Tip 2 Diyabet Karar Mekanizmasında Tepki Dinamiğini Değiştirir

Öz

Amaç: Değişen yaşam ve beslenme alışkanlıkları sebebiyle diabetes mellitus dünyada her geçen gün insidansı artan önemli kronik hastalıklardandır. Diyabetin serebrovasküler etkilerinin yanı sıra kognitif fonksiyonlar üzerine etkisinin olduğunu bildiren çalışmalar bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada tip 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) hastalarında işitsel uyaranlar eşliğinde kognitif etkileri denetlemeyi amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışma T2DM teşhisi almış ileri yaş bireyler ile benzer yaşlarda kontrol grubundan oluşan toplam 58 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirildi. Çalışmaya dahil olan bireylerden açlık kan şekeri ölçümünün ardından elektroensefalografi (EEG) ve elektrookülografi kaydı alınırken eş zamanlı olarak Simon paradigması uygulandı. Alınan EEG kayıtlarından olayla ilişkili potansiyeller (OİP) elde edildi. Kontrol ve T2DM grupları arasındaki değişkenleri karşılaştırmak için bağımsız örneklem t testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Uyumsuz sunulan uyaran cevapları, uyumlu uyaran cevaplarına göre ölçülen tüm parametrelerde arttı. Bu artış yönelim etkisi olarak kabul edildi. Tüm test koşullarında kontrol grubuna göre T2DM grubu reaksiyon süresi arttı. T2DM grubunda OİP; N1, P2, P3 genlikleri tekil olarak ve tepeden tepeye ölçümlerinde tüm deney koşullarında azaldı. Kontrol grubuna göre T2DM grubunda P3 latansı artış gösterdi. Sonuç: Davranış ve elektrofizyolojik bulgularda T2DM hasta grubu bilişsel fonksiyon bakımından kontrol grubuna göre düşük performans göstermiştir. Bu azalış beyin sapı ve beyaz cevherin T2DM’den etkilendiğine işaret etti. Bununla birlikte OİP defleksiyonlarındaki değişim karar mekanizmasında tepki rekabetini etkilediğini gösterdi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diyabetes mellitus
• Simon görevi
• Dikkat
• Olay ilişkili potansiyel
• P300

Type 2 Diabetes Changes the Response Dynamics in the Decision Making Mechanism

Öz

Aim: Due to changing life style and nutritional habits, diabetes mellitus one of the most important chronic diseases with an increasing incidence in the world. Besides cerebrovascular affects, there are also studies that diabetes affects cognitive functions. In this study, we aimed to investigate the cognitive effects via auditory stimuli in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Material and Methods: This study was carried out a total of 58 elderly individuals, diagnosed T2DM and a control group of similar ages. The Simon paradigm was applied simultaneously while recording electroencephalography (EEG) and electrooculography after determined fasting blood glucose levels from the participants included in the study. Event-related potentials (ERP) were derived from the EEG recordings. Independent samples t-test was used to compare between the control and T2DM group variables. Results: There was an increase in the responses to the incongruent stimuli according to all parameters compared to the congruent stimulus, which was accepted as the orientation effect. The reaction time of the T2DM group increased compared to the control group in all test conditions. In the T2DM group, the amplitudes of ERP N1, P2 and P3 were decreased single and in peak-to-peak measurements under all experimental conditions. P3 latency increased in the T2DM group compared to the control group. Conclusion: These results showed that the T2DM group lower performance on cognitive functioning compared the control group, considered behavioral and electrophysiological findings. These decreases indicate brainstem and white matter are affected from T2DM. In addition, the change in ERP deflections showed that it affects response selection in the decision making mechanism

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diabetes mellitus
• Simon task
• Attention
• Event related potential
• P300

Kaynakça

1. Mallorquí-Bagué N, Lozano-Madrid M, Toledo E, Corella D, Salas-Salvadó J, Cuenca-Royo A, et al. Type 2 diabetes and cognitive impairment in an older population with overweight or obesity and metabolic syndrome: baseline cross-sectional analysis of the PREDIMED-plus study. Scientific Reports. 2018 2018/10/31;8(1):16128.
2. Allen KV, Frier BM, Strachan MW. The relationship between type 2 diabetes and cognitive dysfunction: longitudinal studies and their methodological limitations. European journal of pharmacology. 2004 Apr 19;490(1-3):169-75.
3. Kloppenborg RP, van den Berg E, Kappelle LJ, Biessels GJ. Diabetes and other vascular risk factors for dementia: which factor matters most? A systematic review. European journal of pharmacology. 2008 May 6;585(1):97-108.
4. Monette MC, Baird A, Jackson DL. A meta-analysis of cognitive functioning in nondemented adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Canadian journal of diabetes. 2014 Dec;38(6):401-8.
5. Brismar T, Maurex L, Cooray G, Juntti-Berggren L, Lindström P, Ekberg K, et al. Predictors of cognitive impairment in type 1 diabetes. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2007 Sep-Nov;32(8-10):1041-51.
6. Ryan CM, Williams TM, Orchard TJ, Finegold DN. Psychomotor slowing is associated with distal symmetrical polyneuropathy in adults with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes. 1992 Jan;41(1):107-13.
7. Palta P, Schneider AL, Biessels GJ, Touradji P, Hill-Briggs F. Magnitude of cognitive dysfunction in adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of six cognitive domains and the most frequently reported neuropsychological tests within domains. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. 2014 Mar;20(3):278-91.
8. de la Monte SM. Insulin resistance and Alzheimer's disease. BMB Rep. 2009;42(8):475-81.

9. Akter K, Lanza EA, Martin SA, Myronyuk N, Rua M, Raffa RB. Diabetes mellitus and Alzheimer's disease: shared pathology and treatment? British journal of clinical pharmacology. 2011 Mar;71(3):365-76.
10. Cooray GK, Maurex L, Brismar T. Cognitive impairment correlates to low auditory event-related potential amplitudes in type 1 diabetes. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2008 Aug;33(7):942-50.
11. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113.
12. Simon JR. Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of experimental psychology. 1969 Jul;81(1):174-6.
13. Cespon J, Hommel B, Korsch M, Galashan D. The neurocognitive underpinnings of the Simon effect: An integrative review of current research. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2020 10/08.
14. Hommel B. Attention and spatial stimulus coding in the Simon task: A rejoinder to van der Lubbe and Abrahamse (2010). Acta psychologica. 2010 10/01;136:265-8.
15. Leuthold H. The Simon effect in cognitive electrophysiology: A short review. Acta psychologica. 2011 Feb;136(2):203-11.
16. Stürmer B, Leuthold H, Soetens E, Schröter H, Sommer W. Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of experimental psychology Human perception and performance. 2002 Dec;28(6):1345-63.
17. Wühr P. Evidence for gating of direct response activation in the Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2005 2005/04/01;12(2):282-8.
18. Helfrich RF, Knight RT. Cognitive neurophysiology: Event-related potentials. Handbook of clinical neurology. 2019;160:543-58.
19. Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007 Oct;118(10):2128-48.
20. Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science (New York, NY). 1965 Nov 26;150(3700):1187-8.
21. Di Leo MA, Di Nardo W, Cercone S, Ciervo A, Lo Monaco M, Greco AV, et al. Cochlear dysfunction in IDDM patients with subclinical peripheral neuropathy. Diabetes care. 1997 May;20(5):824-8.
22. Arslan S, İskender Z. İşitsel Kortikal Cevaplar: Özellikler ve Klinik Uygulamalar. Türkiye Klinikleri. 2015 01/01.
23. Ernst LH, Ehlis AC, Dresler T, Tupak SV, Weidner A, Fallgatter AJ. N1 and N2 ERPs reflect the regulation of automatic approach tendencies to positive stimuli. Neuroscience research. 2013 Mar;75(3):239-49.
24. van der Lubbe RH, Verleger R. Aging and the Simon task. Psychophysiology. 2002 Jan;39(1):100-10.
25. Folstein JR, Van Petten C. Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. Psychophysiology. 2008 Jan;45(1):152-70.
26. van Veen V, Carter CS. The anterior cingulate as a conflict monitor: fMRI and ERP studies. Physiology & behavior. 2002 Dec;77(4-5):477-82.
27. Bartholow BD, Pearson MA, Dickter CL, Sher KJ, Fabiani M, Gratton G. Strategic control and medial frontal negativity: beyond errors and response conflict. Psychophysiology. 2005 Jan;42(1):33-42.
28. Donchin E, Coles M. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences - BEHAV BRAIN SCI. 1988 09/01;11:357-427.
29. Ragot R, Renault B. P300, as a function of S-R compatibility and motor programming. Biological psychology. 1981 Dec;13:289-94.
30. Ragot R. Perceptual and motor space representation: an event-related potential study. Psychophysiology. 1984 Mar;21(2):159-70.
31. Botvinick MM, Braver TS, Barch DM, Carter CS, Cohen JD. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review. 2001;108(3):624-52.
32. Ridderinkhof KR. Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological research. 2002 Nov;66(4):312-23.
33. Kornblum S, Hasbroucq T, Osman A. Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. Psychol Rev. 1990 Apr;97(2):253-70.