Comment: The Methodological and Conceptual Utility of Differentiating Emotional Arousal

Abstract

The concept of psychophysiological arousal as a component of emotional behavior has a long history, but has not attracted the research attention paid to valence in the burgeoning field of affective neuroscience. The potency of emotional stimuli is often poorly balanced in studies designed to assess appetitive and aversive stimulus processing, and thus I applaud Picard and colleagues' choice to highlight the arousal dimension of emotional behavior. Any attempt to understand the nature of human emotion must carefully balance the evocative impact of appetitive and aversive processes. By focusing on the contribution of arousal to emotional processing, Picard advances this goal. In this comment I suggest methodological and conceptual refinements that may help to strengthen the multiple arousal theory perspective.

An Investigation on Bilateral Asymmetry in Electrodermal Activity

“…The scope and extent of our study is not suitable for a conclusive judgment on a possible multiple arousal theory. Given the early stage of the research on this topic and the previously stated need for more and systematic hypothesis-driven research on this question (Mendes, 2016; Richter, 2016; Sabatinelli, 2016), we propose in the following a range of potential explanatory approaches and suggestions for research designs that will hopefully stimulate further research on a possible multiple arousal theory.…”

“…The suggested “multiple arousal theory” raised considerable interest and resulted in several commentaries followed by authors’ response (Critchley and Nagai, 2015; Mendes, 2016; Norman, 2016; Picard et al, 2016; Richter, 2016; Sabatinelli, 2016). While these commentaries were in general positive toward the concept of multiple arousal theory, the need for more systematic research including testable and falsifiable predictions has been voiced (Richter, 2016).…”

Response to Commentaries on “Multiple Arousal Theory and Daily-Life Electrodermal Activity Asymmetry”

“…As Mendes (2016) points out, it may be valuable to examine the connections between our findings and those of others who have differentiated benign from malignant arousal. Sabatinelli (2016) provides some careful methodological recommendations to strengthen the multiple arousal theory. We agree with his suggestions, and in fact one has been followed since this article was accepted: Akane Sano at MIT measured synchronized EDA on the left and right fingers (with traditional placements and gel) and on forearms (with dry electrodes) running the classic counting-backwards study with a new group of participants.…”