» Articles » PMID: 21939773

Impact of State Anxiety on the Interaction Between Threat Monitoring and Cognition

Overview
Journal Neuroimage
Specialty Radiology
Date 2011 Sep 24
PMID 21939773
Citations 85
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

How does threat processing impact cognitive performance? To investigate this question, in the present functional magnetic resonance imaging study, participants performed a response-conflict task (neutral, congruent, and incongruent trials) that followed a variable-length shock anticipation period or a corresponding delay during which they would not be shocked. The delay period was cued by a geometric-shaped stimulus indicating whether the subject was in the safe (no shock) or threat (potential shock) condition. Behaviorally, participants showed increased reaction time interference (incongruent-neutral) during threat trials, an effect that increased as a function of state anxiety level across participants. Brain imaging data were analyzed for the cue and the subsequent target phase of the task. At the target phase, the left anterior insula exhibited interaction-type responses (i.e., increased interference during threat trials) that were positively associated with state anxiety level - a relationship that paralleled the behavioral pattern. At the cue phase, greater responses to threat vs. safe were observed in a circuit of regions, including the medial PFC, anterior insula, thalamus, and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis/caudate, which we interpreted as engaged by shock monitoring/anticipation processes. In contrast, intriguingly, greater responses to safe vs. threat at the cue phase were observed in a broader set of regions that overlapped with the "resting-state" network. Finally, a standard statistical mediation analysis revealed that the relationship between state anxiety scores and interference-related responses in the left anterior insula during the target phase was partially mediated via cue responses in the medial PFC, consistent with the idea that more anxious individuals had difficulty in engaging the medial PFC during the threat condition. Taken together, our findings suggest that threat monitoring impairs the upcoming resolution of interference. Furthermore, a confluence of effects of cognitive task condition, threat, and individual differences in state anxiety was observed in the anterior insula, a structure that is suggested to be particularly important for the interaction between emotion and cognition.

Citing Articles

The Limbic System in Co-Occurring Substance Use and Anxiety Disorders: A Narrative Review Using the RDoC Framework.

Lin E, Veenker F, Manza P, Yonga M, Abey S, Wang G Brain Sci. 2025; 14(12.

PMID: 39766484 PMC: 11674329. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14121285.


Exploring the use of visual predictions in social scenarios while under anticipatory threat.

Silva F, Ribeiro S, Silva S, Garrido M, Soares S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):10913.

PMID: 38740937 PMC: 11091092. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-61682-3.


High task demand in dual-target paradigm redirects experimentally increased anxiety to uphold goal-directed attention.

Stankovic M, Allenmark F, Shi Z Perception. 2024; 53(4):263-275.

PMID: 38517398 PMC: 10960321. DOI: 10.1177/03010066241232593.


Intersubject representational similarity analysis uncovers the impact of state anxiety on brain activation patterns in the human extrastriate cortex.

Hsiao P, Kim M, Chou F, Chen P Brain Imaging Behav. 2024; 18(2):412-420.

PMID: 38324234 DOI: 10.1007/s11682-024-00854-1.


Threat Responses in Schizophrenia: A Negative Valence Systems Framework.

Feola B, Moussa-Tooks A, Sheffield J, Heckers S, Woodward N, Blackford J Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2024; 26(1):9-25.

PMID: 38183600 PMC: 10962319. DOI: 10.1007/s11920-023-01479-9.


References
1.
Pessoa L . How do emotion and motivation direct executive control?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009; 13(4):160-6. PMC: 2773442. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.006. View

2.
Polk T, Farah M . Functional MRI evidence for an abstract, not perceptual, word-form area. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002; 131(1):65-72. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.131.1.65. View

3.
Ollinger J, Shulman G, Corbetta M . Separating processes within a trial in event-related functional MRI I. The Method. Neuroimage. 2001; 13(1):210-7. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0710. View

4.
Williams J, Mathews A, MacLeod C . The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. Psychol Bull. 1996; 120(1):3-24. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.3. View

5.
Kriegeskorte N, Simmons W, Bellgowan P, Baker C . Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping. Nat Neurosci. 2009; 12(5):535-40. PMC: 2841687. DOI: 10.1038/nn.2303. View