Cited by 104Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Cognition-related brain networks underpin the symptoms of unipolar depression: Evidence from a systematic review

Rayner, Genevieve, Jackson, Graeme, Wilson, Sarah·2016·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

This systematic review sources the latest neuroimaging evidence for the role of cognition-related brain networks in depression, and relates their abnormal functioning to symptoms of the disorder. Using theoretically informed and rigorous inclusion criteria, we integrate findings from 59 functional neuroimaging studies of adults with unipolar depression using a narrative approach. Results demonstrate that two distinct neurocognitive networks, the autobiographic memory network (AMN) and the cognitive control network (CCN), are central to the symptomatology of depression. Specifically, hyperactivity of the introspective AMN is linked to pathological brooding, self-blame, rumination. Anticorrelated under-engagement of the CCN is associated with indecisiveness, negative automatic thoughts, poor concentration, distorted cognitive processing. Downstream effects of this imbalance include reduced regulation of networks linked to the vegetative and affective symptoms of depression. The configurations of these networks can change between individuals and over time, plausibly accounting for both the variable presentation of depressive disorders and their fluctuating course. Framing depression as a disorder of neurocognitive networks directly links neurobiology to psychiatric practice, aiding researchers and clinicians alike.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.022

Cites

175 of 175 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

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 177 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rayner, G., Jackson, G., & Wilson, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health (AU)
Corresponding author
Rayner, Genevieve
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
61
Pages
53-65
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2208428407
Cited by
104
References
177
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
major depressive disorder, cognitive control network, rumination, brooding, self-blame, indecision, negative automatic thoughts, attentional bias, vegetative symptoms, affective symptoms, neurocognitive networks, functional neuroimaging
MeSH terms
Brain, Cognition, Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Nervous System Diseases, 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