Neural bases of Frustration-Aggression Theory: A multi-domain meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Early evidence suggests that unexpected non-reward may increase the risk for aggressive behaviors. Despite the growing interest in understanding brain functions that may be implicated in aggressive behaviors, the neural processes underlying such frustrative events remain largely unknown. Furthermore, meta-analytic results have produced discrepant results, potentially due to substantial differences in the definition of anger/aggression constructs. Therefore, coordinate-based meta-analyses on unexpected non-reward and retaliatory behaviors in healthy subjects were conducted. Conjunction analyses were further examined to discover overlapping brain activations across these meta-analytical maps. Frustrative non-reward deactivated the orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum and posterior cingulate cortex, whereas increased activations were observed in midcingulo-insular regions, as well as dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, thalamus and periaqueductal gray, when using liberal threshold. Retaliation activated of midcingulo-insular regions, the dorsal caudate and the primary somatosensory cortex. Conjunction analyses revealed that both strongly activated midcingulo-insular regions. Our results underscore the role of anterior midcingulate/pre-supplementary motor area and fronto-insular cortex in both frustration and retaliatory behaviors. A neurobiological framework for understanding frustration-based impulsive aggression is provided.
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 | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".