Cited by 202Memory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Viewpoints: Approaches to defining and investigating fear

Open access
Mobbs, Dean, Adolphs, Ralph, Fanselow, Michael S., Barrett, Lisa Feldman, LeDoux, Joseph E., Ressler, Kerry, Tye, Kay M.·2019·Nature Neuroscience

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/s41593-019-0456-6

Cites

101 of 101 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?

  • Accumulating cognitive-affective neuroscience evidence from almost every domain of measurement is strongly inconsistent with the classical view of emotion and its implications.

    “However, accumulating cognitive-affective neuroscience evidence from almost every domain of measurement is strongly inconsistent with this classical view of emotion and its implications (Barrett and Lida, submitted for publication).[47][48][49][50][51]”

    From A new science of emotion: implications for functional neurological disorder (2022) · cites this paper as [47]

    In Q5 (LFB; page unavailable), Barrett challenges simple, dedicated fear circuits and argues that observed actions and physiological changes should not themselves be treated as fear. This supports the narrower point that some evidence and interpretations challenge a classical view. The paper does not establish the claim’s breadth—that accumulating evidence from almost every domain of measurement is strongly inconsistent with that view—and presents differing perspectives on fear circuits. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 5

  1. [2]Kunwar PS eLife 4, e06633 (2015).
  2. [63]LeDoux JE & Mobbs D. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci 24, 168– 171 (2018). PMC6715320 31467943
  3. [72]Barrett LF Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (in the press).
  4. [85]Miller NE Learnable drives and rewards In Handbook of Experimental Psychology. (Stevens SS, ed), 435– 472 (Wiley, 1951).
  5. [99]Panksepp J. (1998) Affective Neuroscience. (Oxford U. Press, 1998).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mobbs, D., Adolphs, R., Fanselow, M. S., Barrett, L. F., LeDoux, J. E., Ressler, K., & Tye, K. M.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Salk Institute for Biological Studies (US)
Corresponding author
Mobbs, Dean
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2019-07-22
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
1205-1216
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2963602757
Cited by
202
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 1
FWCI
12.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH094258)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
fear, affective neuroscience, human fear
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Fear, Humans, Nerve Net, Neurosciences, Terminology as Topic, Research Design, Species Specificity

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