Cited by 68Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Prefrontal and amygdala engagement during emotional reactivity and regulation in generalized anxiety disorder

Open access
Fitzgerald, Jacklynn M., Phan, K. Luan, Kennedy, Amy E., Shankman, Stewart A., Langenecker, Scott A., Klumpp, Heide·2017·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Emotion dysregulation is prominent in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), characterized clinically by exaggerated reactivity to negative stimuli and difficulty in down-regulating this response. Although limited research implicates frontolimbic disturbances in GAD, whether neural aberrations occur during emotional reactivity, regulation, or both is not well understood.Methods During functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 30 individuals with GAD and 30 healthy controls (HC) completed a well-validated explicit emotion regulation task designed to measure emotional reactivity and regulation of reactivity. During the task, participants viewed negative images ('Look-Negative' condition) and, on some trials, used a cognitive strategy to reduce negative affective response ('Reappraise' condition).Results Results from an Analysis of Variance corrected for whole brain multiple comparisons showed a significant group x condition interaction in the left amygdala and left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). Results from post-hoc analyses showed that the GAD group engaged these regions to a greater extent than HCs during Look-Negative but not Reappraise. Behaviorally, the GAD group reported feeling more negative than the HC group in each condition, although both groups reported reduced negative affect following regulation.Limitations As comorbidity was permitted, the presence of concurrent disorders, like other anxiety disorders and depression, detracts our ability to classify neural engagement particular to GAD alone.Conclusions Individuals with GAD exhibited over-engagement of amygdala and frontal regions during the viewing of negative images, compared to HCs. Together, these aberrations may indicate that deficits in emotional reactivity rather than regulation contribute to emotion dysregulation in those with GAD.

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.jad.2017.05.013

Cites

93 of 93 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?

  • The present findings agree with prior work linking amygdala-ACC connectivity to short-term treatment response prediction.

    “These findings are consistent with prior work implicating amygdala-ACC connectivity for prediction of short-term treatment response (Burklund et al., 2017; Fitzgerald et al., 2017; Månsson et al., 2015).”

    From Changes in functional connectivity with cognitive behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder predict outcomes at follow-up (2020) · cites this paper as Fitzgerald et al., 2017

    The Results (fMRI results; page unavailable) report correlations between amygdala and IFG activity, not amygdala–ACC connectivity or treatment-response prediction. Searches for short-term treatment response and ACC connectivity found no passage linking them; a reference title mentions amygdala and ACC activation and treatment response, but does not establish the claimed connectivity finding. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

2 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fitzgerald, J. M., Phan, K. L., Kennedy, A. E., Shankman, S. A., Langenecker, S. A., & Klumpp, H.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Fitzgerald, Jacklynn M.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
218
Pages
398-406
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2610347929
Cited by
68
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
7.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH101497, K23MH093679, T32MH067631)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR029879, S10RR028898)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, emotional reactivity, emotion regulation, amygdala, prefrontal cortex, inferior frontal gyrus, cognitive reappraisal, negative affect, emotional dysregulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Amygdala, Anxiety Disorders, Brain, Brain Mapping, Emotions, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Case-Control Studies, Prefrontal Cortex, 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