Abstract
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a debilitating condition characterized by altered arousal, mood, and cognition. Studies report attentional alterations such as threat bias in individuals with PTSD, though this work has largely been conducted within emotionally-charged contexts (e.g., threatening stimuli). Emerging behavioral evidence suggests that PTSD-related attention deficits exist even in the absence of threatening cues or anxiety triggers. However, the role and functioning of attention brain circuits as they relate to PTSD remains underexplored. In this mini review, we highlight recent work using non-emotional stimuli to investigate the neurobiology of attention and disruptions to attention-related brain function among individuals with PTSD. We then discuss gaps in the current literature, including questions pertaining to the neural circuitry of attentional alterations in PTSD, as well as the contributions that trauma exposure, PTSD symptoms, comorbidities, and pre-existing vulnerabilities may have in this relationship. Finally, we suggest future directions for this emerging area of research, which may further inform knowledge surrounding the neurobiological underpinnings of PTSD and potential treatments.
1. Introduction
Life stressors fog the mind, diverting attention away from daily functions. Typically, this foggy feeling dissipates quickly. However, this feeling can persist in the presence of severe stressors (e.g., traumatic events), as is the case for individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Criterion A traumatic events encompass “actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence,” (:271), including physical/sexual assault, disasters, and war exposure. Lifetime trauma incidence varies worldwide, ranging 28–85% (), whereas prevalence of PTSD ranges 6.8–9.2% (; ).
Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms include intrusive thoughts, avoidance behaviors, hyperarousal, and negative alterations in mood/cognition (). This debilitating disorder frequently co-occurs with other disorders () and causes substantial burden, resulting in poor psychosocial () and physical function (). PTSD also impacts society, with an estimated $232.2 billion yearly excess economic burden in the U.S. (). Ostensibly, PTSD has far-reaching effects persisting long after the traumatic event.
First-line PTSD treatments include pharmacologic (e.g., paroxetine, sertraline), and psychological approaches (e.g., prolonged exposure). While current treatments reduce symptoms for many (; ), improvements are needed due to small treatment effect sizes (), frequent diagnosis retention (), and poor acceptability (). These limitations may reflect substantial heterogeneity in PTSD (), and/or that current treatments may not target underlying aspects or subtypes of PTSD ().
Recent research highlights the potential role of altered attention in PTSD (; ). Attention is “the range of processes that regulate access to capacity-limited systems, such as awareness, higher perceptual processes, and motor action” (). Attentional abnormalities could contribute to hyperarousal and intrusive PTSD symptoms, manifesting as emotional reactivity or inattention (). Investigating cross-cutting characteristics of psychiatric disorders, like attention, can improve knowledge of the development, expression, and treatment of PTSD (). Nevertheless, compared to related constructs like memory (), attention-related brain circuits as they relate to PTSD remain underexplored. To date, PTSD research predominantly examines attentional processes under threat cues () and other emotionally-charged contexts (e.g., neurobehavioral attention biases toward fearful faces ). However, a recent systematic review of neuropsychological studies suggests that PTSD-related behavioral attention deficits remain even in neutral settings without emotional stimuli (), though the neuroanatomical underpinnings of this relationship are under-researched.
Here, we review current literature on attention-related brain function in individuals with PTSD. First, we briefly overview attention-related brain networks and two well-validated tasks used to study attentional processes. We then summarize recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies highlighting altered attention-related brain function associated with PTSD symptoms in the absence of emotional cues. Finally, we discuss gaps in the literature and offer future research recommendations.
2. Attention-related brain networks
Across disciplines, attention has been modeled under various frameworks (see for a review). Electrophysiological studies in non-human primates provide evidence for signal detection theory, suggesting that distinct neuronal mechanisms contribute to different behavioral aspects of attention (e.g., sensitivity and response to stimuli; ). In humans, neurobehavioral studies support a model of three anatomically and functionally distinct attention networks (alerting, orienting, and executive) involving different neuromodulatory systems and brain regions (). Alerting attention refers to the maintenance of an arousal state to temporally process stimuli, while orienting attention describes the ability to spatially attune toward stimuli. Executive attention enables voluntary attentional control, as well as conflicting stimuli detection and resolution.
Norepinephrine facilitates alerting attention with projections from the locus coeruleus () to various brain regions in the parietal and frontal cortices (). Acetylcholine modulates orienting attention () through the dorsal (DAN) and ventral attention networks (VAN; ; Figure 1A). The DAN exerts top-down attentional control and includes the intraparietal sulcus and frontal eye fields. In contrast, the VAN facilitates bottom-up control to direct attention toward salient stimuli and is anchored by the temporoparietal junction and inferior/middle frontal gyri. Together, these networks interact dynamically in service of flexible attentional control ().
FIGURE 1
Dopamine and serotonin govern executive attention under two distinct networks: the cingulo-opercular (CON) and frontoparietal networks (FPN; ; Figure 1B). The CON provides stable surveillance of attentional performance and involves the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), anterior insula, and thalamus. The FPN, anchored by the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and inferior parietal lobule, initiates and adjusts attention and may also control spatial orienting and emotional regulation processes (; ). Opposing these executive attention networks is the default-mode network (DMN; Figure 1C), which deactivates during tasks and activates during rest periods. The DMN facilitates internally-directed mental activity and includes the ventromedial/dorsomedial prefrontal cortices and posterior cingulate cortex/precuneus ().
The salience network (SN; Figure 1D) shares a similar role to the VAN in detecting salient stimuli (e.g., threats, rewards). The anterior insula and dACC anchor the SN, but can also incorporate subcortical structures (e.g., the amygdala). Notably, the SN, VAN, and CON are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, likely due to their closely related roles and anatomical overlap (). However, evidence suggests that these networks are functionally distinct (; ). Specifically, the SN recruits task-control networks and facilitates the switch between the FPN and DMN, whereas the CON provides stable task performance monitoring (; ; ). The SN also broadly detects salient information, including interoceptive stimuli, whereas the VAN detects exogenous stimuli (). For further discussion, see ; ; .
3. Attention-related brain and behavioral tasks
Several fMRI tasks measure attention-related brain and behavioral responses across different domains (see Tables 3, 4 in ). Widely used, continuous performance tasks (CPT) capture sustained attention through repeated stimuli presentation over long time periods (Figure 2A). During a CPT, participants respond to target stimuli while inhibiting responses to others. In line with signal detection theory, the CPT can provide separable measures of participants’ ability to detect target stimuli (i.e., sensitivity) and appropriate initiation or inhibition toward stimuli (i.e., response; ).
FIGURE 2
The Attention Network Test (ANT; ) concurrently evaluates alerting, orienting, and executive attention networks (Figures 2B–E). In the ANT, participants identify the direction of a central target arrow, which is flanked by cues facing the same or opposite direction and measures executive attention. Some trials are preceded by a warning cue to signal the incoming target and may indicate its future location, which measures alerting and orienting attention, respectively.
4. Studies of altered attention-related brain function associated with PTSD
Here, we review four fMRI studies highlighting the role of non-emotionally driven attention in PTSD.
4.1. Block et al. (2017)
In this study, 49 male combat-exposed veterans with PTSD and 26 healthy control (HC) male civilians completed the ANT. found no alerting or executive attention differences between groups; however, they reported individuals with PTSD had impaired orienting attention relative to HC. Further, orienting attention performance negatively correlated with intrusive symptoms of PTSD. The authors suggest that PTSD’s effect on orienting attention may indicate an impairment in disengaging from cues, which may contribute to PTSD-related threat biases (), though this disengagement concern encompasses non-emotional stimuli as well. In addition, the authors explored the association between DAN resting-state functional connectivity (rs-FC) and orienting attention performance. Poorer orienting attention was associated with greater cross-network rs-FC between the middle frontal gyrus (considered a DAN node in this study) and the right amygdala (SN). However, only the HC group significantly displayed this relationship, suggesting the absence of an expected brain-behavior correlation in the PTSD group. Independent of attentional performance, the PTSD group exhibited higher rs-FC between the DAN (middle frontal gyrus) and the SN (right amygdala). Together, the authors suggest that these findings indicate impaired orienting attention and a disruption in attention-related brain networks (i.e., DAN, SN) in PTSD compared with HC.
4.2. Block et al. (2020)
The previous study showed general alterations in orienting attention and underlying brain circuits among individuals with PTSD. To confirm whether this effect stemmed from difficulties in disengaging from spatial cues (or reflected different utilization of cues), had 31 individuals with PTSD and 21 HC (community sample, 93% female) complete an adapted ANT. The adapted ANT includes an invalid cue appearing in the opposite location of the target, and participants’ responses provide information on spatial cue disengagement/utilization (the “validity effect”; Figure 2F). Compared with HC, those with PTSD showed a smaller validity effect, indicating lower spatial cue utilization to inform subsequent behavior. Task-based fMRI data collected during the ANT supported a brain-behavior correlation between the validity effect and SN activity (right insula) during orienting trials. Interestingly, this relationship significantly differed between groups: lower spatial cue utilization was associated with higher SN activity in the PTSD group and lower activity in the HC group. Notably, this study included a third group of trauma-exposed controls without PTSD. However, this group did not differ from the PTSD or HC groups in validity effect or its association with SN activity, suggesting that spatial attention deficits may be associated with trauma exposure itself ().
4.3. Esterman et al. (2020)
In a sample of predominantly male (90%) combat-exposed veterans with (n = 140) and without (n = 89) PTSD, examined the relationship between attention-related behavior and rs-FC of seven core networks (). Composite scores of attentional performance were generated using neuropsychological tasks. Results showed more individuals with PTSD had clinical-level attentional impairments compared to those without PTSD. Those with PTSD and attentional impairments demonstrated lower within-VAN rs-FC relative to those without attentional impairments and those without PTSD. Further, among this subgroup, lower composite scores (greater impairments) were correlated with lower within-VAN rs-FC. Interestingly, these effects were specific to attention and no other cognitive domains (e.g., verbal memory). Together, these findings indicate a PTSD neurocognitive subtype characterized by attentional impairments and lower within-VAN rs-FC.
4.4. Evans et al. (2022)
conducted several studies examining the neural circuitry underlying PTSD-related attentional impairments. First, two independent samples of post-9/11 veterans (ntotal = 327, ∼90% male) completed the gradual-onset CPT (gradCPT), which assesses sustained attention ability and response strategy (e.g., impulsive responding). They found greater PTSD symptoms were associated with lesser sustained attention ability, but not impulsive response strategies.
To disentangle the neural correlates of this finding, fMRI was used in a third independent sample of 117 post-9/11 veterans (∼92% male). The authors hypothesized that PTSD-related sustained attention differences may reflect a dysregulation of neural systems that: (1) support effortful and/or automatic control during active attentional demands, or (2) are global and not necessarily specific to sustained attention demands. The latter hypothesis was based on recent neurobiological models suggesting that PTSD symptoms are associated with global patterns of dysfunction within large-scale neurocognitive networks—particularly the SN, DMN, and FPN (the “triple network hypothesis”)–even during resting-state conditions (; ). To examine these hypotheses, the authors measured PTSD symptoms’ impact on brain-behavior synchronization during the gradCPT and during resting-state. Attentional fluctuations were measured by reaction time (RT) variability across the gradCPT, wherein higher RT variability periods reflect suboptimal attention and lower RT variability periods reflect more optimal attention. Importantly, sustained attention fluctuations vary with neural network activity, specifically in the DAN (i.e., brain-behavior synchronization; ). In other words, attention fluctuates across time, and these behavioral fluctuations correspond with DAN activity. Results showed greater PTSD symptoms were associated with weaker positive DAN synchronization which was, in turn, associated with impaired sustained attention. Interestingly, PTSD symptoms were not associated with task-based activity or rs-FC within or between the SN, DMN, and FPN. These findings suggest that PTSD symptoms selectively impair sustained attention ability and DAN engagement, rather than correspond with a more global pattern of dysfunction.
5. Discussion and summary
Recent research links PTSD to altered attention-related behavior, even when emotional stimuli are absent (); however, the current neuroanatomical understanding of this relationship is limited. Here, we examined four recent studies that highlight attention-related brain function in individuals with PTSD symptoms in the presence of non-emotional cues. Findings indicate that PTSD symptoms are associated with poorer orienting attention (), possibly due to lesser spatial cue utilization (), suboptimal sustained attention performance (), and/or overall attentional impairment (). FMRI analyses showed that PTSD symptoms are associated with altered brain-behavior correlations within or between three core attentional-control networks: the DAN, VAN, and SN. Together, these studies support a general impairment in fundamental attentional processes and altered network function in individuals with PTSD symptoms.
The behavioral data evidence PTSD-related sustained and orienting attention deficits. suggest that PTSD-related sustained attention deficits may contribute to functional impairments (e.g., maintaining employment). propose that PTSD-related effects on orienting attention contribute to contextual processing differences, potentially explaining the abnormal fear responses in neutral, non-threatening environments reported in PTSD. Altered visual processing may disrupt attention networks and contribute to these difficulties (or vice versa; ). Interestingly, recent evidence links structural ventral visual stream covariance to flashback and nightmare symptoms after a traumatic event, and the integrity of these areas predicts future PTSD symptom severity (). Future studies should investigate the role of visual processing in attention-related brain function and behavior in individuals with PTSD.
All reviewed studies reported PTSD-related alterations within and between crucial top-down and bottom-up attentional control networks (i.e., the DAN, VAN, and SN). findings of PTSD-related reductions in DAN synchronization are intriguing, considering the DAN’s top-down control over visuospatial attention. Individuals with PTSD in studies (, ) exhibited (1) an absent but expected brain-behavior correlation between orienting attention and DAN-SN rs-FC and (2) a relationship between the validity effect and SN activity. Given the DAN, VAN, and SN orchestrate attentional resources (), these findings suggest that salient stimuli detected by the VAN/SN may fail to appropriately redirect attentional control by interrupting the DAN’s processes in individuals with PTSD. These networks also control the DMN, with the DAN/SN suppressing activity () and the SN facilitating the FPN-DMN switch (). Therefore, these network alterations may indicate an inability to redirect attention away from internal stimuli and toward exogenous demands. Future studies should further investigate this phenomenon.
Interestingly, SN dysfunction may be a shared feature across disorders, as meta-analyses comparing patients with various Axis I disorders to HC reveal consistent patterns of gray matter loss and abnormal activation in the insula and other SN nodes (; ). Considering PTSD frequently co-occurs with other disorders (), the reported effects of PTSD on attention-related brain-behavior function could represent cross-cutting psychopathology. Additionally, PTSD-related effects on attentional processes may be due to significant symptom heterogeneity (), suggesting subtypes may better characterize PTSD and treatment response (). identified a PTSD subtype hallmarked by attentional impairments and lower within-VAN rsFC, potentially contributing to other cognitive disruptions (e.g., memory) by increasing distractions or intrusions (). Furthermore, trauma-exposed controls did not differ significantly from PTSD or HC groups (c.f. ), suggesting that altered attentional processes represent a pre-existing vulnerability, and/or that trauma exposure itself may induce such alterations. For example, interpersonal early-life trauma, rather than PTSD, was found to contribute to neurobehavioral attention abnormalities in a sample of veterans (). Together, these ideas necessitate studies to disentangle the role of trauma exposure, PTSD expression, comorbidities, and/or pre-existing vulnerabilities in attentional processes.
Attention difficulties are common in PTSD and extend beyond threat bias to affect general cognition, yet current treatments often fail to target these symptoms (). Further, attentional impairments may maintain symptoms and interfere with treatment response (). propose that attention-targeting treatments (e.g., methylphenidate, attention training) may fill gaps in current approaches by addressing cognitive dysfunction in PTSD. Research utilizing non-emotional stimuli would elucidate the role of cognitive attention in PTSD symptom maintenance and treatment response, and potentially enhance interventions. Used alongside emotional stimuli, this research could disentangle the cognitive and emotional mechanisms driving the complex neurobiology of PTSD.
Emerging evidence supports the link between PTSD symptoms and general attentional abnormalities; yet, several questions remain unanswered. Three out of four studies included predominantly white, male veterans, which limits the generalizability of findings. Future investigations should include individuals who are female, from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, and exposed to civilian trauma. The lack of research conducted during substantial attention network development (e.g., childhood; ) is significant. Notably, most individuals (61–68%) experience trauma during developmental periods (; ), and many psychiatric disorders–including PTSD–originate during this time (). Furthermore, early life trauma, particularly interpersonal trauma, impacts attentional processes with observable effects well into adulthood (), though trauma’s impact during development is under-researched. Consequently, it is imperative to investigate the impact of trauma exposure and/or PTSD on attention network development.
To date, few neuroimaging studies employing non-emotional cues to investigate attentional processes have been conducted. This review provides preliminary evidence that PTSD symptoms impact brain-behavior correlations even in the absence of emotional cues, suggesting a broad impairment in attention-related brain networks. It is crucial for future research to both examine brain-based subtypes of attentional alterations associated with PTSD and untangle the effects of PTSD, trauma exposure, comorbidities, and other significant factors such as childhood trauma. Nevertheless, this review contributes to the growing neuropsychological evidence highlighting the prevalence of attention deficits among individuals with PTSD and emphasizes the need for further research in this area to inform treatment strategies.
Statements
Author contributions
SE and HM were involved in the initial conceptualization of the topic and produced the first drafts of the manuscript. CZ, LG, JE, AB, CC, and MS all provided valuable insights in the formation of the topic. All authors critically reviewed and revised the manuscript and figures, and approve of the manuscript’s submission.
Funding
The senior author (HM) was supported by the National Institutes of Health (awards K01 MH119241, R21 HD105882, and R01 MH132830). The first author (SE) was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (award T32 GM139807) and through a Graduate Research Assistantship from School of Medicine, Wayne State University.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AhmadianA. J.NeylanT. C.MetzlerT.CohenB. E. (2019). Longitudinal association of PTSD symptoms and self-reported physical functioning among veterans.J. Affect. Disord.2501–8. 10.1016/J.JAD.2019.02.048
2
AkikiT. J.AverillC. L.AbdallahC. G. (2017). A network-based neurobiological model of PTSD: Evidence from structural and functional neuroimaging studies.Curr. Psychiatry Rep.19:81. 10.1007/S11920-017-0840-4
3
American Psychiatric Association [APA] (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5, 5th Edn. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
4
Aston-JonesG.CohenJ. D. (2005). An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance.Annu. Rev. Neurosci.28403–450. 10.1146/ANNUREV.NEURO.28.061604.135709
5
AupperleR. L.MelroseA. J.SteinM. B.PaulusM. P. (2012). Executive function and PTSD: Disengaging from trauma. Neuropharmacology62:686. 10.1016/J.NEUROPHARM.2011.02.008
6
BenjetC.BrometE.KaramE. G.KesslerR. C.McLaughlinK. A.RuscioA. M.et al (2016). The epidemiology of traumatic event exposure worldwide: Results from the World Mental Health Survey Consortium.Psychol. Med.46:327. 10.1017/S0033291715001981
7
BlockS. R.KingA. P.SripadaR. K.WeissmanD. H.WelshR.LiberzonI. (2017). Behavioral and neural correlates of disrupted orienting attention in posttraumatic stress disorder.Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci.17422–436. 10.3758/s13415-016-0488-2
8
BlockS. R.LiberzonI. (2016). Attentional processes in posttraumatic stress disorder and the associated changes in neural functioning. Exp. Neurol. 284, 153–167. 10.1016/J.EXPNEUROL.2016.05.009
9
BlockS. R.WeissmanD. H.SripadaC.AngstadtM.DuvalE. R.KingA. P.et al (2020). Neural mechanisms of spatial attention deficits in trauma.Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging5991–1001. 10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.05.014
10
BradyK.KilleenT.BrewertonT.LuceriniS. (2000). Comorbidity of psychiatric disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder.J. Clin. Psychiatry6122–32.
11
CiprianiA.WilliamsT.NikolakopoulouA.SalantiG.ChaimaniA.IpserJ.et al (2017). Psychological medicine comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: A network meta-analysis.Psychol. Med.481975–1984. 10.1017/S003329171700349X
12
CopelandW. E.KeelerG.AngoldA.CostelloE. J. (2007). Traumatic events and posttraumatic stress in childhood.Arch. Gen. Psychiatry64577–584. 10.1001/ARCHPSYC.64.5.577
13
CorbettaM.ShulmanG. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain.Nat. Rev. Neurosci.3201–215. 10.1038/nrn755
14
CorbettaM.PatelG.ShulmanG. L. (2008). The reorienting system of the human brain: From environment to theory of mind.Neuron58:306. 10.1016/J.NEURON.2008.04.017
15
DavisL. L.ScheinJ.CloutierM.Gagnon-SanschagrinP.MaitlandJ.UrganusA.et al (2022). The economic burden of posttraumatic stress disorder in the United States from a societal perspective.J. Clin. Psychiatry83:21m14116. 10.4088/JCP.21M14116
16
De LijsterJ. M.DierckxB.UtensE. M. W. J.VerhulstF. C.ZieldorffC.DielemanG. C.et al (2017). The age of onset of anxiety disorders.Can. J. Psychiatry62237–246. 10.1177/0706743716640757
17
DosenbachN. U. F.FairD. A.CohenA. L.SchlaggarB. L.PetersenS. E. (2008). A dual-networks architecture of top-down control.Trends Cogn. Sci.12:99. 10.1016/J.TICS.2008.01.001
18
DückersM. L. A.AlisicE.BrewinC. R. (2016). A vulnerability paradox in the cross-national prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder.Br. J. Psychiatry209300–305. 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.176628
19
EstermanM.RosenbergM. D.NoonanS. K. (2014). Intrinsic fluctuations in sustained attention and distractor processing.J. Neurosci.341724–1730. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2658-13.2014
20
EstermanM.StumpsA.Jagger-RickelsA.RothleinD.DegutisJ.FortenbaughF.et al (2020). Evaluating the evidence for a neuroimaging subtype of posttraumatic stress disorder.Sci. Transl. Med.12:9343.
21
EvansT. C.AlonsoM. R.Jagger-RickelsA.RothleinD.ZubererA.BernsteinJ.et al (2022). PTSD symptomatology is selectively associated with impaired sustained attention ability and dorsal attention network synchronization.Neuroimage Clin.36:103146. 10.1016/J.NICL.2022.103146
22
FanJ.McCandlissB. D.SommerT.RazA.PosnerM. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks.J. Cogn. Neurosci.14340–347. 10.1162/089892902317361886
23
FaniN.JovanovicT.ElyT. D.BradleyB.GutmanD.ToneE. B.et al (2012). Neural correlates of attention bias to threat in post-traumatic stress disorder.Biol. Psychol.90:134. 10.1016/J.BIOPSYCHO.2012.03.001
24
FortenbaughF. C.CorboV.PooleV.McGlincheyR.MilbergW.SalatD.et al (2017). Interpersonal early–life trauma alters amygdala connectivity and sustained attention performance.Brain Behav.7:e00684. 10.1002/brb3.684
25
FranceJ.JovanovicT. (2023). Human fear neurobiology reimagined: Can brain-derived biotypes predict fear-based disorders after trauma?Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.144:104988. 10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2022.104988
26
Galatzer-LevyI. R.BryantR. A. (2013). 636,120 ways to have posttraumatic stress disorder.Perspect. Psychol. Sci.8651–662. 10.1177/1745691613504115
27
GoodkindM.EickhoffS. B.OathesD. J.JiangY.ChangA.Jones-HagataL. B.et al (2015). Identification of a common neurobiological substrate for mental illness.JAMA Psychiatry72:305. 10.1001/JAMAPSYCHIATRY.2014.2206
28
GordonE. M.LaumannT. O.AdeyemoB.HuckinsJ. F.KelleyW. M.PetersenS. E. (2016). Generation and evaluation of a cortical area parcellation from resting-state correlations. Cereb. Cortex26:288. 10.1093/CERCOR/BHU239
29
GrattonC.SunH.PetersenS. E. (2018). Control networks and hubs.Psychophysiology5510.1111/sy13032. 10.1111/PSYP.13032
30
HarnettN. G.FinegoldK. E.LeboisL. A. M.van RooijS. J. H.ElyT. D.MurtyV. P.et al (2022). Structural covariance of the ventral visual stream predicts posttraumatic intrusion and nightmare symptoms: A multivariate data fusion analysis.Transl. Psychiatry12:321. 10.1038/S41398-022-02085-8
31
HoskinsM.PearceJ.BethellA.DankovaL.BarbuiC.TolW. A.et al (2015). Pharmacotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Br. J. Psychiatry20693–100. 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.148551
32
JohnsenG. E.AsbjørnsenA. E. (2008). Consistent impaired verbal memory in PTSD: A meta-analysis.J. Affect. Disord.11174–82. 10.1016/J.JAD.2008.02.007
33
KesslerR. C.BerglundP.DemlerO.JinR.MerikangasK. R.WaltersE. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.Arch. Gen. Psychiatry62593–602. 10.1001/ARCHPSYC.62.6.593
34
KuhnE.BlanchardE. B.HicklingE. J. (2003). Posttraumatic stress disorder and psychosocial functioning within two samples of MVA survivors.Behav. Res. Ther.411105–1112. 10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00071-8
35
LewisC.RobertsN. P.GibsonS.BissonJ. I. (2020). Dropout from psychological therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur. J. Psychotraumatol.11:1709709. 10.1080/20008198.2019.1709709
36
LindsayG. W. (2020). Attention in psychology, neuroscience, and machine learning.Front. Comput. Neurosci.14:516985. 10.3389/FNCOM.2020.00029/BIBTEX
37
LuoT. Z.MaunsellJ. H. R. (2019). Attention can be subdivided into neurobiological components corresponding to distinct behavioral effects.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.11626187–26194.
38
McLaughlinK. A.KoenenK. C.HillE. D.PetukhovaM.SampsonN. A.ZaslavskyA. M.et al (2013). Trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in a national sample of adolescents.J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry52:815. 10.1016/J.JAAC.2013.05.011
39
McTeagueL. M.HuemerJ.CarreonD. M.JiangY.EickhoffS. B.EtkinA. (2017). Identification of common neural circuit disruptions in cognitive control across psychiatric disorders.Am. J. Psychiatry174676–685. 10.1176/APPI.AJP.2017.16040400
40
MenonV. (2015). “Salience network,” in Brain mapping: An encyclopedic reference, Vol. 2ed.TogaA. W. (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 597–611. 10.1016/B978-0-12-397025-1.00052-X
41
Mueller-PfeifferC.SchickM.Schulte-VelsT.O’GormanR.MichelsL.Martin-SoelchC.et al (2013). Atypical visual processing in posttraumatic stress disorder.Neuroimage Clin.3531–538. 10.1016/J.NICL.2013.08.009
42
National Institute of Mental Health (2021). Research domain criteria initiative: Attention. Available online at: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/research-funded-by-nimh/rdoc/constructs/attention(accessed January 31, 2023).
43
Pergamin-HightL.NaimR.Bakermans-KranenburgM. J.van IJzendoornM. H.Bar-HaimY. (2015). Content specificity of attention bias to threat in anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis.Clin. Psychol. Rev.3510–18. 10.1016/J.CPR.2014.10.005
44
PetersenS. E.PosnerM. I. (2012). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after.Annu. Rev. Neurosci.3573–89. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525
45
Punski-HoogervorstJ. L.Engel-YegerB.AvitalA. (2023). Attention deficits as a key player in the symptomatology of posttraumatic stress disorder: A review.J. Neurosci. Res.1011068–1085. 10.1002/JNR.25177
46
RaichleM. E. (2015). The brain’s default mode network.Annu. Rev. Neurosci.38433–447. 10.1146/ANNUREV-NEURO-071013-014030
47
RossM. C.CislerJ. M. (2020). Altered large-scale functional brain organization in posttraumatic stress disorder: A comprehensive review of univariate and network-level neurocircuitry models of PTSD.Neuroimage Clin.27:102319. 10.1016/J.NICL.2020.102319
48
SaitoD. N.FujisawaT. X.YanakaH. T.FujiiT.KochiyamaT.MakitaK.et al (2022). Development of attentional networks during childhood and adolescence: A functional MRI study.Neuropsychopharmacol. Rep.42191–198. 10.1002/NPR2.12246
49
ScolariM.Seidl-RathkopfK. N.KastnerS. (2015). Functions of the human frontoparietal attention network: Evidence from neuroimaging.Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.132–39. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.08.003
50
ScottJ. C.MattG. E.WrocklageK. M.CrnichC.JordanJ.SouthwickS. M.et al (2015). A quantitative meta-analysis of neurocognitive functioning in posttraumatic stress disorder.Psychol. Bull.141:105. 10.1037/A0038039
51
SeeleyW. W. (2019). The salience network: A neural system for perceiving and responding to homeostatic demands.J. Neurosci.399878–9882. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1138-17.2019
52
SeeleyW. W.MenonV.SchatzbergA. F.KellerJ.GloverG. H.KennaH.et al (2007). Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control.J. Neurosci.27:2349. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007
53
SteenkampM. M.LitzB. T.HogeC. W.MarmarC. R. (2015). Psychotherapy for military-related PTSD: A review of randomized clinical trials.JAMA314489–500. 10.1001/JAMA.2015.8370
54
SusantyE.SijbrandijM.van DijkW.SrisayektiW.de VriesR.HuizinkA. C. (2022). The effects of psychological interventions on neurocognitive functioning in posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review.Eur. J. Psychotraumatol.13:2071527. 10.1080/20008198.2022.2071527
55
UddinL. Q. (2014). Salience processing and insular cortical function and dysfunction.Nat. Rev. Neurosci.1655–61. 10.1038/nrn3857
56
UddinL. Q.YeoB. T. T.SprengR. N. (2019). Towards a universal taxonomy of macro-scale functional human brain networks.Brain. Topogr.32:926. 10.1007/S10548-019-00744-6
57
VasterlingJ. J.ConstansJ. I.BraileyK.SutkerP. B. (1998). Attention and memory dysfunction in posttraumatic stress disorder.Neuropsychology12125–133. 10.1037/0894-4105.12.1.125
58
VosselS.GengJ. J.FinkG. R. (2014). Dorsal and ventral attention systems: Distinct neural circuits but collaborative roles.Neuroscientist20150–159. 10.1177/1073858413494269
59
WatkinsL. E.SprangK. R.RothbaumB. O. (2018). Treating PTSD: A review of evidence-based psychotherapy interventions.Front. Behav. Neurosci.12:258.
60
YeoB. T.KrienenF. M.SepulcreJ.SabuncuM. R.LashkariD.HollinsheadM.et al (2011). The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity.J. Neurophysiol.106:1125. 10.1152/JN.00338.2011
61
ZhouY.FristonK. J.ZeidmanP.ChenJ.LiS.RaziA. (2018). The hierarchical organization of the default, dorsal attention and salience networks in adolescents and young adults.Cereb. Cortex28726–737. 10.1093/CERCOR/BHX307
Summary
Keywords
posttraumatic stress, attention network, veterans, trauma, resting-state, continuous performance task, functional magnetic resonance imaging, neuroimaging
Citation
Ely SL, Zundel CG, Gowatch LC, Evanski JM, Bhogal A, Carpenter C, Shampine M and Marusak H (2023) Attention, attention! Posttraumatic stress disorder is associated with altered attention-related brain function. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 17:1244685. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1244685
Received
22 June 2023
Accepted
01 August 2023
Published
21 August 2023
Volume
17 - 2023
Edited by
Ashley A. Huggins, Duke University, United States
Reviewed by
Audreyana Jagger-Rickels, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Ely, Zundel, Gowatch, Evanski, Bhogal, Carpenter, Shampine and Marusak.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hilary Marusak, hmarusak@med.wayne.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.