Psychosomatic Medicine Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elsenbruch, S.
Right arrow Articles by Orr, W. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elsenbruch, S.
Right arrow Articles by Orr, W. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Gastrointestinal
Right arrow Psychophysiology
Right arrow Sexual Medicine: Female
Psychosomatic Medicine 63:805-813 (2001)
© 2001 American Psychosomatic Society

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Psychological and Physiological Responses to Postprandial Mental Stress in Women With the Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Sigrid Elsenbruch, PhD1, William R. Lovallo, PhD and William C. Orr, PhD

1Current affiliation: Institute for Medical Psychology, University Clinic of Essen, Germany.
Lynn Institute for Healthcare Research (S.E. and W.C.O.) and VA Medical Center (W.R.L.), Oklahoma City, OK.

Address correspondence to: William C. Orr, PhD, Lynn Institute for Healthcare Research, 5300 N. Independence, Suite 130, Oklahoma City, OK 73112. Email: okorr{at}theshop.net


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the psychological (affective and symptomatic) and physiological (autonomic and cortisol) responses to postprandial mental stress in women with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). It was hypothesized that patients with IBS would show exaggerated autonomic and cortisol responses to the psychological stressor and that the stressor would enhance gastrointestinal symptoms.

METHOD: Twenty-four women with IBS and 20 healthy women participated in the two-day study protocol. Both days were identical, with the exception that on one day, a stressful mental task was completed after ingestion of a standard meal. Heart rate variability, cortisol, affective, and symptomatic responses were measured before and after application of the stressor.

RESULTS: Patients with IBS demonstrated increased negative affect at baseline and in response to the stressor. Gastrointestinal symptoms were not affected by the stressor. Appraisal of the stressor by patients with IBS was not different from that of controls. There were no group differences in the autonomic response to the stressor. There was no overall cortisol response to the stressor in either group.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBS respond with greater negative affect to postprandial psychological stress as well as to food intake alone, and they can be distinguished from controls on the basis of self-report data. Patients with IBS cannot be differentiated from controls on the basis of the pattern of changes in sympathetic activation after the mental stressor. The stressor used in this study did not elicit a cortisol response in either group.

Key Words: Irritable bowel syndrome • autonomic nervous system • cortisol • mental stress • heart rate variability • functional bowel disorder

Abbreviations: IBS = irritable bowel syndrome; HRV = heart rate variability; LF = low frequency; HF = high frequency; GI = gastrointestinal; ANS = autonomic nervous system; CNS = central nervous system; ECG = electrocardiogram; SEM = standard error of the mean; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; HPA = hypothalamic pituitary adrenal


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
IBS is one of the most common functional gastrointestinal disorders, characterized by abdominal pain associated with altered bowel habit (ie, diarrhea and/or constipation) (1, 2). Much evidence suggests that the pathogenesis of IBS involves abnormal brain-gut interactions, characterized by a hyperresponsiveness and/or a hypersensitivity (3–5). However, it is unclear whether this occurs at the level of the gut, the ANS, or the CNS (3–10). There is evidence to support the importance of both visceral stimuli (eg, colonic distention) and nonvisceral stimuli (eg, psychological stressors) (3–10). Therefore, it is conceptually possible that IBS pathophysiology involves abnormal afferent (ascending) or efferent (descending) mechanisms.

The autonomic and endocrine systems represent the link between the CNS and the gut, and, as such, they are important candidates for mediating abnormal brain-gut interactions in IBS. In fact, several studies have documented autonomic abnormalities in patients with IBS, whereas endocrine abnormalities are less well studied (6, 7, 11–21). Higher cortical and limbic brain areas can modulate the hypothalamic and brain stem areas that control autonomic and endocrine outflow. In light of numerous reports of significant psychogenic components of this functional disorder, this begs the question of the role of psychological and emotional factors in autonomic dysfunction previously found in response to various stimuli in patients with IBS. If, in fact, descending mechanisms play a role in physiologic responses to various stimuli, this modulation would be particularly prominent during psychological stress.

The specific aim of this study was to investigate the autonomic, cortisol, affective, and symptomatic responses to postprandial psychological stress in patients with IBS compared with controls. The rationale for applying a psychological stressor was to activate the descending mechanism of hypothalamic activation in patients with IBS. In doing so, the goal was to elucidate the psychological and physiological components of abnormal brain-gut interactions in IBS. It was hypothesized that exposure to a psychological stressor, presented during the postprandial period, would be associated with abnormal autonomic and cortisol responses and gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with IBS.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Subject Recruitment and Screening Procedure
The majority of patients with IBS were recruited from an existing database from the clinical trials program of the Institute (excluding individuals currently on study medication). Controls and a minor portion of patients with IBS were recruited through public advertisement. Care was taken to ensure that participants had little experience as research subjects (other than in clinical trials). Importantly, the main goal of the study (ie, stress responses) was not disclosed during recruitment and screening. Instead, the stressor was described as a neuropsychological task that required concentration and fast responding.

The screening procedure consisted of a structured phone screening and a personal interview at the Institute, both conducted by the first author. During the phone screen, it was evaluated whether individuals met the major criteria for eligibility. These included that individuals were female, between 21 and 50 years of age, and without any evidence of gastrointestinal diseases (other than IBS for the IBS group), autonomic or cardiovascular conditions, chronic neurologic conditions, current psychiatric conditions, or chronic medications known to affect the parameters collected in this study, including psychotropic medications such as antidepressants. Short-acting IBS medications were not considered to be exclusionary. It was further confirmed that patients with IBS met the Rome criteria for IBS and had received a diagnosis of IBS at least one year before the study (22). During the personal interview, subjects completed a number of questionnaires that assessed demographic and medical information. In addition, chronic gastrointestinal symptoms over the preceding three months were assessed both in healthy individuals and patients with IBS with an ad hoc questionnaire (ie, a total of 17 upper and lower GI symptoms rated on a scale from 0 = never experienced to 3 = experienced more than twice per week). One individual was excluded from participation in the control group because of the presence of GI symptoms. Participants also completed the BDI, and individuals with a total score greater than 14 were excluded (this occurred in the case of one patient with IBS). Several blood pressure measurements were taken to ensure normal blood pressures, and one individual was excluded from the control group because of pressures greater than 140/90. ECG recordings were performed with a Burdick E350I Electrocardiograph. Recordings that were identified as abnormal by the computer interpretation were evaluated by a collaborating physician. No individual was excluded because of evidence of ECG abnormalities.

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Integris Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma. All participants gave informed written consent before entering the study and were paid for their participation.

Sample Characteristics
Demographic and medical characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. In addition, patients with IBS had significantly higher scores on all dimensions of the Symptom Check List (SCL) as well as on its global indices (23). On the basis of the author’s nonpatient female norms, eight patients with IBS but none of the women in the control group were at positive risk for a psychiatric disorder (23). With regard to the IBS symptom profile for women in the IBS group, on average, patients had begun experiencing IBS symptoms at age 18, had suffered an average of 13.3 years, and had sought medical attention for their IBS symptoms an average of 9.5 times. Patients reported experiencing pain on an average of 2.7 days per week, and 50% of patients reported that their pain was typically "quite severe" or "very severe" and that their IBS was interfering with their personal or professional lives "quite a lot" or "completely." With regard to stool patterns, 12 of the patients reported constipation alone, whereas the remaining patients reported symptoms of either diarrhea alone or alternating diarrhea and constipation.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Women in the IBS and Control Groups
 

Study Protocol
All participants were studied in two study sessions accomplished on two separate days in counterbalanced order. Both sessions were identical, with the exception that on one day subjects completed a stressful task (stress day), whereas on the other day they underwent a postprandial passive relaxation period (rest day). Three 30-minute ECG recordings were accomplished on each day: (1) a fasting baseline, after which participants ingested a standardized, solid-liquid meal containing a total of 715 calories (26 g fat, 87 g carbohydrates, 21 g protein); (2) a stress or rest recording period; and (3) a recovery recording. Symptomatic and affective responses and saliva samples were collected immediately on arrival to the lab, after the baseline recording, after the meal, after the stressor/rest period, and after the recovery recording.

Subjects were required to discontinue medications, including short-acting GI symptom medications such as antacids (but not birth control pills or allergy medications) a minimum of 24 hours before the study sessions. To minimize circadian effects, all recording sessions took place in the afternoon between 12:00 and 18:00, and for each subject the starting time was the same for both sessions. In addition, the two sessions were scheduled no more than seven days apart. During the baseline and recovery periods of both study days, participants watched commercially available videos from the Beautiful Cities of the World series (Madacy Entertainment Group, Inc.), in order to standardize levels of activity. During the passive relaxation period, participants watched a segment of the commercially available video Nature Whispers, Vol. 1 (Madacy Entertainment Group, Inc). No special instructions were given during this period (ie, passive relaxation). To minimize movement-related artifacts and position effects, subjects remained in the supine position with their head and upper body slightly elevated during all recordings. Subjects were monitored from outside the room via a video camera installed in the laboratory to ensure wakefulness and prevent interference with the recordings.

The Stress Task
The task was an adapted, specially designed computerized reaction time task with noise "punishment," based on a variant of the Stroop Color Test. The reaction time task is a previously utilized active avoidance task, which requires fast responses to a visual signal to avoid an aversive auditory signal (24). In its original form, the Stroop Test assesses the ability to shift a perceptual set (25, 26). Because it requires significant concentration and mental effort and has aversive emotional qualities, many investigators have used it as a mental stressor (20, 25, 27). In the present study, subjects were presented with a series of words that appeared every 2 seconds on average, for a duration of 200 Ms, at random intervals. As in the Stroop Color Test, the words depicted various colors, but the color of the letters of each word differed from its actual meaning (eg, the letters of the word "blue" were of red color). The words "red" and "green" were the two target stimuli that required responses. The word "red" appeared in 30% and the word "green" in 25% of cases. The remaining 45% of words acted as "distracters" that required no response (ie, in fact they required response suppression). The target stimulus "red" required fast clicking on a red box on the computer monitor. Failure to respond correctly within 600 Ms was associated with a noise burst of about 70 dB and 2 seconds in duration, which was delivered via a pair of headphones. Failure to respond correctly within 600 Ms by clicking on a green box in response to the target stimulus "green" was associated with a deduction from a "dollar bank." In an attempt to increase the aversiveness of the task by including elements of unpredictability and uncontrollability, the computer was programmed to deliver a noise in 30% of cases (at random intervals) when the word "red" was presented, regardless of the reaction time of the subject. Similarly, money was deducted in 40% of cases (in random intervals), regardless of reaction time. Participants were further led to believe that they were videotaped during the task, and, in all cases, the investigator was present throughout the task to increase the aversiveness of the situation and ensure compliance with the task instructions.

Dependent Measures
HRV analysis was used as a noninvasive, quantitative evaluation of the sympathovagal interaction modulating cardiac function (28–30). Physiologically, respiratory sinus arrhythmia and vasomotor waves form the basis of HRV and of the parameters derived from spectral analysis of the HRV signal. Respiratory sinus arrhythmia can be defined as the variations in heart rate mediated through alternating increases and decreases in parasympathetic input to the sinus node, which occur at a frequency of 0.15 to 0.5 Hz (ie, the HF band). In addition, a slower rhythm in phase with vasomotor waves exists, and these sympathetically mediated influences affect the heart rate in the frequency range of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz (ie, the LF band). Therefore, the HF bandpower of the HRV power spectrum, defined as the total energy in decibels in the 0.15 to 0.5 Hz frequency, range represents cardiac vagal tone. Conversely, the LF band power indicates mainly sympathetic activity, although minor vagal influences have also been noted in this frequency range. The ratio of the LF and HF components, the LF/HF ratio, is an indicator of sympathovagal balance, with greater values reflecting enhanced overall sympathetic dominance (28–30).

Saliva free cortisol was used as a measure of HPA axis functioning. Saliva has been shown to be a noninvasive specimen source of free cortisol independent of extraneous factors such as saliva flow rate (31, 32). Cortisol is the primary glucocorticoid hormone in humans. Although it is primarily involved in glucose metabolism, its release has been shown to be differentially increased by HPA activation during states of stress (33). Acute increases in cortisol occur in stressful situations that involve ego involvement, novelty, unpredictability, and negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, helplessness, and loss of control (33–35).

Affective responses were assessed with the Positive Affectivity/Negative Affectivity Schedule (PANAS) (36). Symptomatic responses were measured with an ad hoc gastrointestinal symptom questionnaire, which consisted of a variety of upper and lower GI symptoms (ie, heartburn, indigestion, stomach ache, difficulty swallowing, nausea, bloating, lower abdominal pain, gaseousness, belching, stomach fullness, satiety, hunger, and urge to defecate) and used the same rating scale and instructions as the PANAS (ie, present moment ratings on a five-point scale from "very little or not at all" to "extremely"). In order to assess individual’s appraisal of the task characteristics, subjects rated the task’s stressfulness, its aversiveness, and their confidence regarding task performance on five-point rating scales identical to those of the PANAS.

Data Acquisition and Analysis
HRV data were derived from the ECG signal, which was recorded with standard Ag/AgCl cutaneous electrodes, applied to the lower left side of the thorax on the mid-axillary line and to the left and right shoulders over the clavicle after preparation of the electrode sites with an abrasive paste and electroconductive gel. ECG data were continuously recorded by use of a computerized data collection system and a bioamplifier (Medtronics). Analog ECG signals underwent A/D conversion with a sampling rate of 6000 Hz and 16-bit resolution, in order to ensure quality signals. Digitized signals were stored on computer hard disk and then archived to CD-ROM for long-term storage.

For analysis, the digitized ECG signal were down-sampled to 500 Hz. Computer software (ie, signal processing Toolbox for MATLAB, the Math Works Inc., Natick, MA) was used to perform the R-wave peak identification and the calculation of the beat-to-beat heart rate intervals (ie, R-R intervals). The R-R intervals were then resampled at 2 Hz and interpolated by use of weighted averages of beats that fall within the sample interval for the value at a given point in the time series. The HRV was then subjected to overall spectral analysis, yielding the HF band power, the LF band power, and the LF/HF ratio.

Saliva samples were collected by use of a commercially available collection device (Salivette®, Sarstedt, Germany), centrifuged, and stored at -70°C until assayed. Cortisol concentrations were measured by a radioimmunoassay technique with a commercially available kit (Orion Diagnostica, Espoo, Finland) adapted to measure the low cortisol concentrations present in saliva. The actual assays were performed by a laboratory with expertise in the techniques at the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium.

PANAS responses on the negative affective items were summed to yield a negative affective score per assessment period. For the present study, the negative affective scores were of primary interest, because several of the positive PANAS items reflect behavioral arousal (eg, "active," "attentive," or "active") and were expected to be influenced by the study design. For symptomatic responses, an average symptom score was computed.

Statistical Analyses
The statistical analyses were planned a priori. The design was a three-way mixed, repeated-measures design. Initially, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with F tests for between-group comparisons were accomplished. Then planned contrasts (ie, paired t tests for within-group comparisons and independent-samples t tests for between-group comparisons) were carried out as follows: To compare the groups at baseline, baseline responses were averaged over both study days, and the effects of the stressor were analyzed by comparing the two study days within each group and then comparing the groups on the stress day. With the exception of baseline comparisons, all comparisons were carried out on delta scores (eg, stress/rest minus baseline and recovery minus stress/rest), as a way to account for individual baseline differences, because the main interest was to investigate response patterns in patients compared with controls with and without the stressor. For assessment of group differences in demographic characteristics and symptom profile and the rating of the task’s characteristics, independent-sample t tests and Fisher’s Exact Test were carried out where appropriate. Correlation analyses were carried out by use of Pearson’s r. In all statistical procedures, the alpha level was set at 0.05.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
All data are presented as mean ± SEM.

Subjective Responses to the Stress Task
No significant group differences were found in the appraisal of the task’s characteristics or in the total number of noises delivered (see Table 2). The F test on negative affect showed a significant main effect for Group (F(1, 42) = 7.9, p < .01). The MANOVA showed significant effects for Day ({lambda}(2, 42) = 0.8, p < .01) and Period ({lambda}(4, 39) = 0.24, p < .001), a significant interaction of Day with Period ({lambda}(4, 39) = 0.6, p < .001), and a trend for an interaction of Period with Group ({lambda}(4, 39) = 0.8, p = .056). In response to the stressor, both groups showed a significant increase in negative affect (within-group comparisons, both p < .01). However, patients with IBS showed a greater increase in negative affect than controls (p < .05 for between-group change), as well as a significantly greater decrease in negative affect after the recovery (p < .05, see Figure 1b). Patients with IBS further reported more negative emotions during baseline (p = .0505) and after the meal (change from period two to period three between-groups: p < .05, see Figure 1a).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Perceived Task Characteristics and Number of Noises Delivered
 


View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Negative affect on the rest day (a) and stress day (b) in controls and patients with IBS. On the rest day, patients with IBS showed greater negative affect at baseline (*p = .051) and after the meal (*p < .05). On the stress day, patients with IBS reported greater negative affect in response to the stressor (+p < .05), and they showed a greater decrease in negative affect after the recovery period (*p < .05). The data are shown as mean and SEM. Time points 1 and 2 are preprandial; 3 to 5 are postprandial.

 

The F test on gastrointestinal symptoms showed a significant effect for Group (F(1,42) = 38.5, p < .001). The MANOVA revealed a significant effect for Period ({lambda}(4, 39) = 0.6, p < .01), a significant interaction of Period and Group ({lambda}(4, 39) = 0.8, p < .05), and a trend for an effect of Day ({lambda}(1, 42) = 0.9,p < .08). The stressor had no significant effects on symptoms in either group. Postprandial negative affect was significantly correlated with postprandial GI symptoms in patients with IBS (r = .46, p < .05 for period three; r = .6, p < .01 for period four). Patients with IBS reported significantly more GI symptoms at baseline (all p < .001).

Cortisol Results
There were 12 missing data points because of insufficient saliva present in the sample, and 19 outliers (defined as values 2.5 standard deviations greater than the group mean) were detected and subsequently deleted. The results showed no main effect for group. The MANOVA revealed significant effects for Day ({lambda}(1, 43) = 0.9, p < .05) and Period ({lambda}(4, 31) = 0.6, p < .01) and a significant three-way interaction of Day x Period x Group ({lambda}(4, 31) = 0.7, p < .05). Post hoc within-group comparisons of the change scores between days revealed no significant differences for either group. Between-group comparisons of the means for each measurement period on the stress day showed no group differences, nor did between-group comparisons of the difference scores (ie, pre- vs. poststress). Figure 2 shows the cortisol concentrations on the stress day.



View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig.2. Salivary cortisol concentrations (ng/ml) in patients with IBS and controls on the stress day. There were no significant differences in the group means for any measurement period, in the between-group change scores (pre- vs. poststress), or in the within-group difference scores comparing the rest and the stress day. Time points 1 and 2 are preprandial; 3 to 5 are postprandial.

 

Heart Rate and HRV Results
The initial MANOVA revealed a significant effect for Period ({lambda}(2, 36) = 0.1, p < .001) and a significant interaction of Day and Period ({lambda}(2, 36) = 0.7, p < .01). No main effect for Group was found, and planned between-group comparisons revealed no differences between groups in the HRV response to the stressor.

Within-group changes, when the rest and stress days were compared, showed a significantly greater increase in heart rate from baseline to stress in both groups (p < .01 for controls; p < .05 for IBS, see Table 3). Patients with IBS showed a slight decrease in the LF/HF ratio from baseline to the stress period, which was significantly different from the slight increase observed on the rest day (p < .05 for the change score; see Figure 3b). In addition, several significant differences between the two days were found when the changes from the stress/rest period to the recovery period were compared: Compared with the rest day, there was a significantly greater increase in the LF/HF ratio from the stress to the recovery period in controls (within-group comparison: p < .01, see Figure 3a). This did not reach significance in patients with IBS (see Figure 3b). Comparisons of the individual HRV power band revealed a difference between days in the LF band but not the HF band in both groups: There was a greater increase in the LF bandpower from the stress to the recovery period on the stress day (p < .01 for controls; p < .1 for IBS).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Heart Rate Responses to the Stressor
 


View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig.3. Changes in LF/HF ratio in controls (a) and patients with IBS (b) on the stress day compared with the rest day. There were no significant group differences. Within-group comparisons showed that, compared with the rest day, there was a significantly greater increase in the LF/HF ratio on the stress day in controls (*p < .05) from stress/rest to recovery (see panel a). This increase did not reach significance in patients with IBS. There was a significant difference between days in change from baseline to stress in patients with IBS (*p < .05) (see panel b). The data are shown as mean and SEM.

 

Because of the failure of the stressor to induce an immediate sympathetic response in either group, a dichotomous variable ("aversiveness") was created on the basis of each subject’s rating of the task aversiveness. Subjects with a rating equal to or greater than three (ie, "moderately," "quite a bit," or "extremely") were classified as perceiving the task as very aversive "HIGH," whereas those with ratings smaller than three were classified as "LOW." The rest and stress days were then compared in the individuals in the HIGH group (15 patients with IBS and 10 controls). The results revealed that, compared with the rest period, the stress period was characterized by significantly lower LF band power and LF/HF ratio in this group (both p < .05).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
This investigation addressed brain-gut interactions in patients with IBS by evaluating the psychological (affective and symptomatic) and physiological (autonomic and cortisol) responses to a postprandial mental stressor in women with IBS compared with controls. The study’s primary goal was to test the hypothesis that, in patients with IBS, autonomic and cortisol responses and symptoms would be enhanced by a mental stressor given during the postprandial period by activating the descending mechanism of autonomic and HPA axis activation. Clearly, the results did not support this hypothesis, because the stressor failed to enhance physiological abnormalities present because of the meal alone (37) or to affect gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the role of postprandial timing in the present results remains unclear. It is quite conceivable that the lack of symptomatic response to the stressor was simply due to the fact that the responses to the meal alone "overshadowed" any reaction to the stressor. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to perform future stress studies exclusively in the fasting state.

Furthermore, patients did not differ from controls with regard to ratings of the task’s characteristics: on average, the task was perceived as being moderately stressful and moderately aversive, and little confidence was felt regarding task performance on average. On the other hand, patients with IBS showed a greater negative affective response than controls. The fact that patients with IBS did not perceive the qualities of the task any differently than controls seems to contradict the finding that they showed more negative emotions in response to it. One way to explain this is to suggest that the rating of the task’s characteristics call on cognitive appraisal, rather than emotional processing. On the basis of this notion, these results can be interpreted as evidence that the negative emotional responses of patients with IBS to stressful events are enhanced, whereas their cognitive appraisals are normal.

Given the previously documented association of cortisol and negative mood states, it had been anticipated that the stressor would elicit a greater cortisol response in patients with IBS. However, the task was ineffective in eliciting a cortisol response in either group. In addition, the stress task was designed to elicit sympathetic and cardiovascular activation. Indeed, the results showed that the stressor was associated with significant elevations in heart rate. However, HRV variables showed no evidence of sympathetic activation in either group during the stress period. Instead, both groups demonstrated enhanced sympathetic activation, indicated by an increased LF/HF ratio, after the termination of the stressor. The literature on the cardiac dynamics during various neuropsychological tasks supports that the task-specific sensory and motor requirements determine cardiac autonomic responses. Tasks, like the one used in the present study, which require complex sensory-motor integration, anticipation of events, and alternating motor inhibition and motor response initiation may not be associated with increased sympathetic outflow to the heart. Instead, after their termination, there can be accelerative recovery, characterized by "rebound" sympathetic dominance (38, 39). This appears to have occurred in the present study, given that, in highly stressed individuals, the results showed decreased sympathetic activity during the stressor, followed by rebound sympathetic activation. Although the current task did involve fast responding, subjects were completely immobile (with the exception of the index finger mouse clicks), and the task also involved complex perceptual components and sensory-motor integration. Thus, the overall motor requirement may not have been strong enough to offset the sensory aspects of the task, and it therefore did not elicit physiological preparation for "fight-or-flight."

In this context, it is also important to mention the relevance of the Stroop task to the subjects. Clearly, although the Stroop is used fairly widely, it is not a social stressor, and one may therefore assume little personal relevance to the subjects. However, in this experiment, social aspects were added—ie, subjects were told that they were being videotaped, and the investigator remained in the laboratory during task performance "to note errors." Therefore, we conclude that the lack of (immediate) sympathetic response in both groups indicates that the patients are not abnormally reactive to this stressor, rather than suggesting a failure to properly operationalize the stress manipulation. However, the task was clearly not prolonged enough and/or not aversive enough to induce a cortisol response in either group, which constitutes a limitation of this study. Certainly, responses to the Stroop (or the lack thereof) are not necessarily generalizable to other types of stressors, and it is conceivable that patients with IBS are overly responsive to more personally relevant situations. In addition, the present results are probably not generalizable to all patients with IBS, given that the patient selection process in the present study excluded patients with significant psychopathology (ie, with a current psychiatric disorder or a BDI score greater than 14). This was done to avoid confounding of the results by psychopathology. Thus, the present sample, although all treatment-seeking patients, may be more representative of the non-treatment-seeking IBS population ("IBS nonpatients") with regard to psychological variables. Clearly, further investigation of psychophysiological responses of the IBS population with different types of stressors (particularly social stressors) are clearly needed, and special attention should be given to possible differences among patients with IBS patients who have different degrees of psychopathology (ie, patients with IBS and IBS nonpatients).

Despite these limitations, the present task was clearly effective in causing both emotional and cardiovascular changes in both patients with IBS and in controls. Therefore, it was appropriate for the evaluation of this study’s main goal to investigate responses to a psychological challenge in a population of patients presumed to be hyperresponsive to cognitive/emotional stimuli. The results did not support this hypothesis, because patients with IBS could not be differentiated from controls on the basis of their autonomic and cortisol responses to the mental stressor. The present negative findings are inconsistent with several previous reports that support the connection of stress and GI symptoms in patients with IBS (40–44). However, other negative findings have been reported, and the "stress hypothesis" remains controversial (20, 21, 45–47). For example, rather than causing or exacerbating IBS symptoms, stress may be a consequence of IBS symptoms (45, 48). Alternatively, the attribution of IBS symptoms to stress may partly be a result of the tendency of patients with IBS to search for an explanation of their physical symptoms. In addition, the results of both correlational studies and those applying laboratory stressors are conflicting. Although some studies have reported positive findings, others have not been able to show differences in motility or cardiovascular reactivity to various neuropsychological stress tasks in patients with IBS compared with controls (20, 21, 42–44, 46, 47).

Although patients with IBS do appear to be emotionally more responsive to a variety of internal and external events, these affective responses do not appear to be closely related to autonomic or cortisol abnormalities. Instead, disordered affect is consistent with the increased incidence of psychopathology and may determine other aspects of IBS such as illness experience, healthcare seeking, and coping strategies (49, 50).


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
 
The authors thank Dr. Mireille Baleriaux from the Experimental Medicine Laboratory of the University of Brussels and Barbara McKey from the Behavioral Sciences Lab at the VA Medical Center in Oklahoma City for their help with the cortisol analyses. We also thank Drs. Zhishun Wang and Jiande Chen from the University of Texas at Galveston for providing the HRV analysis software. We finally acknowledge the help of Dr. Michael Harnish with the programming of the computer task.

Received for publication January 12, 2000.

Revision received December 14, 2000.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Talley NJ, Zinsmeister AR, Van Dyke C, Melton III LJ. Epidemiology of colonic symptoms and the irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1991; 101: 927–34.[Medline]
  2. Lynn RB, Friedman LS. Irritable bowel syndrome. N Engl J Med 1993; 29: 1940–45.
  3. Mayer EA, Raybold HE. Role of visceral afferent mechanisms in functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 1990; 99: 1688–704.[Medline]
  4. Aziz Q, Thompson DG. Brain-gut axis in health and disease. Gastroenterology 1998; 114: 559–78.[Medline]
  5. Drossman DA. Review article: an integrated approach to the irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13: 3–4.
  6. Camilleri M, Ford MJ. Functional gastrointestinal disease and the autonomic nervous system: a way ahead [Editorial]? Gastroenterology 1994; 106: 1114–8.[Medline]
  7. Tougas G. The autonomic nervous system in functional bowel disorders. Can J Gastroenterol 1999; 13: 15A–7A.
  8. McKee DP, Quigley EM. Intestinal motility in irritable bowel syndrome: is IBS a motility disorder? Dig Dis Sci 1993; 38: 1761–82.[Medline]
  9. Schuster MM, Whitehead WE. Physiologic insights into irritable bowel syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol 1986; 15: 839–53.[Medline]
  10. Whitehead WE, Crowell MD. Psychologic considerations in the irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterol Clin N Am 1991; 20: 249–67.[Medline]
  11. Smart HL, Atkinson M. Abnormal vagal function in irritable bowel syndrome. Lancet 2: 475–78.
  12. Camilleri M, Fealey RD. Idiopathic autonomic denervation in eight patients presenting with functional gastrointestinal disease. A causal association? Dig Dis Sci 1990; 35: 609–16.[Medline]
  13. Bharucha AE, Camilleri M, Low PA, Zinsmeister AR. Autonomic dysfunction in gastrointestinal motility disorders. Gut 1993; 34: 397–401.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Aggarwal A, Cutts TF, Abell TL, Cardoso S, Familoni B, Bremer J, Karas J. Predominant symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome correlate with specific autonomic nervous system abnormalities. Gastroenterology 1994; 106: 945–50.[Medline]
  15. Adeyemi EOA, Desai KD, Towsey M, Ghista D. Characterization of autonomic dysfunction in patients with irritable bowel syndrome by means of heart rate variability studies. Am J Gastro 199; 94: 816–23.
  16. Heitkemper M, Burr RL, Jarrett M, Hertig V, Lustyk MK, Bond EF. Evidence for autonomic nervous system imbalance in women with irritable bowel syndrome. Dig Dis Sci 1998; 43: 2093–98.[Medline]
  17. Jorgensen LS, Christiansen P, Raundahl U, Ostgaard S, Christensen NJ, Fenger M, Flachs H. Autonomic nervous system function in patients with functional abdominal pain. Scand J Gastroenterol 1993; 28: 63–8.[Medline]
  18. Dinan TG, Barry S, Ahkion S, Chua A, Keeling PWN. Assessment of central noradrenergic functioning in irritable bowel syndrome using a neuroendocrine challenge test. Psychosom Res 1990; 34: 575–80.
  19. Heitkemper M, Jarrett M, Cain K, Shaver J, Bond E, Woods NF, Walder E. Increased urine catecholamines and cortisol in women with irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastro 1996; 91: 906–13.[Medline]
  20. Levine BS, Jarrett M, Cain KC, Heitkemper MM. Psychophysiological response to a laboratory challenge in women with and without diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome. Res Health 1997; 20: 431–41.
  21. Payne A, Blanchard EB, Holt CS, Schwarz SP. Physiological reactivity to stressors in irritable bowel syndrome patients, inflammatory bowel disease patients and non-patient controls. Behav Res Ther 1992; 30: 293–300.[Medline]
  22. Drossman DA, Thompson WG, Talley NJ, Funch-Jensen P, Janssens J, Whitehead WE. Identification of sub-groups of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterol Int 1990; 3: 159–72.
  23. Derogatis L. The SCL-90-R. Administration, scoring, and procedures manual. 3rd ed. Minneapolis (MN): National Computer Systems; 1994. 3rd ed.
  24. Lovallo WR, Wilson MF, Pincomb GA, Edwards GL, Tompkins P, Brackett DJ. Activation patterns to aversive stimulation in man: passive exposure versus effort to control. Psychophysiology 1985; 22: 283–91.[Medline]
  25. Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 1935; 18: 643–62.
  26. Lezak MD. Neuropsychological assessment. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
  27. Narducci F, Snape WJ, Battle WM, London RL, Cohen S. Increased colonic motility during exposure to a stressful situation. Dig Dis Sci 1985; 30: 40–4.[Medline]
  28. Berntson GG, Bigger TJ, Eckberg DL, Grossman P, Kaufmann PG, Malik M, Nagaraja HN, Porges SW, Saul JP, Stone PH, VanDerMolen MW. Heart rate variability: origins, methods, and interpretive caveats. Psychophysiology 1997; 34: 623–48.[Medline]
  29. Malliani A, Pagani M, Lombardi F, Certutti S. Cardiovascular neural regulation explored in the frequency domain. Circulation 1991; 91: 1918–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Pagani M, Lombardi F, Guzetti S, Rimoldi O, Furlan R, Pizzinelli P, Sandrone G, Malfatto G, Dell’Orto S, Picaluga E, Turiel M, Baselli G, Cerutti S, Malliani A. Power spectral analysis of heart rate and arterial pressure variabilities as a marker of sympatho-vagal interaction in man and conscious dog. Circul Res 1986; 59: 178–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Aardal E, Holm AC. Cortisol in saliva—reference ranges and relation to cortisol in serum. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1995; 33: 927–32.[Medline]
  32. Riad-Fahmy D, Read GR, Walker RF, Griffiths K. Steroids in saliva for assessing endocrine function. Endocr Rev 1982; 3: 367–95.[Medline]
  33. al’Absi M, Lovallo WR. Cortisol concentrations in serum of borderline hypertensive men exposed to a novel experimental setting. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1993; 18: 355–63.[Medline]
  34. al’Absi M, Bongard S, Buchanan TW, Pincomb GA, Licinio J, Lovallo WR. Cardiovascular and neuroendocrine adjustment to public speaking and mental arithmetic stressors. Psychophysiology 1997; 34: 266–75.[Medline]
  35. Lovallo WR, Pincomb GA, Brackett DJ, Wilson MF. Heart rate reactivity as a predictor of neuroendocrine responses to aversive and appetitive challenges. Psychosom Med 1990; 52: 17–26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54: 1063–70.[Medline]
  37. Elsenbruch S, Orr WC. Diarrhea- and constipation-predominant IBS patients differ in postprandial autonomic and cortisol responses. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 460–6.[Medline]
  38. Jennings JR, Van Der Molen MW, Somsen RJM, Brock K. Weak sensory stimuli induce a phase sensitive bradycardia. Psychophysiology 1991; 28: 1–10.[Medline]
  39. Jennings JR, Van Der Molen MW, Brock K, Somsen RJM. Response inhibition initiates cardiac deceleration: evidence from a sensory-motor compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology 1991; 28: 72–85.[Medline]
  40. Hislop IG. Childhood deprivation. An antecedent of the irritable bowel syndrome. Med J Australia 1979; 1: 372–4.
  41. Chaudhary NA, Truelove SC. The irritable colon syndrome: a study of the clinical features, predisposing causes, and prognosis in 130 cases. Q J Med 1962; 31: 307–23.[Free Full Text]
  42. Dancey CP, Taghavi MT, Fox RJ. The relationship between daily stress and symptoms of irritable bowel: a time-series approach. J Psychosom Res 1998; 44: 537–45.[Medline]
  43. Kumar D, Wingate DL. The irritable bowel syndrome: a paroxysmal motor disorder. Lancet 1985; 2: 973–7.[Medline]
  44. Welgan P, Meshkinpour H, Beeler M. Effect of anger on colon motor and myoelectric activity in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1988; 94: 1150–56.[Medline]
  45. Whitehead WE. Assessing the effects of stress on physical symptoms. Health Psychol 1994; 13: 99–102.[Medline]
  46. Kellow JE, Langeluddecke PM, Eckersley GM, Jones MP, Tennant CC. Effects of acute psychologic stress on small-intestinal motility in health and the irritable bowel syndrome. Scand J Gastroenterol 1992; 27: 53–8.[Medline]
  47. Suls J, Wan CK, Blanchard EB. A multilevel data-analytic approach for evaluation of relationships between daily life stressors and symptomatology: patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Health Psychol 1994; 13: 103–13.[Medline]
  48. Whitehead WE, Enck P, Schuster MM. Psychopathology in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. In: Singer MV, Goebell H, editors. Nerves and the gastrointestinal tract. New York: Academic Press; 1989. p. 465–76.
  49. Smith RC, Greenbaum DS, Vancouver JB, Henry RC, Reinhart MA, Greenbaum RB, Dean HA, Mayle JE. Psychosocial factors are associated with health care seeking rather than diagnosis in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1990; 98: 293–301.[Medline]
  50. Drossman DA, McKee DC, Sandler RS, Mitchell CM, Cramer EM, Lowman BC, Burger AL. Psychosocial factors in the irritable bowel syndrome. A multivariate study of patients and nonpatients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1988; 95: 701–8.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
T. Ritz and B. Dahme
Implementation and Interpretation of Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia Measures in Psychosomatic Medicine: Practice Against Better Evidence?
Psychosom Med, July 1, 2006; 68(4): 617 - 627.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GutHome page
K Tillisch, E A Mayer, J S Labus, J Stains, L Chang, and B D Naliboff
Sex specific alterations in autonomic function among patients with irritable bowel syndrome
Gut, October 1, 2005; 54(10): 1396 - 1401.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
P. P. J. van der Veek, C. A. Swenne, H. v. d. Vooren, A. L. Schoneveld, R. Maestri, and A. A. M. Masclee
Viscerosensory-cardiovascular reflexes: altered baroreflex sensitivity in irritable bowel syndrome
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, October 1, 2005; 289(4): R970 - R976.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elsenbruch, S.
Right arrow Articles by Orr, W. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elsenbruch, S.
Right arrow Articles by Orr, W. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Gastrointestinal
Right arrow Psychophysiology
Right arrow Sexual Medicine: Female

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS