Avoidance of harm and anxiety: A role for the nucleus accumbens
Abstract
Active and passive avoidance behaviors involve either emitting or omitting a response to avoid potential harm. Both are key components in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety disorders, yet the neural circuitry that mediates avoidance is underexplored. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging greater hemodynamic activation of the nucleus accumbens was found during active avoidance, whereas greater deactivation of the nucleus accumbens was observed during passive avoidance. These findings extend the role of the NAcc from purely reward-based action-contingencies, to one that also involves either emitting or withholding a response to avoid harm. Critically, the degree of activation and deactivation of the NAcc during avoidance was associated with individual levels of anxiety, which supports the idea that the NAcc may play a key role in the etiology and maintenance of aberrant avoidance behaviors in disorders of anxiety.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Several studies observed striatal activation during cue presentation, but they compared the BOLD responses within subjects during a threatening cue associated with an avoidance response and a nonthreatening cue in a single cohort of subjects.
“Several studies observed striatal activation during cue presentation, but they compared the BOLD responses withinsubjects during a threatening cue associated with an avoidance response and a nonthreatening cue in a single cohort of subjects (Jensen et al., 2003; Levita et al., 2012; Bolstad et al., 2013; Collins et al., 2014).”
From Active avoidance: Neural mechanisms and attenuation of pavlovian conditioned responding (2017) · cites this paper as Levita et al., 2012
Previous fMRI studies have implicated the striatum in avoidance of shock, pain, or aversive images or sounds.
“Previous fMRI studies have implicated the striatum in avoidance of shock, pain, or aversive images or sounds (Jensen et al., 2003; Delgado et al., 2009; Levita et al., 2012; Seymour et al., 2012; Bolstad et al., 2013; Collins et al., 2014; Eldar et al., 2016; Schlund et al., 2016).”
From Active avoidance: Neural mechanisms and attenuation of pavlovian conditioned responding (2017) · cites this paper as Levita et al., 2012
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 100 · Cited by 137
- Authors
- Levita, L., Hoskin, R., & Champi, S.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Levita, Liat
- ORCID
- Levita, Liat
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-08
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 189-198
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2071614054
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 100
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 13.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- nucleus accumbens, avoidance behavior, active avoidance, passive avoidance, anxiety, anxiety disorders, neural circuits, neural deactivation, individual differences in anxiety
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anxiety, Avoidance Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Nerve Net, Nucleus Accumbens, Punishment, Harm Reduction
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
