Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T07:32:59.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Investigating racing thoughts via ocular temporal windows: deficits in the control of automatic perceptual processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2021

Patrik Polgári
Affiliation:
INSERM U1114, Strasbourg, France University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
Luisa Weiner
Affiliation:
INSERM U1114, Strasbourg, France University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Psychiatry Department, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
Jean-Baptiste Causin
Affiliation:
INSERM U1114, Strasbourg, France University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Psychiatry Department, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
Gilles Bertschy
Affiliation:
INSERM U1114, Strasbourg, France University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Psychiatry Department, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
Anne Giersch*
Affiliation:
INSERM U1114, Strasbourg, France University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Psychiatry Department, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
*
Author for correspondence: Anne Giersch, E-mail: giersch@unistra.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Racing thoughts have been found in several states of bipolar disorder (BD), but also in healthy populations with subclinical mood alterations. The evaluation of racing thoughts relies on subjective reports, and objective measures are sparse. The current study aims at finding an objective neuropsychological equivalent of racing thoughts in a mixed group of BD patients and healthy controls by using a bistable perception paradigm.

Method

Eighty-three included participants formed three groups based on participants' levels of racing thoughts reported via the Racing and Crowded Thoughts Questionnaire. Participants reported reversals in their perception during viewing of the bistable Necker cube either spontaneously, while asked to focus on one interpretation of the cube, or while asked to accelerate perceptual reversals. The dynamics of perceptual alternations were studied both at a conscious level (with manual temporal windows reflecting perceptual reversals) and at a more automatic level (with ocular temporal windows derived from ocular fixations).

Results

The rate of windows was less modulated by attentional conditions in participants with racing thoughts, and most clearly so for ocular windows. The rate of ocular windows was especially high when participants with racing thoughts were asked to focus on one interpretation of the Necker cube and when they received these instructions for the first time.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that in subjects with racing thoughts automatic perceptual processes escape cognitive control mechanisms. Racing thoughts may involve not only conscious thought mechanisms but also more automatic processes.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Number of participants in the different mood states and cut-off scores used for the diagnosis

Figure 1

Table 2. Demographic data of the three racing thoughts groups

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the cluster analysis used for the computation of ocular windows. Ocular fixations are represented on the Necker cube by gray circles whose diameter is proportional to the duration of the fixation (upper part). The x coordinates of the fixations are reported on the graph (bottom part) by continuous lines whose length is proportional to the duration of the fixations. The threshold separating fixations on the left and the right side is computed by the EM cluster algorithm. Successive fixations belonging to the same side form an ocular cluster which corresponds to an ocular window (OW).

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Mean number of manual (a) and ocular windows (b) in each experimental condition across the three racing thoughts groups. Error bars represent ± SEM.

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Mean number of ocular windows produced in the attentional conditions, considering the order in which they were performed. Error bars represent ± SEM.

Supplementary material: File

Polgári et al. supplementary material

Polgári et al. supplementary material

Download Polgári et al. supplementary material(File)
File 31.9 KB