The brain is the key organ of stress reactivity, coping, and recovery processes. Within the brain, a distributed neural circuitry determines what is threatening and thus stressful to the individual. Instrumental brain systems of this circuitry include the hippocampus, amygdala, and areas of the prefrontal cortex. Together, these systems regulate physiological and behavioral stress processes, which can be adaptive in the short-term and maladaptive in the longterm. Importantly, such stress processes arise from bidirectional patterns of communication between the brain and the autonomic, cardiovascular, and immune systems via neural and endocrine mechanisms underpinning cognition, experience, and behavior. In one respect, these bidirectional stress mechanisms are protective in that they promote short-term adaptation (allostasis). In another respect, however, these stress mechanisms can lead to a long-term dysregulation of allostasis in that they promote maladaptive wear-and-tear on the body and brain under chronically stressful conditions (allostatic load), compromising stress resiliency and health. This review focuses specifically on the links between stress-related processes embedded within the social environment and embodied within the brain, which is viewed as the central mediator and target of allostasis and allostatic load.

The brain is the key organ of stress processes. It determines what individuals will experience as stressful, it orchestrates how individuals will cope with stressful experiences, and it changes both functionally and structurally as a result of stressful experiences. Within the brain, a distributed, dynamic, and plastic neural circuitry coordinates, monitors, and calibrates behavioral and physiological stress response systems to meet the demands imposed by particular stressors. These allodynamic processes can be adaptive in the short term (allostasis) and maladaptive in the long term (allostatic load). Critically, these processes involve bidirectional signaling between the brain and body. Consequently, allostasis and allostatic load can jointly affect vulnerability to brain-dependent and stress-related mental and physical health conditions. This review focuses on the role of brain plasticity in adaptation to, and pathophysiology resulting from, stressful experiences. It also considers interventions to prevent and treat chronic and prevalent health conditions via allodynamic brain mechanisms.

Neuroimaging has identified many correlates of emotion but has not yet yielded brain representations predictive of the intensity of emotional experiences in individuals. We used machine learning to identify a sensitive and specific signature of emotional responses to aversive images. This signature predicted the intensity of negative emotion in individual participants in cross validation (n =121) and test (n = 61) samples (high–low emotion = 93.5% accuracy). It was unresponsive to physical pain (emotion–pain = 92% discriminative accuracy), demonstrating that it is not a representation of generalized arousal or salience. The signature was comprised of mesoscale patterns spanning multiple cortical and subcortical systems, with no single system necessary or sufficient for predicting experience. Furthermore, it was not reducible to activity in traditional “emotion-related” regions (e.g., amygdala, insula) or resting-state networks (e.g., “salience,” “default mode”). Overall, this work identifies differentiable neural components of negative emotion and pain, providing a basis for new, brain-based taxonomies of affective processes.

In this article, we argued that the term stress has served as a valuable heuristic, helping researchers to integrate traditions that illuminate different stages of the process linking stressful life events to disease. We provided a short history of three traditions in the study of stress: the epidemiological, psychological, and biological. The epidemiological tradition focuses on defining which circumstances and experiences are deemed stressful on the basis of consensual agreement that they constitute threats to social or physical well-being. The psychological tradition focuses on individuals’ perceptions of the stress presented by life events on the basis of their appraisals of the threats posed and the availability of effective coping resources. The biological tradition focuses on brain-based perturbations of physiological systems that are otherwise essential for normal homeostatic regulation and metabolic control. The foci of these three traditions have informed elements of a stage model of disease, wherein events appraised as stressful are viewed as triggering affective states that in turn engender behavioral and biological responses having possible downstream implications for disease.

The aim of the present study was to characterize the functional relationships between behaviorally evoked regional brain activation and cardiac autonomic activity in humans. Concurrent estimates of regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF; obtained by positron emission tomography), heart period, and high-frequency heart period variability (HFHPV; an indicator of cardiac parasympathetic activity) were examined in 93 adults (aged 50-70 years) who performed a series of increasingly difficult working-memory tasks. Increased task difficulty resulted in decreased heart period (indicating cardioacceleration) and decreased HF-HPV (indicating decreased cardiac parasympathetic activity). Task-induced decreases in heart period and HF-HPV were associated with concurrent increases and decreases in rCBF to cortical and subcortical brain regions that are speculated to regulate cardiac autonomic activity during behavioral processes: the medialprefrontal, insular, and anterior cingulate cortices, the amygdala-hippocampal complex, and the cerebellum. These findings replicate and extend a small number of functional neuroimaging studies that suggest an important role for both cortical and subcortical brain systems in human cardiac autonomic regulation. KeywordsCentral cardiac autonomic regulation; Heart period; High-frequency heart period variability; Positron emission tomography The cortical and subcortical brain systems that regulate cardiac autonomic activity during behavior have been detailed by extensive research in nonhuman animals (reviewed by Bennarroch, 1997;Buchanan & Powell, 1993;Loewy & Spyer, 1990 NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptHurley, Ruit, & Frysztak, 1993). An open question is whether similar brain systems regulate behaviorally integrated cardiac autonomic activity in humans. Answering this question is important because the brain's regulation of cardiac autonomic activity is purported to influence a range of behavioral processes: attending to novel stimuli (Porges, 1995), processing environmental information (Lacey & Lacey, 1974), making decisions (Damasio, 1994), experiencing fear and anxiety (Berntson, Sarter, & Cacioppo, 1998), perceiving pain (Dworkin et al., 1994;Rosen et al., 1996), and reacting to stressors (Lovallo & Gerin, 2003) are examples of such processes.Drawing on the support of nonhuman animal research, the cortical brain systems that are hypothesized to regulate cardiac autonomic activity during behavior include the medialprefrontal (Brodmann Areas 10 and 11), insular, and anterior cingulate (Brodmann Areas 24, 25, and 32) regions of the cortex. A prevailing view is that these cortical systems act as a network with subcortical systems to initiate and represent cardiac autonomic adjustments that support behavioral responses to environmental, psychological, and social stimuli (Bennarroch, 1997;Cechetto, 1994;Groenewegen & Uylings, 2000;Loewy & Spyer, 1990;Thayer & Lane, 2000). Subcortical regions that are thought to regulate behaviorally integrated cardiac ...