ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2025
Approach-avoidance conflict recruits lateral frontoparietal and cinguloinsular networks in a predator-prey game setting.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objects associated with both reward and threat produce approach-avoidance conflict (AAC). Although our day-to-day encounters with AAC objects are dynamic and interactive, the cognitive neuroscience literature on AAC is largely based on experiments that use static stimuli. Here, we used a dynamic, interactive, video-game environment to test neural substrates implicated in processing AAC in a more ecologically valid setting. While undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), subjects (N = 31) played a predator-prey video game, guiding an avatar through a maze containing six types of aversive or appetitive agents. Of the six agent types, two were "non-AAC" and either always healed or always harmed the player's avatar on contact. The other four were "AAC," healing or harming the avatar probabilistically. Results revealed that imminence (inverse of distance) between a player's avatar and an environmental agent was a strong predictor of activation in three brain networks: the cinguloinsular (CI), dorsal frontoparietal (DFP), and occipitotemporal (OT). Additionally, two distinct temporal patterns of heightened activation with AAC agents emerged in two networks: the CI network responded with a transient spike of activation at trial onsets, followed by rapid decay, whereas the lateral frontoparietal (LFP) network showed sustained activation across the whole trial. We conclude that, in an interactive, dynamic setting, the roles of the CI and LFP networks appear to be complimentary, with the CI involved in distinguishing between AAC and non-AAC agents when they first appeared and the LFP involved in maintaining a behavioral mode related to the level of AAC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40011405What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.