OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
PloS one
2019;14 (1): e0208809.

Putting out the blaze: The neural mechanisms underlying sexual inhibition.

Geraldine Rodriguez-Nieto, Alexander T Sack, Marieke Dewitte, Franziska Emmerling, Teresa Schuhmann
Author Information
  1. Geraldine Rodriguez-Nieto: Brain Stimulation and Cognition Lab, Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands. ORCID
  2. Alexander T Sack: Brain Stimulation and Cognition Lab, Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
  3. Marieke Dewitte: Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
  4. Franziska Emmerling: School of Management, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
  5. Teresa Schuhmann: Brain Stimulation and Cognition Lab, Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
PMID: 30601828 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208809

Abstract

The successful inhibition of sexual thoughts, desires, and behaviors represents an essential ability for adequate functioning in our daily life. Evidence derived from lesion studies indicates a link between sexual inhibition and the general ability for behavioral and cognitive control. This is further supported by the high comorbidity of sexual compulsivity with other inhibition-related disorders. Here, we aimed at investigating whether sexual and general inhibition recruit overlapping or distinct neural correlates in the brain. Furthermore, we investigated the specificity of two different kinds of sexual inhibition: inhibition of sexually driven motor responses and inhibition of sexual incoming information. To this end, 22 healthy participants underwent functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) while performing a task requiring general response inhibition (Go/No-go), as well as cognitive and motivational sexual inhibition (Negative Affective Priming and Approach-Avoidance task). Our within-subject within-session design enabled the direct statistical comparison between general and sexual inhibitory mechanisms. The general inhibition task recruited mainly prefrontal and insular regions, replicating previous findings. In contrast, the two types of sexual inhibition activated both common and distinct neural networks. Whereas cognitive sexual inhibition engaged the inferior frontal gyrus, the orbitofrontal cortex and the fusiform gyrus, motivational sexual inhibition was characterized by a hypoactivation in the anterolateral prefrontal cortex. Both types of sexual inhibition recruited the inferior frontal gyrus and the inferotemporal cortex. However, the activity of the inferior frontal gyrus did not correlate with behavioral inhibitory scores. These results support the hypothesis of inhibitory processing being an emergent property of a functional network.

References

  1. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 Jul 26;12:300 [PMID: 30093856]
  2. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012 Jul;36(6):1481-509 [PMID: 22465619]
  3. J Sex Med. 2011 Jul;8(7):1975-84 [PMID: 21210954]
  4. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000 Jul;24(5):571-9 [PMID: 10880822]
  5. Handb Clin Neurol. 2015;130:109-19 [PMID: 26003240]
  6. Eur J Neurosci. 2014 Mar;39(5):821-31 [PMID: 24289860]
  7. J Neurosci. 2011 Mar 30;31(13):4805-10 [PMID: 21451018]
  8. Biol Psychiatry. 2008 Mar 15;63(6):577-86 [PMID: 17888411]
  9. PLoS One. 2014 Jul 11;9(7):e102419 [PMID: 25013940]
  10. Neurosci Lett. 2007 Apr 6;416(1):55-60 [PMID: 17316990]
  11. J Sex Res. 2004 Aug;41(3):225-34 [PMID: 15497051]
  12. Psychol Bull. 2006 Mar;132(2):297-326 [PMID: 16536645]
  13. Magn Reson Med. 2006 Jun;55(6):1227-35 [PMID: 16680688]
  14. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009 May;33(5):631-46 [PMID: 18835296]
  15. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2016;129:67-83 [PMID: 27503448]
  16. Neuropsychobiology. 2013;68(4):228-37 [PMID: 24247250]
  17. Behav Neurosci. 2001 Apr;115(2):493-500 [PMID: 11345973]
  18. Magn Reson Med. 1995 May;33(5):636-47 [PMID: 7596267]
  19. Hum Brain Mapp. 2000 Jul;10(3):120-31 [PMID: 10912591]
  20. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015 Nov 30;9:321 [PMID: 26648855]
  21. J Neurosci. 2008 Dec 31;28(53):14416-21 [PMID: 19118174]
  22. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001 Apr;58(4):334-41 [PMID: 11296093]
  23. Hum Brain Mapp. 2000 Nov;11(3):162-77 [PMID: 11098795]
  24. Front Neurosci. 2014 Aug 04;8:233 [PMID: 25140126]
  25. J Sex Res. 2010 Mar;47(2):181-98 [PMID: 20358460]
  26. Arch Sex Behav. 2019 Feb;48(2):481-494 [PMID: 30671876]
  27. Horm Behav. 2007 Dec;52(5):581-9 [PMID: 17826777]
  28. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015 Apr;10(4):508-16 [PMID: 24837479]
  29. Arch Sex Behav. 2018 Feb;47(2):537-542 [PMID: 28608292]
  30. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011 Oct 20;12(11):652-69 [PMID: 22011681]
  31. Magn Reson Med. 2012 May;67(5):1210-24 [PMID: 21858868]
  32. Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Apr;39(2):377-400 [PMID: 19937105]
  33. J Neurosci Methods. 2007 May 15;162(1-2):8-13 [PMID: 17254636]
  34. Nat Commun. 2014 Jun 06;5:4073 [PMID: 24905116]
  35. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Oct;30(10):3089-101 [PMID: 19219848]
  36. Cognition. 1994 Apr-Jun;50(1-3):7-15 [PMID: 8039375]
  37. Cereb Cortex. 2011 Oct;21(10):2282-90 [PMID: 21339377]
  38. Psychiatry Res. 2009 Nov 30;174(2):146-51 [PMID: 19836930]
  39. Arch Sex Behav. 2011 Oct;40(5):995-1006 [PMID: 20862534]
  40. Neuroimage. 2011 Jun 1;56(3):1655-65 [PMID: 21376819]
  41. Magn Reson Med. 2014 Jul;72(1):93-102 [PMID: 23963964]
  42. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2013 Oct;6:23-9 [PMID: 23835204]
  43. Hum Brain Mapp. 1997;5(4):238-42 [PMID: 20408222]
  44. Neuropsychologia. 2016 Mar;83:48-62 [PMID: 26119921]
  45. Psychol Sci. 2011 Apr;22(4):498-506 [PMID: 21378368]
  46. J Neurosci. 2001 Sep 15;21(18):RC165 [PMID: 11549754]
  47. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Feb 29;97(5):2332-6 [PMID: 10688891]
  48. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2005 Jun;30(5):461-82 [PMID: 15721058]
  49. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007 Oct;78(10):1042-9 [PMID: 17189299]
  50. Hum Brain Mapp. 2018 Apr;39(4):1555-1562 [PMID: 29314426]
  51. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Apr;18(4):177-85 [PMID: 24440116]
  52. Neuroimage. 2005 Jul 15;26(4):1086-96 [PMID: 15961048]
  53. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2007 Jun;2(2):84-92 [PMID: 18985127]

MeSH Term

Adult
Brain Mapping
Executive Function
Female
Frontal Lobe
Healthy Volunteers
Humans
Inhibition, Psychological
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Motivation
Prefrontal Cortex
Sexual Behavior
Young Adult
Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Article has an altmetric score of 17

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0inhibitionsexualgeneralgyruscognitiveneuraltaskinhibitoryinferiorfrontalcortexabilitybehavioraldistincttwofunctionalmotivationalmechanismsrecruitedprefrontaltypessuccessfulthoughtsdesiresbehaviorsrepresentsessentialadequatefunctioningdailylifeEvidencederivedlesionstudiesindicateslinkcontrolsupportedhighcomorbiditycompulsivityinhibition-relateddisordersaimedinvestigatingwhetherrecruitoverlappingcorrelatesbrainFurthermoreinvestigatedspecificitydifferentkindsinhibition:sexuallydrivenmotorresponsesincominginformationend22healthyparticipantsunderwentMagneticResonanceImagingfMRIperformingrequiringresponseGo/No-gowellNegativeAffectivePrimingApproach-Avoidancewithin-subjectwithin-sessiondesignenableddirectstatisticalcomparisonmainlyinsularregionsreplicatingpreviousfindingscontrastactivatedcommonnetworksWhereasengagedorbitofrontalfusiformcharacterizedhypoactivationanterolateralinferotemporalHoweveractivitycorrelatescoresresultssupporthypothesisprocessingemergentpropertynetworkPuttingblaze:underlying

Similar Articles

Cited By