Cognitive Function as a Predictor of Short-Term Pharmacological Treatment Response in Major Depressive Disorder: Mediating Effect of Mentalization

Seon Hee Hwang; Myung Sun Kim; Byung Joo Ham

doi:10.30773/pi.2024.0203

Psychiatry Investig > Volume 22(5); 2025 > Article

Hwang, Kim, and Ham: Cognitive Function as a Predictor of Short-Term Pharmacological Treatment Response in Major Depressive Disorder: Mediating Effect of Mentalization

Original Article

Psychiatry Investigation 2025;22(5):522-530.

Published online: May 15, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0203

Cognitive Function as a Predictor of Short-Term Pharmacological Treatment Response in Major Depressive Disorder: Mediating Effect of Mentalization

Seon Hee Hwang^1,²

, Myung Sun Kim²

, Byung Joo Ham^1,³

¹Department of Psychiatry, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea

²Department of Psychology, Sungshin Women’s University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

³Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Correspondence: Byung Joo Ham, MD, PhD Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Korea University, 73 Goryeodae-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea Tel: +82-2-920-6843, Fax: +82-2-6280-5810, E-mail: hambj@korea.ac.kr

Received June 25, 2024 Revised October 28, 2024 Accepted February 8, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective

Deficits in social cognition (mentalization) and other cognitive deficits have been reported in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and may influence treatment response. This study examined the impact of cognitive function on treatment response of patients with MDD after 8 weeks of medication and whether the impact was mediated by mentalization.

Methods

Cognitive function (memory, attention, executive function, processing speed) and mentalization were measured in 28 patients with MDD at baseline using neuropsychological tests and self-report scales. The treatment response was defined as the rate of improvement in symptom severity and global function.

Results

Multiple regression analyses, controlling for mentalization and cognitive function, separately revealed that delayed recall was a negative predictor of functional improvement after 8 weeks of treatment, while mentalization was a positive predictor. A single mediation model using PROCESS macro showed that delayed recall and Digit Span backward indirectly affected functional improvement, mediated by mentalization. When age at onset was controlled for as a covariate, the mediating effect lost significance, and the direct effect of delayed recall on functional improvement was still significant.

Conclusion

Despite the small sample size, our results provide evidence that patients with MDD and low memory (delayed recall) at baseline may benefit more from short-term pharmacological treatments.

Keywords: Major depressive disorder, Cognitive function, Mentalization

INTRODUCTION

Residual functional impairment that does not improve after symptom remission is associated with relapse in major depressive disorder (MDD) [1]. Therefore, the ultimate goal of treatment should be the restoration of functioning beyond symptom remission [2], and understanding the factors that critically influence treatment response, which is of paramount importance [1].

Approximately 60% of patients do not get better after their first medication and up to one-third of them do not improve with a combination of other antidepressants [3,4]. Clinical preedictors of poor treatment responses in MDD include symptom severity, suicidality, number of previous major depressive episodes (MDEs), onset before the age of 18 years, comorbid anxiety disorder (phobias and panic disorder), comorbid personality disorders, history of psychiatric hospitalization, presence of melancholic features, and failure to respond to the initial medication [5]. The identified factors are helpful in predicting treatment response; however, they are not reversible, which is a limitation preventing them from being the focus of therapeutic interventions. Predictors that can be changed through intervention have the advantage of being applied to enhance treatment response.

Cognitive function can be a predictor of treatment response because cognitive deficits are a core feature of MDD, and deficits in certain domains that persist even after symptom remission may impede recovery in patients with MDD [6]. Patients with MDE exhibit deficits in attention, memory, executive function, and processing speed [7-11]. A meta-analysis of cognitive deficits in patients with first-episode MDD [12] found that deficits in attention and executive function persisted after symptom remission, suggesting that they may be a trait of MDD. Studies have reported that cognitive deficits are associated with a poor response to treatment. For example, one study found that elderly patients with MDD and executive function deficits at baseline had poorer treatment response [13]. A recent systematic review suggested that baseline cognitive function, particularly executive function, may be useful in predicting treatment response in depression and concluded that cognitive deficits may become targets for pharmacological or psychological treatments [14].

Mentalization is related to an individual’s ability to integrate knowledge about one’s own and others’ mental states [15,16], whereas Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability to interpret behavior by focusing on the cognitive aspects of others; mentalization involves emotional aspects and self-experience. Mentalization requires a more complex understanding of the self and others than ToM, as it not only allows individuals to guide themselves in social situations but also promotes the development of a sense of self [17]. A recent emphasis on improving mentalization in the treatment of depression suggests that mentalization impairments may contribute to poor social function in patients with MDD [18]. Patients with depression have difficulty recognizing that negative feedback in social situations is a product of others’ internal representations, and tend to accept feedback as an objective reality about themselves, which can increase depressed moods and consolidate a negative self-image [19]. A review [17] of studies that measured mentalization using the Reflective Functioning Scale found different levels of mentalization impairment among patients with depression. Those with relatively mild mentalization impairment were outpatients; in contrast, those with more severe impairment, with a Z-score of -4.43 were either inpatients with chronic course [20] or treatment-resistant patients [21]. These findings suggest that chronicity or poor treatment response is associated with more severe mentalization impairment [17]. Therefore, mentalization should be considered as a predictor of treatment response.

Mentalization is related to the interaction of various brain structures, including the medial prefrontal cortex, temporoparietal junction, temporal pole, and precuneus [22], and this neural basis suggests the possibility of interactions between mentalization and cognitive function [23]. A study reported a significant association between mentalization and executive function in patients with MDD [24]; however, the related literature is lacking. Relatively more studies have examined the relationship between social cognition (ToM and emotion perception) and cognitive function in patients with MDD, but the results have been mixed. For example, difficulties in emotion perception through prosody have been associated with poor executive function (cognitive inhibition, mental setshifting, and working memory) [25], and poor performance on ToM tasks has been associated with difficulties in working memory, logical memory, and cognitive inhibition [26]. A recent study with young adults and adolescents in MDE suggested that diminished executive function (cognitive flexibility) could lead to rigid interpretation of social cue, which resulted in lower performance on social cognition task (ToM) [27]. However, there are results of no association between social cognition and cognitive function [28,29]. Furthermore, executive function (planning) was associated with lower performance on a facial emotion perception task [27]. As for other mental disorders, a study that examined relationship between social cognition and cognitive function in patients with borderline personality disorder found that executive function and a full-scale intelligence quotient predicted social cognition (ToM) [30]. In patients with schizophrenia, a study observed that improvement in executive function predicted improvement of social functioning [31]. Although the relationship between cognitive function and social cognition is a topic of great importance in research and clinical practice, it has not been sufficiently addressed. More definitive conclusions from studies would be useful for customized treatment [32].

As both cognitive function and mentalization can influence treatment response in MDD, and mentalization can be influenced by cognitive function, examining the mediating effect of mentalization on the process by which cognitive function influences treatment response would clarify the relationship between mentalization and cognitive function. To our knowledge, most studies [13,14,20,21] have focused on whether cognitive function or mentalization influences treatment response; however, no studies have examined the mediating effect of mentalization between baseline cognitive function and treatment response in MDD. Therefore, we investigate whether cognitive function and mentalization can predict treatment response, and whether mentalization mediates the effect of cognitive function on treatment response. We hypothesized that: 1) A positive correlation was observed between cognitive function and mentalization; 2) Cognitive function and mentalization predicted treatment response after 8 weeks of treatment; and 3) Mentalization mediates the effect of cognitive function on treatment responses.

METHODS

Participants

Twenty-eight adult patients who visited the Department of Psychiatry, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, between September 2021 and September 2022 voluntarily participated in this study. They met psychiatrists’ diagnosis of MDD using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [33] and were in the MDE state at baseline according to a comprehensive psychological evaluation. Patients with unipolar MDD without psychotic symptoms were included in the study. Those who met the following criteria were excluded: cerebrovascular disease on brain imaging, head trauma, history of electroconvulsive therapy in the last 6 months, comorbid mental disorders. Written informed consent was obtained from thirty patients; however, two patients who refused the second measurement were excluded. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Korea University Anam Hospital (approval number: 2021AN0428).

Procedures

As this naturalistic study was not designed to test the effectiveness of certain drugs, we did not control for the type of medication taken in 8 weeks; however, we did not combine psychotherapy to limit it to a single therapeutic approach. Regarding medication, nine patients took antidepressants+ anxiolytics, and five patients took antidepressants+atypical antipsychotics, thirteen patients took antidepressants+anxiol ytics+atypical antipsychotics, and one patient was drug-naive at baseline and started on antidepressant medication. All patients were assessed at baseline and at the end of the 8-week treatment period. Cognitive function, mentalization, symptom severity, and functional impairment were measured at baseline, and symptom severity, functional impairment were measured repeatedly after 8 weeks of treatment. Treatment response was defined as the rate of improvement in symptom severity and functional impairment [(baseline score-8-week score)/baseline score]. Using the rate of improvement provided a more accurate assessment of the effect of symptom severity at baseline rather than simply using a score difference. All assessments were conducted by a clinical psychologist and clinical psychology trainees.

Measures

Comprehensive cognitive function was measured using the following instruments: attention/concentration (digit span forward, Arithmetic of Korean-Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV [K-WAIS-IV]) [34], processing speed (Symbol Search and Coding of K-WAIS-IV), memory (Korean-Auditory Verbal Learning Test) [35], executive function (Digit Span backward of K-WAIS-IV, Stroop, Verbal Fluency, and Design Fluency of Kims Frontal-Executive Function Neuropsychological Test-ll) [36]. All cognitive measurements yielded scaled scores compared with normative data.

Mentalization was measured using Self-Rated Mentalization Questionnaire (SRMQ) [37]. This is a 5-point Likert scale developed in Korea based on Fonagy’s definition of mentalization as a reflective functioning. This 25-item scale has four factors (reflection of the self and others, deficit of emotion awareness, absolute certainty about others’ mind, and concrete thinking). SRMQ shows strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.85) and good convergent validity with the other mentalization scale (r=-0.53, p<0.01) [37]. The overall scores were used in the data analysis.

We used a self-rated or clinician-rated instrument to assess functional impairments. The scores on the Korean version of the Sheehan Disability Scale (K-SDS) [38], a reliable and valid self-report questionnaire that measures functional impairment in occupation, interpersonal relationships, and family life, were analyzed. The total score was the sum of three item scores (0 to 10 per item). K-SDS shows internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.89) and the coefficient of 1 week test-retest reliability (0.84) [38]. Regarding to validity, the total score of KSDS was significantly different between psychiatric group (mean 17.18) and normal group (mean 9.13) [38]. Additionally, the total score of K-SDS was significantly correlated with that on the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) [39] (r=-0.29, p<0.01) [38]. GAF that clinicians use to rate the patient’s level of interpersonal, occupational, and academic functioning on a scale from 1 to 100 was used to assess general functioning. According to the study applied to Korean psychiatric patients, GAF has high interrater reliability (r=0.91, p<0.01) and adequate concurrent validity with SDS total score (r=-0.53, p<0.01) [39].

Regarding symptom severity, the Korean version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (K-HDRS) [40], proven to be a valid instrument for the Korean population, was used. This scale consists of 17 items which a clinician rates according to severity of depressive symptoms. K-HDRS shows good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.76), interrater reliability (r=0.94, p<0.001) and convergent validity with Clinical Global Impression Scale [41], Beck Depression Inventory [42], Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale43 (r=0.84, r=0.54, r=0.58, p<0.001, respectively) [40]. The Korean version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) [44] was also used. This is a 20-item, 4-point Likert self-report scale. CESD among Korean population shows very good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.91). As a result of factor analysis to test validity, this scale proved to have four-factor structure which explained 62.3% of the total variance [44].

Data analyses

In the first step, Pearson’s correlation coefficients among the variables were used to explore the association between cognitive function and mentalization. In the second step, we conducted multiple regression analyses to explore whether cognitive function and mentalization predicted treatment response after 8 weeks of medication. The treatment response as a dependent variable included four variables: the rate of improvement in symptoms (CES-D, K-HDRS) and functional impairment (K-SDS, GAF). In the first regression analysis, to test the predictive power of cognitive function, four dependent variables were entered separately and eleven indices yielded from cognitive measures were entered as independent variables, one index at a time to avoid multicollinearity between indices. To identify covariates that may influence treatment response, Pearson’s correlation coefficients between each dependent variable with demographic and clinical data were calculated. Demographic and clinical variables with statistical significance were then entered into the regression model with predictors. To test whether mentalization predicted the treatment response, the SRMQ score was entered as an independent variable.

Finally, we conducted an exploratory mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro [45] to check whether mentalization mediates the effect of cognitive function on treatment response. Bootstrapping with 5,000 samples and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was set, and statistical significance was determined if the lower and upper limits of the CI did not contain 0. Bootstrapping is considered an alternative to traditional mediation testing methods because of the high statistical power of mediating effects [45]. All data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 (IBM Corp.). Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The demographic and clinical data of the participants are presented in Table 1. The sample comprised twenty-two outpatients and six inpatients. Depressive symptoms were severe on the K-HDRS (24.96) and CES-D (39.96). Regarding functional impairment, the SDS score (21.29) was severely impaired compared with the mean score in the normal control group [38]. The GAF score was 55.39, which was in the range of moderate functional impairment.

Correlation between cognitive function and mentalization

The correlations, means, and standard deviations (SD) of cognitive function and mentalization at baseline are shown in Table 2. The performance of all cognitive measures was calculated using age-adjusted scaled scores (mean 10, SD 3), within the normal range (scores 7-13), indicating no cognitive impairment. As a result of correlational analyses between mentalization and cognitive function, SRMQ scores showed significant correlations with design fluency (r=0.58, p<0.001), immediate recall (r=0.49, p=0.01), delayed recall (r=0.55, p<0.001), recognition (r=0.48, p=0.01), Digit Span forward (r=0.39, p=0.04), and backward (r=0.50, p=0.01). There was no correlation between the SRMQ scores and other cognitive measures.

Cognitive function and mentalization as predictors of treatment response

Because a correlation was observed between mentalization and some domains of cognition in this study, regression analyses were conducted before and after controlling for mentalization. Current age and age at onset were entered as covariates, as these variables were significantly correlated with treatment response in this study. Correlational analyses revealed no association between any of the cognitive measures and treatment responses. Therefore, regression analyses yielded no significant results. In the regression analyses controlling for mentalization, however, delayed recall significantly predicted improvement in GAF (B=-0.03, p=0.02). The same analytic procedure was used to investigate the effect of mentalization as a predictor of treatment response. Similarly, no significant results were observed in correlation analyses. Regression analyses controlling for cognitive function showed that mentalization significantly predicted the rate of improvement in the GAF after controlling for delayed recall and Digit Span backward (B=0.01, p=0.02; B=0.01, p=0.04, respectively).

Mediating effect of mentalization

Some cognitive functions predicted the treatment response after controlling for mentalization, and conversely, mentalization predicted the treatment response after controlling for cognitive functions, raising the need to verify the mediating effect of mentalization. Mediational analyses showed that the indirect effect of mentalization on the relationship between cognitive measures (delayed recall and Digit Span backward) and treatment response was significant, as the lower and upper limits of CI did not contain 0. The results are presented in Tables 3, 4, and Figure 1. As shown, the direct effect of delayed recall on functional improvement (GAF) was significant (B=-0.033, p=0.02) as well as the mediating effect of mentalization (B=0.019). Considering the direction of the mediating effect, as the delayed recall scores increased, so did the SRMQ score (B=1.624, p<0.001), and an increased SRMQ score had a positive effect on functional improvement (B=0.012, p=0.02). When age at onset (r=0.44, p=0.02) was entered as a covariate, the direct effect remained significant, whereas the indirect effect did not. The direct effect of Digit Span backward on functional improvement (GAF) was not significant (B=-0.026, p=0.062), whereas the mediating effect of mentalization was significant (B=0.014). Regarding the path, the increasing Digit Span backward scores increased the SRMQ score (B=1.435, p=0.01), and the increased SRMQ score had a positive effect on functional improvement (B=0.01, p=0.04). However, when the age of onset was controlled, the mediating effect vanished. Regarding to mediation model’s goodness of fit, total effect of delayed recall and Digit Span backward on functional improvement was not statistically significant (F=1.30, p=0.26; F=0.93, p=0.34, respectively). These results are due to the different direction of the direct and indirect effects and do not eliminate the need to test mediation effect. This is known as suppression effect in mediation model, which discussed in the current study [46-48].

DISCUSSION

This prospective study investigated the predictive power of cognitive function and mentalization at baseline for 8-week treatment responses and tested the mediating role of mentalization on the effects of cognitive function.

Significant positive correlations were observed between mentalization and various cognitive functions, supporting the hypotheses of this study. According to the results, the better the memory, executive function, and attention, the higher the mentalizing ability. This suggests that not only simple attention but also higher-order cognitive functions such as memory, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and self-regulation may be associated with mentalization. Stroop, symbol search, and coding among the cognitive measures were not significantly related to mentalization, suggesting that cognitive flexibility rather than cognitive inhibition may be directly related to mentalization, and processing speed may not be related to mentalization. This result is in line with those of studies that reported positive correlations between mentalization and executive function [20,24]. Given the lack of associations [28,29] and the lack of literature directly addressing the relationship between mentalization and cognitive function in patients with MDD, the results of this study may provide important information for comparison in future studies.

Regression analysis, controlling for mentalization and cognitive function, showed that certain cognitive functions and mentalization predicted treatment response. Delayed recall was the only cognitive index that predicted the functional improvement. The possibility that patients with lower memory test retrieval will show greater functional improvement after short-term medication needs to be verified in further studies with larger samples. This study’s results suggest that most cognitive measures, except delayed recall, did not predict treatment response, which may be a consequence of the younger sample (mean age=23 years). According to a systematic review [14], executive function was the best predictor of treatment response in MDD [49-52], whereas learning and memory were not significantly associated with treatment response [53-55]. This result is consistent in older patients [56-58], but inconsistent in younger patients, making it difficult to draw conclusions [14]. For example, some findings suggest that patients with poor memory [59], attention, and working memory [50] may have a poor treatment response, but there are also reports that cognitive function does not predict treatment response [60,61] or that patients with lower executive function show better responses [62,63]. The finding that mentalization predicts functional improvement after controlling for cognitive function suggests that mentalization may directly influence functioning, such as interpersonal relationships, rather than depressive symptom improvement. This can explain why the capacity to mentalize plays a substantial role in interpersonal relationships. Longitudinal studies with longer follow-up periods (6 months and 1 year) are needed to explore whether mentalization reduces interpersonal discomfort, which in turn reduces depressive symptoms.

The hypothesis that mentalization mediates the effect of cognitive function on treatment response was supported; however, the mediating effect lost significance after controlling for covariates (age at onset). Although the mediating effect disappeared, the results of the study showed an inconsistent mediation model with a suppression effect [46-48]. This means that the relationship between cognitive function and treatment response was suppressed when mentalization was absent in the model, suggesting that cognitive function has no effect on treatment response. However, the suppressed pathway between cognitive function and treatment response was revealed when mentalization was included in the model.

With regard to the direct effect of delayed recall on treatment response, lower delayed recall scores at baseline were associated with functional improvements after treatment. This finding suggests that patients with poorer memory may benefit more from short-term medication. Since delayed recall requires both memory and executive function [36], the negative effect of delayed recall on treatment response could be considered in light of the above studies [62,63] that report showing lower executive function was associated with better treatment response. A study comparing the cognitive function of responders and nonresponders to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) reported that responders were characterized by higher performance on simple tasks and lower performance on complex tasks requiring more cognitive effort [64]. This suggests that patients with deficits in executive function may benefit more from treatment with SSRIs. This result raises the possibility that medications (SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) affect the serotonin and norepinephrine systems in the prefrontal regions involved in executive function, leading to a better treatment response while improving executive function [65].

Our study has several limitations. Despite the prospective investigation, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size and multiple analyses with various cognitive measures as independent variables, which may have led to a type I error. In a larger sample, repetitive cognitive measurements at follow-up are recommended to identify whether improvements in executive function may have influenced treatment response. This was a naturalistic study in which clinicians prescribed and titrated medications based on the patient’s condition. This increases the ecological validity of the results as it reflects a real-world clinical setting. However, given that the predictability of cognitive function in treatment response may differ depending on the antidepressant mechanism (SSRI vs. norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor) [62], comparisons between groups by medication type are suggested to obtain more robust results.

The clinical implication of our study is that it shows that a certain cognitive function may influence pharmacological treatment response in different ways. Specifically, good cognitive resources may not increase treatment response directly, but rather influence through social cognition, such as mentalization, that improves global functioning. Applying this to treatment of MDD, for patients without cognitive deficits (memory or working memory), a combination with psychotherapy such as mentalization-based treatment from the beginning is expected to increase pharmacological treatment response.

Notes

Availability of Data and Material

The datasets generated or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Seon Hee Hwang. Methodology: Seon Hee Hwang. Data curation: Seon Hee Hwang, Byung Joo Ham. Formal analysis: Seon Hee Hwang. Investigation: Seon Hee Hwang. Supervision: Myung Sun Kim. Writing—original draft: Seon Hee Hwang. Writing—review & editing: Myung Sun Kim, Byung Joo Ham.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI23C1234).

Acknowledgments

None

Figure 1.

Graphics of mediating effects. GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning. *p<0.05; **p<0.01.

Table 1.

Demographic and clinical data (N=28)

Variables	Data	8 weeks later	F
Age (yr)	27.00 (8.30)
Sex (M/F)	16/12
Education (yr)	13.64 (1.87)
Age at onset (yr)	21.75 (8.69)
Duration of illness (yr)	5.25 (4.99)
Previous no. of MDE	1.11 (1.26)
Recurrent MDD (+/-)	16/12
K-HDRS	24.96 (9.51)	14.75 (10.00)	28.16^**
CES-D	39.96 (8.19)	33.93 (11.42)	10.25^**
SDS	21.29 (8.33)	16.64 (7.61)	7.13^*
GAF	55.39 (7.69)	62.64 (11.82)	9.51^*
FSIQ	104.46 (13.42)

Data are presented as mean (standard deviation) or number.

^* p<0.05;

^** p<0.01.

MDE, major depressive episode; MDD, major depressive disorder; K-HDRS, Korean version of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; CES-D, Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale; SDS, Sheehan Disability Scale; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; FSIQ, Full Scale Intelligence Quotient

Table 2.

Correlation coefficients, means, and SD of variables

Variables	Data	SRMQ
Executive function
Stroop	10.50 (3.06)	0.07
Verbal fluency	9.79 (3.03)	0.09
Design fluency	7.96 (3.43)	0.58^**
Digit Span backward	10.68 (3.67)	0.50^*
Memory
Immediate recall	10.87 (2.67)	0.49^*
Delayed recall	9.39 (3.56)	0.55^**
Recognition	9.32 (2.97)	0.48^*
Attention
Digit Span forward	9.29 (3.43)	0.39^*
Arithmetic	9.86 (3.68)	0.34
Processing speed
Symbol search	11.25 (3.79)	0.09
Coding	9.46 (3.44)	0.09
Mentalization (SRMQ)	83.50 (10.57)

Data are presented as mean (SD).

^* p<0.05;

^** p<0.01.

SRMQ, Self-Rated Mentalization Questionnaire; SD, standard deviation

Table 3.

Mediating effect of mentalization 1

Total	IV	DV	B	SE	t	95% CI
Effect	DR	GAF	-0.014	0.012	-1.140	-0.040 to 0.012
Indirect	DR	MZ	1.624^**	0.487	0.002	0.623 to 2.624
Indirect	MZ	GAF	0.011^*	0.005	2.474	0.002 to 0.021
Direct	DR	GAF	-0.033^*	0.014	-2.398	-0.061 to -0.004
Indirect effect	Path		Effect size		SE	95% CI
	DR → MZ → GAF		0.019		0.010	0.0001 to 0.0380

^* p<0.05;

^** p<0.01.

IV, independent variable; DV, dependent variable; CI, confidence interval; DR, delayed recall; MZ, mentalization; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; SE, standard error

Table 4.

Mediating effect of mentalization 2

Total	IV	DV	B	SE	t	95% CI
Effect	DSB	GAF	-0.012	0.012	-0.963	-0.037 to 0.013
Indirect	DSB	MZ	1.435^**	0.489	2.934	0.430 to 2.440
Indirect	MZ	GAF	0.010^*	0.005	2.140	0.0004 to 0.020
Direct	DSB	GAF	-0.026	0.013	-1.958	-0.053 to 0.001
Indirect effect	Path		Effect size		SE	95% CI
	DSB → MZ → GAF		0.014		0.007	0.017 to 0.476

^* p<0.05;

^** p<0.01.

IV, independent variable; DV, dependent variable; CI, confidence interval; DSB, Digit Span backward; MZ, mentalization; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; SE, standard error

REFERENCES

1. Sheehan DV, Nakagome K, Asami Y, Pappadopulos EA, Boucher M. Restoring function in major depressive disorder: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 2017;215:299-313.

2. Greer TL, Kurian BT, Trivedi MH. Defining and measuring functional recovery from depression. CNS Drugs 2010;24:267-284.

3. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ, Erskine HE, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2013;382:1575-1586.

4. Perlis RH. Pharmacogenomic testing and personalized treatment of depression. Clin Chem 2014;60:53-59.

5. Souery D, Oswald P, Massat I, Bailer U, Bollen J, Demyttenaere K, et al. Clinical factors associated with treatment resistance in major depressive disorder: results from a European multicenter study. J Clin Psychiatry 2007;68:1062-1070.

6. Knight MJ, Baune BT. Cognitive dysfunction in major depressive disorder. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2018;31:26-31.

7. Farrin L, Hull L, Unwin C, Wykes T, David A. Effects of depressed mood on objective and subjective measures of attention. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2003;15:98-104.

8. Kiosses DN, Klimstra S, Murphy C, Alexopoulos GS. Executive dysfunction and disability in elderly patients with major depression. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001;9:269-274.

9. Majer M, Ising M, Künzel H, Binder EB, Holsboer F, Modell S, et al. Impaired divided attention predicts delayed response and risk to relapse in subjects with depressive disorders. Psychol Med 2004;34:1453-1463.

10. Nebes RD, Butters MA, Mulsant BH, Pollock BG, Zmuda MD, Houck PR, et al. Decreased working memory and processing speed mediate cognitive impairment in geriatric depression. Psychol Med 2000;30:679-691.

11. Nitschke JB, Heller W, Etienne MA, Miller GA. Prefrontal cortex activity differentiates processes affecting memory in depression. Biol Psychol 2004;67:125-143.

12. Lee RS, Hermens DF, Porter MA, Redoblado-Hodge MA. A metaanalysis of cognitive deficits in first-episode major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord 2012;140:113-124.

13. Alexopoulos GS, Kiosses DN, Heo M, Murphy CF, Shanmugham B, Gunning-Dixon F. Executive dysfunction and the course of geriatric depression. Biol Psychiatry 2005;58:204-210.

14. Groves SJ, Douglas KM, Porter RJ. A systematic review of cognitive predictors of treatment outcome in major depression. Front Psychiatry 2018;9:382

15. Choi-Kain LW, Gunderson JG. Mentalization: ontogeny, assessment, and application in the treatment of borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2008;165:1127-1135.

16. Fonagy P, Gergely G, Jurist LE, Target M. Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. London: Karnac; 2004.

17. Fischer-Kern M, Tmej A. Mentalization and depression: theoretical concepts, treatment approaches and empirical studies - an overview. Z Psychosom Med Psychother 2019;65:162-177.

18. Bora E, Berk M. Theory of mind in major depressive disorder: a metaanalysis. J Affect Disord 2016;191:49-55.

19. Lemma A, Target M, Fonagy P. Brief dynamic interpersonal therapy: a clinician’s guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.

20. Fischer-Kern M, Fonagy P, Kapusta ND, Luyten P, Boss S, Naderer A, et al. Mentalizing in female inpatients with major depressive disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis 2013;201:202-207.

21. Ekeblad A, Falkenström F, Holmqvist R. Reflective functioning as predictor of working alliance and outcome in the treatment of depression. J Consult Clin Psychol 2016;84:67-78.

22. Schurz M, Radua J, Aichhorn M, Richlan F, Perner J. Fractionating theory of mind: a meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2014;42:9-34.

23. Sidarus N, Travers E, Haggard P, Beyer F. How social contexts affect cognition: mentalizing interferes with sense of agency during voluntary action. J Exp Soc Psychol 2020;89:103994

24. Uekermann J, Channon S, Lehmkämper C, Abdel-Hamid M, Vollmoeller W, Daum I. Executive function, mentalizing and humor in major depression. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2008;14:55-62.

25. Uekermann J, Abdel-Hamid M, Lehmkämper C, Vollmoeller W, Daum I. Perception of affective prosody in major depression: a link to executive functions? J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2008;14:552-561.

26. Zobel I, Werden D, Linster H, Dykierek P, Drieling T, Berger M, et al. Theory of mind deficits in chronically depressed patients. Depress Anxiety 2010;27:821-828.

27. Förster K, Jörgens S, Air TM, Bürger C, Enneking V, Redlich R, et al. The relationship between social cognition and executive function in major depressive disorder in high-functioning adolescents and young adults. Psychiatry Res 2018;263:139-146.

28. Doose-Grünefeld S, Eickhoff SB, Müller VI. Audiovisual emotional processing and neurocognitive functioning in patients with depression. Front Integr Neurosci 2015;9:3

29. Koelkebeck K, Liedtke C, Kohl W, Alferink J, Kret ME. Attachment style moderates theory of mind abilities in depression. J Affect Disord 2017;213:156-160.

30. Németh N, Péterfalvi Á, Czéh B, Tényi T, Simon M. Examining the relationship between executive functions and mentalizing abilities of patients with borderline personality disorder. Front Psychol 2020;11:1583

31. Penadés R, Catalán R, Puig O, Masana G, Pujol N, Navarro V, et al. Executive function needs to be targeted to improve social functioning with cognitive remediation therapy (CRT) in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 2010;177:41-45.

32. Pagnoni I, Gobbi E, Alaimo C, Campana E, Rossi R, Manenti R, et al. The relationship between theory of mind and executive functions in major depressive disorders: a review. Front Psychiatry 2022;13:980392

33. American Psychiatric Association D. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Fifth Edition. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

34. Hwang S, Kim J, Park K, Chey J, Hong S. K-WAIS-IV. Daegu: Korea Psychology; 2012.

35. Kim H. Rey-Kim memory test. Daegu: Neuropsychology Press; 1999.

36. Kim H. Kims frontal-executive function neuropsychological test-II. Daegu: Neuropsychology Press; 2013.

37. Park SM, Chung NW. [Development and validation of self-rated mentalization questionnaire]. Korean J Counsel Psychotherapy 2019;31:929-965. Korean.

38. Park JY, Kim JH. [Korean version of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS): reliability and validity]. Korean J Clin Psychol 2010;29:73-81. Korean.

39. Yi JS, Chung MH, Lee BW, Lee SI. [Reliability and validity of the Korean version of Global Assessment of Functioning Scale]. Korean J Schizophr Res 2003;6:118-124. Korean.

40. Yi JS, Bae SO, Ahn YM, Park DB, Noh KS, Shin HK, et al. [Validity and reliability of the Korean version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (K-HDRS)]. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc 2005;44:456-465. Korean.

41. Guy W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville; U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs; 1976.

42. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory Manual. 2nd ed. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation; 1996.

43. Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979;134:382-389.

44. Chon KK, Choi SC, Yang BC. Integrated adaptation of CES-D in Korea. Korean J Health Psychol 2001;6:59-76.

45. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press; 2013.

46. Ledermann T, Macho S, Kenny DA. Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Struct Equ Model 2011;18:595-612.

47. MacKinnon DP, Krull JL, Lockwood CM. Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prev Sci 2000;1:173-181.

48. Zhao X, Lynch Jr JG, Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res 2010;37:197-206.

49. Dunkin JJ, Leuchter AF, Cook IA, Kasl-Godley JE, Abrams M, Rosenberg-Thompson S. Executive dysfunction predicts nonresponse to fluoxetine in major depression. J Affect Disord 2000;60:13-23.

50. Etkin A, Patenaude B, Song YJ, Usherwood T, Rekshan W, Schatzberg AF, et al. A cognitive-emotional biomarker for predicting remission with antidepressant medications: a report from the iSPOT-D trial. Neuropsychopharmacology 2015;40:1332-1342.

51. Gorlyn M, Keilp JG, Grunebaum MF, Taylor BP, Oquendo MA, Bruder GE, et al. Neuropsychological characteristics as predictors of SSRI treatment response in depressed subjects. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 2008;115:1213-1219.

52. Talarowska M, Zboralski K, Gałecki P. Correlations between working memory effectiveness and depression levels after pharmacological therapy. Psychiatr Pol 2013;47:255-267.

53. Bastos AG, Guimarães LS, Trentini CM. Predictors of response in the treatment of moderate depression. Braz J Psychiatry 2017;39:12-20.

54. Herrera-Guzmán I, Gudayol-Ferré E, Lira-Mandujano J, Herrera-Abarca J, Herrera-Guzmán D, Montoya-Pérez K, et al. Cognitive predictors of treatment response to bupropion and cognitive effects of bupropion in patients with major depressive disorder. Psychiatry Res 2008;160:72-82.

55. Murrough JW, Wan LB, Iacoviello B, Collins KA, Solon C, Glicksberg B, et al. Neurocognitive effects of ketamine in treatment-resistant major depression: association with antidepressant response. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2014;231:481-488.

56. Kalayam B, Alexopoulos GS. Prefrontal dysfunction and treatment response in geriatric depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:713-718.

57. Murphy CF, Alexopoulos GS. Attention network dysfunction and treatment response of geriatric depression. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2006;28:96-100.

58. Sneed JR, Roose SP, Keilp JG, Krishnan KR, Alexopoulos GS, Sackeim HA. Response inhibition predicts poor antidepressant treatment response in very old depressed patients. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2007;15:553-563.

59. Spronk D, Arns M, Barnett KJ, Cooper NJ, Gordon E. An investigation of EEG, genetic and cognitive markers of treatment response to antidepressant medication in patients with major depressive disorder: a pilot study. J Affect Disord 2011;128:41-48.

60. Gudayol-Ferré E, Herrera-Guzmán I, Camarena B, Cortés-Penagos C, Herrera-Abarca JE, Martínez-Medina P, et al. The role of clinical variables, neuropsychological performance and SLC6A4 and COMT gene polymorphisms on the prediction of early response to fluoxetine in major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord 2010;127:343-351.

61. Lin K, Xu G, Lu W, Ouyang H, Dang Y, Lorenzo-Seva U, et al. Neuropsychological performance in melancholic, atypical and undifferentiated major depression during depressed and remitted states: a prospective longitudinal study. J Affect Disord 2014;168:184-191.

62. Bruder GE, Alvarenga JE, Alschuler D, Abraham K, Keilp JG, Hellerstein DJ, et al. Neurocognitive predictors of antidepressant clinical response. J Affect Disord 2014;166:108-114.

63. Crane NA, Jenkins LM, Bhaumik R, Dion C, Gowins JR, Mickey BJ, et al. Multidimensional prediction of treatment response to antidepressants with cognitive control and functional MRI. Brain 2017;140:472-486.

64. Kampf-Sherf O, Zlotogorski Z, Gilboa A, Speedie L, Lereya J, Rosca P, et al. Neuropsychological functioning in major depression and responsiveness to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors antidepressants. J Affect Disord 2004;82:453-459.

65. Fales CL, Barch DM, Rundle MM, Mintun MA, Mathews J, Snyder AZ, et al. Antidepressant treatment normalizes hypoactivity in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during emotional interference processing in major depression. J Affect Disord 2009;112:206-211.