Subjective cognitive complaints and its associations to response inhibition and neural activation in patients with stress-related exhaustion disorder

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics.

Variable	Sample (N = 56)	n included in analysis
Demographics
Female	45 (80.36%)	56
Age	42.76 (8.60)	56
Range	22–60
Education		56
Elementary school	3 (5.36%)
High school	22 (39.29%)
University	31 (55.36%)
Occupation^a		56
Healthcare sector	22 (39.30%)
Education sector/academia	12 (21.40%)
Other^b	22 (39.30%)
Clinical characteristics
Subjective cognitive complaints (PRMQ)	48.64 (10.23)	50
Burnout (SMBQ)	5.01 (0.88)	52
Depression (HADS)	7.23 (3.71)	52
Anxiety (HADS)	9.94 (3.76)	52

Note: Mean (SD) and n (%) are presented for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

^aBased on self-reported occupation and/or current employer at baseline.

^bComprises a range of professions including retail and the industrial sector.

Table 2. Performance on the flanker task.

Variable		Median	Range	Mean	SD	Skewness		Kurtosis
						Statistic	SE	Statistic	SE
Congruent
RT		692.52	782.21	726.46	150.05	1.16	.32	2.28	.63
Accuracy		34	7	33.50	1.22	−3.85	.32	17.02	.63
Incongruent
RT		834.46	898.68	868.46	180.64	1.08	.32	1.57	.63
Accuracy		33	8	32.23	2.23	−1.53	.32	1.43	.63
Inhibition cost
RT		−133.10	365.11	−142.00	77.86	−1.14	.32	1.51	.63
Accuracy		1	10	1.27	1.98	1.81	.32	3.40	.63

Note. Response times (RT) are presented in milliseconds. Accuracy denotes correct answers within the 2 s time limit. SD: standard deviation; SE: standard error.

Table 3. Associations between PRMQ and SMBQ levels and flanker task performance.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. PRMQ^a	–
2. SMBQ^b	.25 (.05–.42) [3.58]	–
3. Congruent RT^c	−.00 (−.18–.18) [0.18]	.22 (.02–.38) [2.15]	–
4. Congruent accuracy^c	.04 (−.15–.22) [0.20]	−.13 (−.30–.06) [0.43]	−.21 (−.37–−.03) [2.16]	–
5. Incongruent RT^c	.00 (−.19–.18) [0.18]	.16 (−.03–.33) [0.66]	.76 (.54–.87) [>100]	−.25 (−.41–−.07) [7.26]	–
6. Incongruent accuracy^c	.08 (−.11–.26) [0.26]	−.10 (−.27–.09) [0.30]	−.10 (−.27–.08) [0.30]	.38 (−.19–.53) [>100]	−.08 (−.25–.10) [0.25]	–
7. Inhibition cost RT^c	.03 (−.16–.21) [.19]	.09 (−.09–.27) [0.28]	−.08 (−.25–.09) [0.26]	.12 (−.06–.28) [0.38]	−.33 (−.48–−.14) [82.65]	−.04 (−.21–.14) [0.19]	–
8. Inhibition cost accuracy^c	−.10 (−.28–.09) [0.32]	.07 (−.12–.24) [0.23]	.01 (−.17–.18) [0.17]	−.03 (−.20–.15) [0.18]	−.02 (−.19–.15) [0.18]	−.82 (−.91–−.59) [>100]	.05 (−.13–.22) [0.20]	–

Note: Kendall’s tau correlations. Values in rounded brackets indicate the 95% confidence for each correlation. Values in square brackets indicate Bayes factor 10. PRMQ: Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire; SMBQ: Shirom-Melamed Burnout Questionnaire.

^an = 50.

^bn = 52.

^cn = 56.

Table 4. Regions showing significant activation in the incongruent relative congruent interference contrast.

Brain region	Nr of voxels	BA	L/R	X	y	z	t
Cluster 1	2241
1. Inferior occipital gyrus		19	R	38	−80	8	9.45
2. Superior parietal Lobule		7	R	22	−64	46	7.79
3. Inferior occipital gyrus		19	R	44	−78	−6	7.54
4. Superior occipital gyrus		19	R	28	−70	30	6.77
6. Middle occipital gyrus		19	R	34	−82	22	6.07
7. Superior parietal lobule		7	R	34	−48	48	5.76
8. Inferior occipital gyrus		19	R	44	−64	−10	5.68
9. Inferior temporal gyrus		37	R	48	−54	−16	5.52
10. Supramarginal gyrus		40	R	38	−38	40	5.52
Cluster 2	786
1. Inferior occipital gyrus		19	L	−46	−74	−6	7.60
2. Middle occipital gyrus		18	L	−32	−82	8	7.08
3. Inferior occipital gyrus		18	L	−36	−80	−2	5.89
Cluster 3	79
1. Middle frontal gyrus		6	R	26	−2	52	5.94
Cluster 4	63
1. Supplementary motor area		6	R	6	12	46	5.60
2. Supplementary motor area		6	L	−6	12	44	5.49
Cluster 5	51
1. Superior parietal lobule		7	R	−22	−62	54	5.55
Cluster 6	15
1. Insula		13	R	32	28	−2	5.52
Cluster 7	13
1. Precentral gyrus		6	L	−26	−10	54	5.23
Cluster 8	11
1. Superior occipital gyrus		19	L	−24	−72	26	5.21

Note. p < .05 FWE corrected. Locations are reported in MNI-space.

Figure 1. Cluster showing a positive correlation between beta weights and PRMQ-score when contrasting incongruent and congruent Flanker trials. (A,B) Sagittal and axial views of the cluster (x = 22, y = −84, z = 28; t = 4.22) comprising the right superior occipital gyrus and cuneus. (C) The regression analysis revealing a significant positive association between beta weights of this cluster for the incongruent vs congruent contrast (y-axis) and PRMQ score (x-axis), R = 0.27, p =.0001. (D) The additional analysis showing differences in beta values of the same cluster (x-axis) when contrasting the two task conditions (i.e. the incongruent and congruent trials, respectively) to the session constant, indicating lower neural activity during task compared to mean session activity. The bar furthest down in the chart displays the difference in beta values when contrasting incongruent vs congruent trials.

The figure comprises images A, B, C and D. A and B are MR images highlighting the Cluster showing a positive correlation between beta weights and PRMQ-score when contrasting incongruent and congruent Flanker trials. C shows a scatterplot and a regression line indicating a significant correlation between the contrasted incongruent vs congruent beta values (Y-axis) and PRMQ score (X-axis). D is a chart with three bars marked “incongruent vs constant,” “congruent vs congruent” and “incongruent vs congruent.” The former two bars both indicate negative values (−1.67 and −1.59, respectively) while the latter indicates a positive value (0.08).