CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 919Memory and Neural MechanismsStress Responses and CortisolMental Health Research Topics

Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience.

Open access
Maier, Steven F., Seligman, Martin E. P.·2016·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/rev0000033PMC PMC4920136
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Learned helplessness, the failure to escape shock induced by uncontrollable aversive events, was discovered half a century ago. Seligman and Maier (1967) theorized that animals learned that outcomes were independent of their responses-that nothing they did mattered-and that this learning undermined trying to escape. The mechanism of learned helplessness is now very well-charted biologically, and the original theory got it backward. Passivity in response to shock is not learned. It is the default, unlearned response to prolonged aversive events and it is mediated by the serotonergic activity of the dorsal raphe nucleus, which in turn inhibits escape. This passivity can be overcome by learning control, with the activity of the medial prefrontal cortex, which subserves the detection of control leading to the automatic inhibition of the dorsal raphe nucleus. So animals learn that they can control aversive events, but the passive failure to learn to escape is an unlearned reaction to prolonged aversive stimulation. In addition, alterations of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex-dorsal raphe pathway can come to subserve the expectation of control. We speculate that default passivity and the compensating detection and expectation of control may have substantial implications for how to treat depression. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/rev0000033

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

39 of 95 cited sources checked · 19 supported · 3 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Immunization is trans-situational: inescapable shock in one situation blocks passivity/anxiety caused by stressors not involving shock in different situations.

    “Second, it is trans-situational and so inescapable shock in one situation blocks the passivity/anxiety caused by even stressors that do not involve shock in different situations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat et al. (2010) source

      The Discussion reports that prior escapable shock blocked the behavioral effects of later social defeat, a stressor involving no shock. It explicitly says yoked inescapable shock did not have this effect and slightly, though not significantly, exaggerated those effects. The claim reverses which initial shock condition was protective. (LLM, conf=0.95)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • Rests on an assumption: Social defeat involves a strong element of uncontrollability.
  • Premisecitation

    Perceived control in pain studies increases vmPFC activity.

    “Moreover, perceived control in these pain studies increases ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity (Salomons, Johnstone, Backonja, & Davidson, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Salomons, Johnstone, Backonja, & Davidson, 2004 source

      The fMRI section defines the reported contrast as uncontrollable minus controllable pain (UC − C). Table 1 lists prefrontal activation under that contrast, indicating greater activity with perceived uncontrollability, not an increase with perceived control. The paper does not identify a vmPFC increase. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Providing control or inducing perceived control reduces experienced intensity of painful stimuli.

    “A number of studies employing painful stimuli have found that providing control, or inducing perceived control, reduces the experienced intensity of the painful stimulus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Salomons, Johnstone, Backonja, & Davidson, 2004 source

      The Behavioral results report virtually identical pain ratings in the uncontrollable and controllable conditions (7.19 versus 7.20), with no significant difference. The Discussion says the neural-activity differences were not attributable to a difference in perceived pain. Thus, this study does not find that perceived control reduced experienced pain intensity. (LLM, conf=0.94)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingcitation

    Inescapable shock reduces later social investigation of a juvenile, a putative measure of anxiety.

    “inescapable shock reduces later social investigation of a juvenile, a putative measure of anxiety”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Christianson, Paul, et al., 2008 source
  • Findingcitation

    The mere presence of a juvenile leads to a large increase in 5-HT within the amygdala in a subject that has experienced inescapable shock, but not escapable shock previously.

    “However, the mere presence of a juvenile leads to a large increase in 5-HT within the amygdala in a subject that has experienced inescapable shock, but not escapable shock previously”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Christianson et al., 2010 source
  • May combine two claims. 80
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Greenwood, Strong, and Fleshner (2010) showed that manipulations reducing fear conditioning reduce the shuttle escape deficit when prior inescapable shocks were administered in the shuttlebox, but not when they were administered outside the shuttlebox.

    “Greenwood, Strong, and Fleshner (2010) have shown this to be the case. In their studies, manipulations that reduce fear conditioning reduce the shuttle escape deficit when the prior inescapable shocks were administered in the shuttlebox, but not when they were administered outside the shuttlebox.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Greenwood, Strong, and Fleshner (2010) source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Inescapable shock, but not exactly equal escapable shock, desensitizes these receptors so that dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT neurons are sensitized for a number of days and to a remarkably large extent.

    “Inescapable shock, but not exactly equal escapable shock, desensitizes these receptors so that dorsal raphe nucleus5-HT neurons are sensitized for a number of days and to a remarkably large extent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rozeske et al., 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Desensitization of 5-HT1A receptors is not permanent and recovers to normal within 3 days.

    “Of course, the desensitization of 5-HT1A receptors is not permanent, and recovers to normal within 3 days”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rozeske et al., 2011 source

      Results, Experiment 4 (page unavailable), show impaired 5-HT1A-receptor-mediated inhibition at 24 hours but no significant difference from controls at 7 days. The paper did not test receptor function at 3 days; its reference to effects lasting 24–72 hours concerns behavior, not measured receptor recovery. Thus, recovery by 3 days is not established. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Directly activating the vmPFC-to-DRN pathway during inescapable shock inhibits DRN as if the stressor were escapable and prevents passivity.

    “That is, activating the ventromedial prefrontal cortex-to-dorsal raphe nucleus pathway turned an animal without control into an animal with control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat, Paul, Watkins, and Maier (2008) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Inactivating DMS during escapable and inescapable shock does not interfere with learning or performance of escape response, suggesting rats can use habit system.

    “First, inactivating the dorsal medial striatum did not interfere with the learning and performance of the escape response. This suggests that the rats could use the “dumber” habit system to acquire and perform the escape response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat et al. (2014) source

      The Results (Wheel-turn escape learning) report that rats given D-AP5 in the DMS learned and performed the escape response as efficiently as controls, and the Discussion suggests they did so through the habit system. But this finding concerns NMDA-receptor blockade during escapable shock, not DMS inactivation during both escapable and inescapable shock. The Experimental design section also says that a different DMS-inactivating drug, muscimol, prevented rats from learning to escape. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Escapable shock, but not inescapable shock, activates contingency-sensitive DMS but not habit-oriented DLS.

    “As would be predicted, Amat et al. (2014) found that escapable shock, but not inescapable shock activates the contingency-sensitive dorsal medial striatum, but not the habit-oriented contingency-insensitive dorsal lateral striatum.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat et al. (2014) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Act/outcome system is sensitive to response-reinforcer contingency; habit system is sensitive only to temporal pairing and not contingency.

    “One system, called the “act/outcome” system, is sensitive to the contingency between response and reinforcer.”
    • Also stated in: § Detection of control · plain
      “A second system, the “habit” system, is a mere habit that is not sensitive to contingency but only to the temporal pairing between response and reward, and it produces inflexible learning that is not sensitive to changes in the contingency of the reward (Balleine & Dickinson, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Balleine & O'Doherty, 2010 source
    • cites Balleine & Dickinson, 1998 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Experience with escapable shock blocked passivity in shuttle escape and blocked reduced social investigation produced by social defeat seven days later.

    “For example, Amat et al. (2010) reported that experience with escapable shock blocked the passivity in shuttle escape and also blocked the reduced social investigation (anxiety) produced by social defeat occurring seven days later.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat et al. (2010) source
    • Rests on an assumption: Social defeat involves a strong element of uncontrollability.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Act/outcome system involves prelimbic area of vmPFC and posterior DMS; habit system involves sensorimotor cortex and DLS.

    “Importantly, the act/outcome system involves a corticostriatal circuit consisting of the prelimbic area within the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the posterior dorsal medial striatum (DMS), while the”
    • Also stated in: § Detection of control · plain
      “habit system has no prefrontal cortical involvement, but instead involves the sensorimotor cortex and the dorsal lateral striatum (DLS).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Balleine & O'Doherty, 2010 source

      The Neural Substrates of Goal-Directed Learning section identifies a rat prelimbic–dorsomedial striatal circuit for goal-directed learning, and the Figure 2 caption (Future Directions) links sensorimotor cortical inputs to dorsolateral striatum with habits. The paper describes rodent prelimbic cortex as analogous to human vmPFC, not as an area within it, and the cited passages do not specify the posterior dorsomedial striatum. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Social defeat increased DRN 5-HT activity, and prior escapable shock prevented this increase.

    “As would be expected, social defeat also increased dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT activity, and this increase was prevented by the prior escapable shock (Amat et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat et al., 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    When DMS is inactivated, escapable subjects performing the controlling response perfectly are not protected against later passivity/anxiety; DRN activates as if shocks were uncontrollable and passivity/anxiety follow.

    “Dramatically, even though the escapable subjects performed the controlling escape response perfectly, this was not protective against passivity/anxiety later.”
    • Also stated in: § Detection of control · plain
      “That is, the dorsal raphe nucleus was activated as if the shocks were uncontrollable and passivity/anxiety followed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat et al. (2014) source

      The Results (Wheel-turn escape learning; Juvenile social exploration at 24 h after stress) show that rats given intra-DMS D-AP5 escaped as efficiently as controls but lost the usual protection against later anxiety-like behavior. The paper also reports loss of the usual suppression of dorsal raphe serotonin release. It blocked DMS NMDA receptors rather than fully inactivating the DMS, and it did not test later passivity or establish literally perfect escape performance. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Lesion, NMDA receptor blockade, or inactivation of prelimbic area or DMS prevents contingency-sensitive act/outcome learning, leaving only contingency-insensitive habit learning.

    “Thus, lesion, NMDA receptor blockade, and inactivation of either the prelimbic area or the dorsal medial striatum prevents contingency sensitive act/outcome learning. Responses can be learned, but only the habit system is then used, and so the learning is insensitive to contingency (Shiflett & Balleine, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shiflett & Balleine, 2011 source

      In “Striatal ERK signaling and instrumental learning” (page unavailable), the paper says that pDMS inactivation leaves rats capable of instrumental responding but makes their responses outcome-insensitive; it also reports that inhibiting glutamate receptors in the dorsal striatum interferes with action–outcome encoding. The References identify a study of NMDA-receptor blockade in the DMS. Our copy does not establish the claimed effects of prelimbic lesions or inactivation, or show that every listed intervention leaves only contingency-insensitive habit learning; its behavioral evidence here concerns sensitivity to outcome devaluation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Cells in intercalated region are GABAergic and project to and inhibit central nucleus of amygdala.

    “The cells in this region are GABAergic and project to and inhibit the central nucleus of the amygdala (Berretta, Pantazopoulos, Caldera, Pantazopoulos, & Pare, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Berretta, Pantazopoulos, Caldera, Pantazopoulos, & Pare, 2005 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Information passes from basolateral amygdala to central nucleus, which projects to regions controlling fear behaviors and physiological responses.

    “From there the information passes to the central nucleus of the amygdala, which in turns projects to the regions that control the behaviors and physiological responses that are the symptoms of fear (Davis, Rainnie, & Cassell, 1994; LeDoux, 2003; Maren & Quirk, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Davis, Rainnie, & Cassell, 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites LeDoux, 2003 source
    • cites Maren & Quirk, 2004 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The protective effects of safety signals do not require the ventromedial prefrontal cortex; they act via the insular cortex, and insular lesions eliminate them.

    “It is straightforward to ask whether the protective effects of safety signals also requires the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and the answer is no.”
    • Also stated in: § Hypothesis Testing · plain
      “Instead, safety signals had their impact via the insular cortex and insular cortex lesions eliminated the protective effects of safety signals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Christianson, Benison, et al., 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions eliminate the ability of behavioral control to blunt passivity and fear caused by inescapable shock, but do not reduce safety-signal blunting.

    “ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions eliminated the ability of behavioral control to blunt the passivity and fear caused by inescapable shock, but these lesions did not even reduce the passivity and fear blunting impact of safety signals (Christianson, Benison, et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Christianson, Benison, et al., 2008 source

      The Discussion (page not provided) says vmPFC inhibition with muscimol abolished behavioral control’s effects in prior work but had no effect on safety signals; the Results confirm the latter finding for social exploration after tail-shock. The claim overstates the evidence as vmPFC lesions affecting passivity and fear: this paper used temporary vmPFC inhibition and explicitly says it did not measure fear inhibition. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Kerr et al., vmPFC activity was selectively higher on controllable snake trials than other conditions; control did not increase vmPFC activity on neutral fish trials.

    “Importantly, there was one condition that selectively excited ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity – snake controllable trials. Control did not increase ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity on neutral fish trials, even though the subjects pressed. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity was higher on controllable snake trials than in any of the other conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kerr et al. (2012) source

      The Results (fMRI activation results; page unavailable) report greater anticipatory vmPFC activation for controllable than uncontrollable snake trials, but no significant vmPFC difference between controllable and uncontrollable fish trials. They do not establish that vmPFC activity on controllable snake trials was higher than in every other individual condition; the reported snake-versus-fish vmPFC comparison collapses across controllability. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    These behavioral changes exist only as long as the receptors remain desensitized, which proved to be only a few days.

    “Thus, these behavioral changes should exist only as long as the receptors remain desensitized, which proved to be for only a few days (Rozeske et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rozeske et al., 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In primitive organisms, threats engage defensive reflexes that are energy intensive; if unsuccessful, it may be adaptive to inhibit them and conserve energy for physiological adjustments promoting survival.

    “In primitive organisms threats engage defensive reflexes (Walters & Erickson, 1986).”
    • Also stated in: § What Did Original Learned Helplessness Theory Get Right and What Did It Get Wrong? · hedged
      “However, these reflexes are energy intensive, and so if unsuccessful it might be adaptive to inhibit them and conserve energy for use in physiological adjustments that promote survival, such as altering the responsivity of the immune system to be better able to fight any infection or wound that might occur after an attack (Frank, Watkins, & Maier, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Walters & Erickson, 1986 source
    • cites Frank, Watkins, & Maier, 2013 source

      The Introduction says that physically present threats produce defensive behaviors such as fleeing and fighting. It does not specify primitive organisms or defensive reflexes. Its discussion of energy costs concerns immune responses, not reflexes, and it does not say that unsuccessful reflexes are inhibited to conserve energy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Insular lesions do not reduce the passivity-blunting effects of having an escape response, demonstrating a double dissociation.

    “However, insular lesions did not reduce the passivity blunting effects of having an escape response, thereby demonstrating a double dissociation (Christianson, Benison, et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Christianson, Benison, et al., 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The failure to escape produced by inescapable shock occurs for some number of days, but the elevation in 5-HT within regions such as the amygdala does not persist for this period.

    “The failure to escape produced by inescapable shock occurs for some number of days (see below for discussion of time course), but the elevation in 5-HT within regions such as the amygdala does not persist for this period of time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In the original stressor controllability experiment, two-thirds of inescapably shocked dogs failed to learn to escape, while 90% of escapably shocked and no-shock dogs easily learned.

    “two-thirds of the animals from the INESC group failed to learn to escape, whereas 90% of the animals in both the ESC and 0 groups easily learned to escape.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Seligman & Maier, 1967 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In tasks where non-shocked controls are not at ceiling, a difference between previously escapably shocked and non-shocked controls may emerge, and this appears to be the case.

    “This argument would suggest that in tasks in which the non-shocked control is not at ceiling a difference between the previously escapably shocked and non-shocked controls might emerge, and this appears to be the case (Baratta et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Baratta et al., 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Organisms are sensitive to the dimension of control, and this dimension is critical.

    “we found that as the original theory claimed, organisms are sensitive to the dimension of control, and this dimension is critical.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Inescapable shock does not provide more excitatory input to the dorsal raphe nucleus than escapable shock; both produce equal excitation.

    “Inescapable shock does not provide more excitatory input—both forms of shock produce equal excitation of the dorsal raphe nucleus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Activation of a dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT neuron can inhibit its neighbors, so dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT activity is under self-restraint.

    “Thus, the activation of a dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT neuron can lead to the inhibition of its neighbors, and so dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT activity is under self-restraint.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The most proximate mediator of fight/flight seemed to be the dorsal periaqueductal gray, while the extended amygdala mediated fear/anxiety.

    “The most proximate mediator of fight/flight seemed to be the dorsal periaqueductal gray (dPAG), while the extended amygdala (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, BNST, together with the amygdala proper) mediated fear/anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Intense activation of the dorsal raphe nucleus by shock sensitizes these neurons; sensitization lasts a few days and results in poor escape and heightened anxiety.

    “The intense activation of the dorsal raphe nucleus by shock sensitizes these neurons and this sensitization lasts for a few days and results in poor escape (passivity) and heightened anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    ACT neurons project to the dorsal raphe nucleus and inhibit the 5-HT cells activated by aversive stimulation, preventing dorsal raphe nucleus activation and sensitization, and eliminating passivity and exaggerated fear.

    “These neurons project to the dorsal raphe nucleus and inhibit the 5-HT cells that are activated by aversive stimulation, thus preventing dorsal raphe nucleus activation and thereby preventing sensitization of these cells, eliminating passivity and exaggerated fear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The attributional reformulation claimed that inescapability alone is not sufficient to produce more than momentary helplessness; causal explanations predict the time course and extent of helplessness.

    “Abramson et al. (1978) claimed that inescapability itself was not sufficient to produce anything more than momentary helplessness. Rather, the explanations that subjects made of the causes of their helplessness predicted the time course and the extent of helplessness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Inescapable shock is not detected as uncontrollable but is responded to as if it were controllable.

    “So, inescapable shock is not being detected as uncontrollable, but it is being responded to as if it were controllable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Excitation of the dorsal raphe nucleus is necessary and sufficient for passivity and heightened fear.

    “The excitation of the dorsal raphe nucleus is necessary and sufficient for passivity and heightened fear”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    5-HT1A receptors on the soma and dendrites of 5-HT cells within the dorsal raphe nucleus are inhibitory autoreceptors; 5-HT binding to them inhibits 5-HT neuronal activity.

    “Receptors of the 5-HT1A subtype are expressed on the soma and dendrites of 5-HT cells within the dorsal raphe nucleus. These are inhibitory autoreceptors – 5-HT binding to these receptors inhibits 5-HT neuronal activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The dorsal raphe nucleus sends 5-HT projections to the dorsal periaqueductal gray and amygdala; 5-HT in the dorsal periaqueductal gray inhibits its function and 5-HT in the amygdala potentiates its function.

    “The dorsal raphe nucleus sends 5-HT projections to both the dorsal periaqueductal gray and to the amygdala, with 5-HT released in the dorsal periaqueductal gray inhibiting its function and 5-HT in the amygdala potentiating its function”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Graeff, Guimarães, De Andrade, & Deakin, 1996 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It would also have to be true that escapable shock does not activate the dorsal raphe nucleus.

    “It would also have to be true that escapable shock does not activate the dorsal raphe nucleus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The biological mechanism of learned helplessness is now well characterized, and the original cognitive theory was reversed.

    “The mechanism of learned helplessness is now very well-charted biologically and the original theory got it backwards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    5-HT released in the periaqueductal gray and striatum inhibits active escape behavior, while 5-HT released in the amygdala potentiates fear/anxiety.

    “5-HT released in the periaqueductal gray and striatum acts at 5-HT receptors to inhibit active escape behavior, while 5-HT released in the amygdala acts at receptors to potentiate fear/anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If inescapable shock produces powerful activation of dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT neurons and release of 5-HT in structures such as the amygdala and dorsal periaqueductal gray, then this structure could be a crucial node in any learned helplessness circuit.

    “if inescapable shock were to produce a powerful activation of the dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT neurons and lead to the release of 5-HT in structures such as the amygdala and dorsal periaqueductal gray, then this structure would hold the potential to be a crucial node in any learned helplessness circuit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    After the prelimbic-dorsal raphe nucleus ACT circuit is activated, changes requiring several hours occur in this pathway and involve formation of new proteins related to plasticity.

    “After the prelimbic-dorsal raphe nucleus ACT circuit is activated a set of changes that require several hours occurs in this pathway and involves the formation of new proteins related to plasticity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Human triadic procedures replicated the animal pattern: yoked participants failed to escape, while escapable and zero groups escaped well; the same pattern occurred with solvable/unsolvable anagrams.

    “most of the people from the yoked group failed to escape in the shuttlebox, whereas people from the escapable group and the zero group escaped well in the shuttlebox. Importantly the same pattern in the shuttlebox emerged when preceded by solvable and unsolvable anagrams”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hiroto & Seligman, 1975 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Detection of uncontrollability is not necessary nor sufficient for passivity.

    “The detection of uncontrollability is not necessary nor is it sufficient for passivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The dorsal raphe nucleus projects to both the dorsal periaqueductal gray and the amygdala, inhibiting one and potentiating the other when activated.

    “There is a structure—the dorsal raphe nucleus – that projects to both, inhibiting one and potentiating the other when it itself is activated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Grahn et al. (1999) showed that inescapable shock activated dorsal raphe nucleus neurons containing 5-HT, and exactly equal escapable shock did not.

    “she was able to show that inescapable shock activated the neurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus that contained 5-HT, and exactly equal escapable shock did not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Grahn et al. (1999)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Weiss showed that inescapable shock depletes norepinephrine in the locus coeruleus region, and that this depletion increases activity of locus coeruleus norepinephrine neurons, which is important in learned helplessness/behavioral depression.

    “He and his colleagues showed that INESC depletes norepinephrine (NE) in the region of the locus coeruleus (LC)”
    • Also stated in: § Animals · plain
      “depletion of NE within this structure actually increases the activity of NE neurons, and Weiss had shown this to be important in the development of learned helplessness”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Weiss & Simson, 1988 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Volpicelli et al. (1983) found that an escapably shocked group was much superior to zero and inescapably shocked groups, and continued to run in a shuttlebox during later inescapable shock.

    “Volpicelli, Ulm, Altenor, and Seligman (1983) using a triadic design found that the ESC group was much superior to the zero group and the INESC group. During later inescapable shock, the ESC group which had first learned to bar press to escape shock continued to run in a shuttlebox during long duration inescapable shock.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Volpicelli, Ulm, Altenor, and Seligman (1983) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Depressed people who had not received inescapable events behaved in the laboratory as if they had, showing passivity in the shuttlebox and giving up on cognitive problems.

    “Depressed people, who had not received inescapable events, behaved in the laboratory as if they had—showing passivity in the shuttlebox and giving up on cognitive problems”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Klein, Fencil-Morse, & Seligman, 1976; Klein & Seligman, 1976; Miller & Seligman, 1976

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Learned helplessness mapped into depression symptoms and seemed a plausible laboratory model of depression.

    “Overall learned helplessness by mapping into the symptoms of depression seemed like a plausible laboratory model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Several inputs to DRN using different transmitters are necessary for learned helplessness behaviors but do not distinguish inescapable from escapable shock.

    “In sum, a number of inputs to the dorsal raphe nucleus, using a number of different transmitters, was necessary to produce learned helplessness behaviors, but these inputs did not discriminate inescapable from escapable shock.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Inescapable shock potentiates later fear conditioning, while prior escapable shock retards fear conditioning and facilitates fear extinction.

    “Inescapable shock potentiated later fear conditioning, a well-known phenomenon (Rau, DeCola, & Fenselow, 2005). It would not have been surprising if initial control merely prevented this potentiating effect, but it did more than that: Instead prior escapable shock actually retarded fear conditioning and facilitated fear extinction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rau, DeCola, & Fenselow, 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Baratta et al. (2007)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    Inactivating the vmPFC-to-DRN pathway during escapable shock turns an animal with control into one without control: DRN activates as if shock were inescapable and passivity/anxiety appear.

    “That is, inactivating the ventromedial prefrontal cortex-to-dorsal raphe nucleus pathway turned an animal with control into an animal without control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat et al. (2005)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Joint occurrence of shock and control may induce increased connectivity so that later shock alone without control is sufficient to activate the pathway.

    “Thus, the joint occurrence of shock and control might induce increased connectivity so that later just the presence of the shock, without control, is sufficient to activate the pathway.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Plasticity typically occurs when neurons are activated together.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because inescapable shock produces greater DRN 5-HT activation than escapable shock while excitatory inputs are equivalent, control must inhibit DRN 5-HT neurons that shock would otherwise activate regardless of controllability.

    “If inescapable shock produces a much greater activation of dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT neurons than does escapable shock, but both provide equivalent excitatory input, then there is only one obvious possibility left—the presence of control must somehow inhibit dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT neurons that would otherwise be activated by shock per se without regard to controllability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Prelimbic vmPFC has two separable functions: detecting control in a circuit with DMS and acting to inhibit DRN.

    “In sum, the prelimbic region of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex is involved in two separable functions-the DETECTion of control in a circuit with the dorsal medial striatum and then ACTing to inhibit the dorsal raphe nucleus (see Figure 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Maier and Seligman's definition of control is identical to the instrumental contingency definition.

    “Interestingly, this definition of instrumental contingency is identical to the definition of control that Maier and Seligman (1976) provided, although Maier and Seligman were referring to shock rather than food.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Maier and Seligman (1976) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Directly activating prelimbic-DRN pathway without actual escapable shock does not produce persistent pathway change or immunization.

    “To test this idea Amat et al. (2006) activated this pathway directly by microinjecting a pharmacological agent with no actual escapable shock present, but this did not produce the persistent pathway change or produce immunization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat et al. (2006)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    DRN 5-HT neurons are under inhibitory control of the prelimbic region of vmPFC, and detection of escapable shock activates this top-down inhibition.

    “However, the dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT neurons are under the inhibitory control of the prelimbic region of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and the detection of escapable shock activates this top-down inhibition of the dorsal raphe nucleus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Blockade of new protein synthesis in prelimbic area after escapable shock prevents immunization, while control still blunts impact of stressor being experienced.

    “blockade of new protein synthesis in the prelimbic area after the escapable shock experience prevents immunization (Amat et al., 2006).”
    • Also stated in: § Immunization and EXPECTation · plain
      “Importantly, control still blunts the impact of the stressor being experienced, but longer-term immunization is eliminated”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amat et al., 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Detection of escapability and acting to inhibit DRN are subserved by different populations of vmPFC cells and are truly different functions.

    “Thus, DETECT escapability and ACT to pass this information that then inhibits the dorsal raphe nucleus are subserved by different populations of ventromedial prefrontal cortex cells and so are truly different functions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The top-down process from prelimbic to DRN captures the notion of expecting future bad events will be controllable.

    “Notice that the top-down process from the prelimbic to the dorsal raphe nucleus captures the notion of EXPECTing that future bad events will be controllable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Measuring a global vmPFC fMRI signal will not remotely imply activation of the control-related critical prelimbic neurons.

    “Thus, measuring a global ventromedial prefrontal cortex fMRI signal will not remotely imply activation of the control-related critical prelimbic neurons.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    There must be a pathway from somewhere in the prelimbic-dorsomedial striatum circuit that projects to and activates prelimbic neurons in the prelimbic-DRN pathway, and this pathway is unknown.

    “there has to be a pathway from somewhere in the prelimbic-dorsomedial striatum circuit that projects to and activates the prelimbic neurons in the prelimbic- dorsal raphe nucleus pathway, and this pathway is as yet unknown.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prefeeling depends critically on vmPFC and people with damage to this area find it difficult to predict hedonic consequences of future events.

    “In their review of prospection research Gilbert and Wilson (2007) conclude “An extensive body shows that prefeeling depends critically on the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and that people with damage to this area find it difficult to predict the hedonic consequences of future events” (p. 1352).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gilbert and Wilson (2007) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The presence of control is the active ingredient, leading to inhibition of threat-induced changes in limbic and brainstem structures.

    “Instead, the presence of control seems to be the active ingredient, leading to the inhibition of threat-induced changes in limbic and brainstem structures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The prelimbic-dorsomedial striatum circuit detects control when present and activates the prelimbic-DRN pathway to blunt the behavioral effects of stress.

    “The prelimbic-dorsomedial striatum circuit detects control (DETECT) when control is present, and then activates the prelimbic-dorsal raphe nucleus pathway (ACT) to then blunt the behavioral effects of stress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Control cannot be reduced to safety; stressor control and safety signals exert their effects via different neural mechanisms.

    “Thus, control cannot be reduced to safety.”
    • Also stated in: § Hypothesis Testing · plain
      “but only that stressor control and safety signals exert their effects via different neural mechanisms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Even if there were a slight difference in 5-HT, the shuttle response is learned so rapidly that there is a ceiling effect.

    “Even if there were a slight difference in 5-HT, the shuttle response is learned so rapidly that there is a ceiling effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When encountering a threat, defensive behavior is elicited; the aversive event activates structures such as the dorsal raphe nucleus; 5-HT builds over time; if it reaches a threshold in target structures, defensive behaviors are inhibited and energy flow shifts.

    “First, defensive behavior will be elicited. The aversive event would activate structures such as the dorsal raphe nucleus. This is a cumulative process with 5-HT building over time, and if the transmitter reaches some threshold in target structures, defensive behaviors become inhibited and energy flow is shifted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When shock is escapable, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex-dorsal medial striatum circuit detects this and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex inhibits the dorsal raphe nucleus, turning off the activation produced by shock itself.

    “when shock is escapable this is DETECTed by the ventromedial prefrontal cortex-dorsal medial striatum circuit, and then the ventromedial prefrontal cortex ACTs, sending inputs to the dorsal raphe nucleus that inhibit it, thereby turning off the activation produced by shock per se.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    As organisms became more complex, they could detect threats at a distance, developed behavioral and cognitive coping skills, and control became possible even against persistent threats.

    “As organisms became more complex, they could detect and identify threats at a distance. And so they developed rich behavioral and cognitive skills that could be used to cope with threats. Control became possible even against threats that persist over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The finding that the brain detects control as the active ingredient in aversive situations does not mean the brain cannot detect lack of control in other circumstances, such as uncontrollable food, unsolvable cognitive problems, or loud noise.

    “Thus, the fact that in an aversive situation the brain seems to detect control as the active ingredient rather than a lack of control, does not mean that the brain cannot detect lack of control in other types of circumstances, such as uncontrollable food or unsolvable cognitive problems, or even loud noise.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    No brain process is selectively turned on by lack of control; only a process that turns things off when control is present exists.

    “there is nothing in the brain that is selectively turned on by a lack of control, only something that turns things off when there is the presence of control.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    5-HT is phylogenetically very old and has from the beginning been involved in controlling and shifting the balance and flow of energy.

    “It is important to note that 5-HT is phylogenetically very old (Hen, 1993).”
    • Also stated in: § What Did Original Learned Helplessness Theory Get Right and What Did It Get Wrong? · plain
      “Moreover, 5-HT has, from the beginning, been involved in controlling and shifting the balance and flow of energy (see Andrews, Bharwani, Lee, Fox, & Thomson, 2015, for review).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hen, 1993 source
    • cites Andrews, Bharwani, Lee, Fox, & Thomson, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This circuit is about the future and buffers against, but does not annihilate, the default reaction of the dorsal raphe nucleus.

    “This circuit is about the future and it buffers against, but does not annihilate, the default reaction of the dorsal raphe nucleus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Control would not modulate the HPA axis response to stress because the paraventricular nucleus is not informed about controllability by the ACT circuit.

    “Thus, we would expect that control would not modulate the HPA axis response to stress because the paraventricular nucleus is not informed about controllability by the ACT circuit.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Aversive events, whether controllable or uncontrollable, excite the dorsal raphe nucleus, but control over stress actively turns this excitation off.

    “aversive events per se (either controllable or uncontrollable) excite the dorsal raphe nucleus, but control over stress actively turns this off.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The rat expects shock will be escapable in the new situation, and plasticity in the prelimbic-dorsal raphe nucleus subserves this expectation and inhibits the dorsal raphe nucleus, blocking learned helplessness.

    “This suggests that the rat EXPECTs that shock will be escapable in the new situation and that plasticity in the prelimbic-dorsal raphe nucleus subserves this expectation and inhibits the dorsal raphe nucleus, thus blocking learned helplessness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Reappraisal as a tool of therapy is behavioral control; it blunts the impact of a negative event and likely involves top-down inhibition from ventro to lower structures.

    “Reappraisal as a tool of therapy is behavioral control. It blunts the impact of a negative event, and likely involves top-down inhibition from the ventro to lower structures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    Basic result: subjects without control later showed passivity and other behavioral changes, while those with control did not and appeared similar to non-shocked controls.

    “The basic result was that the subjects without control later revealed passivity and a number of other behavioral changes, while those with control did not and appeared to be similar to non-shocked controls.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The default reaction to past and present bad events may be concurrent passivity and heightened anxiety; these cannot be undone directly or annihilated but can be inhibited by top-down cortical control.

    “The default reaction to past and present bad events may be concurrent passivity and heightened anxiety. These cannot be undone directly or annihilated. They can, however, be inhibited by top-down cortical, control.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Top-down higher cortical processes from the ventromedial prefrontal cortex inhibit this default response.

    “The second is that top-down higher cortical processes from the ventromedial prefrontal cortex inhibit this default response.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It was difficult to separate two possibilities with behavioral experiments, and idea that uncontrollability was learned remained dominant view.

    “However, it was difficult to separate these two possibilities with behavioral experiments, and the idea that uncontrollability was learned remained the dominant view.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This enduring impact occurs because the experience induces plasticity in vmPFC neurons projecting to midbrain and brainstem stress-responsive structures, leading to later inhibition.

    “and have suggested that this occurs because that experience induces plasticity in ventromedial prefrontal cortex neurons that project to midbrain and brainstem stress-responsive structures, leading to their later inhibition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Passivity occurs because excessive 5-HT is released in projection regions of the dorsal raphe nucleus, due to sensitization of DRN 5-HT neurons from desensitization of 5-HT1A receptors on soma and dendrites.

    “The passivity occurs because excessive 5-HT is released in projection regions of the dorsal raphe nucleus, and this occurs because dorsal raphe nucleus 5-HT neurons have become sensitized due to the desensitization of 5-HT1A receptors on the soma and dendrites of these cells.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For complex organisms, behavioral control can be possible over repeated, intermittent, persistent threats, so conservation/withdrawal and other energy adjustments set in motion by continued threat should be inhibited.

    “For complex organisms behavioral control can be possible over threats that are repeated, intermittent, and so persist across time. Thus, conservation/withdrawal and other energy adjustments set in motion by the continuation of threat should be inhibited.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The default response of higher organisms to prolonged bad events seems to be passivity and heightened anxiety, caused by activation of the dorsal raphe nucleus.

    “The first is that the default response of higher organisms to prolonged bad events seems to be passivity and heightened anxiety and that this is caused by the activation of the dorsal raphe nucleus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Passivity and heightened anxiety symptoms of learned helplessness map quite well into symptoms of depression and perhaps PTSD.

    “The passivity and heightened anxiety symptoms of learned helplessness map quite well into symptoms of depression (Seligman 1975; Weiss, Simson, Ambrose, Webster, & Hoffman, 1985) and perhaps those of posttraumatic stress disorder (LoLordo & Overmier, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Seligman 1975

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Weiss, Simson, Ambrose, Webster, & Hoffman, 1985

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites LoLordo & Overmier, 2011 source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Learned helplessness serves as a model for the human phenomena discussed, including depression and possibly PTSD.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Existing neural evidence is strong but not conclusive.

    “Thus, the existing neural evidence although strong, it is not conclusive.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Such processing may occur but is not deployed in highly aversive situations such as the original helplessness experiments.

    “Rather, it may be that this processing can occur, but is not deployed in situations that are highly aversive such as the original helplessness experiments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In explanatory style theory, hope consists largely in expecting future bad events will be temporary, local, controllable rather than permanent, global, uncontrollable.

    “We are mindful that in the theory of explanatory style, “hope” consists largely in the habit of expecting that future bad events will not be permanent, global, and uncontrollable, rather they will be temporary, local and controllable (Seligman, 1991, pp. 48-49).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Seligman, 1991

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Much of cognitive behavioral therapy is actually future-oriented, even if it is not taught in this way.

    “Indeed much of cognitive behavioral therapy is actually future–oriented, even if it is not taught in this way.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Such expectations are likely the best natural defense against helplessness.

    “Such expectations are likely the best natural defense against helplessness”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
91 of 91

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Uncontrollability is the active ingredient that produces passivity, and escapably shocked subjects were later normal because they lacked this critical learning ingredient.

    “we assumed that uncontrollability is the active ingredient in producing passivity, and that escapable subjects were later normal because they lacked this critical learning ingredient.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The dorsal raphe nucleus does not receive somatomotor or somatosensory inputs that would tell it whether motor responses occurred or whether shock is present.

    “but the dorsal raphe nucleus does not receive these types of somatomotor and somatosensory inputs.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Electrical stimulation of prelimbic neurons that descend to the dorsal raphe nucleus inhibits dorsal raphe nucleus neuronal activity.

    “Importantly, electrical stimulation of the neurons that descend from the prelimbic area to the dorsal raphe nucleus inhibits dorsal raphe nucleus neuronal activity.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Descending prelimbic neurons are glutamatergic and excitatory but preferentially synapse on GABAergic interneurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus that inhibit 5-HT cells.

    “Although these descending neurons are glutamatergic and so excitatory, they synapse preferentially on GABAergic interneurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus that inhibit the 5-HT cells”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The dorsal raphe nucleus is a site of convergence that sums inputs from multiple structures activated by shock.

    “The dorsal raphe nucleus is a site of convergence that sums inputs from a number of structures themselves activated by shock (Figure 3).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Plasticity typically occurs when neurons are activated together.

    “Plasticity, or increased connectivity between neurons at a synapse, typically occurs when both are activated together, as they say, “neurons that fire together wire together”.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Social defeat involves a strong element of uncontrollability.

    “The experimental subject inevitably loses and adopts defeat postures, and so there is a strong element of uncontrollability.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Learned helplessness serves as a model for the human phenomena discussed, including depression and possibly PTSD.

    “Assuming that learned helplessness models these phenomena, we now speculate on the implications of the neural circuitry”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    5-HT accumulates gradually across trials in response to aversive stimulation.

    “5-HT in response to aversive stimulation accumulates gradually across trials”
9 of 9

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?

  • DRN activity has been linked to control, especially in studies focused on aversive learning and the sense of helplessness that ensued when aversive events were uncontrollable.

    “It is important to record from DRN because its activity has been linked to control, albeit especially in a series of studies that focused on aversive learning and the sense of helplessness that ensued when aversive events were uncontrollable.19”

    From Two prefrontal-subcortical circuits estimate controllability and reflect its impact on learning (2026) · cites this paper as [19]

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.

  • Immunization is attributed to the wrong initial shock condition

    Minor

    The paper defines immunization as protection conferred by prior escapable shock, then says that inescapable shock provides that protection across situations.

  • Immunization is attributed to the wrong shock condition

    Minor

    The sentence says prior inescapable shock blocks later passivity and anxiety, but the surrounding account attributes that protection to prior escapable shock. The example immediately afterward also identifies escapable shock as the protective experience.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P.
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2016-07
Volume
123
Issue
4
Pages
349-367
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/rev0000033
PMC
PMC4920136
OpenAlex
W2471673808
Cited by
919
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 124 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 155 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 102 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 4 · 2013: 2
FWCI
20.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (MH050479)
  • John Templeton Foundation (37495; 37494)
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (63597; 68709)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
learned helplessness, medial prefrontal cortex, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, passivity, depression treatment, aversive stimulation, escape behavior
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Animals, Anxiety, Avoidance Learning, Helplessness, Learned, Humans, Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System

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.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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