Corrigendum to “Previous institutionalization is associated with elevated functional connectivity between the nucleus accumbens and amygdala during aversive learning” [Dev. Cognit. Neurosci. 76 (2025), 101617]

The authors regret that one individual should have been omitted from analyses due to an artifact in their MRI images. Upon discovering the error, the authors conducted revised analyses omitting this individual. No significant statistical results have changed. As the statistical values supporting these findings have changed, the authors have provided corrected text (changes in bold), revised figures, and corrected supplemental information.

ABSTRACT

Functional connectivity between the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) and amygdala was elevated among the PI versus comparison youth across stimuli (p=.031). Exploratory analyses found that NAcc-amygdala connectivity was elevated among the PI youth during early adolescence relative to late adolescence (p=.004).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

2.5.2 Preprocessing

Functional images were inspected before processing to identify artifacts and biological abnormalities. For n = 1 participant, images were excluded from functional connectivity analyses due to obvious artifacts affecting image quality. No other images were excluded on the basis of obvious artifacts or biological abnormalities.

RESULTS:

3.2.1 Effects across the full sample

The full model (Independent Variables: Group, Block, Stimulus, Block x Stimulus, Age, Sex, Mean Framewise Displacement) significantly explained variance in connectivity between the NAcc and amygdala (ꭓ²(11)=21.60, p = .028). Extending previous work identifying a significant Stimulus x Block interaction among the Comp youth (Rosenberg et al., 2024), there was a significant Stimulus x Block interaction across the full sample (b_CS+_nr_Block2 =-.09, b_CS-_Block2 =-.22, b_CS+_nr_Block3 =-.35, ꭓ²(3)=10.23, p = .017).

3.2.2 Associations with Previous Institutionalization

There was a significant main effect of Group (b=-.15, ꭓ²(1)=4.67, p = .031), such that the PI youth tended to show greater NAcc-amygdala connectivity during the task (Fig. 2 A; for results including n = 1 outlier block, see Supplement). Contrary to hypotheses, there was not a significant Group x Stimulus interaction (b_CS+_nr=-.08, b_CS-=-.24, ꭓ²(2)=3.94, p = .140), suggesting that elevated connectivity among the PI youth did not differ by stimulus type (Fig. 2B). Nonetheless, as we hypothesized that the PI group would show elevated connectivity for either the CS+_nr or CS-, and as the Group x Stimulus interaction includes all three stimulus types, we explored pairwise group differences for each stimulus type. These exploratory analyses identified a significant pairwise group difference for the CS- (Z = -2.81, p = .005), such that the PI group showed greater connectivity for the CS- compared with the Comp group, but not the CS+_r (Z = -.65, p = .514) nor CS+_nr (Z = -1.50, p = .134). These results tentatively suggest that the main effect of Group may have been partially driven by CS- blocks.

Furthermore, there was not a significant Group x Stimulus x Block interaction (CS+_r and Block 1 are reference conditions, b_CS+_nr_Block2 =.37, b_CS-_Block2 =.06, b_CS+_nr_Block3 =.10, ꭓ²(3)=2.57, p = .463). Nonetheless, as we hypothesized that the PI group would show elevated connectivity for either the CS+_nr or CS- during the task, and as the three-way interaction compares across all blocks and stimulus types, we explored pairwise group differences for each stimulus/block pairing. These exploratory analyses identified a significant pairwise group difference for CS- Block 2 (Z = -2.35, p = .019), such that the PI group showed greater connectivity for CS- Block 2 compared with the Comp group (Fig. 3). Exploratory analyses also found marginally significant pairwise group differences for CS+_nr Block 1 (Z = -1.93, p = .053) and CS- Block 1 (Z = -1.91, p = .056). All other pairwise comparisons were non-significant (p’s > .26). Collectively, these results suggest the PI youth showed greater NAcc-amygdala connectivity throughout the task, with exploratory evidence tentatively suggesting effects were clearest for safe blocks.

3.3.1 Association with Group

Contrary to hypotheses, there was not a significant main effect of Group in predicting RCADS-P scores (t(53)=-1.20, p = .235).

3.3.2 Association with NAcc-Amygdala Connectivity

Contrary to hypotheses, there was not a significant main effect of RCADS-P (b=.00, Z = .90, p = .369) nor a significant Group x RCADS-P interaction (b=.01, ꭓ²(1)=1.31, p = .190) in predicting NAcc-amygdala connectivity. There was a marginally significant three-way Group x Stimulus x RCADS-P interaction (CS+_r is the reference condition, b_CS+_nr=.00, b_CS-=.04, ꭓ²(2)=4.74, p = .094), suggesting that the previously identified Stimulus x RCADS-P interaction among the Comp youth (Rosenberg et al., 2024) was not similarly evident within the PI group. Follow-up analyses of this effect identified a marginally significant Group x RCADS-P interaction specifically for the CS- (b=.04, ꭓ²(1)=3.79, p = .052), but not the CS+_r (b=.00, ꭓ²(1)= .01, p = .919) nor CS+_nr (b=.00, ꭓ²(1)= .05, p = .824).

3.4.2 Association with NAcc-Amygdala Connectivity

There was not a significant main effect of Age (b=.00, Z = -.47, p = .642). There was a significant Group x Age interaction (b=.06, ꭓ²(1)=8.10, p = .004), such that the PI group showed greater connectivity compared with the Comp group at younger but not older ages (Fig. 4). This cross-sectional age effect tentatively suggests that differences in threat-related NAcc-Amygdala connectivity among the PI group may diminish during adolescence. Exploratory analyses did not identify a significant Group x Age x Stimulus interaction (CS+_r is the reference condition, b_CS+_nr=.02, b_CS-=.05, ꭓ²(2)=1.68, p = .431). Exploratory follow-up analyses determined that the Group x Age interaction was significant for the CS+_nr (b=.06, ꭓ²(1)=4.72, p = .030), such that among PI youth connectivity was negatively associated (i.e., became more similar to the Comp youth) with Age. The Group x Age interaction was marginally significant for the CS+_r (b=.04, ꭓ²(1)=2.99, p = .084) and the CS- (b=.07, ꭓ²(1)=3.13, p = .077) (Fig. 4).

Figure 2

Figure 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 4 Caption

Group x Stimulus x Age interaction predicting NAcc-amygdala functional connectivity during the aversive learning task. Exploratory results tentatively suggest that functional connectivity for each stimulus, and especially the CS+_nr, was elevated in the PI versus Comp group at younger but not older ages.

SUPPLEMENT

S1. Summary of Results in Main Text

In the main text, we reported a significant main effect of Group (p = .031) such that the PI group showed greater NAcc-amygdala connectivity throughout the task. Follow-up analyses indicated that this effect was significant for the CS- (p = .005) and not significant for the CS+_nr (p = .134) nor the CS+_r (p = .514). Additional analyses reported a significant Group x Age interaction (p = .004) in predicting NAcc-amygdala functional connectivity.

S2.2 NAcc-Amygdala Results

• 1)The main effect of Group in predicting NAcc-amygdala functional connectivity remained significant (ꭓ2(1)=4.22, p = .040), such that the PI group showed greater functional connectivity throughout the task.
• 2)The pairwise Group comparison of NAcc-amygdala functional connectivity for the CS- remained significant (ꭓ2(1)=5.67, p = .017), such that the PI group showed significantly greater functional connectivity for the CS- during the task.
• 3)The Group x Age interaction in predicting NAcc-amygdala functional connectivity remained significant (ꭓ2(1)=8.25, p = .004). The simple Group x Age interaction remained significant for the CS+_nr (ꭓ2(1)=4.72, p = .030), such that among the PI youth connectivity for the CS+_nr was negatively associated (i.e., became more similar to the Comp youth) with age.

In sum, winsorization of NAcc-amygdala functional connectivity for the outlying task block did not change the significance of core analyses reported in the main text.