Theory article

Psychotherapy in pain management: New viewpoints and treatment targets based on a brain theory

  • The current paper provides an explanation of neurophysiological pain processing based the Dimensional Systems Model (DSM), a theory of higher cortical functions in which the cortical column is considered the binary digit for all cortical functions. Within the discussion, novel views on the roles of the basal ganglia, cerebellum, and cingulate cortex are presented. Additionally, an applied Clinical Biopsychological Model (CBM) based on the DSM will be discussed as related to psychological treatment with chronic pain patients. Three specific areas that have not been adequately addressed in the psychological treatment of chronic pain patients will be discussed based on the CBM. The treatment approaches have been effectively used in a clinical setting. Conclusions focus on a call for researchers and clinicians to fully evaluate the value of both the DSM and CBM.

    Citation: Robert A. Moss. Psychotherapy in pain management: New viewpoints and treatment targets based on a brain theory[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(3): 194-207. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020013

    Related Papers:

    [1] Saiwan Fatah, Arkan Mustafa, Shilan Amin . Predator and n-classes-of-prey model incorporating extended Holling type Ⅱ functional response for n different prey species. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5779-5788. doi: 10.3934/math.2023291
    [2] Shanshan Yu, Jiang Liu, Xiaojie Lin . Multiple positive periodic solutions of a Gause-type predator-prey model with Allee effect and functional responses. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6135-6148. doi: 10.3934/math.2020394
    [3] Ilyasse Lamrani, Imad El Harraki, M. A. Aziz-Alaoui, Fatima-Zahrae El Alaoui . Feedback stabilization for prey predator general model with diffusion via multiplicative controls. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 2360-2385. doi: 10.3934/math.2023122
    [4] Xiaohuan Yu, Mingzhan Huang . Dynamics of a Gilpin-Ayala predator-prey system with state feedback weighted harvest strategy. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26968-26990. doi: 10.3934/math.20231380
    [5] Jagdev Singh, Behzad Ghanbari, Ved Prakash Dubey, Devendra Kumar, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar . Fractional dynamics and computational analysis of food chain model with disease in intermediate predator. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 17089-17121. doi: 10.3934/math.2024830
    [6] Weijie Lu, Yonghui Xia . Periodic solution of a stage-structured predator-prey model with Crowley-Martin type functional response. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 8162-8175. doi: 10.3934/math.2022454
    [7] Binfeng Xie, Na Zhang . Influence of fear effect on a Holling type III prey-predator system with the prey refuge. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 1811-1830. doi: 10.3934/math.2022104
    [8] Chuanfu Chai, Yuanfu Shao, Yaping Wang . Analysis of a Holling-type IV stochastic prey-predator system with anti-predatory behavior and Lévy noise. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 21033-21054. doi: 10.3934/math.20231071
    [9] Heping Jiang . Complex dynamics induced by harvesting rate and delay in a diffusive Leslie-Gower predator-prey model. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20718-20730. doi: 10.3934/math.20231056
    [10] Kwadwo Antwi-Fordjour, Rana D. Parshad, Hannah E. Thompson, Stephanie B. Westaway . Fear-driven extinction and (de)stabilization in a predator-prey model incorporating prey herd behavior and mutual interference. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 3353-3377. doi: 10.3934/math.2023173
  • The current paper provides an explanation of neurophysiological pain processing based the Dimensional Systems Model (DSM), a theory of higher cortical functions in which the cortical column is considered the binary digit for all cortical functions. Within the discussion, novel views on the roles of the basal ganglia, cerebellum, and cingulate cortex are presented. Additionally, an applied Clinical Biopsychological Model (CBM) based on the DSM will be discussed as related to psychological treatment with chronic pain patients. Three specific areas that have not been adequately addressed in the psychological treatment of chronic pain patients will be discussed based on the CBM. The treatment approaches have been effectively used in a clinical setting. Conclusions focus on a call for researchers and clinicians to fully evaluate the value of both the DSM and CBM.



    Mutual funds have experienced explosive international growth over the last twenty-five years. The Investment Company Institute (ICI) reports that by the end of 2015 the total worldwide assets invested in mutual funds were $37.2 trillion, of which $17.8 trillion were located in the United States. The year 2019 shows that the US based mutual funds worldwide have reached $21.29 trillion with a significant increase recorded by 2021 representing approximately $27 trillion (Investment Company Institute, 2022). Because of its great popularity, representativeness, and importance in trading volume, the US investment industry has attracted considerable attention among researchers and analysts. Thus, recent studies show that despite current belief, even during the COVID-19 crisis, most active funds underperformed passive benchmarks (Pástor & Vorsatz, 2020). On the other hand, Díaz et al. (2022) findings suggest that socially responsible investment (SRI) played a significant role in diversifying investment portfolios during the 2020 Global Health Crisis (COVID-19 pandemic). In this context of crisis, the striking recent development of socially responsible mutual funds (SRMF) is especially notable. These funds are considered "non-conventional." Once various screens have been applied to examine the tenor of the fund's composition, environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria are incorporated into the decision-making process encompassing both commitment to social concerns and purely financial goals. As Widyawati literature review on responsible investment states, there are two sides to consider when exploring these funds: the financial and the ethical (Widyawati, 2020). According to the first, socially responsible investment (SRI) should be looked at as an instrument to pressure companies to operate more ethically and sustainably. The second one regards them as new financial services offered to a new group of investors (ibid.). Regardless of the view, the reality shows that the growth of SRI has been so remarkable in the last years that, according to the US SIF Foundation's 2016 biennial report (USSIF, 2016), the total US-domiciled assets managed under SRI strategies rose by 133 percent from 2012 to 2016 (.74 trillion in 2012 to.57 trillion in 2014 and to.72 trillion in 2016). Much of the growth is driven by asset managers that are considering environmental, social, or corporate governance criteria, with conflicting risks and climate change being the two issues considered by fund managers. An important aspect that emerges from registered patterns is how the 2008 GEFC might have acted as a breakpoint in terms of investors' preferences and their potential change towards favouring more environmental friendly investments.

    In this context, this trend in responsible investment reflects a shift in mindset with social consequences and an impact on the fund management industry and opens a new set of questions related to ethical investment matters and recent societal trends when investing. In that sense, some authors have shown that ethical commitment is transferring to financial markets; for instance, Hong and Kacperczyk (2009), Geczy et al. (2005), Chong et al. (2006), Chang and Doug Witte (2010), among others, provide evidence on the relation between market effects and social norms. One of the most recent reviews on this debate Leins (2020), argues that ESG enables financial analysts to be a supportive narrative tool. In this sense the sophistication and normalization of ESG as morality could end up becoming a speculative practice of valuation (ibid). Overall, new prospects and relations to study how social norms are incorporated in social responsible investment become a new set of financial products and need to review its ethical basements. Moreover, a new set of studies as the ones lead by Bursztyn et al. (2020) or Khan (2020), to mention just a few, have opened the floor to study how women's economic development could be as well affected by social norms, which opened a new field of relations that could be of interest to explore from a social responsible investment perspective. On the other hand, there are the "antisocial" investment funds and the so-called "sin stocks" which are as well studied under the possible gender bias influence of this type of products and social norms. Niszczota & Bialek (2020) presented an extensive empirical study on women's perception of "sin" funds adding new ethical aspects to the existing dilemmas in the relation between social norms, investment, and markets performance, suggesting that women tend to judge more harshly controversial stocks than men (ibid).

    The literature around the challenges of the investment environment of 'sin' stocks (i.e., publicly traded companies associated with alcohol, tobacco, arms and/or gaming activities) was studied by Hong and Kacperczyk (2009). The research findings revealed the potential existence of costs when investors apply their social objectives to investing as norms affect stock prices and returns. Additionally, increasing governmental regulations and the media1 play critical roles by adding behavioral pressure in this respect. In this line, the recent scandal around Reddit-Gamestop saga confirmed how media could play a decisive role in promoting or declaring war on some industries that promote responsible and irresponsible investment.

    1Responsible investment: Vice versus nice" in Financial Times (2015-06-25); "Forget socially responsible; This fund cashes in on sin" in CNBC (2015-10-30); "Sin wins investor battle of vice or virtue" in Financial Times (2015-02-11); "God vs. Satan: Who's the better investor?" in Slate (2005-07-29), among others.

    Within this context and as previously mentioned on the line of Leinz (2020) study, funds' managers are adapting the strategies they apply to conventional funds to their investment decisions on investment alternatives with ESG considerations in pursuit of financial gain while also benefiting society. However, an early research study by Benson et al. (2006) offers critical insights on SRI investment, as the authors found little difference in stock-picking ability between SRI and conventional fund managers, leading them to question whether there is any real difference between SRI or conventional fund managers investment strategies.

    Extensive debates have taken place over whether introducing the ESG criteria into mainstream investment consciousness leads to higher returns or whether its returns are comparable to those of conventional funds. Indeed, the SRMF strategy implies a reduction of the investment opportunities when vice investment is vetoed. Many academic studies and the media have echoed the importance of this matter. Thus, contradictory positions appear in academic literature on 'sin' investment. On the one hand, authors such as Hong and Kacperczyk (2009); Statman and Glushkov (2009); Capelle-Blancard and Monjon (2014), among others, find that 'sin' stocks have higher returns. However, Lobe and Walkshäusl (2016), Benson et al. (2006) find no abnormal returns, while Salaber (2009) and Humphrey and Tan (2014) point to a lack of any relation between 'sin' investing and portfolio performance. Interestingly, the Barrier Fund (popularly known as the Vice Fund) as a vehicle of purely 'sinful' investment has motivated few studies since its inception in 2002 (Chang and Krueger, 2013; Areal et al., 2013). This fund's distinctive characteristic is that its investment portfolio consists exclusively of tobacco, gambling, defense, and alcohol industries. In fact, the main dilemma centers on the potential of its long-run outperformance when purely vice investing activity is rewarded by the markets (Chong et al., 2006; Chang and Krueger, 2013; Soler-Domínguez and Matallín-Sáez, 2015). However, Hoepner and Zeume (2009) found no outperformance for the Vice Fund suggesting that socially responsible funds and "sin" funds might be exhibiting similar patterns. This study seeks to understand if socially responsible funds offer appropriate rewards to investors by examining selected funds' volatility patterns individually to gain insights on market behaviour, as there is a significant dearth of research studies examining individual funds' performance from a risk perspective.

    Today, it is pertinent to revisit the literature on vice investing; there are still apparent contradictions among approaches, and this study seeks to provide insights on our recent history to help gaining a better understanding of funds' performance during the GEFC. If further support were found for the outperformance of vice investing, the investment industry's implications would be considerable. In theory, sound strategies are crucial for achieving a solid investment plan. Any rational investment decision should be based on the expectation of obtaining positive returns and awareness of the proper allocation of assets during market fluctuations. After the worldwide financial meltdown, managers should be cautious when interpreting long-term market opportunities as they need to be able to manage risk-return trade-off wisely in line with investors' preferences and by ensuring that selected assets do not end up sacrificing returns gains. Glode (2011) and Kacperczyk et al. (2011) find that managers are more active during periods that are characterised by significant uncertainty and denominated as bad economic times. In fact, managers are exposed to various levels of pressure when building up their portfolio strategy, suggesting that during periods of crises fund managers would be readjusting and rebalancing their investment portfolios more frequently than during times of economic stability.

    An early view on the link between business cycles and performance was presented by Moskowitz (2000), who suggested that alphas increase during crises. This hypothesis has been further validated in subsequent studies, such as Glode (2011), Kosowski (2011), Kacperczyk et al. (2014) among others. This literature also aims to understand conventional funds' behavior during recessions and concludes that performance does vary over the business cycle. Analogously, Kosowski (2011) shows underperformance for US funds during expansion periods. Becchetti et al. (2015) investigate SRMF and conventional funds' performance, finding that SRMF played an 'insurance role', outperforming their conventional counterparts during the global financial crisis. This paper provides additional insights into how well investments respond when exposed to expansionary or contractionary economic periods. We explore volatility patterns exhibited by mutual funds during stressful market conditions as those faced during the 2008 global turmoil, at the time that we examine the Vice Fund performance and how it might differ from patterns exhibited by the socially responsible funds. This information is useful to enable investors to stay tuned and also contributes to the management literature linking performance and external pressure behavior during the decision-making process.

    Our study aims to explore the behavior of a set of US funds for the period 2002–2013. The research sample is limited to the period of the global economic and financial turmoil that was defined by sluggish investment, being this a major defining feature of the period that was accompanied by long-lasting capital and total factor productivity shortfalls when compared to the precrisis period (IMF, 2019). On the one hand, we analyze performance and persistence by applying volatility measurement techniques (GARCH model). On the other hand, we examine funds' behavior when a shock affects the investment market, such as the 2008 economic and financial crisis's impact on the US economy by introducing a causal research framework. Therefore, this study focuses on the study of volatility patterns, examination of market uncertainty, and its persistence combined with the analysis of causal relationships that would help identify if there is any potential impact running from conventional funds towards SRMF. This dual analysis lend robustness to our study and provide insights into any pattern or tendency to predict future breakpoints and to lessen the chance of a recurrence by understanding the signs given out by the financial market.

    The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 describes the data and outlines the methodological framework. The empirical results are reported in section 3. Finally, concluding remarks are presented in section 4 where the connection to ethical investment and need for further research are presented.

    The initial dataset consisted of 1,707 US mutual funds spanning from August 30, 2002 (Vice Fund date of inception) to June 30, 2013. The data was filtered, disaggregated, and rebalanced to consider fund size, age and sector, thus allowing the funds to be grouped according to their ethical approach. The initial data analysis and filtering process led to the selection of a small sample that comprises 15 mutual funds. The data selection process was cognizant of the need of having a homogenous sample that sought to ensure that the time period under study was consistent and that there were no issues with regard to missing observations and inconsistent time periods. The data sampling process represented a very laborious process, as each one of the 1,707 funds that were part of the initial sample were subject to an individual scrutiny process. Therefore, the final research sample comprises 15 mutual funds accordingly homogenized in order to avoid an incomplete data set that will impede the implementation of the selected econometric models, and as a result the sample is divided as follows: 12 SRMF plus the Vice Fund––as an anti-SRI fund––and two conventional funds included as control variables (proxies). Daily prices from the Morningstar database are included in the analysis; we therefore analyzed 4,930 daily observations for each one of the selected funds, in an initial stage to identify break periods and to ensure that the sample integrated the GEFC. Furthermore, the study was guided by the NBER data on US business cycle expansion and contraction to corroborate and compare market fluctuations. This research study differs from the existing literature as we propose a new approach to the analysis of mutual funds that argues the need provide evidence on funds individual patterns that helps to gain richer insights on their performance when compared to pooled analysis that is identified to be quite common on the extant literature. Therefore, this research study is not in alignment with the traditional research approach in the field where a large number of funds are considered simultaneously, as in this paper we are providing an individual insight on each one of the funds integrated in this study. We selected those funds that were considered socially responsible from the 1,707 funds collected and we kept three conventional funds for robustness. The chosen methodology was applied to the final fifteen funds that met time series requirements to allow the individual assessment of the funds regarding volatility performance. Consequently, the sample selection process was subject to a significant scrutiny level to ensure that the selected time series satisfied all methodological requirements, which led us to a final optimal sample of fifteen funds.

    Daily prices for the twelve selected SRMF mutual funds and three conventional funds (see the appendix for details of all the funds) are transformed into continuously compounded returns: ln(Pt/Pt1), where Pt is the daily closing price. The data set analyzes the performance and causal effects of the fifteen funds before and during the Global Economic and Financial Crisis (GEFC) and as result the sample ended in June 2013 when there were clear signs of markets recovering from the global turmoil. The study starts by examining individual volatility patterns across the selected funds, to understand potential differences in behavior and market reactions that would shed light on potential differences or similarities between socially responsible funds, the vice fund and the proxies (conventional funds). The causal effects running from conventional funds to SRMF are then identified using a traditional Granger causality test and an asymmetric causal approach based on mean and variance estimations that help develop a comparative analysis over the subperiods under study, and at the same time facilitate cross checking of results. The basic methodological framework starts with the analysis of the series returns which are tested for unit roots to ensure stationarity and mean-reverting properties. Additionally, a VAR(p) framework identified the optimal number of lags to be used and ensured that the models considered were not overparameterized. The study also verifies a breakpoint around 15 September 2008, at the time that Lehman Brothers collapsed making the official start of the GEFC. We took this date as our main benchmark, as it is generally considered as the trigger of the global financial meltdown and the resulting global impact. This breakpoint was used to split the sample into two subsamples, offering a broader view of the funds' volatility behavior before and during the GEFC and excluding from the sample the period that signals the start of global markets recovery. Because the breakpoint is known, the basic Chow test (Chow, 1960) for stability is used to verify that the series are indeed affected by structural changes at the time. In its simplest form, the Chow test involves estimating a single breakpoint computed through the F-statistic and based on the comparison of the restricted and unrestricted sum of squared residuals as indicated below:

    F=(SSRn(SSRn1+SSRn2))/k(SSRn1+SSRn2)/(n1+n2+2k) (1)

    Table 3 presents the Chow test results confirming the existence of structural changes at the time the global financial crisis hit the world economy. Consequently, 15 September 2008 is taken as the reference point to split our sample into two periods, thus allowing close examination of the fund's patterns before and during the economic and financial crisis.

    Table 1.  Descriptive statistics.
    Mutual fund code Mean Maximum Minimum S.D. Skewness Kurtosis Jarque-Bera Coeff. Variation (whole sample) Coeff. Variation (before GFC) Coeff. Variation during GFC
    ATAFX 18.46 27.13 11.10 3.49 0.03 2.34 72.73 19% 16% 16%
    CAAPX 104.03 177.00 47.68 24.30 0.20 2.93 26.42 23% 18% 23%
    CSIEX 69.18 102.94 40.13 13.14 0.17 2.41 77.95 19% 14% 17%
    DSEFX 38.91 56.63 20.86 6.83 −0.16 2.51 57.01 18% 15% 18%
    EGROWTH 68.63 104.07 29.76 14.72 −0.58 2.84 225.42 21% 20% 22%
    FLRUX 33.23 50.81 16.34 8.31 −0.25 1.87 251.82 25% 25% 16%
    FSLEX 17.62 23.70 10.35 3.08 −0.33 2.28 158.75 17% 19% 13%
    GCEQX 22.59 33.26 12.77 3.65 −0.11 2.80 14.55 16% 14% 16%
    LARGECAP 27.33 40.28 15.20 4.98 0.11 2.66 27.83 18% 15% 18%
    MXMCX 43.64 75.77 19.91 10.37 0.29 3.02 54.78 24% 17% 23%
    MXSCX 38.70 60.89 15.02 9.10 −0.16 2.65 35.69 24% 19% 24%
    NALFX 96.79 161.03 49.37 24.87 0.23 2.54 69.01 26% 29% 17%
    PORIX 28.18 40.27 13.67 6.33 −0.37 2.11 218.27 22% 25% 14%
    VICE 15.73 26.14 7.18 4.23 0.08 2.38 67.18 27% 27% 21%
    WSEFX 12.77 19.41 7.79 2.39 0.18 2.54 55.24 19% 14% 17%
    Note: *The funds associated with the highest level of risk as per their standard deviation also registered the highest returns over the period. The coefficient of variation offers an initial guideline regarding the level of volatility associated with the funds when compared to the return that might be expected. In this regard, the results show quite high variation, indicating that the mutual funds can be considered risky investments over the period studied.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Mutual fund returns correlations.
    ATAFX CAAPX CSIEX DSEFX EGROWTH FLRUX FSLEX GCEQX LARGECAP MXMCX MXSCX NALFX PORIX VICE WSEFX
    ATAFX 1 0.96 0.99 0.97 0.62 0.96 0.90 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.94 0.74 0.95 0.95 0.99
    CAAPX - 1 0.97 0.96 0.65 0.89 0.85 0.95 0.94 1.00 0.98 0.61 0.88 0.89 0.97
    CSIEX - - 1 0.96 0.59 0.94 0.87 0.95 0.93 0.97 0.94 0.68 0.92 0.93 1.00
    DSEFX - - - 1 0.74 0.89 0.87 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.67 0.90 0.92 0.96
    EGROWTH - - - - 1 0.51 0.67 0.75 0.74 0.64 0.73 0.49 0.59 0.64 0.58
    FLRUX - - - - - 1 0.92 0.88 0.87 0.89 0.86 0.83 0.97 0.94 0.94
    FSLEX - - - - - - 1 0.88 0.81 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.95 0.87 0.87
    GCEQX - - - - - - - 1 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.70 0.90 0.93 0.95
    LARGECAP - - - - - - - - 1 0.94 0.93 0.62 0.87 0.94 0.93
    MXMCX - - - - - - - - - 1 0.98 0.60 0.88 0.89 0.97
    MXSCX - - - - - - - - - - 1 0.61 0.87 0.87 0.94
    NALFX - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0.89 0.75 0.67
    PORIX - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0.93 0.92
    VICE - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0.94
    WSEFX - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Chow test results.
    Mutual fund code Breakpoint Chow test ARCH-LM
    ATAFX Yes Yes
    CAAPX Yes Yes
    CSIEX Yes Yes
    DSEFX Yes Yes
    EGROWTH Yes Yes
    FLRUX Yes Yes
    FSLEX Yes Yes
    GCEQX Yes Yes
    LARGECAP Yes Yes
    MXMCX Yes Yes
    MXSCX Yes Yes
    NALFX Yes Yes
    PORIX Yes Yes
    VICE Yes Yes
    WSEFX Yes Yes

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Equation (3) models volatility persistence using a random walk approach. This model was selected to support the volatility analysis and was also used to conduct the causal research framework.

    Fti=c+εt (2)

    The GARCH (1, 1) model is outlined below:

    σ2t=ω+αε2t1+βσ2t1 (3)

    The mean Equations (1) and (2) were considered to analyze volatility persistence effects on the selected mutual funds. The conditional variance Equation (3) is a function of a constant term, news about volatility from the previous period that is represented by the ARCH terms and the last period's forecast variance that accounts for the GARCH term of the model.

    The half-life of volatility shocks is determined by the sum of the ARCH and GARCH coefficients in the variance equation as follows: Halflife=log(0.5)log(αi+βj) to help identify market uncertainty and its lasting effects across the studied funds. The half-life of volatility shocks would help understand if the funds absorbed the shock at different speeds. This has significant implications regarding sustained market uncertainty and subsequent implications for portfolio diversification and resilience (Gustafsson et al., 2022).

    The methodological framework is complemented by implementing the traditional Granger causality test on the funds' returns. The main goal is to identify the existence of unidirectional or bidirectional effects running from the three conventional funds toward the SRMF. We check for consistency in our results with the traditional Granger causality test based on a bidirectional VAR model.

    SRMFrt=k1+s=111SRMFrts+s=112CFrts+ε1t (4)
    CFrt=k2+s=121CFrts+s=122SRMFrts+ε2t (5)

    where SRMFr considers the returns of the twelve "green funds" analyzed, and CFr stands for the returns of the three conventional funds that support this study on individual basis. A second methodology based on asymmetric specification of causal relationships is also used to help cross check our findings. This approach facilitates the identification of inconsistencies in short-term relationships between conventional funds and SRMF. In this case, Fr stands for the returns of the fifteen funds studied.

    Frt=α+εt (6)
    ht=ω+αε2t1+βht1 (7)

    The simplest form of the GARCH (p, q) model, identified as the GARCH (1, 1) specification, is used in this paper to run an alternative Granger causality in mean and variance as per the approach developed by Cheung and Ng (1996). These authors propose estimating the univariate GARCH model for the stationary variables to obtain the conditional means and the conditional variances. The standardized residuals (ˆεit=zitˆμit)/ˆhit), are obtained from the GARCH model and the sample residual cross correlation functions –ˆρu1u2(k) are derived to test for causality. For the Granger causality in variance test the squared standardized residuals are obtained, and the sample residual cross-correlation functions between the squares of the two standardized results are derived. The Granger causality in mean and variance tests are based on the statistic Tˆρu1u2(k). The test statistics follow a normal distribution asymptotically. See Cheung and Ng (1996) for further details regarding the derivation of the sample cross-correlations functions. Overall, the combination of different causality tests allows to cross-check findings and identify consistence or potential inconsistencies in terms of market performance and causal relationships that are useful for understanding market dynamics in the selected funds.

    Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the period of study. Note that the fifteen funds recorded positive means, an interesting result considering the effect of the GEFC on the markets over several years. Overall, the research findings did not report evidence of a negative impact on the average returns of the conventional funds and SRMF. In terms of variation, the results are also quite encouraging, as in general, reported standard deviations are below ten percent for most of the funds. Only in the case of five funds (CAAPX, CSIEX, EGROWTH, MXMCX and NALFX) was the initial measure of volatility above ten percent; the CAAPX and the NALFX funds were the most volatile over the period, with return variations close to 25 percent. The results provide a clearer view, as these funds are also associated with higher returns over the period. In the specific case of two of the funds––EGROWTH and NALFX––these were associated with the lowest correlations, confirming the existence of potential opportunities for diversification. The coefficients of variation also confirmed the highest fluctuations recorded by the NALF and the VICE Fund, which were above twenty percent, and NALFX, which recorded the highest coefficient before the GEFC at 29 percent, followed by the VICE Fund with 27 percent of variation for the whole sample and also pre-GEFC. In this case, NALFX, EGROWTH, and the VICE Fund appear to behave differently to the rest of the sampled funds. VICE is the riskiest fund from the three conventional funds, while LargeCap is associated with the lowest variations over the period of study. From the SRMF, ATAFX and GCEQX have the lowest variations and exhibit more consistent properties over the three periods studied.

    The correlation matrix, presented in Table 2 in the appendix, reports some initial evidence of strong positive connections between the fund returns that in all cases is above 0.5. The emerging growth fund results are associated with the lowest correlation coefficients, followed by the NALFX fund. On the other hand, the LargeCap fund and the Vice Fund registered very high correlation coefficients with the individual green funds. These initial findings are interesting, as they highlight the strong connections between the selected funds. The results suggest that only in the case of the Emerging Growth fund can investors identify potential opportunities for diversification purposes. It is of interest to highlight the strong connection between the LargeCap and Vice conventional funds that suggest that conventional funds are important to understand investment performance and provide insights on the need to carefully consider the role of traditional and SRI portfolios.

    As an initial highlight in terms of basic volatility behavior, and in line with discussions on registered standard deviations (see Table 1) the most volatile funds are the CAAPX and the NALFX, which exhibit high levels of fluctuation. Interestingly, however, the coefficient of variation seems to suggest that the level of dispersion is quite similar across the funds, with the traditional VICE Fund exhibiting large levels of variation and the emerging funds appearing to behave in a similar manner with small changes in dispersion.

    The results from the Chow test (see Table 3 in the appendix) confirmed the existence of a structural break at the time Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. This became the largest bankruptcy filing in history and triggered the 2008 economic and financial crisis that spread across the global financial markets. The financial meltdown also affected mutual funds, as can be appreciated from the selected funds' patterns (details in Figure 1). The funds started to show signs of a change in performance around the second quarter of 2007, when the markets were already recognizing serious liquidity issues that were beginning to affect the global financial system. As our analysis aims to analyze funds' volatility performance and causal effects before and during the GEFC, we take September 15, 2008 as our point of reference and we closed the sample in June 2013 to avoid disruptions from the recovery process. Initially, the funds appear to react quite strongly to the global meltdown, offering some incipient evidence of the firm connections between the selected funds that have been found to share strong positive correlations, as discussed above. In this regard, our findings confirm that only a few funds can offer potential for diversification, where investors would be able to "pick and mix" between funds exhibiting more stable patterns and returns and those associated with higher levels of variation.

    Figure 1.  Mutual funds index price return 2002–2013.

    Table 4 shows the funds exhibited high levels of volatility persistence before and during the GEFC. Note that before the GEFC the funds appeared to be more stable and the shocks were absorbed quite quickly compared to their performance after GEFC, when all the funds underwent a substantial increase in volatility persistence (see Figure 2 for illustrations), indicating a substantial period of time (ranging between two and three months) for funds to absorb the shocks and signaling that there were no major differences between the sampled funds. When the performances of conventional funds and Green funds are compared, there are no significant differences, which suggests that diversification possibilities are limited for investors wishing to integrate Green funds in their investment portfolios. The research findings lead to questioning how Green funds are rewarding their investors. Although diversification opportunities might be quite limited in terms of volatility persistence levels, the half-life outcomes identified three funds that absorbed market shocks fairly quickly, namely EGROWTH, FSLEX, and VICE. These three funds take the shortest time to adjust during the full sample period. The results are quite consistent for the subsample of pre-GEFC market performance, when the three funds and NALFX recorded the lowest adjustment times for this subsample. Finally, during the period examining the impact of the GEFC, the results are also fairly consistent in the case of FSLEX, NALFX and VICE, which recorded the lowest times to adjust to the massive shock. These outcomes offer valuable information to investors who might need to monitor the behavior of funds that absorb market shocks quickly, as they might be able to bring more stability to their investment portfolios. In this case FSLEX is identified as offering signs of consistency and is associated with lower levels of risk, whereas NALFX and VICE could be used as funds that are associated with higher levels of risk, that materialize on higher returns at the time that they react quite quickly to market uncertainty.

    Table 4.  Volatility persistence.
    Mutual fund code Whole Sample: 09-2002 to 06-2013 Before GFC: 09-2002 to 09-2007 During GFC: 09-2008 to 06-2013
    α β Volatility Persistence Half-Life α β Volatility Persistence Half-Life α β Volatility Persistence Half-Life
    ATAFX 0.046 0.945 0.991 77 0.02 0.969 0.989 63 0.059 0.931 0.99 69
    CAAPX 0.051 0.944 0.995 138 0.035 0.953 0.988 57 0.061 0.933 0.994 115
    CSIEX 0.047 0.944 0.991 77 0.018 0.972 0.99 69 0.061 0.931 0.992 86
    DSEFX 0.047 0.945 0.992 86 0.022 0.968 0.99 69 0.061 0.932 0.993 99
    EGROWTH 0.046 0.941 0.987 53 0.03 0.953 0.983 40 0.055 0.935 0.99 69
    FLRUX 0.059 0.929 0.988 57 0.033 0.953 0.986 49 0.076 0.916 0.992 86
    FSLEX 0.046 0.94 0.986 49 0.021 0.96 0.981 36 0.061 0.927 0.988 57
    GCEQX 0.048 0.943 0.991 77 0.018 0.972 0.99 69 0.063 0.93 0.993 99
    LARGECAP 0.048 0.942 0.99 69 0.0257 0.959 0.9847 45 0.061 0.93 0.991 77
    MXMCX 0.047 0.95 0.997 231 0.036 0.952 0.988 57 0.052 0.942 0.994 115
    MXSCX 0.045 0.95 0.995 138 0.022 0.962 0.984 43 0.055 0.939 0.994 115
    NALFX 0.046 0.946 0.992 86 0.032 0.948 0.98 34 0.0581 0.93 0.9881 58
    PORIX 0.044 0.948 0.992 86 0.034 0.952 0.986 49 0.051 0.941 0.992 86
    VICE 0.059 0.923 0.982 38 0.049 0.916 0.965 19 0.064 0.925 0.989 63
    WSEFX 0.048 0.942 0.99 69 0.022 0.967 0.989 63 0.063 0.929 0.992 86
    Note: For the whole sample, the subsamples before the GEFC and during the GEFC the GARCH coefficients were significant at 1 percent. Tests were run on the residuals to ensure that the outcomes of the GARCH model were robust. A VAR(p) framework was developed to identify the appropriate number of lags to be used on the model estimation.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 2.  Volatility patterns among mutual funds.

    The causal analysis of short-term associations between conventional funds and the SRMF shows evidence of conflicting results. The results from the traditional Granger causality test (Table 5) identify very weak causal relationships between the three conventional funds and the SRMF. During the whole sample, the emerging growth fund impacted CSIEX and FSLEX. The LargeCap fund offered no evidence of causation effects during the period, while the VICE fund appeared to have a major impact on the SRMF with a causal effect on three of these funds (CAAPX, MXMCX, and MXSCX). The results for the period before the GEFC affected the global markets are quite surprising, as only causal relationships were found in the VICE Fund, which affected most of the funds with the exceptions of the FSLEX, MXSCX, PORIX, and WSEFX funds. After analyzing the impact of the GEFC, the results confirm the causal effects running from the VICE Fund to the SRMF with significant evidence of short-run impact in almost all the funds, with the only exception of NALXF, which was not affected by the performance of VICE. When the results are compared to the outcomes of the asymmetric models, consistency can be observed in the VICE Fund's impact on selected SRMF, and where the emerging and LargeCap funds do not appear to have a major causal effect. A remarkable outcome is the VICE Fund's dominance, which for the causality in mean (Table 6) shows evidence of causal effects on the NALFX, PORIX, and WSEFX. The subsamples looking at the causal effects before and during the GEFC period confirmed the predominance of the VICE Fund in terms of causal effects running toward the GCEQX and WSEFX before the GEFC, whereas the impact of VICE was more evident during the GEFC with a causal impact on six of the SRMF. These results confirm the relevance and predominance of the VICE Fund, which was the fund that recorded high levels of variation and was one of the funds that most quickly adjusted to the market shock. Identifying the VICE Fund as the one that seems to dictate the funds' behavior means that investors must closely monitor it, as it can help to understand market dynamics. The dominance of the VICE fund could be linked by the fund investment objectives and closely associated to the assets in which this fund invest and that is dominated by investment in companies with significant involvement on activities that are considered as non-ethical. The investment approach of the VICE fund is defined as a long-term growth of capital that under normal market conditions is characterised by at least 80 percent of its net assets allocated to businesses in the alcoholic beverages, defense/aerospace, gaming and tobacco industries (Financial Times, 2022). Finally, the findings for the asymmetric causality in variance (Table 7) are quite remarkable, showing that the fifteen funds have bivariate causal effects in variance that are significant at the one percent level in most cases for the three samples analyzed. These findings are not surprising as the volatility illustrations show evidence of strong market alignment among the fifteen funds, which is confirmed by the asymmetric causal in variance findings, outcomes that suggest that socially responsible funds do not seem to offer "especial" rewards to their investors.

    Table 5.  Granger causality.
    Mutual Fund Code Whole Sample: 09-2002 to 06-2013 Before GFC: 09-2002 to 09-2007 During GFC: 09-2008 to 06-2013
    EGROWTH LARGECAP VICE EGROWTH LARGECAP VICE EGROWTH LARGECAP VICE
    ATAFX ←*** ←***
    CAAPX ←*** ←*** ←**
    CSIEX ←*** →** ↔*** ←**
    DSEFX ↔*** ←**
    FLRUX ←* ←**
    FSLEX ←*** →*** →** ←***
    GCEQX ↔*** ←**
    MXMCX ↔*** ←*** ←**
    MXSCX ←*** ←**
    NALFX →*** →*** ←*
    PORIX ←**
    WSEFX →*** →*** ←**
    Note: *Significance at 1%, **Significance at 5%, ***Significance at 10%, ← Evidence of causal effects running from the selected conventional fund to the selected SRMF, → Evidence of causal effects running from the selected SRMF to the selected conventional fund, ↔ Evidence of bidirectional causality between the selected SRMF and the selected conventional fund.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 6.  Asymmetric causality in mea.
    Mutual Fund Code Whole Sample: 09-2002 to 06-2013 Before GFC: 09-2002 to 09-2007 During GFC: 09-2008 to 06-2013
    EGROWTH LARGECAP VICE EGROWTH LARGECAP VICE EGROWTH LARGECAP VICE
    ATAFX →*** →*** →***
    CAAPX ↔*** →*** →***
    CSIEX →*** ←*** ↔***
    DSEFX ↔* →*** →*** ↔*** →***
    FLRUX ←***
    FSLEX →*** →** →*** →***
    GCEQX →** →*** ←*** ←*** ↔***
    MXMCX →** →*** →*** →** ←***
    MXSCX →*** →*** ←**
    NALFX ↔* →** →*** ←** ↔**
    PORIX →*** ↔** ↔**
    WSEFX →*** ↔** ←***
    Note: Granger causes the first variable in mean if the test statistic is significant for some lags; vice versa if the test statistic is significant for some leads. The lag and lead coefficients, and the estimated statistics and p-values are not reported in this paper for the sake of brevity. Instead, the main results for causal relationships are highlighted with the appropriate arrows and level of significance to facilitate the interpretation and analysis of the main outcomes. The complete list of tables is available from the authors upon request. *Significance at 1%, **Significance at 5%, ***Significance at 10%, ← Evidence of causal effects running from the selected conventional fund to the selected SRMF, → Evidence of causal effects running from the selected SRMF to the selected conventional fund, ↔ Evidence of bidirectional causality between the selected SRMF and the selected conventional fund.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  Asymmetric causality in varianc.
    Mutual Fund Code Whole Sample: 09-2002 to 06-2013 Before GFC: 09-2002 to 09-2007 During GFC: 09-2008 to 06-2013
    EGROWTH LARGECAP VICE EGROWTH LARGECAP VICE EGROWTH LARGECAP VICE
    ATAFX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔*
    CAAPX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔*
    CSIEX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔*
    DSEFX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔*
    FLRUX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔*
    FSLEX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔*
    GCEQX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔*
    MXMCX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔*
    MXSCX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔*
    NALFX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔**
    PORIX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔**
    WSEFX ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔** ↔* ↔* ↔* ↔*
    Note: Granger causes the first variable in variance if the test statistic is significant for some lags; vice versa if the test statistic is significant for some leads. The lag and lead coefficients, and the estimated statistics and p-values are not reported in this paper for the sake of brevity. Instead, the main results for causal relationships are highlighted with the appropriate arrows and level of significance to facilitate the interpretation and analysis of the main outcomes. The complete list of tables is available from the authors upon request. *Significance at 1%, **Significance at 5%, ***Significance at 10%, ← Evidence of causal effects running from the selected conventional fund to the selected SRMF, → Evidence of causal effects running from the selected SRMF to the selected conventional fund, ↔ Evidence of bidirectional causality between the selected SRMF and the selected conventional fund.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We have investigated how the sampled SRMF and the Vice Fund react in terms of volatility performance and persistence when exposed to abnormal times like the Global Economic and Financial Crisis. The core research findings show how the Vice Fund was associated with higher return levels that rewarded higher exposure to risk. Furthermore, the Vice Fund exposure to the crisis was quite limited as it was able to absorb the shock relatively quickly and remained quite unscathed to the market shock compared to its counterparts. The results also show some evidence of predictability patterns among the studied funds as the Vice Fund has a dominant effect on the SRMF and as such the Vice Fund could be used to infer green funds behaviour. For example, the Global Economic and Financial Crisis led to an increase in volatility persistence as market uncertainty took longer to be absorbed by the funds. The research finding is not surprising as periods of crisis would create ambiguity behaviour and confusion among investors. However, it is quite remarkable that the riskiest fund (the Vice Fund) showed a significant level of resilience to the crisis, indicating that this fund could be used to counteract higher exposure to risks during times of sustained market uncertainty. In addition, the Vice Fund exhibit interesting characteristics that can be considered by investors in terms of diversifying their portfolio and the value of integrating investments defined by higher levels of risk and how they can contribute to the revenue generating goal while integrating less risky funds that act as a hedger and provide stability to the fund. Finally, it appears that the Vice Fund achieves higher levels of variation, and greater capacity to adapt and influence the behavior of its counterparts, confirming that the Vice fund exhibits higher levels of risk but also higher returns than those associated with SRMF in the short term that took longer to absorb the shock. The Vice Fund is doing a better job by adjusting to severe market disruptions and keeping a consistent performance than those exhibited by the studied green funds. There is no doubt that the interest in SRI strategies has increased over the years. Still, three key questions should be carefully considered because of this study: Should fund managers and investors monitor the Vice Fund behavior to predict future investment opportunities? And are the rewards offered by SRMF enough to justify the levels of risks associated with this type of investment? Is ethical commitment rewarding investors, or on the contrary, their gains are being curtailed and lack matching about risk exposure? These are questions to be answered and addressed in the current COVID-19 pandemic context, whereby the lessons learned from the 2008 economic and financial crisis could be of help. In addition, the ethical and societal matters associated with the vice fund and SRI strategies will indeed limit the future of both investors and companies who deal with this kind of funds thus need to be considered in order to avoid political cleavages and possible conflict scenarios Future research could explore the role that SRI could play as market hedge and to which extent investment portfolios could become more resilient to financial and economic instability. The analysis of individual funds performance is of interest as it helps to gain a better understanding of funds idiosyncrasies that is of critical importance in the context of portfolio diversification strategies.

    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.


    Abbreviation ACC: Anterior cingulate cortex; aIns: Anterior insula; aMCC: Anterior MCC; BLA: Basolateral amygdala; BNST: Bed nucleus of the stria terminalis; CeA: Central nucleus of the amygdala; BOLD: Blood oxygen level dependent; CBM: Clinical Biopsychological Model; DMN: Default mode network; DG: Dentate gyrus; DSM: Dimensional Systems Model; DAT: Dopamine active transporter; dACC: Dorsal ACC; dlPFC: Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; dmPFC: Dorsomedial PFC; dpIns: Dorsal posterior insula; FPC: Frontopolar cortex; GP: Globus pallidus; ILN: Intralaminar nuclei; HG: Heschel's gyrus; lPBN: Lateral PBN; POm: Medial nucleus of the posterior group; MSN: Medium spiny neuron; MACM: Meta-analytic connectivity modeling; MCC: Middle cingulate cortex; mIns: Middle insula; NAc: Nucleus accumbens; NCC: Neural correlates of consciousness; NPS: Neurologic Pain Signature; OFC: Orbitofrontal cortex; PBN: Parabrachial nucleus; PHC: Parahippocampal cortex; PAG: Periaqueductal gray; VMpo: Posterior part of the ventral medial nucleus; PCC: Posterior cingulate cortex; pACC: Posterior ACC; pMCC: Posterior MCC; pPCC: Posterior PCC; PFC: Prefrontal cortex; RSC: Retrosplenial cortex; rACC: Rostral ACC; SN: Substantia nigra pars reticulata; STN: Subthalamic nucleus; SF: Superficial amygdala; CT: Tactile C fibers; TPJ: Temporoparietal junction; UCT: Universal Cerebellar Transform; vPCC: Ventral PCC; Mdvc: Ventrocaudal mediodorsal nucleus; vlPFC: Ventrolateral PFC; vmPFC: Ventromedial PFC; VPC: Ventral posterior complex; VPI: Ventroposterior inferior; VPL: Ventral posterolateral; VPM: Ventral posteromedial;

    Conflict of interest



    The author declares no conflict of interests in this paper.

    [1] Tseli E, Boersma K, Stålnacke BM, et al. (2019) Prognostic factors for physical functioning after multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain 35: 148-173. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000669
    [2] Engel GL (1977) The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 196: 129-136. doi: 10.1126/science.847460
    [3] Turk DC (1999) The role of psychological factors in chronic pain. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 43: 885-888. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.1999.430904.x
    [4] Meints SM, Edwards RR (2018) Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 87: 168-182. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2018.01.017
    [5] Gatchel RJ, McGeary DD, McGeary CA, et al. (2014) Interdisciplinary chronic pain management: past, present, and future. Am psychol 69: 119-130. doi: 10.1037/a0035514
    [6] Gatchel RJ (2005)  Clinical essentials of pain management American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10856-000
    [7] Bevers K, Watts L, Kishino ND, et al. (2016) The biopsychosocial model of the assessment, prevention, and treatment of chronic pain. US Neurol 12: 98-104. doi: 10.17925/USN.2016.12.02.98
    [8] Burke NN, Finn DP, McGuire BE, et al. (2017) Psychological stress in early life as a predisposing factor for the development of chronic pain: clinical and preclinical evidence and neurobiological mechanisms. J Neurosci Res 95: 1257-1270. doi: 10.1002/jnr.23802
    [9] Sturgeon JA, Zautra AJ (2016) Social pain and physical pain: shared paths to resilience. Pain Manag 6: 63-74. doi: 10.2217/pmt.15.56
    [10] Gupta A, Mayer EA, Fling C, et al. (2017) Sex-based differences in brain alterations across chronic pain conditions. J Neurosci Res 95: 604-616. doi: 10.1002/jnr.23856
    [11] Tanasescu R, Cottam WJ, Condon L, et al. (2016) Functional reorganization in chronic pain and neural correlates of pain sensitization: a coordinate based meta-analysis of 266 cutaneous pain fMRI studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 68: 120-133. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.04.001
    [12] Jegindø EME, Vase L, Skewes JC, et al. (2013) Expectations contribute to reduced pain levels during prayer in highly religious participants. J Behav Med 36: 413-426. doi: 10.1007/s10865-012-9438-9
    [13] Edwards RR, Moric M, Husfeldt B, et al. (2005) Ethnic similarities and differences in the chronic pain experience: a comparison of African American, Hispanic, and white patients. Pain Med 6: 88-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2005.05007.x
    [14] Kregel J, Meeus M, Malfliet A, et al. (2015) Structural and functional brain abnormalities in chronic low back pain: A systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 45: 229-237. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.05.002
    [15] Seminowicz DA, Moayedi M (2017) The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in acute and chronic pain. J Pain 18: 1027-1035. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2017.03.008
    [16] May A (2008) Chronic pain may change the structure of the brain. Pain 137: 7-15. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2008.02.034
    [17] Rodriguez-Raecke R, Niemeier A, Ihle K, et al. (2013) Structural brain changes in chronic pain reflect probably neither damage nor atrophy. PloS One 8: e54475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054475
    [18] Peirs C, Seal RP (2016) Neural circuits for pain: recent advances and current views. Science 354: 578-584. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8933
    [19] Hendry SH, Hsiao S (2012) The somatosensory system. Fundamental neuroscience New York: Elsevier, 531-551.
    [20] Kuner R, Flor H (2017) Structural plasticity and reorganisation in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci 18: 20. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.162
    [21] Cai YQ, Wang W, Paulucci-Holthauzen A, et al. (2018) Brain circuits mediating opposing effects on emotion and pain. J Neurosci 38: 6340-6349. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2780-17.2018
    [22] Schweinhardt P, Bushnell MC (2010) Pain imaging in health and disease—how far have we come? J Clin Invest 120: 3788-3797. doi: 10.1172/JCI43498
    [23] Demirtaş M, Burt JB, Helmer M, et al. (2019) Hierarchical heterogeneity across human cortex shapes large-scale neural dynamics. Neuron 101: 1181-1194. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.017
    [24] Woo CW, Koban L, Kross E, et al. (2014) Separate neural representations for physical pain and social rejection. Nat Commun 5: 1-12.
    [25] Wiech K (2016) Deconstructing the sensation of pain: The influence of cognitive processes on pain perception. Science 354: 584-587. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8934
    [26] Reddan MC, Wager TD (2018) Modeling pain using fMRI: from regions to biomarkers. Neurosci Bull 34: 208-215. doi: 10.1007/s12264-017-0150-1
    [27] Tatu K, Costa T, Nani A, et al. (2018) How do morphological alterations caused by chronic pain distribute across the brain? A meta-analytic co-alteration study. Neuroimage Clin 18: 15-30. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.12.029
    [28] Woo CW, Schmidt L, Krishnan A, et al. (2017) Quantifying cerebral contributions to pain beyond nociception. Nat Commun 8: 1-14. doi: 10.1038/s41467-016-0009-6
    [29] Woo CW, Roy M, Buhle JT, et al. (2015) Distinct brain systems mediate the effects of nociceptive input and self-regulation on pain. PLoS Biol 13: e1002036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002036
    [30] Alshelh Z, Marciszewski KK, Akhter RD, et al. (2018) Disruption of default mode network dynamics in acute and chronic pain states. Neuroimage Clin 17: 222-231. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.10.019
    [31] Zhang Y, Zhou W, Wang S, et al. (2019) The roles of subdivisions of human insula in emotion perception and auditory processing. Cereb Cortex 29: 517-528. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhx334
    [32] Chiang MC, Bowen A, Schier LA, et al. (2019) Parabrachial Complex: A Hub for pain and aversion. J Neurosci 39: 8225-8230. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1162-19.2019
    [33] Da Silva JT, Seminowicz DA (2019) Neuroimaging of pain in animal models: A review of recent literature. Pain Rep 4: e732. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000732
    [34] Luria AR (1966)  Higher cortical functions in man New York: Basic Books.
    [35] Moss RA (2006) Of bits and logic: Cortical columns in learning and memory. J Mind Behav 27: 215-246.
    [36] Moss RA (2016) A theory on the singular function of the hippocampus: Facilitating the binding of new circuits of cortical columns. AIMS Neurosci 3: 264-305. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.3.264
    [37] Moss RA (2013a) Psychotherapy and the brain: The dimensional systems model and clinical biopsychology. J Mind Behav 34: 63-89.
    [38] Calvin WH (1995) Cortical columns, modules, and Hebbian cell assemblies. Handbook of brain theory and neural networks Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 269-275.
    [39] Moss RA, Hunter BP, Shah D, et al. (2012) A theory of hemispheric specialization based on cortical columns. J Mind Behav 33: 141-171.
    [40] Horton JC, Adams DL (2005) The cortical column: A structure without a function. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 360: 837-862. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1623
    [41] Moss RA, Moss J (2014) The role of cortical columns in explaining gamma-band synchronization and NMDA receptors in cognitive functions. AIMS Neurosci 1: 65-88. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.65
    [42] Cheng K, Waggoner RA, Tanaka K (2001) Human ocular dominance columns as revealed by high-field functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuron 32: 359-374. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00477-9
    [43] Yacoub E, Harel N, Uğurbil K (2008) High-field fMRI unveils orientation columns in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105: 10607-10612. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804110105
    [44] Nasr S, Polimeni JR, Tootell RB (2016) Interdigitated color-and disparity-selective columns within human visual cortical areas V2 and V3. J Neurosci 36: 1841-1857. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3518-15.2016
    [45] Goncalves NR, Ban H, Sánchez-Panchuelo RM, et al. (2015) 7 tesla FMRI reveals systematic functional organization for binocular disparity in dorsal visual cortex. J Neurosci 35: 3056-3072. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3047-14.2015
    [46] Zimmermann J, Goebel R, De Martino F, et al. (2011) Mapping the organization of axis of motion selective features in human area MT using high-field fMRI. PloS One 6: e28716. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028716
    [47] Margalit E, Jamison KW, Weiner KS, et al. (2020) Ultra-high-resolution fMRI of human ventral temporal cortex reveals differential representation of categories and domains. J Neurosci 40: 3008-3024. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2106-19.2020
    [48] Schneider M, Kemper VG, Emmerling TC, et al. (2019) Columnar clusters in the human motion complex reflect consciously perceived motion axis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116: 5096-5101. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1814504116
    [49] Crick F, Koch C (2003) A framework for consciousness. Nat Neurosci 6: 119-126. doi: 10.1038/nn0203-119
    [50] Gazzaniga MS (2002) Consciousness. Encyclopedia of the human brain New York: Academic Press, 31-35. doi: 10.1016/B0-12-227210-2/00106-0
    [51] Moss RA (1992)  Emotional restructuring: A structured psychotherapeutic approach for depression and anxiety Greenville, SC: St. Francis Hospital.
    [52] Moss RA (2001)  Clinical biopsychology in theory and practice Greenville, South Carolina: Center for Emotional Restructuring.
    [53] Moss RA (2007) Negative emotional memories in clinical treatment: Theoretical considerations. J Psychother Integration 17: 209-224. doi: 10.1037/1053-0479.17.2.209
    [54] Moss RA (2015) Psychotherapy integration from a brain-based perspective: Clinical biopsychology. Continuing education course offered through Health Forum Online.Available from: www.healthforumonline.com.
    [55] Moss RA (2013b) Givers and takers: Clinical biopsychological perspectives on relationship behavior patterns. Int J Neuropsychother 1: 31-46. doi: 10.12744/ijnpt.2013.0031-0046
    [56] Moss RA (2013c) A clinical biopsychological theory of loss-related depression. Int J Neuropsychother 1: 56-65. doi: 10.12744/ijnpt.2013.0056-0065
    [57] Jung J, Cloutman LL, Binney RJ, et al. (2017) The structural connectivity of higher order association cortices reflects human functional brain networks. Cortex 97: 221-239. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.08.011
    [58] Jung J, Visser M, Binney RJ, et al. (2018) Establishing the cognitive signature of human brain networks derived from structural and functional connectivity. Brain Struct Funct 223: 4023-4038. doi: 10.1007/s00429-018-1734-x
    [59] Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D, et al. (2012)  Neuroscience Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
    [60] Hélie S, Ell SW, Ashby FG (2015) Learning robust cortico-cortical associations with the basal ganglia: An integrative review. Cortex 64: 123-135. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.10.011
    [61] Cacciola A, Milardi D, Bertino S, et al. (2019) Structural connectivity-based topography of the human globus pallidus: Implications for therapeutic targeting in movement disorders. Mov Disord 34: 987-996. doi: 10.1002/mds.27712
    [62] Vogelsang DA, D'Esposito M (2018) Is there evidence for a rostral-caudal gradient in fronto-striatal loops and what role does dopamine play? Front Neurosci 12: 242. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00242
    [63] Pauli WM, O'Reilly RC, Yarkoni T, et al. (2016) Regional specialization within the human striatum for diverse psychological functions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113: 1907-1912. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1507610113
    [64] Haber SN (2003) The primate basal ganglia: parallel and integrative networks. J Chem Neuroanat 26: 317-330. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2003.10.003
    [65] Ghazizadeh A, Hong S, Hikosaka O (2018) Prefrontal cortex represents long-term memory of object values for months. Curr Biol 28: 2206-2217. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.017
    [66] Ceceli AO, Tricomi E (2018) Habits and goals: A motivational perspective on action control. Curr Opin Behav Sci 20: 110-116. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.12.005
    [67] Soares JM, Sampaio A, Ferreira LM, et al. (2012) Stress-induced changes in human decision-making are reversible. Transl Psychiatry 2: e131. doi: 10.1038/tp.2012.59
    [68] LeDoux JL, Phelps EA (2010) Emotional networks in the brain. Handbook of emotions New York: Guilford Press, 159-179.
    [69] Milardi D, Arrigo A, Anastasi G, et al. (2016) Extensive direct subcortical cerebellum-basal ganglia connections in human brain as revealed by constrained spherical deconvolution tractography. Front Neuroanat 10: 29. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2016.00029
    [70] Aron AR, Herz DM, Brown P, et al. (2016) Frontosubthalamic circuits for control of action and cognition. J Neurosci 36: 11489-11495. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2348-16.2016
    [71] Cacciola A, Calamuneri A, Milardi D, et al. (2017) A connectomic analysis of the human basal ganglia network. Front Neuroanat 11: 85. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2017.00085
    [72] Snow WM, Stoesz BM, Anderson JE (2014) The cerebellum in emotional processing: evidence from human and non-human animals. Aims Neurosci 1: 96-119. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.96
    [73] Balsters JH, Laird AR, Fox PT, et al. (2014) Bridging the gap between functional and anatomical features of cortico-cerebellar circuits using meta-analytic connectivity modeling. Hum Brain Mapp 35: 3152-3169. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22392
    [74] Nakamura Y, Kato H, Nojiri K, et al. (2014) Significant differences of brain blood flow in patients with chronic low back pain and acute low back pain detected by brain SPECT. J Orthop Sci 19: 384-389. doi: 10.1007/s00776-014-0534-2
    [75] Schmahmann JD, Sherman JC (1997) Cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. Int Rev Neurobiol 41: 433-440. doi: 10.1016/S0074-7742(08)60363-3
    [76] Stoodley CJ, Valera EM, Schmahmann JD (2012) Functional topography of the cerebellum for motor and cognitive tasks: An fMRI study. Neuroimage 59: 1560-1570. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.065
    [77] Bernard JA, Seidler RD, Hassevoort KM, et al. (2012) Resting state cortico-cerebellar functional connectivity networks: A comparison of anatomical and self-organizing map approaches. Fron Neuroanat 6: 31.
    [78] Schmahmann JD (2004) Disorders of the cerebellum: ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 16: 367-378. doi: 10.1176/jnp.16.3.367
    [79] Guell X, Gabrieli JD, Schmahmann JD (2018) Embodied cognition and the cerebellum: Perspectives from the dysmetria of thought and the universal cerebellar transform theories. Cortex 100: 140-148. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.07.005
    [80] Milardi D, Gaeta M, Marino S, et al. (2015) Basal ganglia network by constrained spherical deconvolution: a possible cortico-pallidal pathway? Mov Disord 30: 342-349. doi: 10.1002/mds.25995
    [81] Watson P, van Wingen G, de Wit S (2018) Conflicted between goal-directed and habitual control, an fMRI investigation. eNeuro 5. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0240-18.2018
    [82] Joyce MKP, Barbas H (2018) Cortical connections position primate area 25 as a keystone for interoception, emotion, and memory. J Neurosci 38: 1677-1698. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2363-17.2017
    [83] Ghashghaei HT, Hilgetag CC, Barbas H (2007) Sequence of information processing for emotions based on the anatomic dialogue between prefrontal cortex and amygdala. Neuroimage 34: 905-923. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.046
    [84] Ray RD, Zald DH (2012) Anatomical insights into the interaction of emotion and cognition in the prefrontal cortex. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36: 479-501. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.08.005
    [85] Ji RR, Chamessian A, Zhang YQ (2016) Pain regulation by non-neuronal cells and inflammation. Science 354: 572-577. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8924
    [86] Kuner R, Flor H (2017) Structural plasticity and reorganisation in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci 18: 20. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.162
    [87] Sommer C (2016) Exploring pain pathophysiology in patients. Science 354: 588-592. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8935
    [88] Chang PC, Centeno MV, Procissi D, et al. (2017) Brain activity for tactile allodynia: a longitudinal awake rat functional magnetic resonance imaging study tracking emergence of neuropathic pain. Pain 158: 488-497. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000788
    [89] Geha PY, Baliki MN, Wang X, et al. (2008) Brain dynamics for perception of tactile allodynia (touch-induced pain) in postherpetic neuralgia. Pain 138: 641-656. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2008.02.021
    [90] Lanz S, Seifert F, Maihöfner C (2011) Brain activity associated with pain, hyperalgesia and allodynia: an ALE meta-analysis. J Neur Transmis 118: 1139-1154. doi: 10.1007/s00702-011-0606-9
    [91] Pavuluri M, May A (2015) I feel, therefore, I am: the insula and its role in human emotion, cognition and the sensory-motor system. AIMS Neurosci 2: 18-27. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2015.1.18
    [92] Cloutman LL, Binney RJ, Drakesmith M, et al. (2012) The variation of function across the human insula mirrors its patterns of structural connectivity: evidence from in vivo probabilistic tractography. Neuroimage 59: 3514-3521. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.016
    [93] Olausson H, Wessberg J, McGlone F, et al. (2010) The neurophysiology of unmyelinated tactile afferents. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34: 185-191. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.09.011
    [94] Björnsdotter M, Olausson H (2011) Vicarious responses to social touch in posterior insular cortex are tuned to pleasant caressing speeds. J Neurosci 31: 9554-9562. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0397-11.2011
    [95] Davidovic M, Starck G, Olausson H (2019) Processing of affective and emotionally neutral tactile stimuli in the insular cortex. Dev Cogn Neurosci 35: 94-103. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2017.12.006
    [96] Craig AD (2010) Interoception and emotion: A neuroanatomical perspective. Handbook of emotions New York: Guilford Press, 272-292.
    [97] Frot M, Magnin M, Mauguière F, et al. (2006) Human SII and posterior insula differently encode thermal laser stimuli. Cereb Cortex 17: 610-620. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhk007
    [98] Baliki MN, Geha PY, Apkarian AV (2009) Parsing pain perception between nociceptive representation and magnitude estimation. J Neurophysiol 101: 875-887. doi: 10.1152/jn.91100.2008
    [99] Zhang Y, Zhou W, Wang S, et al. (2019) The roles of subdivisions of human insula in emotion perception and auditory processing. Cereb Cortex 29: 517-528. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhx334
    [100] Jackson RL, Bajada CJ, Lambon Ralph MA, et al. (2019) The graded change in connectivity across the ventromedial prefrontal cortex reveals distinct subregions. Cereb Cortex 30: 165-180. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhz079
    [101] Bastuji H, Frot M, Perchet C, et al. (2018) Convergence of sensory and limbic noxious input into the anterior insula and the emergence of pain from nociception. Sci Rep 8: 1-9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-31781-z
    [102] Nomi JS, Farrant K, Damaraju E, et al. (2016) Dynamic functional network connectivity reveals unique and overlapping profiles of insula subdivisions. Hum Brain Mapp 37: 1770-1787. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23135
    [103] Tatu K, Costa T, Nani A, et al. (2018) How do morphological alterations caused by chronic pain distribute across the brain? A meta-analytic co-alteration study. Neuroimage Clin 18: 15-30. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.12.029
    [104] Vogt BA (2005) Pain and emotion interactions in subregions of the cingulate gyrus. Nat Rev Neurosci 6: 533-544. doi: 10.1038/nrn1704
    [105] Beckmann M, Johansen-Berg H, Rushworth MF (2009) Connectivity-based parcellation of human cingulate cortex and its relation to functional specialization. J Neurosci 29: 1175-1190. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3328-08.2009
    [106] Vogt BA (2016) Midcingulate cortex: structure, connections, homologies, functions and diseases. J Chem Neuroanat 74: 28-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2016.01.010
    [107] Leech R, Sharp DJ (2014) The role of the posterior cingulate cortex in cognition and disease. Brain 137: 12-32. doi: 10.1093/brain/awt162
    [108] Fischer LF, Soto-Albors RM, Buck F, et al. (2020) Representation of visual landmarks in retrosplenial cortex. Elife 9: e51458. doi: 10.7554/eLife.51458
    [109] Tang W, Jbabdi S, Zhu Z, et al. (2019) A connectional hub in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex links areas of emotion and cognitive control. Elife 8: e43761. doi: 10.7554/eLife.43761
    [110] de la Vega A, Chang LJ, Banich MT, et al. (2016) Large-scale meta-analysis of human medial frontal cortex reveals tripartite functional organization. J Neurosci 36: 6553-6562. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4402-15.2016
    [111] Li YS, Nassar MR, Kable JW, et al. (2019) Individual neurons in the cingulate cortex encode action monitoring, not selection, during adaptive decision-making. J Neurosci 39: 6668-6683. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0159-19.2019
    [112] Shenhav A, Cohen JD, Botvinick MM (2016) Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the value of control. Nat Neurosci 19: 1286-1291. doi: 10.1038/nn.4384
    [113] Kolling N, Behrens TEJ, Wittmann MK, et al. (2016) Multiple signals in anterior cingulate cortex. Curr Opin Neurobiol 37: 36-43. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2015.12.007
    [114] Holroyd CB, Yeung N (2012) Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 16: 122-128. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.008
    [115] Brockett AT, Tennyson SS, deBettencourt CA, et al. (2020) Anterior cingulate cortex is necessary for adaptation of action plans. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117: 6196-6204. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1919303117
    [116] Tomasi D, Volkow ND (2011) Association between functional connectivity hubs and brain networks. Cereb Cortex 21: 2003-2013. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhq268
    [117] Margulies DS, Vincent JL, Kelly C, et al. (2009) Precuneus shares intrinsic functional architecture in humans and monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 20069-20074. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905314106
    [118] Cavanna AE, Trimble MR (2006) The precuneus: a review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain 129: 564-583. doi: 10.1093/brain/awl004
    [119] Utevsky AV, Smith DV, Huettel SA (2014) Precuneus is a functional core of the default-mode network. J Neurosci 34: 932-940. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4227-13.2014
    [120] Foudil SA, Kwok SC, Macaluso E (2020) Context-dependent coding of temporal distance between cinematic events in the human precuneus. J Neurosci 40: 2129-2138. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2296-19.2020
    [121] Lamm C, Decety J, Singer T (2011) Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. Neuroimage 54: 2492-2502. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.014
    [122] Badre D, D'Esposito M (2009) Is the rostro-caudal axis of the frontal lobe hierarchical? Nat Rev Neurosci 10: 659-669. doi: 10.1038/nrn2667
    [123] Petrides M, Pandya DN (1984) Projections to the frontal cortex from the posterior parietal region in the rhesus monkey. J Comp Neurol 228: 105-116. doi: 10.1002/cne.902280110
    [124] Riley MR, Qi XL, Constantinidis C (2017) Functional specialization of areas along the anterior–posterior axis of the primate prefrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex 27: 3683-3697.
    [125] Ong WY, Stohler CS, Herr DR (2019) Role of the prefrontal cortex in pain processing. Mol Neurobiol 56: 1137-1166. doi: 10.1007/s12035-018-1130-9
    [126] Duncan J (2010) The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: Mental programs for intelligent behaviour. Trends Cogn Sci 14: 172-179. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.004
    [127] Hempel A, Giesel FL, Garcia Caraballo NM, et al. (2004) Plasticity of cortical activation related to working memory during training. Am J Psychiatry 161: 745-747. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.4.745
    [128] Sevel LS, Letzen JE, Staud R, et al. (2016) Interhemispheric dorsolateral prefrontal cortex connectivity is associated with individual differences in pain sensitivity in healthy controls. Brain Connect 6: 357-364. doi: 10.1089/brain.2015.0405
    [129] Korb FM, Jiang J, King JA, et al. (2017) Hierarchically organized medial frontal cortex-basal ganglia loops selectively control task-and response-selection. J Neurosci 37: 7893-7905. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3289-16.2017
    [130] Kahnt T, Chang LJ, Park SQ, et al. (2012) Connectivity-based parcellation of the human orbitofrontal cortex. J Neurosci 32: 6240-6250. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0257-12.2012
    [131] Costa VD, Averbeck BB (2020) Primate orbitofrontal cortex codes information relevant for managing explore–exploit tradeoffs. J Neurosci 40: 2553-2561. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2355-19.2020
    [132] Samara Z, Evers EA, Goulas A, et al. (2017) Human orbital and anterior medial prefrontal cortex: Intrinsic connectivity parcellation and functional organization. Brain Struct Funct 222: 2941-2960. doi: 10.1007/s00429-017-1378-2
    [133] Phillips ML, Ladouceur CD, Drevets WC (2008) A neural model of voluntary and automatic emotion regulation: implications for understanding the pathophysiology and neurodevelopment of bipolar disorder. Mol Psychiatry 13: 833-857. doi: 10.1038/mp.2008.65
    [134] Vachon-Presseau E, Tétreault P, Petre B, et al. (2016) Corticolimbic anatomical characteristics predetermine risk for chronic pain. Brain 139: 1958-1970. doi: 10.1093/brain/aww100
    [135] Hibar DP, Stein JL, Renteria ME, et al. (2015) Common genetic variants influence human subcortical brain structures. Nature 520: 224-229. doi: 10.1038/nature14101
    [136] Gilbertson MW, Shenton ME, Ciszewski A, et al. (2002) Smaller hippocampal volume predicts pathologic vulnerability to psychological trauma. Nat Neurosci 5: 1242-1247. doi: 10.1038/nn958
    [137] Oshri A, Gray JC, Owens MM, et al. (2019) Adverse childhood experiences and amygdalar reduction: High-resolution segmentation reveals associations with subnuclei and psychiatric outcomes. Child Maltreat 24: 400-410. doi: 10.1177/1077559519839491
    [138] Johnson FK, Delpech JC, Thompson GJ, et al. (2018) Amygdala hyper-connectivity in a mouse model of unpredictable early life stress. Transl Psychiatry 8: 1-14. doi: 10.1038/s41398-018-0092-z
    [139] Hashmi JA, Baliki MN, Huang L, et al. (2013) Shape shifting pain: Chronification of back pain shifts brain representation from nociceptive to emotional circuits. Brain 136: 2751-2768. doi: 10.1093/brain/awt211
    [140] Diano M, Tamietto M, Celeghin A, et al. (2017) Dynamic changes in amygdala psychophysiological connectivity reveal distinct neural networks for facial expressions of basic emotions. Sci Rep 7: 45260. doi: 10.1038/srep45260
    [141] Sander D, Grafman J, Zalla T (2003) The human amygdala: An evolved system for relevance detection. Rev Neurosci 14: 303-316. doi: 10.1515/REVNEURO.2003.14.4.303
    [142] Kerestes R, Chase HW, Phillips ML, et al. (2017) Multimodal evaluation of the amygdala's functional connectivity. Neuroimage 148: 219-229. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.023
    [143] Balleine BW, Killcross S (2006) Parallel incentive processing: An integrated view of amygdala function. Trends Neurosci 29: 272-279. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2006.03.002
    [144] Roy AK, Shehzad Z, Margulies DS, et al. (2009) Functional connectivity of the human amygdala using resting state fMRI. Neuroimage 45: 614-626. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.11.030
    [145] Bzdok D, Laird AR, Zilles K, et al. (2013) An investigation of the structural, connectional, and functional subspecialization in the human amygdala. Hum Brain Mapp 34: 3247-3266. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22138
    [146] Gorka AX, Torrisi S, Shackman AJ, et al. (2018) Intrinsic functional connectivity of the central nucleus of the amygdala and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. Neuroimage 168: 392-402. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.007
    [147] Bandler R, Keay KA, Floyd N, et al. (2000) Central circuits mediating patterned autonomic activity during active vs. passive emotional coping. Brain Res Bull 53: 95-104. doi: 10.1016/S0361-9230(00)00313-0
    [148] Oler JA, Tromp DP, Fox AS, et al. (2017) Connectivity between the central nucleus of the amygdala and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in the non-human primate: neuronal tract tracing and developmental neuroimaging studies. Brain Struct Funct 222: 21-39. doi: 10.1007/s00429-016-1198-9
    [149] Folloni D, Sallet J, Khrapitchev AA, et al. (2019) Dichotomous organization of amygdala/temporal-prefrontal bundles in both humans and monkeys. Elife 8: e47175. doi: 10.7554/eLife.47175
    [150] Schmidt-Wilcke T, Luerding R, Weigand T, et al. (2007) Striatal grey matter increase in patients suffering from fibromyalgia–a voxel-based morphometry study. Pain 132: S109-S116. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2007.05.010
    [151] Diano M, D'Agata F, Cauda F, et al. (2016) Cerebellar clustering and functional connectivity during pain processing. Cerebellum 15: 343-356. doi: 10.1007/s12311-015-0706-4
    [152] Coombes SA, Misra G (2016) Pain and motor processing in the human cerebellum. Pain 157: 117-127. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000337
    [153] Moulton EA, Elman I, Pendse G, et al. (2011) Aversion-related circuitry in the cerebellum: responses to noxious heat and unpleasant images. J Neurosci 31: 3795-3804. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6709-10.2011
    [154] Kim H, Kim J, Loggia ML, et al. (2015) Fibromyalgia is characterized by altered frontal and cerebellar structural covariance brain networks. Neuroimage Clin 7: 667-677. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2015.02.022
    [155] Tsutsumi S, Hidaka N, Isomura Y, et al. (2019) Modular organization of cerebellar climbing fiber inputs during goal-directed behavior. Elife 8: e47021. doi: 10.7554/eLife.47021
    [156] Larry N, Yarkoni M, Lixenberg A, et al. (2019) Cerebellar climbing fibers encode expected reward size. Elife 8: e46870. doi: 10.7554/eLife.46870
    [157] Heffley W, Hull C (2019) Classical conditioning drives learned reward prediction signals in climbing fibers across the lateral cerebellum. Elife 8: e46764. doi: 10.7554/eLife.46764
    [158] Watson TC, Obiang P, Torres-Herraez A, et al. (2019) Anatomical and physiological foundations of cerebello-hippocampal interaction. Elife 8: e41896. doi: 10.7554/eLife.41896
    [159] Apkarian AV, Mutso AA, Centeno MV, et al. (2016) Role of adult hippocampal neurogenesis in persistent pain. Pain 157: 418-428. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000332
    [160] Mutso AA, Radzicki D, Baliki MN, et al. (2012) Abnormalities in hippocampal functioning with persistent pain. J Neurosci 32: 5747-5756. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0587-12.2012
    [161] Mutso AA, Petre B, Huang L, et al. (2014) Reorganization of hippocampal functional connectivity with transition to chronic back pain. J Neurophysiol 111: 1065-1076. doi: 10.1152/jn.00611.2013
    [162] Borsook D, Linnman C, Faria V, et al. (2016) Reward deficiency and anti-reward in pain chronification. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 68: 282-297. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.05.033
    [163] DosSantos MF, Moura BDS, DaSilva AF (2017) Reward circuitry plasticity in pain perception and modulation. Front Pharmacol 8: 790. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00790
    [164] Harris HN, Peng YB (2020) Evidence and explanation for the involvement of the nucleus accumbens in pain processing. Neuro Regen Res 15: 597-605. doi: 10.4103/1673-5374.266909
    [165] Yu R, Gollub RL, Spaeth R, et al. (2014) Disrupted functional connectivity of the periaqueductal gray in chronic low back pain. Neuroimage Clin 6: 100-108. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2014.08.019
    [166] Li Y, Wang Y, Xuan C, et al. (2017) Role of the lateral habenula in pain-associated depression. Front Behav Neurosci 11: 31.
    [167] Shelton L, Becerra L, Borsook D (2012) Unmasking the mysteries of the habenula in pain and analgesia. Prog Neurobiol 96: 208-219. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.01.004
    [168] Shelton L, Pendse G, Maleki N, et al. (2012) Mapping pain activation and connectivity of the human habenula. J Neurophysiol 107: 2633-2648. doi: 10.1152/jn.00012.2012
    [169] Kaschube M, Schnabel M, Wolf F, et al. (2009) Interareal coordination of columnar architectures during visual cortical development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 17205-17210. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0901615106
    [170] Stermensky II G, Moss RA (2017) Cognitive symptoms and effects of stress. Stress in the modern world: Understanding science and society Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
    [171] Ecker B (2015) Memory reconsolidation understood and misunderstood. Int J Neuropsychother 3: 2-46. doi: 10.12744/ijnpt.2015.0002-0046
    [172] Bossert JM, Stern AL, Theberge FRM, et al. (2012) Role of projections from ventral medial prefrontal cortex to nucleus accumbens shell in context-induced reinstatement of heroin seeking. J Neurosci 32: 4982-4991. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0005-12.2012
    [173] Hecht D (2010) Depression and the hyperactive right-hemisphere. Neurosci Res 68: 77-87. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2010.06.013
    [174] Rogers CR (1957) The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. J Consult Psychol 21: 95-103. doi: 10.1037/h0045357
    [175] Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, et al. (2020) Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117: 6476-6483. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1916903117
    [176] Hauner KK, Mineka S, Voss JL, et al. (2012) Exposure therapy triggers lasting reorganization of neural fear processing. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109: 9203-9208. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205242109
    [177] Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG (1992) Social psychological contributions to the decade of the brain: Doctrine of multilevel analysis. Am Psychol 47: 1019-1028. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.8.1019
    [178] Adolphs R (2010) Conceptual challenges and directions for social neuroscience. Neuron 65: 752-767. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.006
    [179] Sliwa J, Freiwald WA (2017) A dedicated network for social interaction processing in the primate brain. Science 356: 745-749. doi: 10.1126/science.aam6383
    [180] Adolphs R (2001) The neurobiology of social cognition. Curr Opin Neurobiol 11: 231-239. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00202-6
    [181] Bates JE, Goodnight JA, Fite JE (2010) Temperament and emotion. Handbook of emotions New York: Guilford Press, 485-496.
    [182] Panksepp J (2010) The affective brain and core consciousness: How does neural activity generate emotional feelings? Handbook of emotions New York: Guilford Press, 47-67.
    [183] DeYoung CG, Gray JR (2009) Personality neuroscience: Explaining individual differences in affect, behavior, and cognition. The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology New York: Cambridge University Press, 323-346. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511596544.023
    [184] Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992)  NEO PI-R professional manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
    [185] John OP, Srivastava S (1999) The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research New York: Guilford, 102-138.
    [186] Jang KL, Livesley WJ, Ando J, et al. (2006) Behavioral genetics of the higher-order factors of the Big Five. Pers Individ Differ 41: 261-272. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.033
    [187] DeYoung CG (2013) The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Front Hum Neurosci 7: 762. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762
    [188] Wright AG, Creswell KG, Flory JD, et al. (2019) Neurobiological functioning and the personality-trait hierarchy: Central serotonergic responsivity and the stability metatrait. Psychol Sci 30: 1413-1423. doi: 10.1177/0956797619864530
    [189] DeYoung CG, Hirsh JB, Shane MS, et al. (2010) Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the Big Five. Psychol Sci 21: 820-828. doi: 10.1177/0956797610370159
    [190] Wang RW, Chang WL, Chuang SW, et al. (2019) Posterior cingulate cortex can be a regulatory modulator of the default mode network in task-negative state. Sci Rep 9: 1-12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2
    [191] Fukuda H, Ma N, Suzuki S, et al. (2019) Computing social value conversion in the human brain. J Neurosci 39: 5153-5172. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3117-18.2019
    [192] Seitzman BA, Gratton C, Laumann TO, et al. (2019) Trait-like variants in human functional brain networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116: 22851-22861. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1902932116
    [193] Moss RA, Walker GR (2009)  For better or for worse: Am I in love with a giver or a taker Greenville, SC: Center for Emotional Restructuring.
    [194] Foa EB, Rothbaum BO (1998)  Treating the trauma of rape: Cognitive–behavioral therapy for PTSD New York: Guilford.
    [195] Dickerson SS, Kemeny ME (2004) Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychol Bull 130: 355-391. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355
    [196] Bräscher AK, Becker S, Hoeppli ME, et al. (2016) Different brain circuitries mediating controllable and uncontrollable pain. J Neurosci 36: 5013-5025. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1954-15.2016
    [197] Miller GE, Chen E, Parker KJ (2011) Psychological stress in childhood and susceptibility to the chronic diseases of aging: Moving toward a model of behavioral and biological mechanisms. Psychol Bull 137: 959-997. doi: 10.1037/a0024768
    [198] Heim C, Wagner D, Maloney E, et al. (2006) Early adverse experience and risk for chronic fatigue syndrome: results from a population-based study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 63: 1258-1266. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1258
    [199] Bower JE, Crosswell AD, Slavich GM (2014) Childhood adversity and cumulative life stress risk factors for cancer-related fatigue. Clin Psychol Sci 2: 108-115. doi: 10.1177/2167702613496243
    [200] Housley J, Beutler LE (2007)  Treating victims of mass disaster and terrorism Cambridge, Massachusetts: Hogrefe.
    [201] Greenberg LS (2010) The clinical application of emotion in psychotherapy. Handbook of emotions New York: Guilford, 88-101.
    [202] Shapiro F (2017)  Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures New York: Guilford Publications.
    [203] Solomon RL (1980) The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. Am Psychol 35: 691-712. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.8.691
    [204] Hurvich LM, Jameson D (1957) An opponent-process theory of color vision. Psychol Rev 64: 384-404. doi: 10.1037/h0041403
    [205] Solomon RL, Corbit JD (1973) An opponent-process theory of motivation: II. Cigarette addiction. J Abnorm Psychol 81: 158-171. doi: 10.1037/h0034534
    [206] Solomon RL, Corbit JD (1974) An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychol Rev 81: 119-145. doi: 10.1037/h0036128
    [207] Smith DM, Loewenstein G, Jankovic A, et al. (2009) Happily hopeless: Adaptation to a permanent, but not to a temporary, disability. Health Psychol 28: 787-791. doi: 10.1037/a0016624
    [208] Kirchner T, Lara S (2011) Stress and depression symptoms in patients with multiple sclerosis: The mediating role of loss of social functioning. Acta Neurol Scand 123: 407-413. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2010.01422.x
    [209] Nicholson P (1999) Loss, happiness and postpartum depression: the ultimate paradox. Can Psychol 40: 162-178. doi: 10.1037/h0086834
    [210] Lewinsohn PM (1974) Clinical and theoretical aspects of depression. Innovative treatment methods in psychopathology New York: Wiley, 63-120.
    [211] Grossberg S, Schmajuk NA (1987) Neural dynamics of attentionally modulated Pavlovian conditioning: Conditioned reinforcement, inhibition, and opponent processing. Psychobiology 15: 195-240.
    [212] Hollerman JR, Schultz W (1998) Dopamine neurons report an error in the temporal prediction of reward during learning. Nat Neurosci 1: 304-309. doi: 10.1038/1124
    [213] Mink JW (2008) The basal ganglia. Fundamental neuroscience New York: Academic Press, 725-750.
    [214] Gundel H, O'Connor MF, Littrell L, et al. (2003) Functional neuroanatomy of grief: An fMRI study. Am J Psychiatry 160: 1946-1953. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1946
    [215] O'Connor MF, Wellisch DK, Stanton AL, et al. (2008) Craving love? Enduring grief activates brain's reward center. Neuroimage 42: 969-972. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.256
    [216] Shear K, Frank E, Houck PR, et al. (2005) Treatment of complicated grief: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 293: 2601-2608. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.21.2601
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Anjan Kumar Sahoo, Ranjan Kumar Jena, Reduction of torque ripple in induction motor-driven electric vehicle using optimized stator flux, 2023, 2511-2104, 10.1007/s41870-023-01172-3
    2. Anjan Kumar Sahoo, Subrat Kumar Dash, Ranjan Kumar Jena, 2022, Torque Ripple Reduction of Induction Motor-based Electric Vehicle Using Artificial Neural Network, 978-1-6654-7072-8, 1, 10.1109/MESIICON55227.2022.10093574
    3. Saqib J Rind, Saba Javed, Yawar Rehman, Mohsin Jamil, Sliding mode control rotor flux MRAS based speed sensorless induction motor traction drive control for electric vehicles, 2023, 7, 2578-1588, 354, 10.3934/electreng.2023019
    4. Ahmed Chantoufi, Aziz Derouich, Najib El Ouanjli, Said Mahfoud, Abderrahman El Idrissi, Ahmad F. Tazay, Mohamed I. Mosaad, Direct Torque Control-Based Backstepping Speed Controller of Doubly Fed Induction Motors in Electric Vehicles: Experimental Validation, 2024, 12, 2169-3536, 139758, 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3462821
    5. Ihsane Benagri, Touria Haidi, Mounir Derri, Faissal Elmariami, El Mehdi Mellouli, Doha Bouabdallaoui, 2024, Electric Motor Control Methods and Improvements Applied to Electric Vehicles: A State of the Art, 979-8-3503-0950-8, 1, 10.1109/IRASET60544.2024.10548452
    6. Anjan Kumar Sahoo, Ranjan Kumar Jena, Loss model based controller of fuzzy DTC driven induction motor for electric vehicles using optimal stator flux, 2023, 6, 27726711, 100304, 10.1016/j.prime.2023.100304
    7. Amel Kasri, Kamel Ouari, Youcef Belkhier, Mohit Bajaj, Ievgen Zaitsev, Optimizing electric vehicle powertrains peak performance with robust predictive direct torque control of induction motors: a practical approach and experimental validation, 2024, 14, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-65988-0
    8. Ahmed Chantoufi, Aziz Derouich, Najib EL Ouanjli, Said Mahfoud, Abderrahman El Idrissi, Improved Direct Torque Control of Doubly Fed induction Motor in Electric Vehicles using Fuzzy Logic Controllers, 2024, 27726711, 100882, 10.1016/j.prime.2024.100882
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7061) PDF downloads(289) Cited by(4)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog