Cited by 19Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPain Management and Placebo Effect

Scary symptoms? Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for symptom interpretation bias in pathological health anxiety

Open access
Yan, Zhimin, Witthöft, Michael, Bailer, Josef, Diener, Carsten, Mier, Daniela·2019·European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience

Abstract

Patients with pathological health anxiety (PHA) tend to automatically interpret bodily sensations as sign of a severe illness. To elucidate the neural correlates of this cognitive bias, we applied an functional magnetic resonance imaging adaption of a body-symptom implicit association test with symptom words in patients with PHA (n = 32) in comparison to patients with depression (n = 29) and healthy participants (n = 35). On the behavioral level, patients with PHA did not significantly differ from the control groups. However, on the neural-level patients with PHA in comparison to the control groups showed hyperactivation independent of condition in bilateral amygdala, right parietal lobe, and left nucleus accumbens. Moreover, patients with PHA, again in comparison to the control groups, showed hyperactivation in bilateral posterior parietal cortex and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during incongruent (i.e., harmless) versus congruent (i.e., dangerous) categorizations of body symptoms. Thus, body-symptom cues seem to trigger hyperactivity in salience and emotion processing brain regions in PHA. In addition, hyperactivity in brain regions involved in cognitive control and conflict resolution during incongruent categorization emphasizes enhanced neural effort to cope with negative implicit associations to body-symptom-related information in PHA. These results suggest increased neural responding in key structures for the processing of both emotional and cognitive aspects of body-symptom information in PHA, reflecting potential neural correlates of a negative somatic symptom interpretation bias.

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 · 10.1007/s00406-017-0832-8

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • Studies using the emotional stroop task and implicit association test have shown increased amygdala activation, as well as activity in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex and right posterior parietal cortex and nucleus accumbens, in response to body-symptom words between health anxious and healthy controls.

    “Studies using the emotional stroop task and implicit association test have both showed increased amygdala activation, as well as activity in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex [62] and right posterior parietal cortex and nucleus accumbens [63] in response to body-symptom words between health anxious and healthy controls.”

    From Illness Anxiety Disorder: A Review of the Current Research and Future Directions (2024) · cites this paper as [63]

    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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yan, Z., Witthöft, M., Bailer, J., Diener, C., & Mier, D.
Affiliations
  • Central Institute of Mental Health (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Mier, Daniela
Venue
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
Published
2017-08-12
Volume
269
Issue
2
Pages
195-207
ISSN
  • 0003-9373 (ISSN-L)
  • 0940-1334
  • 1433-8491
OpenAlex
W2743590575
Cited by
19
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG BA1597/5-1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
amygdala hyperactivation, nucleus accumbens, posterior parietal cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, cognitive control, conflict resolution, somatic symptoms, neural correlates, depression
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Emotions, Female, Humans, Hypochondriasis, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Cerebrum, Executive Function, Functional Neuroimaging

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