Search

Avoidance, a hallmark of anxiety-related psychopathology, often comes at a cost; avoiding threat may forgo the possibility of a reward. Theories predict that optimal approach-avoidance arbitration depends on threat-induced psychophysiological states, like freezing-related bradycardia. Here we used model-based fMRI analyses to investigate whether and how bradycardia states are linked to the neurocomputational underpinnings of approach-avoidance arbitration under varying reward and threat magnitudes. We show that bradycardia states are associated with increased threat-induced avoidance and more pronounced reward-threat value comparison (i.e., a stronger tendency to approach vs. avoid when expected reward outweighs threat). An amygdala-striatal-prefrontal circuit supports approach-avoidance arbitration under threat, with specific involvement of the amygdala and dorsal anterior cingulate (dACC) in integrating reward-threat value and bradycardia states. These findings highlight the role of human freezing states in value-based decision making, relevant for optimal threat coping. They point to a specific role for amygdala/dACC in state-value integration under threat. A human fMRI study shows that defensive cardiac states moderate the neural computations of reward and threat value underlying approach-avoidance arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Time ambiguity—that is, having partially/fully incomplete information about when an outcome will occur—is common in everyday life. A recent study showed that participants preferred options with time‐exact delays over options with time‐ambiguous delays, a phenomenon they called time‐ambiguity aversion. However, the empirical robustness and boundaries of this phenomenon remain unexplored. We conducted three online studies: Study 2 (n = 118) was a replication of Study 1 (n = 76) using preregistered analyses; Study 3 (n = 202; preregistered) was a follow‐up study suggested during review. In Studies 1 and 2, participants completed hypothetical choices between €5 today versus later‐but‐larger (LL) rewards that systematically varied in their amount, delay, and time‐ambiguity level (e.g., for a 180 day delay, time ambiguity varied from 179 to 181 to 0–360 days). Effects of time ambiguity on choice were best encoded in an absolute, dose‐dependent manner and depended on delays and amounts: Increasing time ambiguity led to more time‐exact LL choices at shorter delays but more time‐ambiguous LL choices at longer delays. Additionally, time‐ambiguity ranges including today were chosen more frequently than ranges excluding today, akin to the present bias in intertemporal choice. Lastly, evidence suggested that more time ambiguity was preferred for smaller LL amounts yet disliked for larger LL amounts. Study 3 demonstrated that time‐risk and time‐ambiguity preferences are differentiable by giving participants choices involving hypothetical time‐exact, time‐ambiguous, and time‐risky options. Taken together, our results extend the nascent literature on time ambiguity by showing that (i) time‐ambiguity preferences are distinguishable from both time‐risk and delay preferences and (ii) time ambiguity is not generally aversive, but its impact depends on delay and amount magnitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Correction: Protocol of the Healthy Brain Study: An accessible resource for understanding the human brain and how it dynamically and individually operates in its bio-social context The originally published, uncorrected article and the republished, corrected articles are provided here for reference. This article was republished on April 1, 2022, to update the author byline and list all members of the group consortium. [Extracted from the article]

The endeavor to understand the human brain has seen more progress in the last few decades than in the previous two millennia. Still, our understanding of how the human brain relates to behavior in the real world and how this link is modulated by biological, social, and environmental factors is limited. To address this, we designed the Healthy Brain Study (HBS), an interdisciplinary, longitudinal, cohort study based on multidimensional, dynamic assessments in both the laboratory and the real world. Here, we describe the rationale and design of the currently ongoing HBS. The HBS is examining a population-based sample of 1,000 healthy participants (age 30-39) who are thoroughly studied across an entire year. Data are collected through cognitive, affective, behavioral, and physiological testing, neuroimaging, bio-sampling, questionnaires, ecological momentary assessment, and real-world assessments using wearable devices. These data will become an accessible resource for the scientific community enabling the next step in understanding the human brain and how it dynamically and individually operates in its bio-social context. An access procedure to the collected data and bio-samples is in place and published on https://www.healthybrainstudy.nl/en/data-and-methods/access. Trail registration: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7955., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.