Cited by 299Memory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 86 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Phasic and sustained fear in humans elicits distinct patterns of brain activity

Open access

Abstract

Aversive events are typically more debilitating when they occur unpredictably than predictably. Studies in humans and animals indicate that predictable and unpredictable aversive events can induce phasic and sustained fear, respectively. Research in rodents suggests that anatomically related but distinct neural circuits may mediate phasic and sustained fear. We explored this issue in humans by examining threat predictability in three virtual reality contexts, one in which electric shocks were predictably signaled by a cue, a second in which shocks occurred unpredictably but never paired with a cue, and a third in which no shocks were delivered. Evidence of threat-induced phasic and sustained fear was presented using fear ratings and skin conductance. Utilizing recent advances in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we were able to conduct whole-brain fMRI at relatively high spatial resolution and still have enough sensitivity to detect transient and sustained signal changes in the basal forebrain. We found that both predictable and unpredictable threat evoked transient activity in the dorsal amygdala, but that only unpredictable threat produced sustained activity in a forebrain region corresponding to the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis complex. Consistent with animal models hypothesizing a role for the cortex in generating sustained fear, sustained signal increases to unpredictable threat were also found in anterior insula and a frontoparietal cortical network associated with hypervigilance. In addition, unpredictable threat led to transient activity in the ventral amygdala–hippocampal area and pregenual anterior cingulate cortex, as well as transient activation and subsequent deactivation of subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, limbic structures that have been implicated in the regulation of emotional behavior and stress responses. In line with basic findings in rodents, these results provide evidence that phasic and sustained fear in humans may manifest similar signs of distress, but appear to be associated with different patterns of neural activity in the human basal forebrain.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.057

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

13 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 86 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 94 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 39
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 47
76 of 76
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is currently unclear whether similar mechanisms support the expression of phasic and sustained fear in humans.

    “It is currently unclear whether similar mechanisms support the expression of phasic and sustained fear in humans.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Standard fMRI voxel volumes are typically not small enough to decrease partial volume effects nor provide the spatial resolution required to detect fMRI signal changes from small brain regions.

    “Standard fMRI voxel volumes (e.g., 3.8 × 3.8 × 4.0 mm3) are typically not small enough to decrease partial volume effects nor do they provide the spatial resolution required to detect fMRI signal changes from small brain regions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The transition at context onset prevented unwanted orienting responses.

    “This transition at context onset prevented unwanted orienting responses.”
3 of 3

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 17)=4.21, p = .055

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .055 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .056. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .055 · recomputed p = .056

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 17)=5.80, p = .027

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .027 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .028. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .028

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 16)=8.37, p = .010

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .01 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .011. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .011

3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 17) = 5.8reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .028

    “F(1, 17)=5.80, p = .027”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 17) = 4.21reported p = .055 · recomputed p = .056

    “F(1, 17)=4.21, p = .055”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 16) = 8.37reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .011

    “F(1, 16)=8.37, p = .010”

  • Not confirmedF(1, 17) = 1.72reported p = .206 · recomputed p = .207

    “F(1, 17)=1.72, p = .206”

  • ConsistentF(1.6, 27.5) = 38.13reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1.6, 27.5)=38.13, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1.6, 28.5) = 17.74reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1.6, 28.5)= 17.74, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 17) = 343.2reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,17)=343.2, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 17) = 22.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,17)=22.9, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 17) = 19.44reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 17)=19.44, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 17) = 14.45reported p = .0014 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1, 17)=14.45, p = .0014”

  • ConsistentF(1, 17) = 3.32reported p = .086 · recomputed p = .086

    “F(1, 17)=3.32, p = .086”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 5.17reported p = .037 · recomputed p = .037

    “F(1, 16)=5.17, p = .037”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 2.07reported p = .169 · recomputed p = .169

    “F(1, 16)=2.07, p = .169”

13 of 13

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 70 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 294

Metadata

Authors
Alvarez, R. P., Chen, G., Bodurka, J., Kaplan, R., & Grillon, C.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Alvarez, Ruben P.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
389-400
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027289999
Cited by
299
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 12
FWCI
7.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (ZIAMH002798)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, anterior insula, hypervigilance, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex, subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, basal forebrain, skin conductance
MeSH terms
Brain, Fear, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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