE. Memory and learning in early Parkinson’s disease: Evidence for a “frontal lobe syndrome”. Brain and Cognition. 1990 Jul 1;13(2):211–32. pmid:2390235
  143. 143. Naqvi NH, Bechara A. The hidden island of addiction: the insula. Trends Neurosci. 2009 Jan;32(1):56–67. pmid:18986715
  144. 144. Goodkind MS, Gyurak A, McCarthy M, Miller BL, Levenson RW. Emotion regulation deficits in frontotemporal lobar degeneration and Alzheimer’s disease. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(1):30–7. pmid:20230125
  145. 145. Gyurak A, Goodkind MS, Kramer JH, Miller BL, Levenson RW. Executive functions and the down-regulation and up-regulation of emotion. Cognition & Emotion. 2012 Jan;26(1):103–18. pmid:21432634
Comments are closed.