@article{AsterRomanosWalitzaetal.2022,
  author    = {Aster, Hans-Christoph and Romanos, Marcel and Walitza, Susanne and Gerlach, Manfred and M{\"u}hlberger, Andreas and Rizzo, Albert and Andreatta, Marta and Hasenauer, Natalie and Hartrampf, Philipp E. and Nerlich, Kai and Reiners, Christoph and Lorenz, Reinhard and Buck, Andreas K. and Deserno, Lorenz},
  title     = {Responsivity of the striatal dopamine system to methylphenidate — A within-subject I-123-β-CIT-SPECT study in male children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},
  issn      = {1664-0640},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyt.2022.804730},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-270862},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background: Methylphenidate (MPH) is the first-line pharmacological treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). MPH binds to the dopamine (DA) transporter (DAT), which has high density in the striatum. Assessments of the striatal dopamine transporter by single positron emission computed tomography (SPECT) in childhood and adolescent patients are rare but can provide insight on how the effects of MPH affect DAT availability. The aim of our within-subject study was to investigate the effect of MPH on DAT availability and how responsivity to MPH in DAT availability is linked to clinical symptoms and cognitive functioning. Methods Thirteen adolescent male patients (9-16 years) with a diagnosis of ADHD according to the DSM-IV and long-term stimulant medication (for at least 6 months) with MPH were assessed twice within 7 days using SPECT after application of I-123-β-CIT to examine DAT binding potential (DAT BP). SPECT measures took place in an on- and off-MPH status balanced for order across participants. A virtual reality continuous performance test was performed at each time point. Further clinical symptoms were assessed for baseline off-MPH. Results On-MPH status was associated with a highly significant change (-29.9\%) of striatal DAT BP as compared to off-MPH (t = -4.12, p = 0.002). A more pronounced change in striatal DAT BP was associated with higher off-MPH attentional and externalizing symptom ratings (Pearson r = 0.68, p = 0.01). Striatal DAT BP off-MPH, but not on-MPH, was associated with higher symptom ratings (Pearson r = 0.56, p = 0.04). Conclusion Our findings corroborate previous reports from mainly adult samples that MPH changes striatal DAT BP availability and suggest higher off-MPH DAT BP, likely reflecting low baseline DA levels, as a marker of symptom severity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HerzogAndreattaSchneideretal.2021,
  author    = {Herzog, Katharina and Andreatta, Marta and Schneider, Kristina and Schiele, Miriam A. and Domschke, Katharina and Romanos, Marcel and Deckert, J{\"u}rgen and Pauli, Paul},
  title     = {Reducing Generalization of Conditioned Fear: Beneficial Impact of Fear Relevance and Feedback in Discrimination Training},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.665711},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-239970},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Anxiety patients over-generalize fear, possibly because of an incapacity to discriminate threat and safety signals. Discrimination trainings are promising approaches for reducing such fear over-generalization. Here we investigated the efficacy of a fear-relevant vs. a fear-irrelevant discrimination training on fear generalization and whether the effects are increased with feedback during training. Eighty participants underwent two fear acquisition blocks, during which one face (conditioned stimulus, CS+), but not another face (CS-), was associated with a female scream (unconditioned stimulus, US). During two generalization blocks, both CSs plus four morphs (generalization stimuli, GS1-GS4) were presented. Between these generalization blocks, half of the participants underwent a fear-relevant discrimination training (discrimination between CS+ and the other faces) with or without feedback and the other half a fear-irrelevant discrimination training (discrimination between the width of lines) with or without feedback. US expectancy, arousal, valence ratings, and skin conductance responses (SCR) indicated successful fear acquisition. Importantly, fear-relevant vs. fear-irrelevant discrimination trainings and feedback vs. no feedback reduced generalization as reflected in US expectancy ratings independently from one another. No effects of training condition were found for arousal and valence ratings or SCR. In summary, this is a first indication that fear-relevant discrimination training and feedback can improve the discrimination between threat and safety signals in healthy individuals, at least for learning-related evaluations, but not evaluations of valence or (physiological) arousal.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FarmerStrzelczykFinisguerraetal.2021,
  author    = {Farmer, Adam D. and Strzelczyk, Adam and Finisguerra, Alessandra and Gourine, Alexander V. and Gharabaghi, Alireza and Hasan, Alkomiet and Burger, Andreas M. and Jaramillo, Andr{\´e}s M. and Mertens, Ann and Majid, Arshad and Verkuil, Bart and Badran, Bashar W. and Ventura-Bort, Carlos and Gaul, Charly and Beste, Christian and Warren, Christopher M. and Quintana, Daniel S. and H{\"a}mmerer, Dorothea and Freri, Elena and Frangos, Eleni and Tobaldini, Eleonora and Kaniusas, Eugenijus and Rosenow, Felix and Capone, Fioravante and Panetsos, Fivos and Ackland, Gareth L. and Kaithwas, Gaurav and O'Leary, Georgia H. and Genheimer, Hannah and Jacobs, Heidi I. L. and Van Diest, Ilse and Schoenen, Jean and Redgrave, Jessica and Fang, Jiliang and Deuchars, Jim and Sz{\´e}les, Jozsef C. and Thayer, Julian F. and More, Kaushik and Vonck, Kristl and Steenbergen, Laura and Vianna, Lauro C. and McTeague, Lisa M. and Ludwig, Mareike and Veldhuizen, Maria G. and De Couck, Marijke and Casazza, Marina and Keute, Marius and Bikson, Marom and Andreatta, Marta and D'Agostini, Martina and Weymar, Mathias and Betts, Matthew and Prigge, Matthias and Kaess, Michael and Roden, Michael and Thai, Michelle and Schuster, Nathaniel M. and Montano, Nicola and Hansen, Niels and Kroemer, Nils B. and Rong, Peijing and Fischer, Rico and Howland, Robert H. and Sclocco, Roberta and Sellaro, Roberta and Garcia, Ronald G. and Bauer, Sebastian and Gancheva, Sofiya and Stavrakis, Stavros and Kampusch, Stefan and Deuchars, Susan A. and Wehner, Sven and Laborde, Sylvain and Usichenko, Taras and Polak, Thomas and Zaehle, Tino and Borges, Uirassu and Teckentrup, Vanessa and Jandackova, Vera K. and Napadow, Vitaly and Koenig, Julian},
  title     = {International Consensus Based Review and Recommendations for Minimum Reporting Standards in Research on Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (Version 2020)},
  series = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
  issn      = {1662-5161},
  doi       = {10.3389/fnhum.2020.568051},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-234346},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Given its non-invasive nature, there is increasing interest in the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) across basic, translational and clinical research. Contemporaneously, tVNS can be achieved by stimulating either the auricular branch or the cervical bundle of the vagus nerve, referred to as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation(VNS) and transcutaneous cervical VNS, respectively. In order to advance the field in a systematic manner, studies using these technologies need to adequately report sufficient methodological detail to enable comparison of results between studies, replication of studies, as well as enhancing study participant safety. We systematically reviewed the existing tVNS literature to evaluate current reporting practices. Based on this review, and consensus among participating authors, we propose a set of minimal reporting items to guide future tVNS studies. The suggested items address specific technical aspects of the device and stimulation parameters. We also cover general recommendations including inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, outcome parameters and the detailed reporting of side effects. Furthermore, we review strategies used to identify the optimal stimulation parameters for a given research setting and summarize ongoing developments in animal research with potential implications for the application of tVNS in humans. Finally, we discuss the potential of tVNS in future research as well as the associated challenges across several disciplines in research and clinical practice.},
  language  = {en}
}