Cited by 83Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchStress Responses and CortisolMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The effects of trauma on brain and body: A unifying role for the midbrain periaqueductal gray

Terpou, Braeden A., Harricharan, Sherain, McKinnon, Margaret C., Frewen, Paul, Jetly, Rakesh, Lanius, Ruth A.·2019·Journal of Neuroscience Research

Abstract

Post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a diagnosis that may follow the experience of trauma, has multiple symptomatic phenotypes. Generally, individuals with PTSD display symptoms of hyperarousal and of hyperemotionality in the presence of fearful stimuli. A subset of individuals with PTSD; however, elicit dissociative symptomatology (i.e., depersonalization, derealization) in the wake of a perceived threat. This pattern of response characterizes the dissociative subtype of the disorder, which is often associated with emotional numbing and hypoarousal. Both symptomatic phenotypes exhibit attentional threat biases, where threat stimuli are processed preferentially leading to a hypervigilant state that is thought to promote defensive behaviors during threat processing. Accordingly, PTSD and its dissociative subtype are thought to differ in their proclivity to elicit active (i.e., fight, flight) versus passive (i.e., tonic immobility, emotional shutdown) defensive responses, which are characterized by the increased and the decreased expression of the sympathetic nervous system, respectively. Moreover, active and passive defenses are accompanied by primarily endocannabinoid‐ and opioid‐mediated analgesics, respectively. Through critical review of the literature, we apply the defense cascade model to better understand the pathological presentation of defensive responses in PTSD with a focus on the functioning of lower‐level midbrain and extended brainstem systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jnr.24447

Cites

432 of 432 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Terpou, B. A., Harricharan, S., McKinnon, M. C., Frewen, P., Jetly, R., & Lanius, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • Homewood Research Institute (CA)
  • Canadian Armed Forces (CA)
Corresponding author
Lanius, Ruth A.
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-06-28
Volume
97
Issue
9
Pages
1110-1140
ISSN
  • 0360-4012 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4547
OpenAlex
W2955374099
Cited by
82
References
430
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (137150, 97914)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociative subtype of PTSD, periaqueductal gray, midbrain, brainstem, defensive behavior, threat bias, hyperarousal, sympathetic nervous system, endocannabinoid system, opioid analgesia, trauma
MeSH terms
Brain, Dissociative Disorders, Emotions, Fear, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Periaqueductal Gray, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic

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