What have these studies revealed about SAD? First, few studies have been performed so far, with even fewer replications. Most of the work has been exploratory in nature and follows the paradigms used in PD. This approach has been justifiably criticized. The use of psychological (naturalistic) challenges may be more appropriate in SP than chemical challenges. The paradigms of public speaking, autobiographical scripts, or similar behavioral challenges merit further use, exploration, and validation if symptoms resembling those of the condition proper are to be induced in experimental circumstances. However, some tentative conclusions can be drawn from the research performed so far. There is no enough evidence to support the presence of structural brain abnormality in SAD. Admittedly, such a finding would have been very unlikely. On the other hand, evidence of subtle functional abnormalities is accumulating. On the nosologic question, there appear to be differences from PD. While in some challenges (e.g., CO2 and pentagastrin) the two conditions differ only in degree, in others (e.g., lactate, caffeine, and flumazenil), the separation is clearer. Equally, there is a strong argument to differentiate the generalized from the specific form of social anxiety on the basis of substantial (albeit accidental) findings outlined earlier. More sophisticated neuroimaging techniques, directly comparing patients from both groups before and after pharmacologic or psychological treatment, should provide more conclusive evidence on this issue. What might also help future research is the integration of biological investigations with specific personality profiles. In one study, SAD patients scored low in novelty seeking, self-directedness and cooperativeness and high in harm avoidance. It has been hypothesized that such results indicate serotonergic and dopaminergic dysregulation, which is consistent with the findings described earlier. The best evidence for neurotransmitter abnormality so far is for altered dopamine function at the level of the basal ganglia, either pre- or postsynaptic, which may result in reduced basal ganglia function so that the normal fluidity of social motor functions (e.g., smiling, eye movements, and speech) are impaired, thus leading to the cognitive symptoms of social anxiety and the subsequent generation of avoidance behavior. Such patients should respond poorly to antipsychotics, and additional challenges with these drugs could be used to test this theory. Furthermore, more research needs to be done to elucidate the mechanism by which SSRIs work in SAD. Neuroanatomical models of social anxiety (Fig. 4) [see structure: Text], explaining the site of action of drugs and psychological treatments, have been proposed in recent years. Central to these models is the notion of an innate anxiety circuit, which could be tentatively identified with the behavioral inhibition system, the septohippocampal system. This area receives 5-HT, NE, and dopamine input and has connections with the cortex and limbic structures. The relevance of these models remains to be assessed in experiments that are specifically designed to test them.