Cited by 24Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major Depression

The neural basis of conceptual–emotional integration and its role in major depressive disorder

Open access
Green, Sophie, Lambon Ralph, Matthew A., Moll, Jorge, Zakrzewski, Jessica, Deakin, John F. William, Grafman, Jordan, Zahn, Roland·2013·Social Neuroscience

Abstract

The importance of differentiating between social concepts when appraising actions (e.g., understanding behavior as critical vs. fault-finding) and its contribution to vulnerability to major depressive disorder (MDD) is unknown. We predicted poor integration of differentiated conceptual knowledge when people with MDD appraise their social actions, contributing to their tendency to grossly overgeneralize self-blame (e.g., "I am unlikable rather than critical"). To test this hypothesis, we used a neuropsychological test measuring social conceptual differentiation and its relationship with emotional biases in a remitted MDD and a control group. During fMRI, guilt- and indignation-evoking sentences were presented. As predicted, conceptual overgeneralization was associated with increased emotional intensity when appraising social actions. Interdependence of conceptual overgeneralization and negative emotional biases was stronger in MDD (reproducible in the subgroup without medication) and was associated with overgeneralized self-blame. This high conceptual-emotional interdependence was associated with functional disconnection between the right superior anterior temporal lobe (ATL) and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) as well as a septal region across groups when experiencing guilt (SPM8). Strong coupling of conceptual information (ATL) with information about the context of actions and emotions (frontal-subcortical regions) is thus associated with appraisal being less dependent on conceptual overgeneralization, thereby protecting against excessive self-blame.

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 · 10.1080/17470919.2013.810171

Cites

70 of 70 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?

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: 2

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 2002 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition. (SCID-I/P) New York Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute
  2. Hall CS Lindzey G 1978 Lewin’s field theory Theories of personality 3 383 437 New York John Wiley & Sons

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Green, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Moll, J., Zakrzewski, J., Deakin, J. F. W., Grafman, J., & Zahn, R.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • Neuroscience and Aphasia Research Unit, School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Manchester & Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre
  • D’Or Institute for Research and Education (BR)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Zahn, Roland
Venue
Social Neuroscience
Published
2013-07-04
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
417-433
ISSN
  • 1747-0919 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0927
OpenAlex
W2098111967
Cited by
24
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (ZIANS002792)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
major depressive disorder, self-blame, guilt, indignation, emotional bias, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, functional disconnection, septal area, remitted depression
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Concept Formation, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Emotions, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Psychometrics, Social Behavior, Statistics, Nonparametric

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