Cited by 214Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Functional heterogeneity in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis

Open access
Gungor, N. Z., Pare, D.·2016·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Early work stressed the differing involvement of the central amygdala (CeA) and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) in the genesis of fear versus anxiety, respectively. In 2009, Walker, Miles, and Davis proposed a model of amygdala-BNST interactions to explain these functional differences. This model became extremely influential and now guides a new wave of studies on the role of BNST in humans. Here, we consider evidence for and against this model, in the process highlighting central principles of BNST organization. This analysis leads us to conclude that BNST's influence is not limited to the generation of anxiety-like responses to diffuse threats, but that it also shapes the impact of discrete threatening stimuli. It is likely that BNST-CeA interactions are involved in modulating responses to such threats. In addition, whereas current views emphasize the contributions of the anterolateral BNST region in anxiety, accumulating data indicate that the anteromedial and anteroventral regions also play a critical role. The presence of multiple functional subregions within the small volume of BNST raises significant technical obstacles for functional imaging studies in humans.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0856-16.2016

Cites

155 of 155 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gungor, N. Z., & Pare, D.
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2016-08-03
Volume
36
Issue
31
Pages
8038-8049
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2491422019
Cited by
214
References
153
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 6
FWCI
15.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH-098738, R01MH098738)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, central amygdala, anxiety, fear, functional heterogeneity, threat response
MeSH terms
Animals, Anxiety, Fear, Humans, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Septal Nuclei, Stress, Psychological

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