Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleResearch Article: New Research, Cognition and Behavior

Gender Impacts the Relationship between Mood Disorder Symptoms and Effortful Avoidance Performance

Brandon J. Forys, Ryan J. Tomm, Dayana Stamboliyska, Alex R. Terpstra, Luke Clark, Trisha Chakrabarty, Stan B. Floresco and Rebecca M. Todd
eNeuro 30 January 2023, 10 (2) ENEURO.0239-22.2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0239-22.2023
Brandon J. Forys
1Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Brandon J. Forys
Ryan J. Tomm
1Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dayana Stamboliyska
1Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alex R. Terpstra
1Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luke Clark
1Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
2Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Luke Clark
Trisha Chakrabarty
2Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3, Canada
3Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 2A1, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stan B. Floresco
1Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
2Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stan B. Floresco
Rebecca M. Todd
1Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada
2Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rebecca M. Todd
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Trial layout diagram. A diagram of the active and inhibitory avoidance and reward-seeking tasks. In the avoidance task (A), after an interstimulus interval (ISI) with a fixation cross onscreen, participants were presented with a cue associated with active or inhibitory avoidance. For the active avoidance cue, participants had to respond with repeated spacebar presses to avoid hearing an aversive sound. For the inhibitory avoidance cue, participants had to withhold responding to avoid hearing an aversive sound. In the reward-seeking task (B), after the ISI, participants were presented with a cue associated with active or inhibitory reward-seeking. For the active reward-seeking cue, participants had to respond with repeated spacebar presses to obtain points toward a monetary reward. For the inhibitory reward-seeking cue, participants had to withhold responding to obtain points toward a monetary reward. ms = milliseconds.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Avoidance demographics. Distribution of anxiety (BAI) and depression (BDI) scores by gender and sample. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. BAI = Beck Anxiety Inventory, BDI = Beck Depression Inventory II.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Linear model significant effects for sensitivity in avoidance. A, Gender interacted with anxiety scores (BAI proportion scores) to explain sensitivity (d′ ) in the avoidance task. B, Gender interacted with depression scores (BDI proportion scores) to explain sensitivity (d′ ) in the avoidance task. BAI = Beck Anxiety Inventory. BDI = Beck Depression Inventory II. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Avoidance effort deployment. A, Multilevel model significant effects and interactions for effort in avoidance. Effort decreased relative to criterion as the avoidance task progressed, an effect that (B) interacted with anxiety scores (BAI) and gender. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Reward-seeking demographics. Distribution of anxiety (BAI) and depressive (BDI) scores by gender and sample. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. BAI = Beck Anxiety Inventory, BDI = Beck Depression Inventory II.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Linear model significant effects for sensitivity in reward-seeking. Gender explained sensitivity (d′ ) in the reward-seeking task. BAI = Beck Anxiety Inventory. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Reward-seeking effort deployment. A, Multilevel model significant effects and interactions for effort in reward-seeking. Effort decreased relative to criterion as the reward-seeking task progressed, an effect that (B) interacted with anxiety scores (BAI) and gender. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Demographic information for all participants

    StudyN recruitedN analyzedN femaleN maleN otherM ageRange age
    1A (avoidance, undergraduate)357272174861220.4217–32
    1B (avoidance, paid global)31027287176924.0618–57
    2A (reward-seeking, undergraduate)11436288020.6718–26
    2B (reward-seeking, paid global)309274781801625.1818–62
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Mean and SD Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI) and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) proportion scores (score divided by total possible score)

    TaskGenderM BDIpropSD BDIpropM BAIpropSD BAIprop
    AvoidanceFemale0.300.190.290.22
    Male0.230.160.230.19
    Reward-seekingFemale0.290.190.280.21
    Male0.260.170.220.17
    • View popup
    Table 3

    Linear model analysis coefficients and SEs for sensitivity (d ′) in avoidance

    Linear model: BAI
    pred. sensitivity (d′)
    (Intercept)2.46*** (0.09)
    BAI (prop. score)−0.94 *** (0.23)
    Gender−0.07
    1 (0.11)
    Sample−0.17 (0.11)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender0.74* (0.31)
    BAI (prop. score) × Sample0.73* (0.29)
    Gender × Sample0.06 (0.15)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample−0.69 (0.46)
    Num. obs.523
    R20.050
    R2 adj.0.037
    AIC769.8
    BIC808.2
    Log. Lik.−375.910
    F3.893
    RMSE0.50
    • BAI (prop. score) = anxiety score on the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, Log. Lik. = log likelihood, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Linear model analysis coefficients and SEs for sensitivity (d ′) in avoidance

    Linear model:
    BDI pred. sensitivity (d′)
    (Intercept)2.52*** (0.11)
    BDI (prop. score)−1.09 *** (0.29)
    Gender−0.13
    1 (0.13)
    Sample−0.29 * (0.13)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender0.88* (0.38)
    BDI (prop. score) × Sample1.11** (0.35)
    Gender × Sample0.16 (0.17)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample−0.93 + (0.53)
    Num. obs.523
    R20.042
    R2 adj.0.029
    AIC774.1
    BIC812.4
    Log. Lik.−378.038
    F3.265
    RMSE0.50
    • BDI (prop. score) = depression score on the Beck Depression Inventory II. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, Log. Lik. = log likelihood, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • +p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Multilevel model analysis coefficients and SEs for effort in avoidance

    Multilevel model:
    BAI pred. effort
    (Intercept)5.74*** (0.26)
    BAI (prop. score)−0.63 (0.68)
    Block−0.91 ***
    1 (0.02)
    Gender0.29 (0.32)
    Sample−0.42 (0.33)
    BAI (prop. score) × Block0.16*** (0.05)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender0.97 (0.92)
    Block × Gender0.04* (0.02)
    BAI (prop. score) × Sample−0.65 (0.87)
    Block × Sample−0.01 (0.03)
    Gender × Sample−0.19 (0.44)
    BAI (prop. score) × Block × Gender−0.19 ** (0.06)
    BAI (prop. score) × Block × Sample−0.06 (0.07)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample0.94 (1.36)
    Block × Gender × Sample0.04 (0.04)
    BAI (prop. score) × Block × Gender × Sample−0.08 (0.11)
    SD (intercept participant)1.42
    SD (observations)1.91
    Num. obs.52,261
    R2 marg.0.289
    R2 cond.0.542
    AIC218,248.5
    BIC218,408.1
    ICC0.4
    RMSE1.90
    • BAI (prop. score) = anxiety score on the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, ICC = intraclass correlation, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Multilevel model analysis coefficients and SEs for effort in avoidance

    Multilevel model:
    BDI pred. effort
    (Intercept)5.67*** (0.32)
    BDI (prop. score)−0.41 (0.86)
    Block−0.92 *** (0.02)
    Gender0.24
    1 (0.38)
    Sample−0.40 (0.38)
    BDI (prop. score) × Block0.19** (0.06)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender1.21 (1.11)
    Block × Gender0.08**
    1 (0.03)
    BDI (prop. score) × Sample−0.70 (1.04)
    Block × Sample0.01 (0.03)
    Gender × Sample−0.31 (0.50)
    BDI (prop. score) × Block × Gender−0.34 ***
    1 (0.08)
    BDI (prop. score) × Block × Sample−0.12 (0.08)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample1.54 (1.59)
    Block × Gender × Sample−0.01 (0.04)
    BDI (prop. score) × Block × Gender × Sample0.12 (0.13)
    SD (intercept participant)1.42
    SD (observations)1.91
    Num. obs.52,261
    R2 marg.0.289
    R2 cond.0.542
    AIC218,241.9
    BIC218,401.4
    ICC0.4
    RMSE1.90
    • BDI (prop. score) = depression score on the Beck Depression Inventory II. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, ICC = intraclass correlation, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 7

    Linear model analysis coefficients and SEs for break point in avoidance

    Linear model: BAI
    pred. sensitivity (d′)
    (Intercept)133.41*** (7.78)
    BAI (prop. score)−18.55 (20.00)
    Gender12.52 (9.52)
    Sample−5.39 (9.53)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender42.11 (27.05)
    BAI (prop. score) × Sample−12.37 (25.25)
    Gender × Sample5.42 (12.91)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample−30.85 (39.58)
    Num. obs.523
    R20.105
    R2 adj.0.093
    AIC5440.4
    BIC5478.7
    Log. Lik.−2711.198
    F8.668
    RMSE43.16
    • BAI (prop. score) = anxiety score on the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, Log. Lik. = log likelihood, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 8

    Linear model analysis coefficients and SEs for break point in avoidance

    Linear model: BDI
    pred. Sensitivity (d′)
    (Intercept)136.99*** (9.46)
    BDI (prop. score)−28.79 (25.30)
    Gender11.13 (11.28)
    Sample−10.46 (11.10)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender42.87 (32.83)
    BDI (prop. score) × Sample2.96 (30.35)
    Gender × Sample0.59 (14.72)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample1.39 (46.40)
    Num. obs.523
    R20.101
    R2 adj.0.089
    AIC5443.1
    BIC5481.4
    Log. Lik.−2712.530
    F8.250
    RMSE43.27
    • BDI (prop. score) = depression score on the Beck Depression Inventory II. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, Log. Lik. = log likelihood, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 9

    Linear model analysis coefficients and SEs for sensitivity (d ′) in reward-seeking

    Linear model: BAI
    pred. sensitivity (d′)
    (Intercept)3.12*** (0.15)
    BAI (prop. score)−0.16 (0.40)
    Gender0.34* (0.17)
    Sample0.15 (0.27)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender−0.75 (0.52)
    BAI (prop. score) × Sample−0.48 (0.84)
    Gender × Sample−0.53 (0.42)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample3.16 (2.69)
    Num. obs.294
    R20.041
    R2 adj.0.017
    AIC686.9
    BIC720.1
    Log. Lik.−334.458
    F1.739
    RMSE0.75
    • BAI (prop. score) = anxiety score on the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, Log. Lik. = log likelihood, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 10

    Linear model analysis coefficients and SEs for sensitivity (d ′) in reward-seeking

    Linear model: BDI
    pred. sensitivity (d′)
    (Intercept)3.09*** (0.16)
    BDI (prop. score)−0.05 (0.46)
    Gender0.26 (0.20)
    Sample0.07 (0.30)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender−0.28 (0.58)
    BDI (prop. score) × Sample−0.15 (0.92)
    Gender × Sample−0.35 (0.50)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample1.27 (2.13)
    Num. obs.294
    R20.016
    R2 adj.−0.008
    AIC694.5
    BIC727.6
    Log. Lik.−338.246
    F0.655
    RMSE0.76
    • BDI (prop. score) = depression score on the Beck Depression Inventory II. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, Log. Lik. = log likelihood, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 11

    Multilevel model analysis coefficients and SEs for effort in reward-seeking

    Multilevel model:
    BAI pred. effort
    (Intercept)5.27*** (0.26)
    BAI (prop. score)1.44* (0.71)
    Block−0.87 ***
    1 (0.02)
    Gender1.30*** (0.31)
    Sample1.08* (0.49)
    BAI (prop. score) × Block0.00 (0.05)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender−3.35 *** (0.93)
    Block × Gender−0.03 (0.02)
    BAI (prop. score) × Sample−2.92 + (1.52)
    Block × Sample−0.12 ** (0.04)
    Gender × Sample−2.05 ** (0.76)
    BAI (prop. score) × Block × Gender0.15* (0.07)
    BAI (prop. score) × Block × Sample0.39** (0.13)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample3.62 (4.81)
    Block × Gender × Sample0.22*** (0.06)
    BAI (prop. score) × Block × Gender × Sample−0.79 + (0.42)
    SD (intercept participant)1.30
    SD (observations)1.98
    Num. obs.37,677
    R2 marg.0.282
    R2 cond.0.498
    AIC159,770.0
    BIC159,923.7
    ICC0.3
    RMSE1.98
    • BAI (prop. score) = anxiety score on the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, ICC = intraclass correlation, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • +p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 12

    Multilevel model analysis coefficients and SEs for effort in reward-seeking

    Multilevel model:
    BDI pred. effort
    (Intercept)5.64*** (0.29)
    BDI (prop. score)0.15 (0.82)
    Block−0.88 *** (0.02)
    Gender0.73* (0.35)
    Sample0.44 (0.53)
    BDI (prop. score) × Block0.03 (0.06)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender−1.01 (1.03)
    Block × Gender0.01 (0.03)
    BDI (prop. score) × Sample−0.51 (1.64)
    Block × Sample−0.07 (0.04)
    Gender × Sample−1.29 (0.89)
    BDI (prop. score) × Block × Gender0.00 (0.08)
    BDI (prop. score) × Block × Sample0.17 (0.13)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample1.45 (3.81)
    Block × Gender × Sample0.14+ (0.07)
    BDI (prop. score) × Block × Gender × Sample−0.25 (0.32)
    SD (intercept participant)1.32
    SD (observations)1.98
    Num. obs.37,677
    R2 marg.0.276
    R2 cond.0.499
    AIC159,796.9
    BIC159,950.6
    ICC0.3
    RMSE1.98
    • BDI (prop. score) = depression score on the Beck Depression Inventory II. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, ICC = intraclass correlation, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • +p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 13

    Linear model analysis coefficients and SEs for break point in reward-seeking

    Linear model: BAI
    pred. sensitivity (d′)
    (Intercept)113.69*** (3.21)
    BAI (prop. score)7.21 (8.83)
    Gender6.73+ (3.84)
    Sample−2.79 (6.05)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender−13.91 (11.57)
    BAI (prop. score) × Sample9.61 (18.66)
    Gender × Sample3.79 (9.34)
    BAI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample−3.59 (59.57)
    Num. obs.294
    R20.019
    R2 adj.−0.005
    AIC2507.8
    BIC2540.9
    Log. Lik.−1244.881
    F0.786
    RMSE16.70
    • BAI (prop. score) = anxiety score on the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, Log. Lik. = log likelihood, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • +p < 0.1, ***p < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 14

    Linear model analysis coefficients and SEs for break point in reward-seeking

    Linear model: BDI
    pred. sensitivity (d′)
    (Intercept)114.96*** (3.56)
    BDI (prop. score)2.79 (10.06)
    Gender6.66 (4.30)
    Sample−3.31 (6.45)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender−12.94 (12.64)
    BDI (prop. score) × Sample10.64 (20.01)
    Gender × Sample3.16 (10.88)
    BDI (prop. score) × Gender × Sample−1.17 (46.44)
    Num. obs.294
    R20.019
    R2 adj.−0.005
    AIC2507.8
    BIC2541.0
    Log. Lik.−1244.920
    F0.775
    RMSE16.70
    • BDI (prop. score) = depression score on the Beck Depression Inventory II. Proportion scores are scores divided by total possible score. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, Log. Lik. = log likelihood, RMSE = root mean squared error.

    • ***p < 0.001.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 10 (2)
eNeuro
Vol. 10, Issue 2
February 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Gender Impacts the Relationship between Mood Disorder Symptoms and Effortful Avoidance Performance
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Gender Impacts the Relationship between Mood Disorder Symptoms and Effortful Avoidance Performance
Brandon J. Forys, Ryan J. Tomm, Dayana Stamboliyska, Alex R. Terpstra, Luke Clark, Trisha Chakrabarty, Stan B. Floresco, Rebecca M. Todd
eNeuro 30 January 2023, 10 (2) ENEURO.0239-22.2023; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0239-22.2023

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Gender Impacts the Relationship between Mood Disorder Symptoms and Effortful Avoidance Performance
Brandon J. Forys, Ryan J. Tomm, Dayana Stamboliyska, Alex R. Terpstra, Luke Clark, Trisha Chakrabarty, Stan B. Floresco, Rebecca M. Todd
eNeuro 30 January 2023, 10 (2) ENEURO.0239-22.2023; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0239-22.2023
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
    • Author Response
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • anxiety
  • avoidance
  • depression
  • effort
  • reward

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Article: New Research

  • Repeated Exposure to High-THC Cannabis Smoke during Gestation Alters Sex Ratio, Behavior, and Amygdala Gene Expression of Sprague Dawley Rat Offspring
  • A Network Model of the Modulation of γ Oscillations by NMDA Receptors in Cerebral Cortex
  • Electroacupuncture Relieves HuR/KLF9-Mediated Inflammation to Enhance Neurological Repair after Spinal Cord Injury
Show more Research Article: New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • Reduction of BDNF Levels and Biphasic Changes in Glutamate Release in the Prefrontal Cortex Correlate with Susceptibility to Chronic Stress-Induced Anhedonia
  • Pupil-size sensitivity to listening demand depends on motivational state
  • The Precision of Place Fields Governs Their Fate Across Epochs of Experience
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.