Mesolimbic Neurobehavioral Mechanisms of Reward Motivation in Anorexia Nervosa: A Multimodal Imaging Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diminished motivation to pursue and obtain primary and secondary rewards has been demonstrated in anorexia nervosa (AN). However, the neurobehavioral mechanisms underlying the behavioral activation component of aberrant reward motivation remains incompletely understood. This work aims to explore this underexplored facet of reward motivation in AN. We recruited female adolescents with AN, restricting type ( n = 32) and a healthy control group ( n = 28). All participants underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while performing a monetary reward task. Diffusion MRI data was also collected to examine the reward motivation circuit's structural connectivity. Behavioral results demonstrated slower speed of reward-seeking behavior in those with AN compared with controls. Accompanying this was lower functional connectivity and reduced white matter structural integrity of the connection between the ventral tegmental area/substantia nigra pars compacta and the nucleus accumbens within the mesolimbic circuit. Further, there was evidence of neurobehavioral decoupling in AN between reward-seeking behavior and mesolimbic regional activation and functional connectivity. Aberrant activity of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) and its connectivity with the mesolimbic system was also evident in AN during the reward motivation period. Our findings suggest functional and structural dysconnectivity within a mesolimbic reward circuit, neurofunctional decoupling from reward-seeking behavior, and abnormal BNST function and circuit interaction with the mesolimbic system. These results show behavioral indicators of aberrant reward motivation in AN, particularly in its activational component. This is mediated neuronally by mesolimbic reward circuit functional and structural dysconnectivity as well as neurobehavioral decoupling. Based on these findings, we suggest a novel circuit-based mechanism of impaired reward processing in AN, with the potential for translation to developing more targeted and effective treatments in this difficult-to-treat psychiatric condition.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".