Abstract
Background Differences in affective processing have previously been shown in functional neurological disorder (FND); however, the mechanistic relevance is uncertain. We tested the hypotheses that highly arousing affective stimulation would result in elevated subjective functional neurological symptoms (FNS), and this would be associated with elevated autonomic reactivity. The possible influence of cognitive detachment was also explored.
Methods Individuals diagnosed with FND (motor symptoms/seizures; n=14) and healthy controls (HCs; n=14) viewed Positive, Negative, and Neutral images in blocks, whilst passively observing the stimuli (“Watch”) or detaching themselves (“Distance”). The FND group rated their primary FNS, and all participants rated subjective physical (arousal, pain, fatigue) and psychological states (positive/negative affect, dissociation), immediately after each block. Skin conductance (SC) and heartrate (HR) were monitored continuously.
Results FNS ratings were higher after Negative compared to Positive and Neutral blocks in the FND group (p=0.002, ηp2=0.386); however, this effect was diminished in the Distance condition relative to the Watch condition (p=0.018, ηp2=0.267). SC and/or HR correlated with FNS ratings in the Negative-Watch and Neutral-Distance conditions (r-values: 0.527-0.672, p-values: 0.035-0.006). The groups did not differ in subjective affect or perceived arousal (p-values: 0.541-0.919, ηp2: <0.001-0.015).
Conclusions Emotionally significant events may exert an influence on FNS which is related to autonomic activation rather than altered subjective affect or perceived arousal. This influence may be modulated by cognitive detachment. Further work is needed to determine the relevance and neural bases of these processes in specific FND phenotypes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by a Medical Research Council Career Development Award to SP [MR/V032771/1]. This paper represents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Health Faculties (High Risk) Research Ethics Committee of Kings College London gave ethical approval for this work (ref HR/DP-21/22-28714).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data available on reasonable request.
