Cited by 54Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesStress Responses and CortisolAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Neural Emotion Regulation Circuitry Underlying Anxiolytic Effects of Perceived Control over Pain

Open access
Salomons, Tim V., Nusslock, Robin, Detloff, Allison, Johnstone, Tom, Davidson, Richard J.·2015·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Anxiolytic effects of perceived control have been observed across species. In humans, neuroimaging studies have suggested that perceived control and cognitive reappraisal reduce negative affect through similar mechanisms. An important limitation of extant neuroimaging studies of perceived control in terms of directly testing this hypothesis, however, is the use of within-subject designs, which confound participants' affective response to controllable and uncontrollable stress. To compare neural and affective responses when participants were exposed to either uncontrollable or controllable stress, two groups of participants received an identical series of stressors (thermal pain stimuli). One group ("controllable") was led to believe they had behavioral control over the pain stimuli, whereas another ("uncontrollable") believed they had no control. Controllable pain was associated with decreased state anxiety, decreased activation in amygdala, and increased activation in nucleus accumbens. In participants who perceived control over the pain, reduced state anxiety was associated with increased functional connectivity between each of these regions and ventral lateral/ventral medial pFC. The location of pFC findings is consistent with regions found to be critical for the anxiolytic effects of perceived control in rodents. Furthermore, interactions observed between pFC and both amygdala and nucleus accumbens are remarkably similar to neural mechanisms of emotion regulation through reappraisal in humans. These results suggest that perceived control reduces negative affect through a general mechanism involved in the cognitive regulation of emotion.

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 · 10.1162/jocn_a_00702

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Cognitive interventions have focused mainly on trying to reduce the threat value of pain, with some good evidence that we are identifying relevant processes.

    “Cognitive interventions have focused mainly on trying to reduce the threat value of pain, with some good evidence that we are identifying relevant processes. 1,12,13”

    From Patient action as means and end of chronic pain care: Risks and routes to meaningful action (2017) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies a neural circuit associated with reduced anxiety when participants perceived control over painful stimuli, supporting the claim that relevant processes are being identified. It does not establish that cognitive interventions have mainly focused on reducing pain’s threat value; this study examined perceived behavioral control rather than a cognitive intervention. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. Spielberger CD Gorsuch RL Lushene RE 1970 The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Test Manual Palo Alto, CA Consulting Psychologist Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salomons, T. V., Nusslock, R., Detloff, A., Johnstone, T., & Davidson, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2015-02-01
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
222-233
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W1987088919
Cited by
54
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Reading
  • Curtin University of Technology
  • University of Toronto
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 43454, P50MH069315, MH069315, R01MH43454, R01MH043454, T32MH018931)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (P01AT004952)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
perceived control, anxiolytic effects, pain, thermal pain, cognitive reappraisal, emotion regulation, state anxiety, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, functional connectivity, uncontrollable stress, negative affect
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Emotions, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Pain, Perception, Stress, Psychological, Young Adult

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