Cited by 78Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Intrinsic connectivity networks in post-traumatic stress disorder during sub- and supraliminal processing of threat-related stimuli

Rabellino, D., Tursich, M., Frewen, P. A., Daniels, J. K., Densmore, M., Théberge, J., Lanius, R. A.·2015·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the functional connectivity of large‐scale intrinsic connectivity networks (ICN s) in post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during subliminal and supraliminal presentation of threat‐related stimuli. Method: Group independent component analysis was utilized to study functional connectivity within the ICN s most correlated with the Default‐mode Network (DMN), Salience Network (SN), and Central Executive Network (CEN) in PTSD participants (n = 26) as compared to healthy controls (n = 20) during sub‐ and supraliminal processing of threat‐related stimuli. Results: Comparing patients with PTSD with healthy participants, prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex involved in top‐down regulation showed increased integration during subliminal threat processing within the CEN and SN and during supraliminal threat processing within the DMN. The right amygdala showed increased connectivity with the DMN during subliminal processing in PTSD as compared to controls. Brain regions associated with self‐awareness and consciousness exhibited decreased connectivity during subliminal threat processing in PTSD as compared to controls: the claustrum within the SN and the precuneus within the DMN. Conclusion: Key nodes of the ICN s showed altered functional connectivity in PTSD as compared to controls, and differential results characterized sub‐ and supraliminal processing of threat‐related stimuli. These findings enhance our understanding of ICN s underlying PTSD at different levels of conscious threat perception.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/acps.12418

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Rabellino, D., Tursich, M., Frewen, P. A., Daniels, J. K., Densmore, M., Théberge, J., & Lanius, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Lanius, R. A.
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04-11
Volume
132
Issue
5
Pages
365-378
ISSN
  • 0001-690X (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0447
OpenAlex
W2063809941
Cited by
78
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3
FWCI
5.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institute of Health Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, resting-state networks, subliminal processing, threat-related stimuli, default mode network, salience network, frontoparietal network, amygdala, claustrum, precuneus, top-down control, functional connectivity
MeSH terms
Adult, Amygdala, Fear, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Nerve Net, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Subliminal Stimulation, Prefrontal Cortex

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