Cited by 52Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Anticipation of peer evaluation in anxious adolescents: Divergence in neural activation and maturation

Open access
Spielberg, Jeffrey M., Jarcho, Johanna M., Dahl, Ronald E., Pine, Daniel S., Ernst, Monique, Nelson, Eric E.·2015·Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Abstract

Adolescence is the time of peak onset for many anxiety disorders, particularly Social Anxiety Disorder. Research using simulated social interactions consistently finds differential activation in several brain regions in anxious (vs non-anxious) youth, including amygdala, striatum and medial prefrontal cortex. However, few studies examined the anticipation of peer interactions, a key component in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety disorders. Youth completed the Chatroom Task while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. Patterns of neural activation were assessed in anxious and non-anxious youth as they were cued to anticipate social feedback from peers. Anxious participants evidenced greater amygdala activation and rostral anterior cingulate (rACC)↔amygdala coupling than non-anxious participants during anticipation of feedback from peers they had previously rejected; anxious participants also evidenced less nucleus accumbens activation during anticipation of feedback from selected peers. Finally, anxiety interacted with age in rACC: in anxious participants, age was positively associated with activation to anticipated feedback from rejected peers and negatively for selected peers, whereas the opposite pattern emerged for non-anxious youth. Overall, anxious youth showed greater reactivity in anticipation of feedback from rejected peers and thus may ascribe greater salience to these potential interactions and increase the likelihood of avoidance behavior.

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 · 10.1093/scan/nsu165

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • SubACC activation to peer evaluation increased across ages 8-17 for healthy and anxious adolescents who anticipated feedback from selected and rejected peers, respectively.

    “Spielberg et al. (2015) found that subACC activation to peer evaluation increased across ages 8-17 for healthy and anxious adolescents who anticipated feedback from selected and rejected peers, respectively.”

    From Adolescent neurobiological susceptibility to social context (2016) · cites this paper as Spielberg et al., 2015

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: 1

  1. Casey, B.J., Jones, R.M., Hare, T.A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 111-26.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spielberg, J. M., Jarcho, J. M., Dahl, R. E., Pine, D. S., Ernst, M., & Nelson, E. E.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA, and
Venue
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Published
2014-12-30
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
1084-1091
ISSN
  • 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-5024
OpenAlex
W2058937733
Cited by
52
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
FWCI
4.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
adolescent social anxiety, social anxiety disorder, peer rejection, amygdala activation, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, nucleus accumbens, neuronal maturation, social avoidance, brain-behavior relationship
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Psychology, Adolescent, Aging, Amygdala, Anxiety, Child, Cues, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Nucleus Accumbens, Peer Group, Rejection, Psychology, Social Environment, Feedback, Psychological, Anticipation, 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