Cited by 262Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Localized microstimulation of primate pregenual cingulate cortex induces negative decision-making

Open access
Amemori, Ken-ichi, Graybiel, Ann M·2012·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

The pregenual anterior cingulate cortex (pACC) has been implicated in human anxiety disorders and depression, but the circuit-level mechanisms underlying these disorders are unclear. In healthy individuals, the pACC is involved in cost-benefit evaluation. We developed a macaque version of an approach-avoidance decision task used to evaluate anxiety and depression in humans and, with multi-electrode recording and cortical microstimulation, we probed pACC function as monkeys performed this task. We found that the macaque pACC has an opponent process-like organization of neurons representing motivationally positive and negative subjective value. Spatial distribution of these two neuronal populations overlapped in the pACC, except in one subzone, where neurons with negative coding were more numerous. Notably, microstimulation in this subzone, but not elsewhere in the pACC, increased negative decision-making, and this negative biasing was blocked by anti-anxiety drug treatment. This cortical zone could be critical for regulating negative emotional valence and anxiety in decision-making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.3088

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Altered action-outcome learning and expression could play an important role in modulating actions in response to varying reward and punishment in an approach-avoidance task, and hence underlie the reported negative biases.

    “If these same regions also process action-outcome information in the punishment domain as suggested by [39], at least for pgACC, then altered action-outcome learning and expression could likely play an important role in modulating one's actions in response to varying reward and punishment in an approach-avoidance task, and hence underlie the reported negative biases.”

    From Prefrontal cortex and depression (2022) · cites this paper as [39]

  • A region bordering area 32 within the pgACC of macaques is implicated in negative bias in decision making.

    “A region bordering area 32 within the pgACC of macaques [39] has also been implicated in negative bias in decision making using a task subsequently adapted to assess negative biases in MDD [42].”

    From Prefrontal cortex and depression (2022) · cites this paper as [39]

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [1]Lewin KZ A dynamic theory of personality 1935 New York McGraw-Hill
  2. [3]Elliot AJ Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation 2008 New York Psychology Press
  3. [36]McFadden D Zarembka P Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior Frontiers in econometrics 1974 New York Academic Press 105 142
  4. [38]Von Neumann J Morgenstern O Theory of games and economic behavior 1947 Princeton Princeton Univ. Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amemori, K.-I., & Graybiel, A. M.
Affiliations
McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
Corresponding author
Graybiel, Ann M
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2012-04-08
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
776-785
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W1554976547
Cited by
262
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 5
FWCI
10.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PMC
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS025529)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
pregenual anterior cingulate cortex, subjective value, anxiety, depression, macaque, cost-benefit analysis, emotional valence
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Avoidance Learning, Brain Mapping, Cues, Decision Making, Diazepam, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Macaca mulatta, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neurons, Reaction Time, Reward, Anti-Anxiety Agents, Logistic Models, Nonlinear Dynamics

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