Table 1 Group demographics and variables describing the measures of affective state, cognitive and executive function in euthymic bipolar disorder patients (BD, N = 22) and healthy control participants (HC, N = 27).

From: Frequency-specific changes in prefrontal activity associated with maladaptive belief updating in volatile environments in euthymic bipolar disorder

	Bipolar group (N = 22)	Healthy control group (N = 27)	Statistics (Permutation test p-value and Bayes factor)
Age (years), M (SEM)	29.1 (SEM 1.67)	27.5 (SEM 1.18)	P = 0.4921, BF₁₀ = 0.3472
Sex (females), n (%)	17 (77.2%)	15 (56%)	χ² = 1.6559, df = 1, P = 0.1849; BF₁₀ = 1.102
Duration of illness (years), M (SEM)	7.4 (SEM 1.04)	NA	NA
Last episode polarity, (%)	depression (100%)	NA	NA
Time in euthymia (months), M (SEM)	4.9 (0.68)	NA	NA
Bipolar II, n (%)	17 (77.3%)	NA	NA
Bipolar I, n (%)	5 (22.7%)	NA	NA
Antidepressant, n (%)	10 (45.5%)	NA	NA
Antipsychotic, n (%)	14 (63.6%)	NA	NA
Mood stabiliser, n (%)	16 (81.8%)	NA	NA
Summary: Taking psychiatric medication, n (%)	19 (86.4%)	NA	NA
HADS anxiety, M (SEM)	5.5 (0.94)	5 (0.64)	P_FDR = 0.64, BF₁₀ = 0.31
HADS depression, M (SEM)	4 (0.69)	3.30 (0.57)	P_FDR = 0.4003, BF₁₀ = 0.3824
Beck Depression Inventory, M (SEM)	8.3 (1.75)	5 (1)	P_FDR = 0.1038, BF₁₀ = 0.8668
Altman’s Mania Scale, M (SEM)	1.7 (0.50)	2.6 (0.50)	P_FDR = 0.2040, BF₁₀ = 0.5652
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (state subscale on MEG day)¹, M (SEM)	35.5 (1.72)	33.7 (1.90)	P_FDR = 0.4571, BF₁₀ = 0.3833
Trail Making Test (Part 1), M (SEM)	23.3 (1.21)	21.2 (1.22)	P_FDR = 0.2216, BF₁₀ = 0.5296
Trail Making Test (Part 2), M (SEM)	87.8 (8.5)	55.7 (5.6)	P_FDR = *0.0022, BF₁₀ = 14.907**
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, M (SEM)	29.3 (0.92)	31.6 (0.67)	P_FDR = 0.0364, BF₁₀ = 1.6560
Mini-Mental State Examination, M (SEM)	29.5 (0.18)	29.5 (0.17)	P_FDR = 0.8678, BF₁₀ = 0.2875

For MEG analysis, data were available for 27 HCs and 21 BDs. Values are provided as mean and SEM (M, SEM) or as count and percentage (n, %). Between-group differences in scale values were assessed using permutation tests. Our alpha significance level was set at 0.05, and we controlled the false discovery rate (FDR) at q = 0.05 for multiple tests. Permutation test p-values were complemented with Bayes factor analysis to assess the amount of evidence in favour of H₁ or H₀. Age and sex distribution were comparable across groups (Age: P_FDR = 0.4921, no-significant differences; BF₁₀ = 0.3472, providing anecdotal evidence for H₀; Sex: Chi-squared statistic, χ² = 1.6559, df = 1, P = 0.1849, no significant; BF₁₀ = 1.102, no evidence for H₀ or H₁). There was substantial and anecdotal evidence supporting no differences between BD and HC groups in anxiety, depression, mania, and general cognitive scores (Bayes factor, BF₁₀, in the range 1/3–1: anecdotal evidence; 1/10–1/3: substantial evidence). Significant between-group differences after FDR control were observed exclusively for Part 2 of the Trail Making Test (denoted by * and bold font), assessing task switching, based on strong evidence. There was anecdotal evidence for differences in Wisconsin Card Sorting Test scores, assessing executive functions. However, this effect was not significant after FDR control. ¹State anxiety scores on the day of the experimental session were available for 22 bipolar patients and 18 healthy participants. The type of mood stabiliser taken by bipolar participants was mainly Lamotrigine (n = 11), but a few patients were taking Carbamazepine (n = 2), Valproic acid (n = 2), or Lithium (n = 1). See Supplementary Materials for further details on the scales and the corresponding references. See also control analyses on the effects of medication on the main computational results (Supplementary Table S5).
HADS hospital anxiety and depression scale.

Back to article page

Table 1 Group demographics and variables describing the measures of affective state, cognitive and executive function in euthymic bipolar disorder patients (BD, N = 22) and healthy control participants (HC, N = 27).

Search

Quick links