Cited by 161Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionBullying, Victimization, and AggressionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 46 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Neural correlates of social exclusion across ages: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional MRI studies

Open access

Abstract

Given the recent surge in functional neuroimaging studies on social exclusion, the current study employed activation likelihood estimation (ALE) based meta-analyses to identify brain regions that have consistently been implicated across different experimental paradigms used to investigate exclusion. We also examined the neural correlates underlying Cyberball, the most commonly used paradigm to study exclusion, as well as differences in exclusion-related activation between developing (7-18 years of age, from pre-adolescence up to late adolescence) and emerging adult (broadly defined as undergraduates, including late adolescence and young adulthood) samples. Results revealed involvement of the bilateral medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate cortices, right precuneus and left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex across the different paradigms used to examine social exclusion; similar activation patterns were identified when restricting the analysis to Cyberball studies. Investigations into age-related effects revealed that ventrolateral prefrontal activations identified in the full sample were driven by (i.e. present in) developmental samples, while medial prefrontal activations were driven by emerging adult samples. In addition, the right ventral striatum was implicated in exclusion, but only in developmental samples. Subtraction analysis revealed significantly greater activation likelihood in striatal and ventrolateral prefrontal clusters in the developmental samples as compared to emerging adults, though the opposite contrast failed to identify any significant regions. Findings integrate the knowledge accrued from functional neuroimaging studies on social exclusion to date, highlighting involvement of lateral prefrontal regions implicated in regulation and midline structures involved in social cognitive and self-evaluative processes across experimental paradigms and ages, as well as limbic structures in developing samples specifically.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This coordinate-based ALE meta-analysis of 40 fMRI studies (1122 participants) found that social exclusion consistently engages medial prefrontal/posterior cingulate regions and left ventrolateral PFC/lateral OFC, with similar patterns in Cyberball-only studies. Developmental samples showed exclusion-related right ventral striatum and ventrolateral PFC activation, whereas emerging adult samples drove medial prefrontal/posterior cingulate findings.

Key findings

  • Across all 40 social-exclusion studies (1122 participants), four convergence clusters emerged: a bilateral medial cluster including perigenual/subgenual ACC, ventromedial PFC, and medial OFC; left ventrolateral PFC/lateral OFC; left posterior cingulate; and right posterior cingulate extending into precuneus. Excluding two studies that combined healthy and clinical samples removed the posterior cingulate clusters and added a right dorsomedial PFC cluster.
  • Cyberball-only analysis (29 studies, 857 participants) showed the same four clusters with slightly varying peaks/extents; the right posterior cingulate cluster was absent after excluding clinical-sample studies, and an additional right precentral gyrus cluster appeared. Dorsal ACC and anterior insula were not reliably identified across studies; they emerged only when the statistical threshold was lowered.
  • Developmental samples (9 Cyberball studies, 248 participants; weighted mean age 13.5 years, range 7–18) showed right ventral striatum and left ventrolateral PFC/lateral OFC clusters. Emerging adult samples (17 studies, 516 participants; weighted mean age 22.9 years from 15 studies) showed a bilateral medial cluster (perigenual/subgenual ACC, ventromedial PFC, medial OFC) and left posterior cingulate. Subtraction analysis reported greater right ventral striatum likelihood in developmental vs emerging adults; the inverse contrast found no significant regions.
  • Design analysis: traditional Cyberball studies (16 studies, 530 participants) resembled the full Cyberball sample, while alternating-design studies (9 studies, 222 participants) showed only a medial OFC/ventromedial PFC cluster; subtraction found no significant differences between designs.

Methods

  • Studies were identified from PubMed and Medline plus reference lists; inclusion required empirical fMRI, healthy samples, group main effects for exclusion/rejection versus inclusion/acceptance, and whole-brain peak coordinates. The final set comprised 40 studies.
  • Activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analyses were run in GingerALE v2.3.6 using random effects, MNI space, cluster-level corrected threshold p < 0.05, 5000 thresholding permutations, and an uncorrected p < 0.001. Sub-analyses included Social Exclusion (40 studies), Cyberball (29), Developmental (9) versus emerging adult (17), traditional (16) versus alternating (9) designs, and subtraction analyses.
  • The paper notes that 8–10 studies minimum are required for valid ALE results, while 15 studies per group are recommended for GingerALE subtraction analyses.

Limitations

  • Stated: developmental and alternating-design analyses included only the minimum number of studies necessary for valid ALE results, and subtraction analyses may lack power because 15 studies per group are recommended. The authors could not run separate analyses for non-Cyberball paradigms due to insufficient studies, could not investigate gender differences because only two reviewed studies did so, and note that many studies were excluded for failing to report main effects.
  • Stated: the ventrolateral PFC difference between developmental and emerging adult studies was present only when including two studies that combined healthy and clinical samples, so further research is needed to corroborate these findings. Age was also dichotomized into under/over 18 years, and the authors could not infer similarities or differences between Cyberball and other social-exclusion paradigms.
  • Evident from the text: coordinate-based ALE depends on reported peak coordinates and thresholding choices and cannot capture subthreshold effects; the authors recommend broader sharing of whole-brain statistical maps via Neurovault to enable more powerful image-based meta-analyses.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.050

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

33 Own result · 31 Not checked yet · 15 Own method · 13 Own interpretation · 1 No basis given

Verify all 45 references — free account
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 21
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 18
39 of 39
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The emerging adult sample's age range is between 18 and late-20s/early-30s.

    “However, we hypothesize the range as being between 18 and late-20s/early-30s.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Region-of-interest analyses are frequently conducted in the dACC without supplemental whole brain analyses.

    “Moreover, region-of-interest analyses are frequently conducted in the dACC without supplemental whole brain analyses.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Such region-of-interest analyses sometimes use lowered statistical thresholds, which are biased toward confirmatory findings.

    “At certain times, this occurs using lowered statistical thresholds, which are further biased towards confirmatory findings.”
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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 107 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 161

Metadata

Authors
Vijayakumar, N., Cheng, T. W., & Pfeifer, J. H.
Affiliations
University of Oregon (US)
Corresponding author
Vijayakumar, Nandita
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
153
Pages
359-368
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2591527129
Cited by
161
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH107418)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA035763)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
social exclusion, neural correlates, Cyberball paradigm, age differences, developmental neuroscience, emerging adulthood, adolescence, medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, precuneus, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, ventral striatum, self-assessment, social cognition, brain activation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Child, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Psychological Distance, 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 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (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