Search

Functional neurological disorder (FND) was of great interest to early clinical neuroscience leaders. During the 20th century, neurology and psychiatry grew apart – leaving FND a borderland condition. Fortunately, a renaissance has occurred in the last two decades, fostered by increased recognition that FND is prevalent and diagnosed using “rule-in” examination signs. The parallel use of scientific tools to bridge brain structure - function relationships has helped refine an integrated biopsychosocial framework through which to conceptualize FND. In particular, a growing number of quality neuroimaging studies using a variety of methodologies have shed light on the emerging pathophysiology of FND. This renewed scientific interest has occurred in parallel with enhanced interdisciplinary collaborations, as illustrated by new care models combining psychological and physical therapies and the creation of a new multidisciplinary FND society supporting knowledge dissemination in the field. Within this context, this article summarizes the output of the first International FND Neuroimaging Workgroup meeting, held virtually, on June 17th, 2020 to appraise the state of neuroimaging research in the field and to catalyze large-scale collaborations. We first briefly summarize neural circuit models of FND, and then detail the research approaches used to date in FND within core content areas: cohort characterization; control group considerations; task-based functional neuroimaging; resting-state networks; structural neuroimaging; biomarkers of symptom severity and risk of illness; and predictors of treatment response and prognosis. Lastly, we outline a neuroimaging-focused research agenda to elucidate the pathophysiology of FND and aid the development of novel biologically and psychologically-informed treatments.

This randomized within-subject, double blind study aimed to compare the effects of a single dose of two different antipsychotics (haloperidol and aripiprazole) on cortisol, interleukin (IL)-6 and hippocampal regional Cerebral Blood Flow (rCBF) in the same 17 healthy male individuals. Subjects received a single dose of haloperidol (3 mg), aripiprazole (10 mg) and placebo, in a randomized order on three study appointments.We measured salivary cortisol levels at multiple time points, IL-6 levels from plasma samples, and resting cerebral blood flow (rCBF), using a pulsed continuous arterial spin labeling (pCASL) sequence (1.5T). We found significantly lower cortisol levels in the haloperidol condition (F(2,32) = 5.78, p = 0.007), than in either placebo (p = 0.013; CI = 0.45, 0.406) or aripiprazole (p = 0.037; CI = −0.520, −0.014). Interleukin-6 levels were also lower following haloperidol (F(2,22) = 4.19, p = 0.048) in comparison with placebo (p = 0.02; CI = 0.14, 1.8), but not with aripiprazole. Finally, we found a greater rCBF in the right (peak voxel: T = 6.47, p b 0.0001) and left (peak voxel T = 5.17, p b 0.01) hippocampus following haloperidol compared with placebo, and at trend level also in the left hippocampus following aripiprazole compared with placebo (T = 4.07, p = 0.057). These differences in hippocampal rCBF after both antipsychotics were no longer evident (haloperidol) or present at trend level (aripiprazole), after controlling for cortisol and IL-6 levels. Our findings suggest that haloperidol can directly regulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and immune system through a pharmacological action via D2 receptor antagonism. Finally, our data suggest that the increased hippocampal rCBF is a manifestation of the reduction in IL-6 and cortisol which follows the administration of haloperidol.