Murru, Andréa

Abstract Background Bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with impairments in facial emotion recognition (FER), affecting social functioning and quality of life. Understanding FER deficits in BD is crucial for tailoring interventions and improving treatment outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate FER differences among individuals with BD, unaffected first-degree relatives (FDRs), and healthy controls (HCs), exploring predictors related to patient and study characteristics. Methods We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases from inception to March 28, 2024. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to explore differences in accuracy and reaction time during FER identification and discrimination tasks. Results A total of 100 studies were included, comprising 4920 individuals with BD (females = 56%, mean age = 34.1 ± 9.1), 676 FDRs (females = 55%, mean age = 36.1 ± 12), and 4909 HCs (females = 53.2%, mean age = 32.5 ± 9.5). Compared to HCs, adults with BD exhibited significantly lower accuracy (SMD = −0.47; 95% CIs = −0.56, −0.38) and higher reaction time (SMD = 0.57; 95%CIs = 0.33, 0.81) during facial emotion identification tasks. During facial emotion discrimination tasks, adults with BD had significantly lower accuracy than HCs (SMD = −0.59; 95%CIs = −0.78, −0.4), but similar speed. No significant differences were observed between BD and FDRs. Meta-regressions identified several predictors of FER performance, including manic symptom severity, stimulus duration, and presence of practice before task. Conclusions FER deficits appear to be a core feature of BD and require specialized, systematic assessment. Identifying these deficits may help guide interventions aimed at improving affective cognition and social outcomes in individuals with BD.

Background: Bipolar disorder (BD) involves significant mood and energy shifts reflected in speech patterns. Detecting these patterns is crucial for diagnosis and monitoring, currently assessed subjectively. Advances in natural language processing offer opportunities to objectively analyze them. Aims: To (i) correlate speech features with manic-depressive symptom severity in BD, (ii) develop predictive models for diagnostic and treatment outcomes, and (iii) determine the most relevant speech features and tasks for these analyses. Methods: This naturalistic, observational study involved longitudinal audio recordings of BD patients at euthymia, during acute manic/depressive phases, and after-response. Patients participated in clinical evaluations, cognitive tasks, standard text readings, and storytelling. After automatic diarization and transcription, speech features, including acoustics, content, formal aspects, and emotionality, will be extracted. Statistical analyses will (i) correlate speech features with clinical scales, (ii) use lasso logistic regression to develop predictive models, and (iii) identify relevant speech features. Results: Audio recordings from 76 patients (24 manic, 21 depressed, 31 euthymic) were collected. The mean age was 46.0 ± 14.4 years, with 63.2% female. The mean YMRS score for manic patients was 22.9 ± 7.1, reducing to 5.3 ± 5.3 post-response. Depressed patients had a mean HDRS-17 score of 17.1 ± 4.4, decreasing to 3.3 ± 2.8 post-response. Euthymic patients had mean YMRS and HDRS-17 scores of 0.97 ± 1.4 and 3.9 ± 2.9, respectively. Following data pre-processing, including noise reduction and feature extraction, comprehensive statistical analyses will be conducted to explore correlations and develop predictive models. Conclusions: Automated speech analysis in BD could provide objective markers for psychopathological alterations, improving diagnosis, monitoring, and response prediction. This technology could identify subtle alterations, signaling early signs of relapse. Establishing standardized protocols is crucial for creating a global speech cohort, fostering collaboration, and advancing BD understanding.