Cited by 517Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major Depression

Altered Emotional Interference Processing in Affective and Cognitive-Control Brain Circuitry in Major Depression

Open access
Fales, Christina L., Barch, Deanna M., Rundle, Melissa M., Mintun, Mark A., Snyder, Abraham Z., Cohen, Jonathan D., Mathews, Jose, Sheline, Yvette I.·2008·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Major depression is characterized by a negativity bias: an enhanced responsiveness to, and memory for, affectively negative stimuli. However, it is not yet clear whether this bias represents 1) impaired top-down cognitive control over affective responses, potentially linked to deficits in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex function; or 2) enhanced bottom-up responses to affectively laden stimuli that dysregulate cognitive control mechanisms, potentially linked to deficits in amygdala and anterior cingulate function.Methods We used an attentional interference task using emotional distracters to test for top-down versus bottom-up dysfunction in the interaction of cognitive-control circuitry and emotion-processing circuitry. A total of 27 patients with major depression and 24 control participants was tested. Event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging was carried out as participants directly attended to, or attempted to ignore, fear-related stimuli.Results Compared with control subjects, patients with depression showed an enhanced amygdala response to unattended fear-related stimuli (relative to unattended neutral). By contrast, control participants showed increased activity in right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Brodmann areas 46/9) when ignoring fear stimuli (relative to neutral), which the patients with depression did not show. In addition, the depressed participants failed to show evidence of error-related cognitive adjustments (increased activity in bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on posterror trials), but the control group did show them.Conclusions These results suggest multiple sources of dysregulation in emotional and cognitive control circuitry in depression, implicating both top-down and bottom-up dysfunction.

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 · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.06.012

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Selective attention, interference processing, and working memory are cognitive domains all impacted in depression.

    “cognitive domains that are all impacted in depression [93–96]”

    From Personalized machine learning guided intervention for optimizing lifestyle behaviors in depression: a pilot study (2026) · cites this paper as [95]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports altered responses to unattended fearful stimuli and impaired cognitive control over emotional distractors in patients with major depression, supporting the selective-attention and interference-processing parts of the claim. The paper does not establish that working memory is impacted; its references to memory concern negative emotional stimuli, not working-memory performance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • MDD is associated with reduced recruitment of dlPFC and dACC in contexts requiring ignoring task-irrelevant negative cues or behavioral adjustments after errors.

    “MDD was associated with reduced recruitment of the dlPFC [160, 161, 170, 244-246] and dACC [160,161,246] in contexts requiring task-irrelevant negative cues to be ignored or behavioral adjustments after errors.”

    From Prefrontal cortex and depression (2022) · cites this paper as [161]

    The Effects of Attended and Unattended Fear section reports reduced right DLPFC recruitment when patients ignored fearful faces and lower activation in a region extending into the lower dorsal ACC. The Posterror Analysis reports that patients failed to increase DLPFC activation after errors. It does not show impaired error-related recruitment of the dorsal ACC: the Error Analysis found that its response to errors did not differ by group. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This deficit in inhibitory regulation by the anterior cingulate and prefrontal results in an overactive amygdala as well as biases in memory towards negative stimuli and away from positive stimuli.

    “This deficit in inhibitory regulation by the anterior cingulate and prefrontal results in an overactive amygdala as well as biases in memory towards negative stimuli and away from positive stimuli [57–60].”

    From Association between time perspective and metacognition among Lebanese adults: the mediating role of mindfulness (2023) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Abstract (page not provided) describes enhanced memory for negative stimuli in depression, and the Discussion reports increased amygdala activity alongside reduced DLPFC recruitment when patients ignored fearful faces. But the Discussion suggests that amygdala overactivity influenced DLPFC activity from the bottom up, rather than establishing that impaired prefrontal or cingulate inhibition caused the amygdala response. The study did not test memory for positive stimuli. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Relative to healthy controls, individuals with MDD showed reduced dlPFC activation during tasks involving matching negative facial expressions, presenting negative stimuli, requiring to ignore negative faces, or inducing emotional interference.

    “Relative to healthy controls, individuals with MDD showed reduced dlPFC activation during tasks involving matching negative facial expressions [159], presenting negative stimuli [156, 160], requiring to ignore negative faces [161], or inducing emotional interference [162].”

    From Prefrontal cortex and depression (2022) · cites this paper as [161]

  • The right DLPFC has been shown to be less active in individuals with depression than in healthy controls during observation of threat-related facial expressions and of fearful faces, even if these were not explicitly attended to.

    “the right DLPFC has been shown to be less active in individuals with depression than in healthy controls during observation of threat-related facial expressions (Mingtian et al., 2012) and of fearful faces, even if these were not explicitly attended to (Fales et al., 2008).”

    From Social functioning in major depressive disorder (2016) · cites this paper as Fales et al., 2008

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: 2

  1. [33]33. Laming D (1968): Information Theory of Choice Response Times. London: Academic Press.
  2. [39]39. Snyder AZ (1996): Difference image versus ratio image error function forms in PET-PET realignment. In: Bailer D, Jones T, editors. Quantifica- tion of Brain Functions Using PET. San Diego: Academic Press, 131-137.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fales, C. L., Barch, D. M., Rundle, M. M., Mintun, M. A., Snyder, A. Z., Cohen, J. D., Mathews, J., & Sheline, Y. I.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Sheline, Yvette I.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-02
Volume
63
Issue
4
Pages
377-384
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161710337
Cited by
517
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 38
FWCI
11.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH066031, R01 MH06603101, R01 MH64821, R01MH064821)
  • National Center for Research Resources (K24 RR18192, K24RR018192)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
major depressive disorder, negativity bias, emotional interference, attentional interference, top-down cognitive control, amygdala, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, emotional distracters, event-related fMRI
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Amygdala, Attention, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Face, Fear, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Neuropsychological Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Visual Perception

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