Valence and agency influence striatal response to feedback in patients with major depressive disorder
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Reduced sensitivity to positive feedback is common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, findings regarding negative feedback are ambiguous, with both exaggerated and blunted responses being reported. The ventral striatum (VS) plays a major role in processing valenced feedback, and previous imaging studies have shown that the locus of controls (self agency v. external agency) over the outcome influences VS response to feedback. We investigated whether attributing the outcome to one's own action or to an external agent influences feedback processing in patients with MDD. We hypothesized that depressed participants would be less sensitive to the feedback attribution reflected by an altered VS response to self-attributed gains and losses. METHODS: Using functional MRI and a motion prediction task, we investigated the neural responses to self-attributed (SA) and externally attributed (EA) monetary gains and losses in unmedicated patients with MDD and healthy controls. RESULTS: We included 21 patients and 25 controls in our study. Consistent with our prediction, healthy controls showed a VS response influenced by feedback valence and attribution, whereas in depressed patients striatal activity was modulated by valence but was insensitive to attribution. This attribution insensitivity led to an altered ventral putamen response for SA - EA losses in patients with MDD compared with healthy controls. LIMITATIONS: Depressed patients with comorbid anxiety disorder were included. CONCLUSION: These results suggest an altered assignment of motivational salience to SA losses in patients with MDD. Altered striatal response to SA negative events may reinforce the belief of not being in control of negative outcomes contributing to a cycle of learned helplessness.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Depressed individuals, unlike controls, fail to show greater striatal activation to self-attributed vs. externally attributed monetary gains.
“in a task that manipulated the perception of control over monetary rewards or losses, unlike controls, depressed individuals failed to show greater striatal activation to self-attributed vs. externally attributed monetary gains [210].”
From Prefrontal cortex and depression (2022) · cites this paper as [210]
The Discussion (p. 5) says the altered putamen response in patients concerned self-attributed versus externally attributed losses, and explicitly reports no evidence of an altered ventral striatal response to gains. The simple-effects analysis (p. 5) likewise found no between-group effect for the gains contrast, contrary to the claimed difference from controls for monetary gains. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 11
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [38]38. Franz M, Lemke MR, Meyer T, et al. [German version of the SnaithHamilton-Pleasure Scale (SHAPS-D). Anhedonia in schizophrenic and depressive patients]. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 1998;66:407-13.
- [42]42. Penny WD, Henson L. Analysis of variance. In: Friston K, Ashburner J, Kiebel S, et al., eds. Statistical Parametric Mapping: the analysis of functional brain images . London: Elsevier; 2006.
- Authors
- Späti, J., Chumbley, J., Doerig, N., Brakowski, J., Grosse Holtforth, M., Seifritz, E., & Spinelli, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Bern (CH)
- Venue
- Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2015-11-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 394-400
- ISSN
- 1180-4882 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4622637
- OpenAlex
- W2411311342
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (123377)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, ventral striatum, feedback processing, self-attribution, external attribution, locus of control, feedback valence, ventral putamen, motivational salience, learned helplessness, negative feedback, monetary gains and losses
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Brain Mapping, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motion Perception, Neuropsychological Tests, Comorbidity, Feedback, Psychological, Ventral Striatum
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