Cited by 66Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Fronto‐temporal alterations within the first 200 ms during an attentional task distinguish major depression, non‐clinical participants with depressed mood and healthy controls: A potential biomarker?

Open access
Kemp, Andrew. H., Hopkinson, Patrick J., Hermens, Daniel F., Rowe, Donald L., Sumich, Alexander L., Clark, C. Richard, Drinkenburg, Wilhelmus, Abdi, Nadia +5 more·2009·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

Attentional impairment in depression is a cardinal feature of depression and has been proposed as a candidate endophenotype for major depressive disorder. Event‐related potentials (ERPs) elicited by oddball signal detection tasks provide objective markers of selective stimulus processing, and are pertinent endophenotypic markers for depression. While previous studies have sought to determine objective markers for attentional impairment in depression, evidence is inconsistent and may involve heterogeneity in relatively small samples. Here, we brought together oddball ERP recording with source localization of neural correlates of selective attention in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD; n = 78) and participants with depressed mood (PDM; n = 127) relative to healthy controls (CTL; n = 116). The key finding was a dimensional exaggeration of the P200 (140–270 ms) to both target (signal) and non‐target (noise) stimuli, most pronounced in MDD, followed by PDM, relative to CTL. This exaggeration was coupled with slower and more variable response times, suggesting that neural systems are attempting to compensate for a difficulty in discriminating signal from noise. P200 alterations were localised to limbic (hippocampal), temporal and ventral prefrontal regions, key components of the signal detection network. A subsequent reduction and delay in the P300 was also revealed for MDD indicating that the pronounced lack of discrimination in clinical depression may also lead to impaired stimulus evaluation. This P200 increase in depression could provide a potential mechanism for the attentional impairment frequently observed in depression and consequent alterations in the P300 may differentiate clinically significant depression. Hum Brain Mapp, 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.20528

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies comparing oddball task performance often find that unmedicated major depressive disorder patients respond more slowly than healthy controls.

    “Studies comparing oddball task performance by unmedicated MDD patients versus healthy controls often find that MDD patients respond more slowly than controls23–25, suggesting that even in the absence of overt distraction attentional focus is impaired.”

    From Paying attention to attention in depression (2019) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Talairach J, Tournoux P (1988): Co-planar Sterotactic Atlas of the Human Brain. Thieme: Stuttgart.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kemp, A. H., Hopkinson, P. J., Hermens, D. F., Rowe, D. L., Sumich, A. L., Clark, C. R., Drinkenburg, W., Abdi, N., Penrose, R., McFarlane, A., Boyce, P., Gordon, E., & Williams, L. M.
Affiliations
  • Westmead Hospital (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Janssen Research & Development (United States) (US)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-19
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
602-614
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2112724572
Cited by
66
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
  • Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (358770)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
major depressive disorder, attentional impairment, P200, P300, event-related potentials, endophenotypes, depressive mood, source localization, hippocampus, ventral prefrontal cortex, response latency, biomarkers
MeSH terms
Attention, Cerebral Cortex, Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Diagnosis, Differential, Hippocampus, Neuropsychological Tests, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Temporal Lobe, Time Factors, Biomarkers, Prefrontal Cortex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review