Cited by 18Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesMental Health Research TopicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Specificity of anhedonic alterations in resting-state network connectivity and structure: A transdiagnostic approach

Geller, Whitney N., Liu, Kevin, Warren, Stacie L.·2021·Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging

Abstract

Anhedonia is a prominent characteristic of depression and related pathology that is associated with a prolonged course of mood disturbance and treatment resistance. However, the neurobiological mechanisms of anhedonia are poorly understood as few studies have disentangled the specific effects of anhedonia from other co-occurring symptoms. Here, we take a transdiagnostic, dimensional approach to distinguish anhedonia alterations from other internalizing symptoms on intrinsic functional brain circuits. 53 adults with varying degrees of anxiety and/or depression completed resting-state fMRI. Neural networks were identified through independent components analysis. Dual regression was used to characterize within-network functional connectivity alterations associated with individual differences in anhedonia. Modulation of between-network functional connectivity by anhedonia was tested using region-of-interest to region-of-interest correlational analyses. Anhedonia was associated with visual network hyperconnectivity and expansion of the visual, dorsal attention, and default networks. Additionally, anhedonia was associated with decreased between-network connectivity among default, salience, dorsal attention, somatomotor, and visual networks. Findings suggest that anhedonia is associated with aberrant connectivity and structural alterations in resting-state networks that contribute to impairments in reward learning, low motivation, and negativity bias characteristic of depression. Results reveal dissociable effects of anhedonia on resting-state network dynamics, characterizing possible neurocircuit mechanisms for intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2021.111349

Cites

140 of 140 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Geller, W. N., Liu, K., & Warren, S. L.
Affiliations
Palo Alto University (US)
Corresponding author
Warren, Stacie L.
Venue
Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
317
Pages
111349
ISSN
0925-4927 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3192476036
Cited by
18
References
140
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
anhedonia, resting-state functional connectivity, intrinsic brain networks, transdiagnostic mechanisms, depression, anxiety, default mode network, dorsal attention network, salience network, sensorimotor network, between-network connectivity, individual differences, reward learning, motivation, negativity bias, network expansion
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Reward, Anhedonia

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