The self and depression: Four psychological theories and their potential neural correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review theory and research pertaining to psychodynamic, social, humanistic, and ethological models of the self and depression and examine research into the neurobiological bases of the self and depression. We provide a narrative review of classic and recent empirical evidence pertaining to these four models of the relation of the self to depression as well as exemplar relevant neurobiological research. Evidence stemming from each of the four theories reviewed here shows a robust relationship between deficits in the sense of self and depressive symptoms, as well as increases in depressive symptoms over time. A smaller body of literature has linked one's sense of self to onsets of depressive episodes. A growing body of literature has linked self-relevant variables to functioning in various prefrontal and cortical midline brain regions as well as emotion and reward processing brain regions which have in turn been linked to depression. Evidence has therefore converged across all four theories and confirmed that a deficit in one's sense of self confers risk for depression and that there is substantial overlap in the brain areas associated with one's sense of self and depression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".