Literature DB >> 20723605

Similarities and differences in perceiving threat from dynamic faces and bodies. An fMRI study.

M E Kret1, S Pichon, J Grèzes, B de Gelder.   

Abstract

Neuroscientific research on the perception of emotional signals has mainly focused on how the brain processes threat signals from photographs of facial expressions. Much less is known about body postures or about the processing of dynamic images. We undertook a systematic comparison of the neurofunctional network dedicated to processing facial and bodily expressions. Two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments investigated whether areas involved in processing social signals are activated differently by threatening signals (fear and anger) from facial or bodily expressions. The amygdala (AMG) was more active for facial than for bodily expressions. Body stimuli triggered higher activation than face stimuli in a number of areas. These were the cuneus, fusiform gyrus (FG), extrastriate body area (EBA), temporoparietal junction (TPJ), superior parietal lobule (SPL), primary somatosensory cortex (SI), as well as the thalamus. Emotion-specific effects were found in TPJ and FG for bodies and faces alike. EBA and superior temporal sulcus (STS) were more activated by threatening bodies.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20723605     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  62 in total

1.  Event-related repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of posterior superior temporal sulcus improves the detection of threatening postural changes in human bodies.

Authors:  Matteo Candidi; Bernard M C Stienen; Salvatore Maria Aglioti; Beatrice de Gelder
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Opposing amygdala and ventral striatum connectivity during emotion identification.

Authors:  Theodore D Satterthwaite; Daniel H Wolf; Amy E Pinkham; Kosha Ruparel; Mark A Elliott; Jeffrey N Valdez; Eve Overton; Janina Seubert; Raquel E Gur; Ruben C Gur; James Loughead
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 2.310

3.  Widespread and lateralized social brain activity for processing dynamic facial expressions.

Authors:  Wataru Sato; Takanori Kochiyama; Shota Uono; Reiko Sawada; Yasutaka Kubota; Sayaka Yoshimura; Motomi Toichi
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Neural development of mentalizing in moral judgment from adolescence to adulthood.

Authors:  Carla L Harenski; Keith A Harenski; Matthew S Shane; Kent A Kiehl
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 6.464

5.  Subcortical BOLD responses during visual sexual stimulation vary as a function of implicit porn associations in women.

Authors:  Charmaine Borg; Peter J de Jong; Janniko R Georgiadis
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 6.  The application of biological motion research: biometrics, sport, and the military.

Authors:  Kylie Steel; Eathan Ellem; David Baxter
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-02

7.  Clear signals or mixed messages: inter-individual emotion congruency modulates brain activity underlying affective body perception.

Authors:  A W de Borst; B de Gelder
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Lateral occipitotemporal cortex (LOTC) activity is greatest while viewing dance compared to visualization and movement: learning and expertise effects.

Authors:  Paula M Di Nota; Gabriella Levkov; Rachel Bar; Joseph F X DeSouza
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 9.  The dot-probe task to measure emotional attention: A suitable measure in comparative studies?

Authors:  Rianne van Rooijen; Annemie Ploeger; Mariska E Kret
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-12

10.  Effects of Oxytocin and Vasopressin on Preferential Brain Responses to Negative Social Feedback.

Authors:  Marta Gozzi; Erica M Dashow; Audrey Thurm; Susan E Swedo; Caroline F Zink
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 7.853

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.