Cited by 79Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Striatal structure and function predict individual biases in learning to avoid pain

Open access
Eldar, Eran, Hauser, Tobias U., Dayan, Peter, Dolan, Raymond J.·2016·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Our ability to learn how to avoid harm is critical for maintaining physical and mental health. However, excessive harm avoidance can be maladaptive, as evident in psychiatric disorders such as avoidant personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. We therefore investigated the neural factors underlying individual imbalances in harm avoidance behavior. Our findings show that such imbalances can be predicted by the function and structure of an individual’s striatum, a brain region that is critical for goal-directed decisionmaking. Moreover, the neural signals expressed in this region revealed key processes through which individuals learn to avoid harm. These findings highlight a neural basis for imbalanced harm avoidance behavior, extreme forms of which may contribute to psychiatric pathology.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1519829113

Cites

76 of 76 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?

  • Three decision-making studies that involved avoiding pain or shock examined prediction errors to successful and unsuccessful avoidance, and two found evidence for striatal prediction errors to successful avoidance of shock.

    “However, three decision-making studies (Seymour et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2014; Eldar et al., 2016) that involved avoiding pain or shock examined prediction errors to successful and unsuccessful avoidance, and two found evidence for striatal prediction errors to successful avoidance of shock.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eldar, E., Hauser, T. U., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2016-04-11
Volume
113
Issue
17
Pages
4812-4817
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2338986187
Cited by
79
References
76
Citations by year
2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (095844/Z/11/Z)
  • Gatsby Charitable Foundation (N/A)
  • Swiss National Foundation (151641)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
individual differences, striatum, prediction error learning, harm avoidance, individual traits
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Avoidance Learning, Brain Mapping, Choice Behavior, Corpus Striatum, Decision Making, Electroshock, Female, Gambling, Games, Experimental, Humans, Individuality, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Pain, 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.

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