Cited by 227Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Anxiety and cognitive efficiency: Differential modulation of transient and sustained neural activity during a working memory task

Open access
FALES, C. L., BARCH, D. M., BURGESS, G. C., SCHAEFER, A., MENNIN, D. S., GRAY, J. R., BRAVER, T. S.·2008·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

According to the processing-efficiency hypothesis (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007), anxious individuals are thought to require greater activation of brain systems supporting cognitive control (e.g.,dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; DLPFC) in order to maintain equivalent performance to nonanxious subjects. A recent theory of cognitive control (Braver, Gray, & Burgess, 2007) has proposed that reduced cognitive efficiency might occur as a result of changes in the temporal dynamics of DLPFC recruitment. In this study, we used a mixed blocked/ event-related fMRI design to track transient and sustained activity in DLPFC while high- and low-anxious participants performed a working memory task. The task was performed after the participants viewed videos designed to induce neutral or anxiety-related moods. After the neutral video, the high-anxious participants had reduced sustained but increased transient activation in working memory areas, in comparison with low-anxious participants. The high-anxious group also showed extensive reductions in sustained activation of "default-network" areas (possible deactivation). After the negative video,the low-anxiety group shifted their activation dynamics in cognitive control regions to resemble those of the high-anxious group. These results suggest that reduced cognitive control in anxiety might be due to a transient, rather than sustained, pattern of working memory recruitment. Supplementary information for this study may be found at www.psychonomic.org/archive.

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 · 10.3758/cabn.8.3.239

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • Neuroticism-related traits involve feeling negative emotions, which interrupt higher cognition.

    “Neuroticism-related traits involve feeling negative emotions, which interrupt higher cognition (36, 37).”

    From Meta-analytic relations between personality and cognitive ability (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Anxiety-Cognition Interaction in the Brain section says anxiety-related worry and threat-related thoughts are believed to intrude on cognition by using working-memory resources. The Summary reports different cognitive-control activity in high- and low-anxious participants. The paper focuses on anxiety rather than neuroticism-related traits generally, and presents cognitive interruption as a proposed mechanism, not an established effect of negative emotions across those traits (page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.79)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
FALES, C. L., BARCH, D. M., BURGESS, G. C., SCHAEFER, A., MENNIN, D. S., GRAY, J. R., & BRAVER, T. S.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
FALES, C. L.
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2008-09-01
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
239-253
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2005005859
Cited by
227
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
FWCI
7.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH066088, R01MH66088)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
anxiety, cognitive efficiency, cognitive control, working memory, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, sustained neural activity, default mode network, mood induction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety, Attention, Cognition, Efficiency, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Reference Values, Sex Factors, Prefrontal Cortex

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