Valence and agency influence striatal response to feedback in patients with major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reduced sensitivity to positive feedback is common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, findings regarding negative feedback are ambiguous, with both exaggerated and blunted responses being reported. The ventral striatum (VS) plays a major role in processing valenced feedback, and previous imaging studies have shown that the locus of controls (self agency v. external agency) over the outcome influences VS response to feedback. We investigated whether attributing the outcome to one's own action or to an external agent influences feedback processing in patients with MDD. We hypothesized that depressed participants would be less sensitive to the feedback attribution reflected by an altered VS response to self-attributed gains and losses. METHODS: Using functional MRI and a motion prediction task, we investigated the neural responses to self-attributed (SA) and externally attributed (EA) monetary gains and losses in unmedicated patients with MDD and healthy controls. RESULTS: We included 21 patients and 25 controls in our study. Consistent with our prediction, healthy controls showed a VS response influenced by feedback valence and attribution, whereas in depressed patients striatal activity was modulated by valence but was insensitive to attribution. This attribution insensitivity led to an altered ventral putamen response for SA - EA losses in patients with MDD compared with healthy controls. LIMITATIONS: Depressed patients with comorbid anxiety disorder were included. CONCLUSION: These results suggest an altered assignment of motivational salience to SA losses in patients with MDD. Altered striatal response to SA negative events may reinforce the belief of not being in control of negative outcomes contributing to a cycle of learned helplessness.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".