Cited by 53Eating Disorders and BehaviorsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Neural responses to kindness and malevolence differ in illness and recovery in women with anorexia nervosa

Open access
McAdams, Carrie J., Lohrenz, Terry, Montague, P. Read·2015·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

In anorexia nervosa, problems with social relationships contribute to illness, and improvements in social support are associated with recovery. Using the multiround trust game and 3T MRI, we compare neural responses in a social relationship in three groups of women: women with anorexia nervosa, women in long-term weight recovery from anorexia nervosa, and healthy comparison women. Surrogate markers related to social signals in the game were computed each round to assess whether the relationship was improving (benevolence) or deteriorating (malevolence) for each subject. Compared with healthy women, neural responses to benevolence were diminished in the precuneus and right angular gyrus in both currently-ill and weight-recovered subjects with anorexia, but neural responses to malevolence differed in the left fusiform only in currently-ill subjects. Next, using a whole-brain regression, we identified an office assessment, the positive personalizing bias, that was inversely correlated with neural activity in the occipital lobe, the precuneus and posterior cingulate, the bilateral temporoparietal junctions, and dorsal anterior cingulate, during benevolence for all groups of subjects. The positive personalizing bias is a self-report measure that assesses the degree with which a person attributes positive experiences to other people. These data suggest that problems in perceiving kindness may be a consistent trait related to the development of anorexia nervosa, whereas recognizing malevolence may be related to recovery. Future work on social brain function, in both healthy and psychiatric populations, should consider positive personalizing biases as a possible marker of neural differences related to kindness perception.

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 · 10.1002/hbm.23005

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • At the neural level, areas of hypo- and hyperactivation have been identified in response to positive and negative social exchanges, respectively, in eating disorders.

    “Evidence from behavioral studies suggests women with AN avoid looking at the faces and eyes of others and find them less rewarding compared to non-eating disorder controls (100), while at the neural level, areas of hypo- and hyperactivation have been identified in response to positive and negative social exchanges, respectively (101, 102).”

    From A transdiagnostic perspective on social anhedonia (2019) · cites this paper as [101]

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: 1

  1. Mansfield JL Wade T 2000 Assessing the relevance of the hopelessness theory of depression to women with disordered eating Int J Eat Disord 28 113 119 10800021

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McAdams, C. J., Lohrenz, T., & Montague, P. R.
Affiliations
  • Texas Health Dallas (US)
  • Carilion Clinic (US)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
McAdams, Carrie J.
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-09-29
Volume
36
Issue
12
Pages
5207-5219
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2101834676
Cited by
53
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
7.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
2012 NARSAD Young Investigator Award (K23 MH093684, and RO1 DA011723)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
anorexia nervosa, weight recovery, social brain, trust game, social support, interpersonal relationships, precuneus, angular gyrus, fusiform gyrus, temporoparietal junction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anorexia Nervosa, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Games, Experimental, Humans, Intelligence Tests, Interpersonal Relations, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Middle Aged, Regression Analysis, Recovery of Function, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Beneficence, Trust, Young Adult

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