Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cerebral Blood Flow Changes Associated With Attribution of Emotional Valence to Pleasant, Unpleasant, and Neutral Visual Stimuli in a PET Study of Normal Subjects

Paradiso, Sergio, Johnson, Debra L., Andreasen, Nancy C., O’Leary, Daniel S., Watkins, G. Leonard, Boles Ponto, Laura L., Hichwa, Richard D.·1999·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assist in the development of a model for the psychopathology of emotions, the present study sought to identify the neural circuits associated with the evaluation of visual stimuli for emotional valence. METHOD: Seventeen healthy individuals were shown three sets of emotionally laden pictures carrying pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral content. While subjects evaluated the picture set for emotional valence, regional cerebral blood flow was measured with the use of [15O] water positron emission tomography. Subjective ratings of the emotional valence of the picture sets were recorded. Data were analyzed by comparing the images acquired during the neutral condition with the unpleasant and pleasant image sets and the unpleasant and pleasant conditions with each other. RESULTS: Processing of pleasant stimuli was associated with increased blood flow in the dorsal-lateral, orbital, and medial frontal cortex relative to the unpleasant condition and in the cingulate, precuneus, and visual cortex relative to the neutral condition. Evaluation of unpleasant stimuli activated the amygdala, visual cortex, and cerebellum relative to the pleasant condition and the nucleus accumbens, precuneus, and visual cortex relative to the neutral condition. CONCLUSIONS: Observing and assigning emotional value to unpleasant stimuli produced activations in subcortical limbic regions, whereas evaluation of pleasant stimuli produced activations in cortical limbic areas. These findings are consistent with the notion of a subcortical and archaic danger recognition system and a system detecting pleasantness in events and situations that is phylogenetically younger, involving primarily the prefrontal cortex.

Overview

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 · 10.1176/ajp.156.10.1618

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 312

Metadata

Authors
Paradiso, S., Johnson, D. L., Andreasen, N. C., O’Leary, D. S., Watkins, G. L., Boles Ponto, L. L., & Hichwa, R. D.
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
1999-10-01
Volume
156
Issue
10
Pages
1618-1629
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2103214655
Cited by
312
References
18
FWCI
7.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cerebral Blood Flow Changes Associated With Attribution of Emotional Valence to Pleasant, Unpleasant, and Neutral Visual Stimuli in a PET Study of Normal Subjects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/ajp.156.10.1618
The paper
Paradiso, S., Johnson, D. L., Andreasen, N. C., O’Leary, D. S., Watkins, G. L., Boles Ponto, L. L., & Hichwa, R. D. (1999). Cerebral Blood Flow Changes Associated With Attribution of Emotional Valence to Pleasant, Unpleasant, and Neutral Visual Stimuli in a PET Study of Normal Subjects. American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.156.10.1618

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.