CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 151Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modeling Avoidance in Mood and Anxiety Disorders Using Reinforcement Learning

Open access
Mkrtchian, Anahit, Aylward, Jessica, Dayan, Peter, Roiser, Jonathan P., Robinson, Oliver J.·2017·Biological Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.01.017PMC PMC5598542

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Serious and debilitating symptoms of anxiety are the most common mental health problem worldwide, accounting for around 5% of all adult years lived with disability in the developed world. Avoidance behavior-avoiding social situations for fear of embarrassment, for instance-is a core feature of such anxiety. However, as for many other psychiatric symptoms the biological mechanisms underlying avoidance remain unclear. METHODS: Reinforcement learning models provide formal and testable characterizations of the mechanisms of decision making; here, we examine avoidance in these terms. A total of 101 healthy participants and individuals with mood and anxiety disorders completed an approach-avoidance go/no-go task under stress induced by threat of unpredictable shock. RESULTS: We show an increased reliance in the mood and anxiety group on a parameter of our reinforcement learning model that characterizes a prepotent (pavlovian) bias to withhold responding in the face of negative outcomes. This was particularly the case when the mood and anxiety group was under stress. CONCLUSIONS: This formal description of avoidance within the reinforcement learning framework provides a new means of linking clinical symptoms with biophysically plausible models of neural circuitry and, as such, takes us closer to a mechanistic understanding of mood and anxiety disorders.

Overview

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.2017.01.017

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Experimental paradigm. The trial sequence for each trial-type condition under threat (red) and safe (blue) conditions. There were equal numbers of go to win, go to avoid, no-go to win reward, and no-go to avoid losing trials within each safe and threat block, and these were randomly ordered within each block (note that safe sequence proceeds in the same way as the threat sequence but is curtailed here for brevity). The prepotent pavlovian bias to a win is a go response (approach) and the prepotent pavlovian response to a loss is no-go (avoid); hence in go to win reward and no-go to avoid losing, the bias and task instructions are aligned, but in go to avoid losing and no-go to win reward participants have to learn to overcome their avoidance and approach biases, respectively. The safe and threat blocks were presented in alternating order, counterbalanced across participants. A different set of fractal cues was used for the safe and threat blocks, counterbalanced across participants. At feedback, a face (happy +10 points, fear –10 points) was shown 80% of the time, and no points (i.e., a yellow bar [not shown in the figure]) was shown 20% of the time.
Figure 1 Experimental paradigm. The trial sequence for each trial-type condition under threat (red) and safe (blue) conditions. There were equal numbers of go to win, go to avoid, no-go to win reward, and no-go to avoid losing trials within each safe and threat block, and these were randomly ordered within each block (note that safe sequence proceeds in the same way as the threat sequence but is curtailed here for brevity). The prepotent pavlovian bias to a win is a go response (approach) and the prepotent pavlovian response to a loss is no-go (avoid); hence in go to win reward and no-go to avoid losing, the bias and task instructions are aligned, but in go to avoid losing and no-go to win reward participants have to learn to overcome their avoidance and approach biases, respectively. The safe and threat blocks were presented in alternating order, counterbalanced across participants. A different set of fractal cues was used for the safe and threat blocks, counterbalanced across participants. At feedback, a face (happy +10 points, fear –10 points) was shown 80% of the time, and no points (i.e., a yellow bar [not shown in the figure]) was shown 20% of the time.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Self-report anxiety and task performance. Between groups, (A) our mood and anxiety sample reported significantly higher trait anxiety scores (data missing for two participants in the control group [HC] [green] and one in the mood and anxiety group [ANX] [gray]), while (B) the whole sample reported increased (induced) anxiety, rated retrospectively, under threat relative to safe (Saf) conditions (violin plots; each point represents a subject, background shading represents estimated distribution). (C) Collapsed mean accuracy differs as a function of trial type, but this ignores that (D) performance on the task changed over time, such that the probability of making a response [P(go); as distinct from accuracy in panel (C)] differed as a function of trial type, condition, group, and time (shading represents SEM). Avo, avoid; Thr, threat.
Figure 2 Self-report anxiety and task performance. Between groups, (A) our mood and anxiety sample reported significantly higher trait anxiety scores (data missing for two participants in the control group [HC] [green] and one in the mood and anxiety group [ANX] [gray]), while (B) the whole sample reported increased (induced) anxiety, rated retrospectively, under threat relative to safe (Saf) conditions (violin plots; each point represents a subject, background shading represents estimated distribution). (C) Collapsed mean accuracy differs as a function of trial type, but this ignores that (D) performance on the task changed over time, such that the probability of making a response [P(go); as distinct from accuracy in panel (C)] differed as a function of trial type, condition, group, and time (shading represents SEM). Avo, avoid; Thr, threat.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Model fitting and comparison. Four different population distributions were tested separated by (A) group and threat condition (four distributions); (B) by threat condition alone (two distributions); (C) blind to group and threat condition (one distribution); and (D) by group alone (two distributions). Comparison of models and distributions using integrated Bayesian information criteria (iBIC) scores (colors match distributions throughout figure) revealed a winning model of standard + 2 approach-avoid + 2 learning rates, fit across a single prior distribution (inset zoomed in on the distribution comparison for this model). Box-and-whisker plots of the recovered parameters from the wining model/distribution are presented in panel (F) separated by group and condition (red triangles denote means, lines denote medians; based on individual parameter estimates). Log scales are used for the sensitivity and approach-avoidance parameters to aid visualization of these exponentially transformed parameters. ANX, mood and anxiety group; Ap-Av, approach avoid; Approach, approach bias; Avoid, avoidance bias; HC, healthy control group; LR, learning rate; Pun, punishment; Rew, reward; Sense, sensitivity; Stand, standard.
Figure 3 Model fitting and comparison. Four different population distributions were tested separated by (A) group and threat condition (four distributions); (B) by threat condition alone (two distributions); (C) blind to group and threat condition (one distribution); and (D) by group alone (two distributions). Comparison of models and distributions using integrated Bayesian information criteria (iBIC) scores (colors match distributions throughout figure) revealed a winning model of standard + 2 approach-avoid + 2 learning rates, fit across a single prior distribution (inset zoomed in on the distribution comparison for this model). Box-and-whisker plots of the recovered parameters from the wining model/distribution are presented in panel (F) separated by group and condition (red triangles denote means, lines denote medians; based on individual parameter estimates). Log scales are used for the sensitivity and approach-avoidance parameters to aid visualization of these exponentially transformed parameters. ANX, mood and anxiety group; Ap-Av, approach avoid; Approach, approach bias; Avoid, avoidance bias; HC, healthy control group; LR, learning rate; Pun, punishment; Rew, reward; Sense, sensitivity; Stand, standard.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Posterior predictive model. Running the estimated parameters for each subject through a posterior predictive model recovered both (A) average go probabilities for each trial type (sensitivity plots: each marker represents one subject under one condition so there are twice as many markers as subjects) and (B) group-averaged trial-by-trial performance (compare to real data in Figure 2C). In panel (B) green shows healthy control group (HC) and gray shows mood and anxiety group (ANX). Comparing parameters across group and condition revealed (C) a significantly higher avoidance bias parameter in pathological anxiety across conditions as well as greater threat-potentiated avoidance in pathological anxiety (error bars represent SEM). Avo, avoid; Saf, safe; Thr, threat.
Figure 4 Posterior predictive model. Running the estimated parameters for each subject through a posterior predictive model recovered both (A) average go probabilities for each trial type (sensitivity plots: each marker represents one subject under one condition so there are twice as many markers as subjects) and (B) group-averaged trial-by-trial performance (compare to real data in Figure 2C). In panel (B) green shows healthy control group (HC) and gray shows mood and anxiety group (ANX). Comparing parameters across group and condition revealed (C) a significantly higher avoidance bias parameter in pathological anxiety across conditions as well as greater threat-potentiated avoidance in pathological anxiety (error bars represent SEM). Avo, avoid; Saf, safe; Thr, threat.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 151

Related

Metadata

Authors
Mkrtchian, A., Aylward, J., Dayan, P., Roiser, J. P., & Robinson, O. J.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Robinson, Oliver J.
ORCID
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
82
Issue
7
Pages
532-539
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.01.017
PMC
PMC5598542
OpenAlex
W2587263457
Cited by
151
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4
FWCI
14.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/K024280/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
avoidance behavior, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, reinforcement learning models, go/no-go task, stress, Pavlovian bias, neural circuits
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Avoidance Learning, Bayes Theorem, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reinforcement, Psychology, Mood Disorders, 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