Cited by 664Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Disrupted amygdalar subregion functional connectivity and evidence of a compensatory network in generalized anxiety disorder

Open access
Etkin, Amit, Prater, Katherine E., Schatzberg, Alan F., Menon, Vinod, Greicius, Michael D.·2009·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

CONTEXT: Little is known about the neural abnormalities underlying generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Studies in other anxiety disorders have implicated the amygdala, but work in GAD has yielded conflicting results. The amygdala is composed of distinct subregions that interact with dissociable brain networks, which have been studied only in experimental animals. A functional connectivity approach at the subregional level may therefore yield novel insights into GAD. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether distinct connectivity patterns can be reliably identified for the basolateral (BLA) and centromedial (CMA) subregions of the human amygdala, and to examine subregional connectivity patterns and potential compensatory amygdalar connectivity in GAD. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Two cohorts of healthy control subjects (consisting of 17 and 31 subjects) and 16 patients with GAD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional connectivity with cytoarchitectonically determined BLA and CMA regions of interest, measured during functional magnetic resonance imaging performed while subjects were resting quietly in the scanner. Amygdalar gray matter volume was also investigated with voxel-based morphometry. RESULTS: Reproducible subregional differences in large-scale connectivity were identified in both cohorts of healthy controls. The BLA was differentially connected with primary and higher-order sensory and medial prefrontal cortices. The CMA was connected with the midbrain, thalamus, and cerebellum. In GAD patients, BLA and CMA connectivity patterns were significantly less distinct, and increased gray matter volume was noted primarily in the CMA. Across the subregions, GAD patients had increased connectivity with a previously characterized frontoparietal executive control network and decreased connectivity with an insula- and cingulate-based salience network. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide new insights into the functional neuroanatomy of the human amygdala and converge with connectivity studies in experimental animals. In GAD, we find evidence of an intra-amygdalar abnormality and engagement of a compensatory frontoparietal executive control network, consistent with cognitive theories of GAD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.104

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Relative to healthy controls, GAD patients have stronger resting-state connectivity among the amygdala, vmPFC, and dlPFC, and this coupling increases with anxiety severity.

    “Etkin, Prater, Schatzberg, Menon, and Greicius (2009) found that generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) patients, as compared to healthy control participants, evidenced stronger resting state connectivity between the amygdala, the ventromedial PFC, and the dorsolateral PFC, and this connectivity was stronger as a function of anxiety severity.”

    From What, me worry and ruminate about dsm-5 and rdoc? The importance of targeting negative self-referential processing (2013) · cites this paper as Etkin et al., 2009

    The Comment section reports increased amygdala connectivity with both the ventromedial and dorsolateral PFC in GAD patients. But the Results section reports that amygdala–DLPFC connectivity was negatively correlated with all anxiety measures: it was strongest in the least anxious patients, contrary to the claimed increase with anxiety severity. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Increased functional VLPFC-amygdala connectivity in emotion acceptance is in contrast to reduced VLPFC-amygdala connectivity found in GAD more generally.

    “However, the increased functional VLPFC-amygdala connectivity in emotion acceptance is in contrast to reduced VLPFC-amygdala connectivity found in GAD more generally (Monk et al., 2008; Etkin et al., 2009).”

    From Neural correlates of emotion acceptance<i>vs</i>worry or suppression in generalized anxiety disorder (2017) · cites this paper as Etkin et al., 2009

    The Comment section (page unavailable) reports decreased ventrolateral PFC–amygdala connectivity in patients with GAD, supporting the cited contrast. But it also reports increased connectivity with ventrolateral PFC in a different network, so the paper does not support an unqualified characterization of VLPFC–amygdala connectivity in GAD as reduced. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The association between VLPFC activation and distress ratings in worry and emotion suppression is consistent with the role of the VLPFC in reflexive reorienting and with existing studies of GAD, in which VLPFC recruitment may represent maladaptive or compensatory activation necessary to regulate worry-related anxiety.

    “The association between VLPFC activation and distress ratings in worry and emotion suppression are consistent with the role of the VLPFC in reflexive reorienting discussed earlier and with existing studies of GAD, in which VLPFC recruitment may represent maladaptive or compensatory activation necessary to regulate worry-related anxiety (Monk et al., 2008; Etkin et al., 2009).”

    From Neural correlates of emotion acceptance<i>vs</i>worry or suppression in generalized anxiety disorder (2017) · cites this paper as Etkin et al., 2009

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • fMRI studies of worry have shown reduced amygdala-VLPFC connectivity in GAD.

    “and reduced amygdala-VLPFC connectivity in GAD (Monk et al., 2008; Etkin et al., 2009)”
  • The findings are consistent with prior reports implicating the CeA in anxiety.

    “These data are consistent with reports implicating CeA involvement in anxiety9,11,12”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [12]Amaral DG, Price JL, Pitkanen A, Carmichael ST. Anatomical organization of the primate amygdaloid complex. In: Aggleton JP, ed. The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory and Mental Dysfunction. NewYork, NY: Wiley-Liss; 1992: 1– 66.
  2. [15]Pitkanen A Connectivity of the rat amygdaloid complex. In: Aggleton JP, ed. The Amygdala: A Functional Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000: 31– 115.
  3. [16]Price JL, Fokje TR, Amaral DG. The limbic region, II: the amygdaloid complex. In: Bjorklund A, Hokfelt T, Swanson LW, eds. Handbook of Chemical Neuroanatomy. Vol 5. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Inc; 1987: 279– 388.
  4. [17]Heimer L, de Olmos JS, Alheid GF, Pearson J, Sakamoto N, Shinoda K, Marksteiner J, Switzer R. The human basal forebrain, II. In: Bloom FE, Bjorklund A, Hokfelt T, eds. Handbook of Chemical Neuroanatomy: The Primate Nervous System, Part III. Vol 15. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Inc; 1999: 57– 226.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Etkin, A., Prater, K. E., Schatzberg, A. F., Menon, V., & Greicius, M. D.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
2009-12-01
Volume
66
Issue
12
Pages
1361
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156874786
Cited by
664
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 32
FWCI
13.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23NS048302, NS048302, NS058899, R21NS058899)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD047520, R01HD047520)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, amygdala, basolateral amygdala, centromedial amygdala, functional connectivity, salience network, resting-state functional connectivity
MeSH terms
Adult, Amygdala, Anxiety Disorders, Auditory Cortex, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Parietal Lobe, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cohort Studies, Prefrontal Cortex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review