Functional neuroanatomy of emotions: A meta-analysis

Murphy, Fionnuala C.; Nimmo‐Smith, Ian; Lawrence, Andrew D.

doi:10.3758/cabn.3.3.207

Cited by 934 publications

(769 citation statements)

References 206 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

661

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These areas are included in the core and extended face processing brain system, according to the Haxby et al model (Haxby et al 2000;Gobbini and Haxby 2007). Furthermore, these data support the proposed right hemispheric dominance in face perception (Murphy et al 2003). faces perception network and represents facial components, so is essential for facial identity (Li et al 2010;Pitcher et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is a neutral expression also a neutral stimulus? A study with functional magnetic resonance

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: El acceso a la versión del editor puede requerir la suscripción del recurso Access to the published version may require subscription AbstractAlthough neutral faces do not initially convey an explicit emotional message, it has been found that individuals tend to assign them an affective content. Moreover, previous research has shown that affective judgments are mediated by the task they have to perform. Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 21 healthy participants, we focus this study on the cerebral activity patterns triggered by neutral and emotional faces in two different tasks (social or gender judgments). Results obtained, using conjunction analyses, indicated that viewing both emotional and neutral faces evokes activity in several similar brain areas indicating a common neural substrate. Moreover, neutral faces specifically elicit activation of cerebellum, frontal and temporal areas while emotional faces involve the cuneus, anterior cingulated gyrus, medial orbitofrontal cortex, posterior superior temporal gyrus, precentral/postcentral gyrus and insula. The task selected was also found to influence brain activity, in that the social task recruited frontal areas while the gender task involved the posterior cingulated, inferior parietal lobule and middle temporal gyrus to a greater extent. Specifically, in the social task viewing neutral faces was associated with longer reaction times and increased activity of left dorsolateral frontal cortex compared with viewing facial expressions of emotions. In contrast, in the same task emotional expressions distinctively activated the left amygdale. The results are discussed taking into consideration the fact that, like other facial expressions, neutral expressions are usually assigned some emotional significance. However, neutral faces evoke a greater activation of circuits probably involved in more elaborate cognitive processing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…However, different meta-analytic reviews of the relevant emotion neuroimaging literature have reached somewhat different conclusions regarding which specific neural networks are associated with each basic emotion (Phan et al, 2002;Murphy et al, 2003;Fusar-Poli et al, 2009a, b;Vytal and Hamann, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is a neutral expression also a neutral stimulus? A study with functional magnetic resonance

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drexler et al (2000) replicated this finding and also observed that anger caused greater activation of the left medial frontal gyrus and left cuneus. A meta-analysis by Murphy, Nimmo-Smith, and Lawrence (2003) found anger was associated with greater left anterior activations in the nine studies they reviewed.…”

Section: Hemispheric Activation Affect and Motivational Directionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

Carver¹,

Harmon‐Jones²

2009

Psychological Bulletin

1,366

1,165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors review a range of evidence concerning the motivational underpinnings of anger as an affect, with particular reference to the relationship between anger and anxiety or fear. The evidence supports the view that anger relates to an appetitive or approach motivational system, whereas anxiety relates to an aversive or avoidance motivational system. This evidence appears to have 2 implications. One implication concerns the nature of anterior cortical asymmetry effects. The evidence suggests that such asymmetry reflects direction of motivational engagement (approach vs. withdrawal) rather than affective valence. The other implication concerns the idea that affects form a purely positive dimension and a purely negative dimension, which reflect the operation of appetitive and aversive motivational systems, respectively. The evidence reviewed does not support that view. The evidence is, however, consistent with a discrete-emotions view (which does not rely on dimensionality) and with an alternative dimensional approach.Keywords: anger, approach, appetitive system, avoidance, threat system Recent years have seen a surge of interest in emotional experience (e.g., Barrett, Niedenthal, & Winkielman, 2005;Dalgleish & Power, 1999;Davidson, Scherer, & Goldsmith, 2003;Frijda, 2007; Lane & Nadel, 2000;Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2000;Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988;Panksepp, 1998; Rottenberg & Johnson, 2007; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001). Views of emotion vary considerably, in several respects. As one example, some people view emotions as a set of distinct modular entities, often considered basic emotions (e.g., Ekman, 1992;Izard, 1991;Izard & Ackerman, 2000;Levenson, 1994Levenson, , 1999Panksepp, 1998;Roseman, 1991). Others hold that affects are best understood by reference to underlying dimensions (e.g., Barrett, 2006;Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999;Carver & Scheier, 1998;Davidson, 1998;Gray, 1994a;Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1992Russell, 2003;Russell & Carroll, 1999a, 1999bWatson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999;Yik, Russell, & Barrett, 1999). AngerThis article focuses on one specific affect-anger. Specifically, it addresses the relationship of this affect to broad motivational tendencies of approach and avoidance, and it considers implications of that relationship for two areas of thought and research. We begin with a few words about definitions.Sometimes the terms affect, feeling, and emotion are treated as interchangeable (e.g., Isen, 2000); sometimes they are distinguished from each other (e.g., Fredrickson, 2001;. Affect is generally used to imply a hedonic experience, a sense of valence, a subjective sense of positivity or negativity arising from an event. When many use the word emotion, it is with that sense in mind. As Frijda (2000) put it, "For many theorists, the essence of emotion is feeling, and notably 'affect,' here used in the sense of a feeling of pleasure or pain . . . ." (p. 63). As Ortony et al. (1988) put it, emotions are ". . valenced reactions to events, agents, or objects . ." (p. 13). T...

show abstract

“…A robust finding within this literature is that neural pathways linking early stages of processing within the thalamus with response in the amygdala partially mediate the rapid identification of environmental sources of potential threat in humans (recent reviews by: Phelps, 2006;Shinnick-Gallagher, Pitkanen, Shekhar, & Cahill, 2003;Vuilleumier & Pourtois, 2007;Zald, 2003). For example, neuroimaging studies have consistently shown that the human amygdala responds more strongly to threatening than to neutral faces and complex scenes (Murphy, Nimmo-Smith, & Lawrence, 2003;Phan, Wager, Taylor, &Liberzon, 2002) and words (e.g., Kiehl, Smith, Mendrek, Forster, Hare, & Liddle, 1998; Maddock, Garrett, & Buonocore, 2003;Tabert et al, 2001), all of the stimuli thus far studied within the dot-probe task. Moreover, two recent neuroimaging studies confirm the involvement of the amygdala in the processing of threatening stimuli as presented specifically within the context of the dot-probe task (Armony & Dolan, 2002; Monk et al, 2004; see also Amin, Constable, & Canli, 2004).…”

Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective attention to threat versus reward: Meta-analysis and neural-network modeling of the dot-probe task

Frewen

Dozois

Joanisse

et al. 2008

Clinical Psychology Review

175

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two decades of research conducted to date has examined selective visual attention to threat and reward stimuli as a function of individual differences in anxiety using the dot-probe task. The present study tests a connectionist neural-network model of meta-analytic and key individual study results derived from this literature. Attentional bias for threatening and reward-related stimuli is accounted for by connectionist model implementation of the following clinical psychology and affective neuroscience principles: 1) affective learning and temperament, 2) state and trait anxiety, 3) intensity appraisal, 4) affective chronometry, 5) attentional control, and 6) selective attention training. Theoretical implications for the study of mood and anxiety disorders are discussed.Key Words: Dot-Probe Task, Selective Attention, Threat, Reward, Anxiety, Depression, Connectionism, Neural Network, Amygdala. A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTSelective Attention for Reward & Threat 3 Selective Attention to Threat versus Reward: Meta-analysis and Neural-Network Modeling of the Dot-Probe TaskTheoretical constructs and research methodologies derived from cognitive psychology figure prominently in current emotion research, including investigations into the nature and function of anxiety. For example, cognitive researchers have been studying how individuals visually attend to threatening stimuli, and how between-subject variability in the functioning of attentional systems may correlate with individual differences in anxiety-related traits and disorders (e.g., Williams, Watts, MacLeod, & Matthews, 1997).Evolutionary models of emotion and attention hypothesize that nature may have programmed the visual-attention system to attend selectively to stimuli of biological significance, including both to cues of possible impending threat (e.g., predators), on the one hand, and to cues of potential reinforcement-reward value (e.g., food, mates), on the other (e.g., LeDoux, 1996;Panksepp, 1998;Rolls, 1999). Attentional mechanisms procuring the rapid detection of sources of potential environmental threat are therefore presumed to afford an obvious survival-facilitating mechanism (A. Mathews & Mackintosh, 1998;A. Mathews, Mackintosh, & Fulcher, 1997;. However, an equally integral attentional function to the biological fitness of organisms is to orient toward stimuli of potential reward-value in their environments (Panksepp, 1998;Rolls, 1999).It may be that reward-and threat-detection are performed by distinct attentional systems 1 . Specifically, threat detection attentional mechanisms may represent secondary interrupt programs that continuously perform a background analysis of stimuli regarding their likelihood of representing a source of danger, attaining foreground and conscious significance only to the extent that this analysis results in the detection of relatively significant sources of danger (e.g., LeDoux, 1996). Otherwise, the default and primary orientation of attention may be toward reward-relevant stimuli...

show abstract

Functional neuroanatomy of emotions: A meta-analysis

Cited by 934 publications

References 206 publications

Is a neutral expression also a neutral stimulus? A study with functional magnetic resonance

Is a neutral expression also a neutral stimulus? A study with functional magnetic resonance

Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

Selective attention to threat versus reward: Meta-analysis and neural-network modeling of the dot-probe task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About