Cited by 227Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 251 of the 251 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Neural systems underlying approach and avoidance in anxiety disorders

Open access
Robin L., Aupperle, Martin, P. Paulus·2010·Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience

Abstract

Approach-avoidance conflict is an important psychological concept that has been used extensively to better understand cognition and emotion. This review focuses on neural systems involved in approach, avoidance, and conflict decision making, and how these systems overlap with implicated neural substrates of anxiety disorders. In particular, the role of amygdala, insula, ventral striatal, and prefrontal regions are discussed with respect to approach and avoidance behaviors. Three specific hypotheses underlying the dysfunction in anxiety disorders are proposed, including: (i) over-representation of avoidance valuation related to limbic overactivation; (ii) under- or over-representation of approach valuation related to attenuated or exaggerated striatal activation respectively; and (iii) insufficient integration and arbitration of approach and avoidance valuations related to attenuated orbitofrontal cortex activation. These dysfunctions can be examined experimentally using versions of existing decision-making paradigms, but may also require new translational and innovative approaches to probe approach-avoidance conflict and related neural systems in anxiety disorders.

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 · 10.31887/dcns.2010.12.4/raupperle

Cites

251 of 251 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. This figure summarizes the neural systems proposed to be integral for approach and avoidance processing as well as decision making, including the amygdala, insula, ventral striatum, and medial prefrontal (mPFC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Also represented are the proposed imbalance or enhancement of approach-avoidance signals that may underlie anxiety disorders.
Figure 1. This figure summarizes the neural systems proposed to be integral for approach and avoidance processing as well as decision making, including the amygdala, insula, ventral striatum, and medial prefrontal (mPFC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Also represented are the proposed imbalance or enhancement of approach-avoidance signals that may underlie anxiety disorders.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 251 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. American Psychiatric Association.Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association;2000
  2. BarlowDH.Anxiety and its Disorders: the Nature and Treatment of Anxiety and Panic. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2002
  3. SavageCR.The role of emotion in strategic behavior: insights from psychopathology. In: Barrett LF, Salovey P, Mayer J, eds.The Wisdom in Feeling: Psychological Processes in Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2002211236
  4. 10.1002/1520-6394(2000)12:1 <69::AID-DA9>3.0.CO;2-K · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Robin L., A., & Martin, P. P.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), California, USA
  • Psychiatry Service, Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, San Diego, California, USA
Venue
Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience
Published
2010-12-31
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
517-531
ISSN
  • 1294-8322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1958-5969
OpenAlex
W1574357942
Cited by
227
References
251
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
approach-avoidance conflict, anxiety disorders, decision-making, amygdala, insula, ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Avoidance Learning, Brain, Decision Making, Emotions, Humans, Models, Biological, Social Behavior

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