Reward-Processing Behavior in Depressed Participants Relative to Healthy Volunteers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Dysfunctional reward processing is a leading candidate mechanism for the development of certain depressive symptoms, such as anhedonia. However, to our knowledge, there has not yet been a systematic assessment of whether and to what extent depression is associated with impairments on behavioral reward-processing tasks. Objective: To determine whether depression is associated with impairments in reward-processing behavior. Data Sources: The MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo databases were searched for studies that investigated reward processing using performance on behavioral tasks by individuals with depression and nondepressed control groups, published between January 1, 1946, and August 16, 2019. Study Selection: Studies that contained data regarding performance by depressed and healthy control groups on reward-processing tasks were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Summary statistics comparing performance between depressed and healthy groups on reward-processing tasks were converted to standardized mean difference (SMD) scores, from which summary effect sizes for overall impairment in reward processing and 4 subcomponent categories were calculated. Study quality, heterogeneity, replicability-index, and publication bias were also assessed. Main Outcome and Measures: Performance on reward-processing tasks. Results: The final data set comprised 48 case-control studies (1387 healthy control individuals and 1767 individuals with major depressive disorder). The mean age was 37.85 years and 58% of the participants were women. These studies used tasks assessing option valuation (n = 9), reward bias (n = 6), reward response vigor (n = 12), reinforcement learning (n = 20), and grip force (n = 1). Across all tasks, depression was associated with small to medium impairments in reward-processing behavior (SMD = 0.345; 95% CI, 0.209-0.480). When examining reward-processing subcomponent categories, impairment was associated with tasks assessing option valuation (SMD = 0.309; 95% CI, 0.147-0.471), reward bias (SMD = 0.644; 95% CI, 0.270-1.017), and reinforcement learning (SMD = 0.352; 95% CI, 0.115-0.588) but not reward response vigor (SMD = 0.083; 95% CI, -0.144 to 0.309). The medication status of the major depressive disorder sample did not explain any of the variance in the overall effect size. There was significant between-study heterogeneity overall and in all subcomponent categories other than option valuation. Significant publication bias was identified overall and in the reinforcement learning category. Conclusions and Relevance: Relative to healthy control individuals, individuals with depression exhibit reward-processing impairments, particularly for tests of reward bias, option valuation, and reinforcement learning. Understanding the neural mechanisms driving these associations may assist in designing novel interventions.

Neural predictors of treatment response to brain stimulation and psychological therapy in depression: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Standard depression treatments, including antidepressant medication and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), are ineffective for many patients. Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been proposed as an alternative treatment, but has shown inconsistent efficacy for depression, and its mechanisms are poorly understood. We recruited unmedicated patients with major depressive disorder (N = 71 approached; N = 39 randomised) for a mechanistic, double-blind, randomized controlled trial consisting of eight weekly sessions of prefrontal tDCS administered to the left prefrontal cortex prior to CBT. We probed (1) whether tDCS improved the efficacy of CBT relative to sham stimulation; and (2) whether neural measures predicted clinical response. We found a modest and non-significant effect of tDCS on clinical outcome over and above CBT (active: 50%; sham: 31.6%; odds ratio: 2.16, 95% CI = 0.59-7.99), but a strong relationship, predicted a priori, between baseline activation during a working memory task in the stimulated prefrontal region and symptom improvement. Repeating our analyses of symptom outcome splitting the sample according to this biomarker revealed that tDCS was significantly superior to sham in individuals with high left prefrontal cortex activation at baseline; we also show 86% accuracy in predicting clinical response using this measure. Exploratory analyses revealed several other regions where activation at baseline was associated with subsequent response to CBT, irrespective of tDCS. This mechanistic trial revealed variable, but predictable, clinical effects of prefrontal tDCS combined with CBT for depression. We have discovered a potential explanation for this variability: individual differences in baseline activation of the region stimulated. Such a biomarker could potentially be used to pre-select patients for trials and, eventually, in the clinic.

Prefrontal cortex stimulation does not affect emotional bias, but may slow emotion identification.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has recently garnered attention as a putative depression treatment. However, the cognitive mechanisms by which it exerts an antidepressant effect are unclear: tDCS may directly alter 'hot' emotional processing biases, or alleviate depression through changes in 'cold' (non-emotional) cognitive function. Here, 75 healthy participants performed a facial emotion identification task during 20 minutes of anodal or sham tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in a double-blind, within-subject crossover design. A subset of 31 participants additionally completed a task measuring attentional distraction during stimulation. Compared to sham stimulation, anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC resulted in an increase in response latency across all emotional conditions. Bayesian analysis showed definitively that tDCS exerted no emotion-dependent effect on behaviour. Thus, we demonstrate that anodal tDCS produces a general, rather than an emotion-specific, effect. We also report a preliminary finding in the subset of participants who completed the distractibility task: increased distractibility during active stimulation correlated significantly with the degree to which tDCS slowed emotion identification. Our results provide insight into the possible mechanisms by which DLPFC tDCS may treat symptoms of depression, suggesting that it may not alter emotional biases, but instead may affect 'cold' cognitive processes.