Mood-congruent amygdala responses to subliminally presented facial expressions in major depression: associations with anhedonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anhedonia has long been recognized as a key feature of major depressive disorders, but little is known about the association between hedonic symptoms and neurobiological processes in depressed patients. We investigated whether amygdala mood-congruent responses to emotional stimuli in depressed patients are correlated with anhedonic symptoms at automatic levels of processing. METHODS: We measured amygdala responsiveness to subliminally presented sad and happy facial expressions in depressed patients and matched healthy controls using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Amygdala responsiveness was compared between patients and healthy controls within a 2 (group) x 2 (emotion) design. In addition, we correlated patients' amygdala responsiveness to sad and happy facial stimuli with self-report questionnaire measures of anhedonia. RESULTS: We included 35 patients and 35 controls in our study. As in previous studies, we observed a strong emotion x group interaction in the bilateral amygdala: depressed patients showed greater amygdala responses to sad than happy faces, whereas healthy controls responded more strongly to happy than sad faces. The lack of automatic right amygdala responsiveness to happy faces in depressed patients was associated with higher physical anhedonia scores. LIMITATIONS: Almost all depressed patients were taking antidepressant medications. CONCLUSION: We replicated our previous finding of depressed patients showing automatic amygdala mood-congruent biases in terms of enhanced reactivity to negative emotional stimuli and reduced activity to positive emotional stimuli. The altered amygdala processing of positive stimuli in patients was associated with anhedonia scores. The results indicate that reduced amygdala responsiveness to positive stimuli may contribute to anhedonic symptoms due to reduced/inappropriate salience attribution to positive information at very early processing levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".