Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33867915›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021

Approach-Avoidance Decisions Under Threat: The Role of Autonomic Psychophysiological States.

James J A Livermore, Felix H Klaassen, Bob Bramson, Anneloes M Hulsman, Sjoerd W Meijer, Leslie Held, Floris Klumpers, Lycia D de Voogd, Karin Roelofs

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Stretch-Induced Muscle Responses Under Threat Versus Safety.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Organization of Anxiety Symptoms Along the Threat Imminence Continuum.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2025
    Review
  8. How Distributed Subcortical Integration of Reward and Threat May Inform Subsequent Approach-Avoidance Decisions.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James J A LivermoreDonders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Felix H KlaassenDonders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Bob BramsonDonders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Anneloes M HulsmanDonders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Sjoerd W MeijerDonders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Leslie HeldDonders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Floris KlumpersDonders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Lycia D de VoogdDonders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Karin RoelofsDonders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acutely challenging or threatening situations frequently require approach-avoidance decisions. Acute threat triggers fast autonomic changes that prepare the body to freeze, fight or flee. However, such autonomic changes may also influence subsequent instrumental approach-avoidance decisions. Since defensive bodily states are often not considered in value-based decision-making models, it remains unclear how they influence the decision-making process. Here, we aim to bridge this gap by discussing the existing literature on the potential role of threat-induced bodily states on decision making and provide a new neurocomputational framework explaining how these effects can facilitate or bias approach-avoid decisions under threat. Theoretical accounts have stated that threat-induced parasympathetic activity is involved in information gathering and decision making. Parasympathetic dominance over sympathetic activity is particularly seen during threat-anticipatory freezing, an evolutionarily conserved response to threat demonstrated across species and characterized by immobility and bradycardia. Although this state of freezing has been linked to altered information processing and action preparation, a full theoretical treatment of the interactions with value-based decision making has not yet been achieved. Our neural framework, which we term the Threat State/Value Integration (TSI) Model, will illustrate how threat-induced bodily states may impact valuation of competing incentives at three stages of the decision-making process, namely at threat evaluation, integration of rewards and threats, and action initiation. Additionally, because altered parasympathetic activity and decision biases have been shown in anxious populations, we will end with discussing how biases in this system can lead to characteristic patterns of avoidance seen in anxiety-related disorders, motivating future pre-clinical and clinical research.

Indexed as

anxiety disordersapproach-avoidanceautonomic nervous systembodily statescardiac decelerationdefensive freezingparasympatheticthreat processing

Identifiers

PMID33867915
PMCPMC8044748
OpenAlexW3148276127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.