Cited by 100Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

Critical role of the right VLPFC in emotional regulation of social exclusion: a tDCS study

Open access
He, Zhenhong, Lin, Yiqin, Xia, Lisheng, Liu, Zhenli, Zhang, Dandan, Elliott, Rebecca·2018·Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Abstract

There is abundant evidence suggesting that the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (rVLPFC) plays an important role in down-regulating the emotional response to social exclusion. However, a causal relationship between rVLPFC function and explicit emotional regulation is not clear in the context of social exclusion. This study employed anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to activate rVLPFC while participants used emotional regulation to reappraise pictures of social exclusion. Forty-four participants were randomly assigned to an active tDCS group or a sham group. Both groups viewed social exclusion images under two conditions: in the no-reappraisal condition, participants were instructed to passively view social exclusion images; in the reappraisal condition, they reappraised the images to down-regulate negative emotional responses. Compared to sham stimulation, anodal tDCS over the rVLPFC resulted in less negative emotion ratings, and produced significantly smaller pupil diameter in the reappraisal, compared to no-reappraisal block. The tDCS also led to longer fixation durations to rejectees and shorter fixation durations to rejecters. Taken together, these findings suggest a causal role for rVLPFC in down-regulation of negative emotions produced by social exclusion. This study has implications for clinical interventions targeting emotional regulation deficits.

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/nsy026

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • Results of brain stimulation studies on the PFC and emotion regulation are inconsistent.

    “However, results of these studies have been inconsistent. While some studies have found that tDCS over the dlPFC or vlPFC enhances cognitive reappraisal [141–143], others have not [143, 144].”

    From Prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and threat processing: implications for PTSD (2022) · cites this paper as [142]

    The Results (Experiment 1; page unavailable) report that reappraisal reduced negative-emotion ratings more with active right-VLPFC stimulation than with sham stimulation. The Discussion (page unavailable) also reports a preliminary lower-current study with only a marginal effect (P = 0.078). These findings show variation within this research, but the paper does not establish the broader claim that results across PFC stimulation studies are inconsistent. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some studies found that tDCS over the dlPFC or vlPFC enhances cognitive reappraisal.

    “While some studies have found that tDCS over the dlPFC or vlPFC enhances cognitive reappraisal [141–143], others have not [143, 144].”

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. Williams K.D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425– 52. 16968209

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
He, Z., Lin, Y., Xia, L., Liu, Z., Zhang, D., & Elliott, R.
Affiliations
  • Shenzhen University (CN)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Dandan
Venue
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Published
2018-03-28
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
357-366
ISSN
  • 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-5024
OpenAlex
W2793877773
Cited by
100
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (31571120)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, social exclusion, emotion regulation, cognitive reappraisal, transcranial direct current stimulation, negative emotions, pupil size, gaze behavior, rejection

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