Neuroscience

Mood computational mechanisms underlying increased risk behavior in adolescent suicidal patients

Zhihao Wang author has email address
Tian Nan
Fengmei Lu
Yue Yu
Xiao Cai
Zongling He author has email address
Yuejia Luo
Ting Wang author has email address
Bastien Blain

Center for Neurocognition and Social Behavior, Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology, Shenzhen, China
CNRS - Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne, Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Paris, France
Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (BNU), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
The Clinical Hospital of Chengdu Brain Science Institute, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
Institute for brain research and rehabilitation, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China
Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108002.2

Open access
Copyright information

Figures and data

Demographics, clinical, psychological characteristics of patients with and without suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Task design, outcome and time effects on mood, and group differences in mood.
A) Gambling task with mood ratings. On each trial, participants were asked to choose between a certain option and a gambling option (self-paced). Once selected, the chosen option was highlighted in yellow for 500 ms. Then the corresponding outcome was displayed in the center of the screen for 1000 ms. The cumulated score was always shown in the right-upper corner. Every 2 to 3 trials, participants were asked to complete a self-paced rating of their happiness, answering the question “How happy are you at the moment” on a slider from 0 (very unhappy) to 100 (very happy). B) Patients and healthy controls felt happier after winning than losing. C) Mood drifted over time. D) Group difference in mood before the task shows weakened mood in S⁺. E) Group difference in average mood displays lower mood experience in S⁺. F) Mood variance was similar for all the three groups, as indexed by standard deviation of happiness ratings across the task. G) Each group earned about the same amount of points by the end of the task. Abbreviations: HC, healthy control; S^-, patients without suicidal thoughts and behavior; S⁺, patients with suicidal thoughts and behavior; *p<0.05. Error bars correspond to the standard error.

Choice results.
A) Group differences in gambling behavior. The grey dots represent the winning model prediction. B) The estimated parameters from the winning choice model differed across groups. S⁺ exhibited stronger approach motivation than S^- and HC. C) The mediation model among the group, {Jgain, and gambling behavior in the gain condition. The approach parameter mediated the effects of STB group on increased gambling behavior in the gain condition. Abbreviations: HC, healthy control; S^-, patients without suicidal thoughts and behavior; S⁺, patients with suicidal thoughts and behavior; *p<0.05.

Choice model comparison.

Effect of Suicidal thoughts and behavior on mood dynamics.
A) Group difference in mood baseline, β₀. B) Group differences in mood sensitivity to certain reward (CR) and gamble reward (GR). C) Correlational difference in S^- and S⁺ between mood sensitivity to CR and gambling behavior. The lighter, semi-transparent dots represent individual participants, while the dark dot with an error bar indicates the mean of binned scores (for illustration purposes only). Abbreviations: CR, certain reward; GR, gamble reward; HC, healthy control; S^-, patients without suicidal thoughts and behavior; S⁺, patients with suicidal thoughts and behavior; *p<0.05.

Mood model comparison.

Validation of suicidal-related results in an independent dataset of general populations (n = 747).
A) Group difference in gambling behavior in the gain domain. B) The estimated parameters from the winning choice model (pseudo R² = 0.479) differed across groups, with higher approach behavior for S⁺. C) The mediation model among the group, {J , and gambling behavior in the gain condition. The approach parameter mediated the group effect on increased gambling behavior in the gain condition. D) Group difference in mood before the task shows weakened mood in S⁺. E) Group difference in average mood displays lower mood experience in S⁺. FG) The estimated parameters from CR-GR mood model (mean R² = 0.588). F) Group difference in mood baseline, β ₀. G) Group differences in mood sensitivity to certain reward (CR) and gamble reward (GR). Abbreviations: S^-, general participants without suicidal thoughts and behavior; S⁺, general participants with suicidal thoughts and behavior; *p<0.05, ⁺ p<0.1.

Sign up for email alerts