Cited by 143Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesStress Responses and Cortisol

Imbalanced Neural Responsivity to Risk and Reward Indicates Stress Vulnerability in Humans

Admon, R., Lubin, G., Rosenblatt, J. D., Stern, O., Kahn, I., Assaf, M., Hendler, T.·2013·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Trauma-related psychopathology has been associated with an intense emotional reaction to stressful event. Emotional responses have evolved to signal the presence of risks to be avoided or of rewards to be approached in the environment. Thus, individuals' sensitivity to signals of risk and reward may affect the level of stress vulnerability. Stress, however, can modify these sensitivities as well. In the current functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, we prospectively probed the neural correlates of such sensitivities in 24 healthy soldiers by using an interactive game that encompasses risky and rewarding intervals both pre-exposure and post-exposure to stressful military service. As expected, risky and rewarding intervals elicited selective responses in the amygdala and nucleus accumbens (Nacc), respectively. Furthermore, increased post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms post-exposure (i.e., stress vulnerability) corresponded to greater amygdala's response to risk both pre-exposure and post-exposure and to decreased NAcc response to reward only post-exposure. By combining these regional responsivities post-exposure, we accurately identified all the most vulnerable soldiers. Imbalanced neural responsivity to risk and reward following exposure to stress may therefore constitute a marker for stress vulnerability. Such identification of vulnerability biomarkers can aid future diagnostic and therapeutic efforts by allowing early detection of vulnerability as well as follow up on patient's treatment progression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhr369

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Admon, R., Lubin, G., Rosenblatt, J. D., Stern, O., Kahn, I., Assaf, M., & Hendler, T.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps (IL)
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • Hartford Hospital (US)
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2012-01-30
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
28-35
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2103498835
Cited by
143
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
12.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
stress vulnerability, risk sensitivity, reward sensitivity, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, post-traumatic stress disorder, military service, military personnel, emotional reactivity, stress exposure
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Cerebral Cortex, Cognitive Dissonance, Decision Making, Disease Susceptibility, Female, Games, Experimental, Humans, Male, Reward, Risk-Taking, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Stress, Psychological

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