The influence of pedophilia typology on visual evoked potentials under conditions of subthreshold presentation of erotic images
|
Full Text:
Subscribers Only
|
Suggested citation:
Vasil'ev NG, Garakh ZhV, Kirenskaya AV, et al. [The influence of pedophilia typology on visual evoked potentials under conditions of subthreshold presentation of erotic images]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry]. 2024;(4):36-47. Russian
In a neurophysiological study to examine the characteristics of visual perception in individuals with different clinical variants of pedophilia, three groups of subjects were examined: patients with pedophilia autoerotic type (n=24), patients with pedophilia manipulative type (n=11), and a control group of persons without pedophilia (n=20). Eventrelated potentials were recorded in response to subthreshold presentation of images of neutral, heterosexual normative and pedophilic content. The amplitude of visual event-related potentials was analyzed in postcentral cortical areas. In the autoerotic type of object perception, a reduced amplitude of N140 and P220 components to stimuli of pedophilic content was noted, compared to other groups. In the manipulative type, an increased amplitude of the P220 component was revealed when perceiving images of neutral and pedophilic content. Between-group differences in N140 and P220 amplitude were observed predominantly in the areas of right hemisphere. Based on these indices, two clinical variants of pedophilia were classified with an accuracy of 94%. The obtained results suppose the specificity of neurophysiological mechanisms of the object of abnormal attraction perception in different clinical variants of pedophilia.
Keywords clinical variants of pedophilia; event-related potentials; visual erotic stimuli
1. World Health Organization. The ICD-10. Classifications of Mental and Behavioral Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for Research. Geneva; 1993. p. 166–7. 2. Psikhicheskie rasstroistva i rasstroistva povedeniya (F00–F99). (Klass V MKB-10, adaptirovannyi dlya ispol'zovaniya v Rossiiskoi Federatsii). VB Golland, TB Dmitrieva, BA Kazakovtsev, editors. Moscow: Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; 1998. p. 215–6. (In Russ.) 3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. p. 697–700. 4. Kraft-Ebing R. Polovaya psikhopatiya, s obrashcheniem osobogo vnimaniya na izvrashchenie polovogo chuvstva. Мoscow: Respublika; 1996. 591 p. (In Russ.) 5. Groth AN, Hobson WF, Gary TS. The child molester: Clinical observations. J Soc Work Human Sexuality. 1982;1(1–2):129–44. DOI: 10.1300/J291v01n01_08 6. Knight RA, Carter DL, Prentky RA. A System for the Classification of Child Molesters. J Interpers Violence. 1989;4(1):3–23. DOI: 10.1177/088626089004001001 7. Tkachenko AA. Seksual'nye izvrashcheniya-parafilii [Sexual perversions-paraphilias]. Moscow: Triada-X; 1999. 461 p. (In Russ.) 8. Radchenko NA. Kliniko-sotsial'naya kharakteristika i sudebno-psikhiatricheskaya otsenka lits, sovershivshikh protivopravnye seksual'nye deistviya v otnoshenii nesovershennoletnikh [PhD thesis]. [Moscow (Russia)]: Gosudarstvennyi nauchnyi tsentr sotsial'noi i sudebnoi psikhiatrii im. VP Serbskogo [State Scientific Center for Social and Forensic Psychiatry named after VP Serbsky]; 2002. 24 p. (In Russ.) 9. Holmes R.M., Holmes S.T. Pedophilia and psychological profiling. Profiling violent crimes: an investigative tool. 4 ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2009. p. 113–20. 10. Stephens S, Leroux E, Skilling T, et al. Taxometric analyses of pedophilia utilizing self-report, behavioral, and sexual arousal indicators. J Abnorm Psychol. 2017;126(8):1114–9. DOI: 10.1037/abn0000291 11. McPhail IV, Hermann CA, Fernane S, et al. Validity in Phallometric Testing for Sexual Interests in Children: A Meta-Analytic Review. Assessment. 2019;26(3):535–51. DOI: 10.1177/1073191117706139 12. Scarpazza C, Finos L, Genon S, et al. Idiopathic and acquired pedophilia as two distinct disorders: an insight from neuroimaging. Brain Imaging Behav. 2021;15(5):2681–92. DOI: 10.1007/s11682-020-00442-z 13. Joyal CC. The Neuroanatomical Bases of Pedophilia and the Importance of Distinguishing Genuine vs. Acquired Types: A Systematic Review. SOTRAP. 2023;18:1–21. DOI: 10.5964/sotrap.6989 14. Scarpazza C, Costa C, Battaglia U, et al. Acquired Pedophilia: international Delphi-method-based consensus guidelines. Transl Psychiatry. 2023;13(11):11. DOI: 10.1038/s41398-023-02314-8 15. Vasilev NG, Tkachenko AA. [Features of perception of the abnormal object as the basis of the typology of pedophilic disorder]. Sotsial'naya i klinicheskaya psikhiatriya [Social and clinical psychiatry]. 2022;32(2):33–42. (In Russ.) 16. Sergienko EA, Ulanova AYu, Lebedeva EI. Model' psikhicheskogo: Struktura i dinamika. Moscow: Institut psikhologii RAN; 2020. 503 p. (In Russ.) 17. Anokhin AP, Golosheykin S, Sirevaag E, et al. Rapid discrimination of visual scene content in the human brain. Brain Res. 2006;1093(1):167–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.108 18. Ziogas A, Habermeyer E, Santtila P, et al. Neuroelectric Correlates of Human Sexuality: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Sex Behav. 2023;52(2):497–596. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-019-01547-3 19. Legrand LB, Del Zotto M, Tyrand R, Pegna AJ. Basic instinct undressed: early spatiotemporal processing for primary sexual characteristics. PloS One. 2013;8(7):e69726. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069726 20. Bailey K, West R, Mullaney KM. Neural correlates of processing negative and sexually arousing pictures. PloS One. 2012;7(9):e45522. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045522 21. Ziogas A, Habermeyer B, Kawohl W, et al. Automaticity of Early Sexual Attention: An Event-Related Potential Study. Sex Abuse. 2022;34(5):507–36. DOI: 10.1177/10790632211024241 22. Aguiar S, Carvalho J, Carrito ML, Santos IM. Automatic attention to sexual stimuli: exploring the role of neuroticism and sexual excitation/inhibition through event-related potentials. J Sex Med. 2023;20(3):367–76. DOI: 10.1093/jsxmed/qdac048 23. Briggs KE, Martin FH. Affective picture processing and motivational relevance: arousal and valence effects on ERPs in an oddball task. Int J Psychophysiol. 2009;72(3):299–306. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.01.009 24. Oliver TL, Meana M, Snyder JS. Sex differences in concordance rates between auditory event-related potentials and subjective sexual arousal. Psychophysiology. 2016;53(8):1272–81. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12661 25. Ponseti J, Kropp P, Bosinski HA. Brain potentials related to the human penile erection. Int J Impot Res. 2009;21(5):292–300. DOI: 10.1038/ijir.2009.31 26. Knott V, Impey D, Fisher D, et al. Pedophilic brain potential responses to adult erotic stimuli. Brain Res. 2016;1632:127–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.12.004 27. Rosburg T, Deuring G, Boillat C, et al. Inhibition and attentional control in pedophilic child sexual offenders – An event-related potential study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(9):1990–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.06.029 28. Bochkarev VK, Vasil'ev NG, Kirenskaya AV, et al. [Neurophysiological correlates of erotic visual stimulation in pedophilia]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry]. 2019;(4):42–9. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.24411/1560-957X-2019-11935 29. Krylova M, Ristow I, Marr V, et al. MEG reveals preference specific increases of sexual-image-evoked responses in paedophilic sexual offenders and healthy controls. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2021;22(4):257–70. DOI: 10.1080/15622975.2020.1789216 30. Speer L, Schuler M, Keil J, et al. Sexual preference for prepubescent children is associated with enhanced processing of child faces in juveniles. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022;31(2):261–74. DOI: 10.1007/s00787-020-01684-4 31. Bochkarev VK, Vasiliev NG, Kirenskaya AV, Tkachenko AA. [Neurophysiological correlates of pedophilia: a study of EEG evoked oscillations]. Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im SS Korsakova. 2021;121(6):52–8. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17116/jnevro202112106152 32. Kirenskaya AV, Vasilev NG, Garakh ZV, et al. [Specificity of visual event-related potentials to subthreshold presentation of erotic pictures in pedophilia]. Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im SS Korsakova. 2023;123(12):99–108. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17116/jnevro202312312199 33. Jordan K, Wild TSN, Fromberger P, et al. Are There Any Biomarkers for Pedophilia and Sexual Child Abuse? A Review. Front Psychiatry. 2020;10:940. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00940 34. Vasilev NG, Tkachenko AA. [Clinical and ontogenetic differentiation of pedophilic disorder]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry]. 2022;(6):14–25. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.47877/1560-957X-2022-10602 35. Tkachenko AA, Vvedenskii GE, Kamenskov MYu. Primenenie podporogovoi vizual'noi stimulyatsii pri psikhofiziologicheskoi diagnostike rasstroistv seksual'nykh predpochtenii: dlya vrachei-seksologov, proshedshikh podgotovku po provedeniyu psikhofiziologicheskikh metodov obsledovaniya. Moscow: GNTs SSP Roszdrava; 2008. 24 p. (In Russ.) 36. Fonteille V, Redouté J, Lamothe P, et al. Brain processing of pictures of children in men with pedophilic disorder: A positron emission tomography study. NeuroImage Clin. 2019;21:101647. DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.101647 37. Alho J, Salminen N, Sams M, et al. Facilitated early cortical processing of nude human bodies. Biol Psychol. 2015;109:103–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.04.010 38. Song HN, Oh S, Lee SA. Electrophysiological Responses to Rapidly-Presented Affective Stimuli Predict Individual Differences in Subsequent Attention. eNeuro. 2022;9(1):ENEURO.0285-21.2021. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0285-21.2021 39. Jung K, Lee J. The relationship between P300 based GKT and Machiavellianism in a High Stake Situation. Conference Abstract: 10th International Conference on Cognitive Neuroscience; 2008 1 Sep – 5 Sep; Bodrum, Turkey. DOI: 10.3389/conf.neuro.09.2009.01.197 40. Scheuble V, Beauducel A. Individual differences in ERPs during deception: Observing vs. demonstrating behavior leading to a small social conflict. Biol Psychol. 2020;150:107830. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.107830 41. Schuler M, Mohnke S, Amelung T, et al. Empathy in pedophilia and sexual offending against children: a multifaceted approach. J Abnorm Psychol. 2019;128(5):453–64. DOI: 10.1037/abn0000412 42. Schuler M, Mohnke S, Amelung T, et al. Neural processing associated with cognitive empathy in pedophilia and child sexual offending. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2022;17(8):712–22. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsab133 43. Castellino N, Bosco F, Marshall W, et al. Mindreading abilities in sexual offenders: an analysis of theory of mind processes. Conscious Cogn. 2011;20(4):1612–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.011 44. Fromberger P, Jordan K, Steinkrauss H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of eye movements in assessing pedophilia. J Sex Med. 2012;9(7):1868–82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02754.x 45. Ponseti J, Granert O, Jansen O, et al. Assessment of pedophilia using hemodynamic brain response to sexual stimuli. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69(2):187–94. DOI: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.130 46. Ponseti J, Granert O, Van Eimeren T, et al. Assessing paedophilia based on the haemodynamic brain response to face images. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2016;17(1):39–46. DOI: 10.3109/15622975.2015.1083612 47. Popovic D, Wertz M, Geisler C, et al. Patterns of risk-Using machine learning and structural neuroimaging to identify pedophilic offenders. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1001085. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1001085
Article Metrics
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM