ArticleNeuroImage2020
The effect of concurrent reward on aversive information processing in the brain.
Article in NeuroImage, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations between thyroid hormones and biochemical metabolism in major depressive disorder patients with and without comorbid eating disorders.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2026Article
- Separable and integrated pleasantness coding for appetitive and aversive odors across olfactory and ventral prefrontal cortices.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Delay of punishment highlights differential vulnerability to developing addiction-like behavior toward sweet food.Translational psychiatry · 2024Article
- Negative emotion reduces the discriminability of reward outcomes in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2023Article
- Electrophysiological evidence for the effects of pain on the different stages of reward evaluation under a purchasing situation.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neural networks for the processing of appetitive and aversive information, in isolation, have been well characterized. However, how the brain integrates competing signals associated with simultaneous appetitive and aversive information is less clear. In particular, it is unknown how the presence of concurrent reward modulates the processing of an aversive event throughout the brain. Here, we utilized a four-armed bandit task in an fMRI study to measure the representation of an aversive electric shock with and without the simultaneous receipt of monetary reward. Using a region of interest (ROI) approach, we first identified regions activated by the experience of aversive electric shock, and then measured how this shock-related activation is modulated by concurrent reward using independent data. Informed by prior literature and our own preliminary data, analyses focused on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior and posterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and the thalamus and somatosensory cortex. We hypothesized that the neural response to punishment in these ROIs would be attenuated by the presence of concurrent reward. However, we found no evidence of concurrent reward attenuating the neural response to punishment in any ROI and also no evidence of concurrent punishment attenuating the neural response to reward in exploratory analyses. Altogether, our findings are consistent with the idea that neural networks responsible for the processing of reward and punishment signals are largely independent of one another, and that representations of overall value or utility are arrived at through the integration of separate reward and punishment signals at later stages of information processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.