Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T08:47:12.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Letter to the Editor: A reply – acknowledged reasonable limitations in a secondary analysis but key conclusions remain in ‘The neural basis of flashback formation: the impact of viewing trauma’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2016

I. A. Clark*
Affiliation:
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK
C. E. MacKay
Affiliation:
University of Oxford Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7NG, UK
E. A. Holmes
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, UK Division of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
C. Bourne
Affiliation:
University of Oxford Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7NG, UK Department of Psychology and Counselling, Newman University, Birmingham B32 3NT, UK
*
Author for correspondence: I. A. Clark, Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK. (Email: ian.clark@ucl.ac.uk)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Correspondence
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

The current letter by Mole (Reference Mole2016) highlights three recent papers from our laboratory that have attempted to investigate how the initial processing of intrusively remembered episodes leads to their formation (Bourne et al. Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013; Clark et al. Reference Clark, Niehaus, Duff, Di Simplicio, Clifford, Smith, Mackay, Woolrich and Holmes2014, Reference Clark, Holmes, Woolrich and Mackay2016). These intrusively remembered episodes are from films with traumatic content. Intrusive memories (referred to as flashbacks in Bourne et al. Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013) are ones which come to mind unbidden, and have particular relevance to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Mole (Reference Mole2016) suggests that one of the subanalyses performed in Bourne et al. (Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013) is methodologically flawed and questions some of our subsequent interpretations. While there are elements of the critique we accept, we would like to refute some of the inferences drawn by Mole (Reference Mole2016). In particular, we argue that the main conclusions of our papers are not affected by the ‘methodological flaw’ raised.

The main aim of Bourne et al. (Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013) and the subsequent papers was to investigate the neural basis of intrusive memory encoding of experimental trauma, hypothesizing that the later occurrence of an intrusive memory would be determined by the neural activity during the original encoding. Results from our three papers support this notion: first, by identifying and subsequently replicating a widespread ‘neural signature’ at the time of viewing (encoding) scenes that later became intrusive (Bourne et al. Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013; Clark et al. Reference Clark, Holmes, Woolrich and Mackay2016); and second, by using machine learning to predict the occurrence of later intrusive memories solely from the brain imaging data at encoding (Clark et al. Reference Clark, Niehaus, Duff, Di Simplicio, Clifford, Smith, Mackay, Woolrich and Holmes2014).

The ‘methodological flaw’ eloquently raised by Mole (Reference Mole2016) relates to a secondary analysis that was performed to investigate potential alternative explanations for our findings; namely, that emotional processing or physiological arousal could completely explain the pattern of brain activation observed (Bourne et al. Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013, online Supplementary materials). Mole (Reference Mole2016) specifically critiques our attempt to control for the subjective emotional experience of different scene types. Participants provided retrospective (1-week post-film) ratings of the emotionality of each scene on a 10-point scale. These ratings were then used as covariates in a secondary analysis of the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. The limitation that Mole (Reference Mole2016) raises concerns the mixture of coarse-grained (subjective emotional rating) and fine-grained [fMRI blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal] measurements. We accept this potential limitation, but note that the BOLD response itself is a relatively course measure of relative changes in brain activity (e.g. Raichle, Reference Raichle1998). Further, we support Mole's (Reference Mole2016) point that a persistence of activations associated with intrusive memories even following covariation of the coarse-grained emotional response does not mean that these activations could not be mediated by finer-grained measurements of emotion (or emotion in general). Indeed, Bourne et al. (Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013) state that ‘intense emotional reaction may be a necessary condition for flashback formation’ (p. 1529). However, we question the extent to which this could be described as a ‘flaw’ in our data, interpretations and conclusions. This limitation has no bearing on our main analyses nor the interpretations and conclusions that are drawn – namely that there is a specific peri-traumatic pattern of brain activation that predicts intrusive memory formation.

Thus, while Mole (Reference Mole2016) raises interesting potential methodological limitations of our secondary analysis, we disagree with the interpretations and conclusions that Mole draws. Bourne et al. (Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013) did not claim that the secondary analysis was a mathematical proof, nor that it meant that emotion played no role in intrusive memory encoding. Rather, Bourne et al. (Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013) used the secondary analysis (heavily caveated by several methodological limitations) together with the region of interest (ROI) analysis to suggest that emotional response did not seem to fully explain the differential processing detected in intrusive-memory encoding. Specifically, the ROI analysis (Bourne et al. Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013, p. 1527) provides two key pieces of information: first, many brain regions not associated with emotional processing are implicated (with the acknowledged caveat of the limitations of reverse inference); and second, although the pattern of BOLD response for many brain regions could be compatible with an emotion-mediated process [i.e. Actual (Intrusive) > Potential > Control], crucially the left inferior frontal gyrus and middle temporal gyrus show activation that is not compatible with simple increasing levels of emotionality – activity in these areas is lower during Potential scenes than during both Control and Actual (Intrusive) scenes.

Mole (Reference Mole2016) argues that there are distinct emotion-based and cognitive-based hypotheses for the formation of intrusive memories. He states: ‘Bourne et al. suggest that the evidence given in their 2013 study favours hypotheses of this second type’ – referring to a favouring of cognitive processing over emotional processing for the formation of intrusive memories. We strongly disagree. We wrote that ‘although intense emotional reaction may be a necessary condition for flashback formation it appears not to be sufficient’ in Bourne et al. (Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013; p 1529), by which we intended to suggest that intrusive memoires are not formed solely due to extreme emotion, but also due to a number of other factors. In other words, heighted emotion is necessary, but alone it is not sufficient, requiring the involvement of other cognitive processes for intrusive memory formation.

We continue to argue that both cognitive processing and emotional processing are important for intrusive memory formation – that these are not alternative hypotheses. Peri-traumatic emotional processing has long been highlighted as important for the development of PTSD (e.g. American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Brewin & Holmes, Reference Brewin and Holmes2003; Brewin, Reference Brewin2014) and for experimentally induced intrusive memories (e.g. Clark & Mackay, Reference Clark and Mackay2015; Clark et al. Reference Clark, Mackay and Holmes2015). For intrusive/involuntary memories, emotional processing includes negative and positive emotions (Berntsen & Rubin, Reference Berntsen and Rubin2008; Clark et al. Reference Clark, Mackay and Holmes2013). Other cognitive process, e.g. pre-trauma scores of depression, anxiety, schizopty and attention, have also been highlighted as important for intrusive memory formation (Steel et al. Reference Steel, Mahmood and Holmes2008; Verwoerd et al. Reference Verwoerd, de Jong and Wessel2008; Clark et al. Reference Clark, Mackay and Holmes2015). Unlike Mole (Reference Mole2016), we do not argue that these are distinct hypotheses and explanations. Instead, we suggest the evidence taken together strongly implies that emotional processing is important for intrusive memory formation but that other factors in addition to emotion are also important (as we have argued elsewhere, e.g. Holmes & Bourne, Reference Holmes and Bourne2008).

While we emphasize the importance of understanding how intrusive memories are first encoded, we also acknowledge the significance of processing at later time points. Understanding processing at the time of experimental trauma is essential for understanding the formation of intrusive memories; for example, performing visuospatial tasks while viewing traumatic footage reduces the frequency of later intrusive memories (Bourne et al. Reference Bourne, Frasquilho, Roth and Holmes2010); the neural underpinnings during encoding are different for later intrusively remembered footage than material that does not intrude (Bourne et al. Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013; Clark et al. Reference Clark, Niehaus, Duff, Di Simplicio, Clifford, Smith, Mackay, Woolrich and Holmes2014, Reference Clark, Holmes, Woolrich and Mackay2016). However, we welcome investigations of other aspects of intrusive memory recollection and interpretation post-trauma. Indeed, work from our group highlights the importance of the memory (re)consolidation phases after viewing experimental trauma – manipulations post-event using visuospatial tasks can reduce intrusive memory formation (Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, James, Kilford and Deeprose2010; James et al. Reference James, Bonsall, Hoppitt, Tunbridge, Geddes, Milton and Holmes2015). Our neuroimaging papers (Bourne et al. Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013; Clark et al. Reference Clark, Niehaus, Duff, Di Simplicio, Clifford, Smith, Mackay, Woolrich and Holmes2014, Reference Clark, Holmes, Woolrich and Mackay2016) attempt to highlight the importance of the relatively under researched area of peri-traumatic factors in addition to the post-traumatic factors which are more commonly studied.

Mole (Reference Mole2016) finishes his critique highlighting the ‘inherent limitations of affective introspection (Haybron, Reference Haybron2007)’ in relation to the limitations of our coarse-grained analysis. Reliance on self-report measures and introspection without objective measures has long been an issue in understanding human cognition. Physiological measures (e.g. fMRI and heart rate) attempt to overcome some of the limitations of self-report. Interestingly, heart rate was also used as a covariate in Bourne et al. (Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013) in a separate secondary analysis, with convergent results to both that of the main and emotion covariate analyses. Self-report measures remain a mainstay of psychiatry and psychology, and are predictive of later symptoms of PTSD (e.g. self-report peri-traumatic emotional response and peri-traumatic dissociation; Ozer et al. Reference Ozer, Best, Lipsey and Weiss2003). Until such day a magic device is developed that can provide an objective and fine-grained measure of subjective emotions (and other cognitions), they remain, despite inherent limitations, a valuable part of experimental medicine, experimental psychopathology and clinical studies.

We thank Mole (Reference Mole2016) for raising an interesting discussion in regards to methodological limitations within one of the secondary analyses presented in Bourne et al. (Reference Bourne, Mackay and Holmes2013). In sum, the main aim of the original paper (and our subsequent replication) was to investigate whether the occurrence of an intrusive memory is determined by the neural activity during the original encoding of experimental trauma. While we acknowledge some limitations of our subanalyses testing alternative explanations for our findings, these limitations do not detract from the main findings and conclusions of our papers. Understanding the contributions of heightened memory and emotional processing at the time of traumatic stimuli is critical (but not exclusively so!) for the development, and possible treatment, of intrusive memories in PTSD and elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

E.A.H. is funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Intramural Programme (MC-A060-5PR50). C.E.M and E.A.H. are both funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Programme. We gratefully thank Renée M. Visser for helpful discussion and comments.

Declaration of Interest

None.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Text revision. American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Berntsen, D, Rubin, DC (2008). The reappearance hypothesis revisited: recurrent involuntary memories after traumatic events and in everyday life. Memory and Cognition 36, 449460.Google Scholar
Bourne, C, Frasquilho, F, Roth, AD, Holmes, EA (2010). Is it mere distraction? Peri-traumatic verbal tasks can increase analogue flashbacks but reduce voluntary memory performance. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 41, 316324.Google Scholar
Bourne, C, Mackay, CE, Holmes, EA (2013). The neural basis of flashback formation: the impact of viewing trauma. Psychological Medicine 43, 15211532. Supplementary material online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3806039/bin/S0033291712002358sup001.doc Google Scholar
Brewin, CR (2014). Episodic memory, perceptual memory, and their interaction: foundations for a theory of posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Bulletin 140, 6997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brewin, CR, Holmes, EA (2003). Psychological theories of posttraumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychology Review 23, 339376.Google Scholar
Clark, IA, Holmes, EA, Woolrich, MW, Mackay, CE (2016). Intrusive memories to traumatic footage: the neural basis of their encoding and involuntary recall. Psychological Medicine 46, 505518.Google Scholar
Clark, IA, Mackay, CE (2015). Mental imagery and posttraumatic stress disorder: a neuroimaging and experimental psychopathology approach to intrusive memories of trauma. Frontiers in Psychiatry 6, 104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, IA, Mackay, CE, Holmes, EA (2013). Positive involuntary autobiographical memories: you first have to live them. Consciousness and Cognition 22, 402406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, IA, Mackay, CE, Holmes, EA (2015). Low emotional response to traumatic footage is associated with an absence of analogue flashbacks: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 16 trauma film paradigm experiments. Cognition and Emotion 29, 702713.Google Scholar
Clark, IA, Niehaus, KE, Duff, EP, Di Simplicio, MC, Clifford, GD, Smith, SM, Mackay, CE, Woolrich, MW, Holmes, EA (2014). First steps in using machine learning on fMRI data to predict intrusive memories of traumatic film footage. Behaviour Research and Therapy 62, 3746.Google Scholar
Haybron, DM (2007). Do we know how happy we are? On some limits of affective introspection and recall. Noûs 41, 394428.Google Scholar
Holmes, EA, Bourne, C (2008). Inducing and modulating intrusive emotional memories: a review of the trauma film paradigm. Acta Psychologica 127, 553566.Google Scholar
Holmes, EA, James, EL, Kilford, EJ, Deeprose, C (2010). Key steps in developing a cognitive vaccine against traumatic flashbacks: visuospatial Tetris versus verbal Pub Quiz. PLoS ONE 5, e13706.Google Scholar
James, EL, Bonsall, MB, Hoppitt, L, Tunbridge, EM, Geddes, JR, Milton, AL, Holmes, EA (2015). Computer game play reduces intrusive memories of experimental trauma via reconsolidation-update mechanisms. Psychological Science 26, 12011215.Google Scholar
Mole, C (2016). A methodological flaw in ‘The neural basis of flashback formation: the impact of viewing trauma’. Psychological Medicine. doi:10.1017/S0033291716000040.Google Scholar
Ozer, EJ, Best, SR, Lipsey, TL, Weiss, DS (2003). Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder and symptoms in adults: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 129, 5273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raichle, ME (1998). Behind the scenes of functional brain imaging: a historical and physiological perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95, 765772.Google Scholar
Steel, C, Mahmood, M, Holmes, EA (2008). Positive schizotypy and trait dissociation as vulnerability factors for post-traumatic distress. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 47, 245249.Google Scholar
Verwoerd, J, de Jong, PJ, Wessel, I (2008). Low attentional control and the development of intrusive memories following a laboratory stressor. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 30, 291297.Google Scholar