Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37493061›Full record

ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2023

Midfrontal theta as an index of conflict strength in approach-approach vs avoidance-avoidance conflicts.

Ariel Levy, Maya Enisman, Anat Perry, Tali Kleiman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Ariel LevyDepartment of Cognitive and Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-0700-5117
Maya EnismanDepartment of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-8096-822X
Anat PerryDepartment of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-2329-856X
Tali KleimanDepartment of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-1238-7818

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The seminal theory of motivational conflicts distinguishes between approach-approach (AP-AP) conflicts, in which a decision is made between desirable alternatives, and avoidance-avoidance (AV-AV) conflicts, in which a decision is made between undesirable alternatives. The behavioral differences between AP-AP and AV-AV conflicts are well documented: abundant research showed that AV-AV conflicts are more difficult to resolve than AP-AP ones. However, there is little to no research looking into the neural underpinnings of the differences between the two conflict types. Here, we show that midfrontal theta, an established neural marker of conflict, distinguished between the two conflict types such that midfrontal theta power was higher in AV-AV conflicts than in AP-AP conflicts. We further demonstrate that higher midfrontal theta power was associated with shorter decision times on a single-trial basis, indicating that midfrontal theta played a role in promoting successful controlled behavior. Taken together, our results show that AP-AP and AV-AV conflicts are distinguishable on the neural level. The implications of these results go beyond motivational conflicts, as they establish midfrontal theta as a measure of the continuous degree of conflict in subjective decisions.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyTheta RhythmConflict, PsychologicalHumansMotivationapproachavoidancecognitive controlmidfrontal thetamotivational conflicts

Identifiers

PMID37493061
PMCPMC10411683

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.