Striatal reactivity during emotion and reward relates to approach–avoidance conflict behaviour and is altered in adults with anxiety or depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We have previously reported activation in reward, salience and executive control regions during functional MRI (fMRI) using an approach–avoidance conflict (AAC) decision-making task with healthy adults. Further investigations into how anxiety and depressive disorders relate to differences in neural responses during AAC can inform their understanding and treatment. We tested the hypothesis that people with anxiety or depression have altered neural activation during AAC. Methods: We compared 118 treatment-seeking adults with anxiety or depression and 58 healthy adults using linear mixed-effects models to examine group-level differences in neural activation (fMRI) during AAC decision-making. Correlational analyses examined relationships between behavioural and neural measures. Results: Adults with anxiety or depression had greater striatal engagement when reacting to affective stimuli ( p = 0.008, d = 0.31) regardless of valence, and weaker striatal engagement during reward feedback ( p = 0.046, d = −0.27) regardless of the presence of monetary reward. They also had blunted amygdala activity during decision-making ( p = 0.023, d = −0.32) regardless of the presence of conflict. Across groups, approach behaviour during conflict decision-making was inversely correlated with striatal activation during affective stimuli ( p < 0.001, r = −0.28) and positively related to striatal activation during reward feedback ( p < 0.001, r = 0.27). Limitations: Our transdiagnostic approach did not allow for comparisons between specific anxiety disorders, and our cross-sectional approach did not allow for causal inference. Conclusion: Anxiety and depression were associated with altered neural responses to AAC. Findings were consistent with the role of the striatum in action selection and reward responsivity, and they point toward striatal reactivity as a future treatment target. Blunting of amygdala activity in anxiety or depression may indicate a compensatory response to inhibit affective salience and maintain approach.
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".