Emotional overload in bulimia nervosa: an ERP study of emotion processing and regulation

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4886296/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Emotional overload in bulimia nervosa: an ERP study of emotion processing and regulation

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4886296/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Objective

People with bulimia nervosa (BN) self-report difficulties processing and regulating emotions. However, self-reports have been shown to be biased, particularly with people with BN who have difficulties describing their emotions. Self-reports also cannot easily disentangle between early processing and later regulatory stages, so it is not clear whether people with BN really do process their emotions more intensely or whether this is due to the aftermath of regulatory difficulties. This study aimed to use an objective way to measure (1) whether people with BN process their emotions with higher intensity compared to healthy controls (HC) and (2) whether they can successfully implement an emotion regulation strategy called cognitive reappraisal.

Methods

We developed a neuroimaging task using electroencephalography to answer these questions, using the Late Positive Potential (LPP) as an objective measure of emotional arousal at the processing and regulatory stages. We tested the task in females with BN (N = 32) and matched HC (N = 35).

Results

We found that our BN group showed higher LPP compared to our HC group when viewing emotional pictures, demonstrating increased emotional intensity at the processing stage. We also found that our BN group had difficulties successfully implementing cognitive reappraisal to reduce emotional arousal.

Discussion

This suggests that people with BN process their emotions with higher intensity and struggle to implement subsequent cognitive reappraisal strategies. This has direct implications for clinicians who should be aware that when evoking affect in treatment, people with BN may need greater support in understanding and managing their emotions.

Bulimia Nervosa

Eating Disorders

Emotion

Emotion Processing

Emotion Regulation

Neuroimaging

LPP

Research has shown that people with bulimia nervosa (BN) often have trouble managing their emotions. We wanted to understand why this happens. For example, we were wondering whether people with BN feel emotions more strongly than others, or do they just have trouble finding ways to cope with their feelings? Or maybe both? We created a new task to look at what the brain is doing when people with BN experience and manage their emotions. We tested the task in 32 females with BN and 35 healthy females with no eating disorders. The results showed two main things. First, we showed that women with BN tend to feel emotions more intensely than those without BN. Second, we showed that women with BN tend to have difficulties using cognitive reappraisal, a strategy that involves looking at situations from different angles to find more positive aspects. These findings are important because they suggest that people with BN might need extra help in two areas: they may need support in dealing with the strength of their emotions, and in finding better ways to manage their feelings and reduce distress. This research could lead to better ways to support people with BN in the future.

Eating disorders (EDs) are serious mental health conditions that have among the highest morbidity and mortality rates of all psychiatric illnesses, with suicide a major cause of death (Smith et al., 2018; Treasure et al., 2020). Bulimia nervosa (BN) is one of the most common EDs and is characterised by bingeing episodes followed by inappropriate compensatory behaviours such as excessive exercise, purging, fasting, and laxatives (American Psychiatric Association., 2013). There is ample literature showing that people with BN have difficulties processing and regulating emotions (Prefit et al., 2019). However, most research looking at emotions in EDs relies on questionnaires, which is problematic because questionnaires are often not able to disentangle frequency of use vs success in implementing a strategy, or difficulties in processing vs regulating emotions (Gross, 2015; Sheppes, 2014). Moreover, people with BNs are known to have high levels of alexithymia (Westwood et al., 2017) characterised by difficulties identifying and describing emotions, making the use of self-reports questionable. This study aims to use EEG as an objective approach to explore the underlying neural mechanisms behind the self-reported difficulties with emotion processing and regulation in BN. This is important because it could help develop innovative treatments that address these emotional difficulties. Currently, over 60% of patients with BN do not obtain complete abstinence from core ED symptoms after treatment (Linardon & Wade, 2018), possibly because current evidence-based treatments principally focus on the symptoms (e.g. the bingeing and purging episodes), rather than what is driving them, such as difficulties processing and regulating emotions (Ben-Porath et al., 2020; Lavender et al., 2015; MacDonald et al., 2017). There is now a growing body of evidence that shows an association between emotions and EDs, particularly with binge-eating and purging which are thought to be used as an attempt to lower negative affect in BN (Lavender et al., 2016; Smyth et al., 2007).

Ample literature has also shown that people with BN tend to under-use commonly called ‘adaptive’ strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal (Danner et al., 2012; Vuillier et al., 2022), which has been linked to many positive physical and mental health outcomes (Gross & John, 2003; Riepenhausen et al., 2022)(J. J. Gross & John, 2003) such as increased resilience in periods of stress (Riepenhausen et al., 2022). The reason behind this under-use of cognitive reappraisal in people with EDs is, however, currently unknown. It is generally assumed that people with EDs are not using this strategy because they do not select it from their emotion regulation repertoire, preferring instead to rely on other strategies instead such as rumination, suppression, or even ED behaviours such as bingeing and purging (Prefit et al., 2019). However, it remains a possibility that they do not use this strategy because they cannot successfully implement it (i.e. it does not work to reduce their distress). Much of the existing research examining emotion regulation strategy relies on self-report methods, an approach which does not differentiate between frequency and success (or failure) of implementation and mainly looks at habitual use (e.g. the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003)).

People with BN have also been shown to experience emotions with high intensity and have elevated levels of emotional reactivity (Nock et al., 2008; Svaldi et al., 2012). However, whilst perceptual and regulatory processes are theoretically independent (Gross, 2015), they are in practice difficult to disentangle using questionnaires. Indeed, the process model of emotion regulation suggests that early perceptual difficulties such as increased intensity can cause difficulties at the regulation stage (e.g. see Gross, 2015 for further detail on the process model), but the literature also suggests that emotion dysregulation may lead to increased emotional intensity (Gross & Barrett, 2011; Gross & Jazaieri, 2014; Nock et al., 2008). Specifically, the literature is not yet clear whether the self-reported emotional intensity arises from deficits at the regulation stage, or whether people with BN suffer from a double emotional burden of increased emotional intensity at the processing stage, as well as difficulties at the regulating stage.

Electroencephalography (EEG), with the use of Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) opens a new avenue to explore and disentangle perceptual and regulatory processes. For example, the Late Positive Potential (LPP), a positive-going component maximal at parietal-occipital sites (PoZ), reflects the amount of processing resources, or emotional arousal, a person allocates to a stimulus (Bradley, 2009; Hajcak et al., 2010) making it a great tool to evaluate emotion processing. For example, viewing emotional images evokes stronger LPP than neutral ones (Hajcak et al., 2010; Schindler et al., 2020). The LPP can also be modulated by emotion regulation instructions such that re-evaluating an image in a more positive light (i.e. using cognitive reappraisal) leads to a diminished LPP in adults with and without psychopathology (Foti & Hajcak, 2008; Hajcak et al., 2010; MacNamara et al., 2022). This makes the LPP an excellent neurophysiological marker to measure emotion processing and regulation.

Whilst no research so far has specifically investigated the processing and regulation of emotional responses in EDs, some research has used the LPP in response to food stimuli. Sarlo et al (2013) found that healthy women with bulimic tendencies showed enhanced LPP amplitudes when asked to reappraise pictures of high-caloric food, suggesting they found it harder to reappraise pictures of food as less tempting. Another study (Svaldi et al., 2010) found that in people with Binge Eating Disorder, pictures of food created more emotional arousal (i.e. higher emotional reactivity), as depicted by higher LPP, compared to healthy controls, although they did not look at reappraisal processes. It is however important to note that looking at the perception and reappraisal of food items using LPP may not generalise to emotional scenes. One study did look at emotion processing and down-regulation of emotional pictures in people with anorexia nervosa (AN) (Mallorquí-Bagué et al., 2020) and found no significant differences in LPP, both in terms of emotion processing and emotion regulation in their AN vs healthy control group. However, their instruction for down-regulating emotions was to “reduce the emotional response that it might elicit” so it is not clear what strategy their participants used, which may not have been reappraisal. Also, whilst difficulties with emotion regulation are thought to be transdiagnostic (Prefit et al., 2019), differences between ED categories can be observed, such that dysfunctional emotion regulation is associated with different outcomes in AN vs BN (Meule et al., 2021) and there may also be differences in the use of adaptive strategies such as reappraisal between AN and BN (Puttevils et al., 2021).

This study aimed to explore the underlying mechanisms behind the self-reported emotional intensity and low usage of cognitive reappraisal in people with BN. Specifically, it aimed to determine whether females with BN experience emotions with high intensity, and whether they can successfully implement cognitive reappraisal (i.e does it work to reduce distress). We developed a task based on Foti and Hajcak’s (2008) which allowed us to separately study the neural bases of emotion processing and regulation and tested it in females with BN (N = 32) and matched healthy controls (HC; N = 35). We first hypothesised (H1) that our females with BN would self-report using less reappraisal than our healthy controls (as per Vuillier et al. (2022) for example) and self-report experiencing their emotions with more intensity (as per Svaldi et al. (2012) for example). Given the lack of clarity in the literature, we were unsure what to expect regarding the LPP when processing (H2) and reappraising (H3) emotions; therefore, these hypotheses were exploratory.

Participants

The study sample consisted of N = 35 female healthy controls (HC) recruited via media advertisements and university campus outreach between August 2019 and August 2023. They took part in a pre-selection survey and only those scoring below two on the EDEQ and reporting no ED behaviour and no current mental health diagnosis were included. We also recruited N = 32 females with symptoms of Bulimia Nervosa (BN). Out of these, n = 4 were recruited from an ED service. The rest (n = 28) were recruited via media advertisements and university campus outreach, and all met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for a diagnosis of BN, although not all had a diagnosis at the time of recruitment¹. Groups were matched in terms of age, ethnicity, and education level. See Table 1 for the demographic descriptions of the sample.

Data analysis excluded two healthy participants and two participants with BN due to excessive muscular movements.

Note 1

This was partly due to the COVID pandemic which saw an increase in ED service use and help seeking behaviours, creating long waiting list for assessments.

Table 1

**Sample description**.
	BN group (N = 32)	HC group (N = 35)	Test of group differences
EDEQ - total	4.5 (0.76)	0.6 (0.43)	t(65)= -826.5, p < .001
EDEQ- binge	11.8 (7.8)	0.2 (0.87)	t(64)= -8.7, p < .001
EDEQ- compensatory behaviours	15.7 (16.6)	0.9 (2.8)	t(65)= -5.2, p < .001
Age	23.4 (6.8)	24.4 (5.6)	t(63) = 0.63, p = .529
Ethnicity	Asian (n = 3) Black (n = 1) Mixed (n = 1) White (n = 27) Other (n = 0)	Asian (n = 5) Black (n = 1) Mixed (n = 0) White (n = 25) Other (n = 2)	X² (4, N = 67)= 3.7 p = .444
Education level	College (n = 3) Further education (n = 16) Undergraduate level (n = 10) Postgraduate level (n = 3)	College (n = 3) Further education (n = 13) Undergraduate level (n = 14) Postgraduate level (n = 5)	X² (3, N = 67) = 1.35, p = .718
Note: Numbers represent Mean, with SD in brackets, unless specified.

Questionnaires

Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q)

The EDE-Q (Fairburn & Beglin, 2008) contains 28 questions referring to the past 28 days, such that high scores indicate severe ED psychopathology. Questions are scored from 0–6 with a maximum possible total average score of 6. A score equal to or above 4 is commonly used to classify individuals within the clinical range (e.g. Mond et al., 2006), with a score of 2 or below considered representative of a community sample without ED behaviours (Carey et al., 2019). The EDE-Q also contains six questions measuring binge eating; purging; laxative uses; and excessive exercise as a means of controlling their shape or weight. The EDE-Q total score has good internal consistency which was confirmed in our sample (BN α = .84; HC α = .88).

Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)

The ERQ (Gross & John, 2003) is a 10-item scale designed to measure respondents’ tendency to regulate their emotions using Cognitive Reappraisal or Expressive Suppression. The six questions to measure cognitive reappraisal are scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with a maximum score of 42 (a higher score means more tendency to use this strategy). The ERQ has good internal consistency which was also confirmed in our sample (BN α = .87 ; HC α = .92 for cognitive reappraisal).

Emotional Reactivity Scale (ERS)

The ERS (Nock et al., 2008) is a 21-item scale that measures emotional sensitivity, intensity and persistence. We only used the seven questions to measure intensity (Items 3, 4, 6, 17, 19, 20, 21). Questions are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (0–4), with a maximum score of 28 for intensity (higher score means more intensity). The ERS has good internal consistency which was confirmed in our sample (BN α = .90 ; HC α = .82).

The Emotion Regulation Task

Participants were seated in a dimly illuminated testing booth. The visual stimuli were displayed in the centre of a 17-inch PC monitor at a viewing distance of 60 cm. The emotion regulation task had three conditions: Neutral, Maintain, and Reappraisal. Each of these conditions featured 46 unique pictures from the IAPS (Lang et al., 2008), so that each picture was only presented once. Pictures and conditions were randomised across three blocks of 46 trials each. A trial began with a 1000 ms fixation display, succeeded by a neutral or negative picture shown for 1500 ms. Following the picture, participants encountered a text prompt for 5000 ms, with the content varying based on the (randomised) condition. For the neutral condition, the instruction asked participants to observe the image without any specific emotional engagement. For the maintain condition, the instruction encouraged participants to fully engage with their emotional responses (e.g. “The ambulance crew arrived too late and could not save the driver” following the picture of a car accident). For the reappraisal condition, the instructions aimed to guide participants to cognitively reframe the negative image, either through focusing on a more positive outcome of the emotional scene (e.g. “All people were saved thanks to the ambulance crew's hard work” following the picture of a car accident), or through objectifying the situation by viewing it as fake, from a movie for example. They were told to specifically reframe their interpretation using the description and to not think of something else². See Supplementary Material for the full list of the IAPS pictures and corresponding descriptions. After the text prompt, there was a subsequent 800 ms fixation period, followed by the re-presentation of the identical image for another 1500 ms. Following this second image display, participants were required to assess and report the strength of their emotional response (i.e. arousal), utilising the Self-Assessment Manikin scale for arousal.

Note 2

Our paradigm differs from other paradigms in the field on this important point. Most paradigms ask participants to come up with their own alternative explanation for reappraising the emotional picture. Whilst this may be closer to real life situations, such paradigms cannot differentiate whether a participant cannot come up with an alternative explanation or whether they do but it does not work to reduce distress. Our design specifically provided participants with an alternative explanation to remove the untestable possibility that they may not have been following instructions.

EEG recording and data analysis

EEG recording. Continuous EEG data were captured using an active electrode system (ActiCHamp, Brain Products, GmbH, Gilching, Germany) from 32 scalp electrodes. These electrodes were positioned according to the 10–20 system (Jasper, 1958) at designated sites including AFz, Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, Pz, POz, F3, F4, F7, F8, FC3, FC4, FT7, FT8, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP6, P3, P4, P7, P8, PO3, PO4, PO7, PO8, O1, and O2. Additionally, two electrodes were placed on the mastoid bones behind each ear. The vertical electrooculogram (VEOG) was recorded from electrodes below the left eye, and the horizontal electrooculogram (HEOG) from electrodes adjacent to the outer canthi of both eyes.

EEG data were recorded using Brain Vision Recorder (RRID: SCR_016331; www.brainproducts.com) at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. The raw EEG data were band-pass filtered from 0.01 to 30 Hz. All channels were referenced online to the left mastoid electrode and re-referenced offline to an average of both left and right mastoids. Independent component analysis (ICA) was performed on the continuous data to identify and remove eyeblink and eye movement (Jung, et al., 2000). Artifact rejection was performed for individual channel with trials contaminated with muscular movement artefacts (exceeding ± 80 µV in all other channels) being removed as artefacts from EEG analysis.

To analyse the ERP components, the remaining EEG was segmented into 1600 ms epochs ranging from 100 ms before to 1500 ms after the onset of the image display to capture the full image presentation. The 100 ms pre-stimulus interval was used for baseline correction. EEG was averaged separately for each group (BN or HC) and for each condition for emotion processing (first presentation of the picture) and emotion regulation (second presentation after the instructions to maintain or reappraise the emotion). All EEG data processing was performed with BrainVision Analyzer software (Brain Products GmbH, Gilching, Germany).

ERP and statistical analysis. Based on a collapsed localisers approach (Luck and Gaspelin, 2017), the late positive potential (LPP) was quantified as the average activity where it was maximal on the scalp at POz electrode. Statistical evaluations were performed using JASP statistical software (version 0.18.1.0, www.jasp-stats.org), with independent sample t-test for H1, One-way between-subject Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) for H2, and 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA supplemented by permutation-based FDR analyses for H3. Permutation-based false discovery rate (FDR) estimates (Fields & Kuperberg, 2020) were performed using RStudio (Version 2022-02-03-492, RStudio, 2022, based on the R programming language Version 4.2.0, R Core Team, 2022).

Hypothesis 1: Self-report use of cognitive reappraisal and emotional reactivity

As predicted, we found that the BN group (M = 24.6, SD = 1.6) reported less use of reappraisal on the ERQ compared to the HC group (M = 29.4, SD = 7.3; t (62) = 2.4, p = .009). We also found that the BN group self-reported experiencing their emotions with higher intensity (M = 17.8, SD = 6.9) compared to the HC group (M = 10.9, SD = 5.0; t (62)= -4.7, p < .001).

Hypothesis 2: LPP for emotion processing

Differences in emotion processing were assessed using a one-way between-subject ANOVA to examine whether the BN group experienced higher arousal level than the HC group when negative images were presented. The result revealed that LPP amplitudes were significantly larger (F(1, 61) = 4.47, p = .039, ηp² = .068) in the BN group (M = 4.26, SD = 4.60), compared to those in HC group (M = 1.86, SD = 4.39), which can be seen in Fig. 1. The results were supported by permutation-based t-tests with FDR correction, suggesting that the LPP components of the HC group fell back to baseline at around 924ms, while the BN LPPs remained significantly larger than the baseline through the whole time period (from 400 to 1500 ms).

Hypothesis 3: LPP for emotion regulation

The BN group (M = 4.2, SD = 1.3) showed higher arousal self-ratings after being instructed to reappraise their emotions compared to the HC group (M = 3.5, SD = 1.2, t (62)= -2.1, p = .038), suggesting difficulties successfully implementing reappraisal.

The LPP mean amplitudes were subjected to a mixed ANOVA with the within-factor Condition (maintain vs reappraisal) and between-factor Group (BN vs HC). A significant mean effect of Group (F(1, 61) = 5.63, p = .021, ηp² = .066), revealed that BN group (M = 2.62, SD = 3.61) showed higher LPP amplitudes compared to the HC group (M = 0.70, SD = 2.78), as seen in Fig. 2.

Estimates by permutation-based one-sample t-tests with FDR correction further identified that the BN group’s LPP component for the reappraisal condition remained significantly different from baseline until 1476 ms, whereas the HC group’s LPP component returned to baseline from 640 ms. This demonstrates that the BN group took longer than the HC group to reappraise their emotions, and they still showed high arousal until right before the picture disappeared.

The same permutation-based analyses for the maintain condition showed that the BN group’s LPP returned to baseline more quickly than in the reappraisal condition, as the cluster became insignificant from 916 ms, suggesting that using reappraisal led to more arousal than simply maintaining the emotional impact of the negative pictures in the BN group. The HC group’s LPP in the maintain condition returned to baseline at 632 ms, which is around the same time as for the reappraisal condition.

This study aimed to explore the neural bases of emotion processing and regulation in people with bulimia nervosa. We developed an EEG task which we tested in females with BN (N = 32) and matched HC (N = 35). We first confirmed that our BN group reported experiencing their emotions with higher intensity and reported lower use of reappraisal compared to our HC group, confirming H1. We also found that our BN group showed higher LPP compared to our HC group when viewing emotional pictures (H2). Our results also showed that participants with BN showed large LPP in the reappraisal condition, whilst the LPP returned to baseline early on for our control participants, suggesting difficulties implementing cognitive reappraisal in our BN participants (H3). We discuss these results in turn.

It was no surprise to find that our participants self-reported more emotional intensity and low usage of cognitive reappraisal compared to our HC as this has been reported in the literature (Prefit et al., 2019; Svaldi et al., 2012). However, it was interesting to see that the self-reported emotional reactivity was reflected in the more objective measure using the LPP. The literature is unclear as to whether emotional reactivity and emotion regulation are one or two processes, as some authors suggest that emotional reactivity may cause difficulties regulating emotions while others suggest that emotion dysregulation may lead to emotional reactivity, while yet others suggest that these concepts are actually indistinguishable (Gross & Barrett, 2011; Gross & Jazaieri, 2014; Nock et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2023). Our experimental paradigm allowed us to separate these processes by looking at emotional arousal during the processing stage, independently of the regulatory stage, and we found that people with BN do seem to process their emotions with higher intensity. This is important because it suggests that new interventions working on emotions for people with BN should target emotional intensity. For example, training could help them identify and label their emotions - which is something this group finds challenging (Westwood et al., 2017) - because alexithymia is associated with emotional reactivity (Preece et al., 2020). A recent study showed that helping people with EDs identify and label their emotions (amongst others) was linked to reduced alexithymia and ED behaviours (Vuillier et al., 2024). Whilst the authors did not measure whether this improvement was mediated by reduced emotional reactivity, it is a possibility that future research should explore.

Our study also reported on difficulties successfully implementing cognitive reappraisal, which had not yet been explored in people with BN. The extended process model (Gross, 2015) defines emotion regulation as the dynamic ways in which people detect emotions, determine that they want to regulate them, and attempt to do so through selecting and implementing a strategy, forming an iterative cycle constantly in need of updating. For example, if the existing selection and implementation decisions result in the desired outcome (for example reduced negative affect), then the person can continue relying on these decisions in the future. But if the emotion does not change (or changes in undesirable ways), then the person may decide to select a different strategy in the future (Gross & Ford, 2023). Here, we showed that reappraisal does not seem to work well to reduce distress in people with BN, which may explain why they do not select this strategy in their daily life. Cognitive reappraisal is part of cognitive-behavioural approaches that are frequently employed to challenge thoughts and feelings in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), the current psychological gold standard treatment for BN (NICE guideline, 2020). Our findings show that simply telling people with BN to change the way they think about an emotional situation will not actually result in lower distress.

Whilst this is the first study demonstrating difficulties implementing cognitive reappraisal in BN, this was not completely surprising. For example, it is a well-known finding that people tend to refrain from using cognitive reappraisal in high-intensity emotion situations, for example preferring to use distraction instead (McRae, 2016; Shafir et al., 2015, 2016; Sheppes & Gross, 2011; Van Bockstaele et al., 2020). Cognitive reappraisal relies on cognitive resources in working memory (Gan et al., 2017), so when cognitive resources are already recruited to attend to an emotional event, there may not be enough left to regulate the emotion. This suggests that offering people other strategies such as distraction to disengage from the emotional event at an early attentional stage may be more helpful. And indeed, Shafir et al (2016) showed that when healthy participants exhibited enhanced emotional intensity (measured by enhanced LPP) they were more likely to choose distraction over reappraisal, compared to low-intensity trials. Distraction has an ambiguous status in the emotion regulation literature because it essentially does not help deal with the emotion; it simply distracts the person whilst the emotion passes, but next time a similar emotional event comes back, the person will not be better equipped to deal with it. However, because distraction is helpful when the cognitive load is too intense, it could potentially be suggested as an alternative to the urge to binge-eat or purge. A recently developed psycho-educational intervention on emotion regulation seems to support the use of distraction as an effective strategy to help “ride the emotional wave”, before returning to the emotional situation and use other strategies such as reappraisal once people are less emotionally aroused (Vuillier et al., 2024). We did not look at the effect of distraction on the LPP but future research should explore whether in people with BN, distraction may reduce the LPP more than reappraisal.

Our study has many strengths, starting with the fact we used an objective measure of emotion intensity and regulation instead of relying on self-reports which can be biased. Our sample with close to 70 participants is also large for an EEG study. However, our study has some limitations. First, we only tested female participants for convenience purposes, despite the fact we know males with EDs also have difficulties identifying and regulating their emotions (Vuillier et al., 2022). There does also seem to be sex differences in the association between reappraisal and EDs, such that low reappraisal use seems associated with higher ED cognition in females but not in males (Vuillier et al., 2022). It therefore remains to be tested whether males with EDs can implement reappraisal successfully. We also only tested females with BN and whilst difficulties with emotion regulation are thought to be transdiagnostic (Prefit et al., 2019), differences between ED categories have been observed (Meule et al., 2021; Puttevils et al., 2021). A recent study found that people with AN found reappraisal less effective than control participants in a body exposure task (Crino et al., 2019), but it remains to be seen whether this would also apply to emotional situations more generally, and across the ED spectrum. It is also important to note that whilst we combined people with BN as one group to compare against a ‘healthy’ group, EDs are heterogeneous. A recent paper looking at an emotion-based intervention for example found some variation in people’s preferences for reappraisal, with one participant saying they found reappraisal “particularly useful […] it helped calm me down and let me see things in perspective”, whilst another said they have “always struggled with reappraisal because my mind feels like it gets tied in knots and jams up with questioning everything, and doesn’t know where to stop, and I end up not having a clue how I feel”. Incidentally the first participant was male and the second female so it could be indeed due to sex differences although this would need to be examined in more detail in future research.

Our paper showed that females with BN experience their emotions with more intensity and are not as successful in using cognitive reappraisal to reduce emotional arousal compared to a healthy control group. These findings have implications for adapting current evidence-based treatment, and developing new emotion-based treatments for BN.

Anorexia Nervosa

ANOVA

Analyses of Variance

Bulimia Nervosa

CBT

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

DSM-5

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition

Eating Disorder

EDE-Q

Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire

EEG

Electroencephalography

ERP

Event-Related Potential

ERS

Emotion Reactivity Scale

FDR

False Discovery Rate

Healthy Control

IAPS

International affective Picture System

LPP

Late Positive Potential

NHS

National Health Service

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Panel at Bournemouth University (Ref: 26501) as well as NHS ethical approval (IRAS ID: 254746; REC Ref: 19/NI/0086). All participants provided fully-informed consent to take part in the study.

Consent for publication

Consent to publish anonymised data was granted by participants when consenting to take part in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

LV received funding from the British Academy for this project (Ref: SRG1819190146). LV and XH are salaried staff at Bournemouth University, and SH conducted her MSc at Bournemouth University. ZW is a PhD student at Durham University. AH and MPS are salaried staff at University College London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of their affiliations.

Author Contribution

LV designed the study and received funding from the British Academy. ZW and SH collected the data under the supervision of LV. AH confirmed diagnosis of patients with BN. ZW analysed the data under the supervision of LV and XE. LV wrote the introduction and discussion sections. LV and ZW wrote the methods section. ZW wrote the result section and prepared the Figures. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank all students who helped collect this data, namely: Samantha Sewell, Daniel Pearson, Lauren Mose, Bridget Greenslade, Nicola Travis, and Isabel Green, as well as Itunuoluwa Oladokun. We would also like to thank all our participants for their generous time and help with this research: thank you!

Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Bournemouth Online Research Data Depository (BORDaR) repository (https://bordar.bournemouth.ac.uk/) or are available from the corresponding author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition).
Ben-Porath, D., Duthu, F., Luo, T., Gonidakis, F., Compte, E. J., & Wisniewski, L. (2020). Dialectical behavioral therapy: an update and review of the existing treatment models adapted for adults with eating disorders. Eating Disorders, 28(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2020.1723371
Bradley, M. M. (2009). Natural selective attention: Orienting and emotion. Psychophysiology, 46(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00702.x.
Carey, M., Kupeli, N., Knight, R., Troop, N. A., Jenkinson, P. M., & Preston, C. (2019). Eating disorder examination questionnaire (EDE-Q): Norms and psychometric properties in U.K. females and males. Psychological Assessment, 31(7), 839–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000703
Crino, N., Touyz, S., & Rieger, E. (2019). How eating disordered and non-eating disordered women differ in their use (and effectiveness) of cognitive self-regulation strategies for managing negative experiences. Eating and Weight Disorders, 24(5), 897–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-017-0448-z
Danner, U. N., Evers, C., Stok, F. M., Van Elburg, A. A., & De Ridder, D. T. D. (2012). A double burden: Emotional eating and lack of cognitive reappraisal in eating disordered women. European Eating Disorders Review. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2184
Fairburn, C., & Beglin, S. (2008). Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire. In C. G. Fairburn (Ed.), Cognitive behavior therapy and eating disorders (pp. 309–313). Guildford Press, New York.
Foti, D., & Hajcak, G. (2008). Deconstructing reappraisal: Descriptions preceding arousing pictures modulate the subsequent neural response. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(6), 977–988. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20066
Gan, S., Yang, J., Chen, X., Zhang, X., & Yang, Y. (2017). High working memory load impairs the effect of cognitive reappraisal on emotional response: Evidence from an event-related potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 639, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.12.069
Gross, J., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Emotion Generation and Emotion Regulation: One or Two Depends on Your Point of View James. Emotion Review, 3(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203167588-22
Gross, J. J. (2015a). Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
Gross, J. J. (2015b). Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
Gross, J. J., & Ford, B. Q. (2023). Handbook of emotion regulation (J. J. Gross & B. Q. Ford (eds.)). Guilford Publications.
Gross, James J., & Jazaieri, H. (2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and psychopathology: an affective science perspective. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(4), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614536164
Gross, James J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation Processes: Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Hajcak, G., Macnamara, A., & Olvet, D. M. (2010). Event-related potentials, emotion, and emotion regulation: An integrative review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(2), 129–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640903526504
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Technical Manual and Affective Ratings. In Technical Report A-8. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Lavender, J. M., Utzinger, L. M., Cao, L., Wonderlich, S. A., Engel, S. G., Mitchell, J. E., & Crosby, R. D. (2016). Reciprocal Associations Between Negative Affect, Binge Eating, and Purging in the Natural Environment in Women With Bulimia Nervosa. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(3), 381–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077994
Lavender, J. M., Wonderlich, S. A., Engel, S. G., Gordon, K. H., Kaye, W. H., & Mitchell, J. E. (2015). Dimensions of emotion dysregulation in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa: A conceptual review of the empirical literature. In Clinical Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.010
Linardon, J., & Wade, T. D. (2018). How many individuals achieve symptom abstinence following psychological treatments for bulimia nervosa? A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 51(4), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22838
MacDonald, D. E., Trottier, K., & Olmsted, M. P. (2017). Rapid improvements in emotion regulation predict intensive treatment outcome for patients with bulimia nervosa and purging disorder. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(10), 1152–1161. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22766
MacNamara, A., Joyner, K., & Klawohn, J. (2022). Event-related potential studies of emotion regulation: A review of recent progress and future directions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 176(March), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.03.008
Mallorquí-Bagué, N., Lozano-Madrid, M., Testa, G., Vintró-Alcaraz, C., Sánchez, I., Riesco, N., Perales, J. C., Navas, J. F., Martínez-Zalacaín, I., Megías, A., Granero, R., Heras, M. V. D. Las, Chami, R., Jiménez-Murcia, S., Fernández-Formoso, J. A., Treasure, J., & Fernández-Aranda, F. (2020). Clinical and neurophysiological correlates of emotion and food craving regulation in patients with anorexia nervosa. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9040960
McRae, K. (2016). Cognitive emotion regulation: A review of theory and scientific findings. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.06.004
Meule, A., Richard, A., Schnepper, R., Reichenberger, J., Georgii, C., Naab, S., Voderholzer, U., & Blechert, J. (2021). Emotion regulation and emotional eating in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Eating Disorders, 29(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2019.1642036
Mond, J. M., Hay, P. J., Rodgers, B., & Owen, C. (2006). Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q): Norms for young adult women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.12.003
NICE guideline. (2020). NICE guideline on Eating disorders: recognition and treatment. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng69
Nock, M. K., Wedig, M. M., Holmberg, E. B., & Hooley, J. M. (2008). The Emotion Reactivity Scale: Development, Evaluation, and Relation to Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors. Behavior Therapy, 39(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2007.05.005
Preece, D. A., Becerra, R., Robinson, K., Allan, A., Boyes, M., Chen, W., Hasking, P., & Gross, J. J. (2020). What is alexithymia? Using factor analysis to establish its latent structure and relationship with fantasizing and emotional reactivity. Journal of Personality, 88(6), 1162–1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12563
Prefit, A. B., Cândea, D. M., & Szentagotai-Tătar, A. (2019). Emotion regulation across eating pathology: A meta-analysis. Appetite, 143(April). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104438
Puttevils, L., Vanderhasselt, M. A., Horczak, P., & Vervaet, M. (2021). Differences in the use of emotion regulation strategies between anorexia and bulimia nervosa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 109, 152262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2021.152262
Riepenhausen, A., Wackerhagen, C., Reppmann, Z. C., Deter, H. C., Kalisch, R., Veer, I. M., & Walter, H. (2022). Positive Cognitive Reappraisal in Stress Resilience, Mental Health, and Well-Being: A Comprehensive Systematic Review. Emotion Review, 14(4), 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221114642
Sarlo, M., Übel, S., Leutgeb, V., & Schienle, A. (2013). Cognitive reappraisal fails when attempting to reduce the appetitive value of food: An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 94(3), 507–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.09.006
Schindler, S., Bruchmann, M., Steinweg, A. L., Moeck, R., & Straube, T. (2020). Attentional conditions differentially affect early, intermediate and late neural responses to fearful and neutral faces. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(7), 765–774. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa098
Shafir, R., Schwartz, N., Blechert, J., & Sheppes, G. (2015). Emotional intensity influences pre-implementation and implementation of distraction and reappraisal. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(10), 1329–1337. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv022
Shafir, R., Thiruchselvam, R., Suri, G., Gross, J. J., & Sheppes, G. (2016). Neural processing of emotional-intensity predicts emotion regulation choice. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(12), 1863–1871. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw114
Sheppes, G. (2014). Emotion regulation choice: Theory and findings. Handbook of Emotion Regulation, 126–139.
Sheppes, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Is Timing everything? Temporal considerations in emotion regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310395778
Smith, A. R., Zuromski, K. L., & Dodd, D. R. (2018). Eating disorders and suicidality: what we know, what we don’t know, and suggestions for future research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 22, 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.023
Smyth, J. M., Wonderlich, S. A., Heron, K. E., Sliwinski, M. J., Crosby, R. D., Mitchell, J. E., & Engel, S. G. (2007). Daily and Momentary Mood and Stress Are Associated With Binge Eating and Vomiting in Bulimia Nervosa Patients in the Natural Environment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(4), 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.4.629
Svaldi, J., Griepenstroh, J., Tuschen-Caffier, B., & Ehring, T. (2012). Emotion regulation deficits in eating disorders: A marker of eating pathology or general psychopathology? Psychiatry Research, 197, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.11.009
Svaldi, J., Tuschen-Caffier, B., Peyk, P., & Blechert, J. (2010). Information processing of food pictures in binge eating disorder. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.10.002
Treasure, J., Duarte, T. A., & Schmidt, U. (2020). Eating disorders. The Lancet, 395(10227), 899–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30059-3
Van Bockstaele, B., Atticciati, L., Hiekkaranta, A. P., Larsen, H., & Verschuere, B. (2020). Choose change: Situation modification, distraction, and reappraisal in mild versus intense negative situations. Motivation and Emotion, 44(4), 583–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09811-8
Vuillier, L., Greville-Harris, M., Talbot, C. V., May, L., & Moseley, R. L. (2024). Early evaluation of a DBT-informed online intervention for people with eating disorders. Journal of Eating Disorders, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-024-00974-5
Vuillier, L., Joseph, J., Greville-Harris, M., May, L., Somerville, M. P., Harrison, A., & Moseley, R. L. (2022). What about males? Exploring sex differences in the relationship between emotion difficulties and eating disorders. Journal of Eating Disorders, 10(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-022-00715-6
Westwood, H., Kerr-Gaffney, J., Stahl, D., & Tchanturia, K. (2017). Alexithymia in eating disorders: Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 99(June 2017), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.06.007
Zhang, J.-X., Dixon, M. L., Goldin, P. R., Spiegel, D., & Gross, J. J. (2023). The neural separability of emotion reactivity and regulation. Affective Science, 4(4), 617–629. http://repositorio.unan.edu.ni/2986/1/5624.pdf%0Ahttp://fiskal.kemenkeu.go.id/ejournal%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cirp.2016.06.001%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2016.12.055%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.006%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1

No competing interests reported.

Supplementarymaterialpictureanddescription.docx

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
07 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
23 Aug, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
20 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
13 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
13 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
09 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Emotional overload in bulimia nervosa: an ERP study of emotion processing and regulation

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Discussion

Figures

Plain English summary

Introduction

Methods

Participants

Questionnaires

Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q)

Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)

Emotional Reactivity Scale (ERS)

The Emotion Regulation Task

EEG recording and data analysis

Results

Hypothesis 1: Self-report use of cognitive reappraisal and emotional reactivity

Hypothesis 2: LPP for emotion processing

Hypothesis 3: LPP for emotion regulation

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

Competing interests

Funding

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1