Columbia Psychology SCAN Unit
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 1

How negative do you feel? PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 39 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Columbia Psychology SCAN Unit. http://www.scan.psych.columbia.edu/. 5. r = 0.36. 6. r = 0.44. 5. 4. 3. 0. Reapp Neg > Look Neg BOLD. 2. IFG. 1. 0. VMPFC. -1. -5. Hippocampus. 1. 1. 1.5. 0. 0.5. 2. 1.5. 2. 2.5. 3. Drop in Negative Affect

Download Presentation

How negative do you feel?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


How negative do you feel

Columbia Psychology SCAN Unit

http://www.scan.psych.columbia.edu/

5

r = 0.36

6

r = 0.44

5

4

3

0

Reapp Neg > Look Neg BOLD

2

IFG

1

0

VMPFC

-1

-5

Hippocampus

1

1

1.5

0

0.5

2

1.5

2

2.5

3

Drop in Negative Affect

(Neutral - Negative Affect Report)

Drop in Negative Affect

(Negative - Reapp Affect Report)

Midbrain

Rostral

PFC

Cerebellum

Post. Insula

Ant Insula

Sup temporal

Thalamus

3

r = 0.44

Figure 3. Look Neg >Look Neutral Intersection with Covariate (activation at p < .05 FDR corrected (p < .004), AND correlated with reduced affect p < 0.05)

DMPFC

2

DMPFC

Activation and positive correlation

R DLPFC

R DLPFC

1

Deactivation and negative correlation

SMA

Activation and negative correlation

0

Deactivation and positive correlation

-1

Activation and positive correlation

Anticipation and Stimulus Trial

Deactivation and negative correlation

2

2.5

1

1.5

3

4 – 7 sec

2.1 sec

4 – 7 sec

4 sec

2 sec

8 sec

Activation and negative correlation

How

negative

do you

feel?

Deactivation and positive correlation

+

+

+

2

r = 0.39

Figure 1

1

0

-1

-2

Cerebellum

-3

1

1.5

0

0.5

2

Drop in Negative Affect

(Neutral - Negative Affect Report)

Drop in Negative Affect

(Negative - Reapp Affect Report)

Step 3

Step 4

Step 1: Look Neg > Look Neutral

Intersection

Figure 5. Intersection of Figure 3 and Figure 4 (p < .1 FDR activation and p < .05 correlation)

Figure 3

Step 2: Look Neg > Look Neutral Cov

DMPFC

Intersection

Activation correlated positively with reductions in negative affect

Figure 5

Step 1: Reappraisal > Look Neg

Intersection

Figure 4

Step 2: Reappraisal > Look Neg Cov

Figure 2

Spontaneous and instructed regulation of negative emotion

Brent L. Hughes, Tor D. Wager, Matthew L. Davidson, and Kevin N. Ochsner

Department of Psychology, Columbia University

324 Schermerhorn Hall

Department of Psychology

1190 Amsterdam Ave.

New York, NY 10027

Download this poster: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/tor/

RESULTS: fMRI ACTIVITY

RESULTS: REPORTED AFFECT

INTRODUCTION

  • BACKGROUND

  • The capacity to adaptively regulate emotion is essential for both mental and physical health

  • Recent imaging research has identified regions of PFC important for the goal-directed, deliberate, voluntary reappraisal of aversive stimuli (Beauregard et al., 2001; Ochsner et al., 2002; Phan et al., 2004; Urry et al., 2006)

  • Behavioral research (Erber, 1996) suggests that individuals also spontaneously regulate their emotion when faced with aversive situations, even when not explicitly directed to do so, but there are no brain-based studies of this.

  • QUESTION

  • In this study, we sought to identify common and distinct regions

  • involved in the spontaneous and instructed regulation of emotion

Regions Involved in Spontaneous

Regulation

Regions Involved in Instructed Regulation

Look Neg < Look Neu BOLD

Figure 6. Ratings of negative affect showed that reappraisal decreased negative affect reported in response to photos.

SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS

METHODS

  • The Look Neg > Look Neutral comparison showed increases in frontal, parietal, and insular cortices, amygdala, nucleus accumbens (NACC), and brainstem, and decreases in ventromedial frontal cortex, superior temporal cortices, and mid-cingulate. 

  • Conjunction analyses revealed regions whose activity correlated with reduced affect, including the anterior insula/opercular junction, hippocampus, midbrain, Right IFG, DMPFC, dACC, and cerebellum. These regions may play roles in the appraisal process and/or internally guided interpretations of aversive pictures. Decreases in VMPFC and superior temporal cortex may relate to differences in the self-relevance of pictures, cognitive activity, or affective experience.

  • To further constrain this hypothesis, we compared Look Neg activity with activity elicited by the voluntary reappraisal of negative affect.  Compared with viewing negative images, reappraising them (Reapp Neg > Look Neg) further increased activity in a number of similar sites, including lateral and medial frontal cortices, ventral striatum, and thalamus.  Decreases were found in amygdala, parahippocampal cortex, and STS. Frontal activity was most strongly correlated with changes in affect reports. 

  • DMPFC and right IFG showed activations and correlations with reduced affect reports in both free-viewing and instructed conditions. These regions are candidate regions for voluntary context-based control of appraisal.

  • PARTICIPANTS

  • n = 36 participants, mean age = 22 years

  • SCAN & ANALYSIS PARAMETERS

  • EPI BOLD imaging on 1.5T GE (TR = 2 s, 31 slices 3.5 x 3.5 x 4.5 mm voxels).

  • Pre-processing and 1st level analysis with SPM2

  • 2nd-level analysis using robust regression to down-weight outliers (Wager et al., 2005)

  • STIMULI

  • Negative and neutral IAPS images

  • TRIAL TYPES

  • Reappraise Negative Images = Instructed regulation

  • Look at Negative Images = Spontaneous responses, which could

  • include regulation of emotion

  • Look at Neutral Images = Spontaneous responses to neutral events

  • TRIAL STRUCTURE

2

2

1

1

Figure 4. Reapp Neg > Look Neg Intersection with Covariate (activation at p < .05 FDR corrected (p < .004), AND correlated with reduced affect p < 0.05)

Positive = positive correlation with reductions in affect

Positive = positive correlation with reductions in affect

Common Regions for Spontaneous and Instructed Regulation

REFERENCES

  • ANALYSIS PATHWAY

  • Step 1 Used contrasts to identify regions (P < .05 FDR) involved in:

  • 1.Spontaneous responses to images (Look Neg > Look Neu)

  • 2.Instructed reappraisal (Reapp Neg > Look Neg)

  • Step 2 Used whole brain regression analyses with self-reported affect as a covariate to identify regions:

  • Whose activation predicts drops in negative affect when Looking at Negative Images

  • Whose activation predicts drops in negative affect during Reappraisal

  • Step 3 Identified intersection of Steps 1 and 2 (activated AND correlated).

  • Step 4 Identified regions involved in both spontaneous and instructed regulation (P < .1 FDR activation and p < .05 correlation in 1 AND 2)

  • (see Nichols et al., 2005 for details on conjunction analysis methods.)

Beauregard, M, Levesque, J, Bourgouin, P. (2001). Neural Correlates of

Conscious Self-Regulation of Emotion. Journal of Neuroscience,

21: RC165: 1-6.

Erber, R. (1996). The self-regulation of moods. In L. L. Martin & A.Tesser

(Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect,and self-

regulation (pp. 251-275).

Harenski, CL, & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural correlates of regulating negative

emotions related to moral violations. NeuroImage, 30 (1), 313-324.

Nichols, T., Brett, M., Andersson, J., Wager, T., & Poline, J. B. (2005). Valid conjunction

inference with the minimum statistic. Neuroimage, 25(3), 653-660.

Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An

fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,

14:8.

Phan, K. L., Fitzgerald, D. A., Nathan, P. J., Moore, G. J., Uhde, T. W.,&

Tancer, M. E. (2005). Neural substrates for voluntary suppression

of negative affect: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study.

Biol Psychiatry, 57(3), 210-219.

Urry, H. L., van Reekum, C. M., Johnstone, T., Kalin, N. H., Thurow, M.E.,

Schaefer, H. S., et al. (2006). Amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal

cortex are inversely coupled during regulation of negative affect and

predict the diurnal pattern of cortisol secretion among older adults.

JNeurosci, 26(16), 4415-4425.

Wager, T. D., Keller, M. C., Lacey, S. C., & Jonides, J. (2005). Increased sensitivity in

neuroimaging analyses using robust regression. NeuroImage, 26(1), 99-113.

Wager, T. D., Phan, K. L., Liberzon, I., & Taylor, S. F. (2003). Valence, gender, and

lateralization of functional brain anatomy in emotion: A meta-analysis of findings from

neuroimaging. Neuroimage, 19, 513-531.

Reapp Neg > Look Neg BOLD

Look Neg < Look Neu BOLD

Temporal/

Occipital Cortex

R IFG


  • Login