The amygdala (AMG) has been repeatedly implicated in the processing of threatening and negatively valenced stimuli and multiple fMRI paradigms have reported personality, genetic, and psychopathological associations with individual differences in AMG activation in these paradigms. Yet the interchangeability of activations in these probes has not been established, thus it remains unclear if we can interpret AMG responses on specific tasks as general markers of its reactivity. In this study we aimed to assess if different tasks that have been widely used within the Affective Neuroscience literature consistently recruit the AMG. METHOD: Thirty-two young healthy subjects completed four fMRI tasks that have all been previously shown to probe the AMG during processing of threatening stimuli: the Threat Face Matching (TFM), the Cued Aversive Picture (CAP), the Aversive and Erotica Pictures (AEP) and the Screaming Lady paradigm (SLp) tasks. Contrasts testing response to aversive stimuli relative to baseline or neutral stimuli were generated and correlations between activations in the AMG were calculated across tasks were performed for ROIs of the AMG. RESULTS: The TFM, CAP and AEP, but not the SLp, successfully recruit the AMG, among other brain regions, especially when contrasts were against baseline or nonsocial stimuli. Conjunction analysis across contrasts showed that visual cortices (VisCtx) were also consistently recruited. Correlation analysis between the extracted data for right and left AMG did not yield significant associations across tasks. By contrast, the extracted signal in VisCtx showed significant associations across tasks (range r=0.511-r=0.630). CONCLUSIONS: Three of the four paradigms revealed significant AMG reactivity, but individual differences in the magnitudes of AMG reactivity were not correlated across paradigms. By contrast, VisCtx activation appears to be a better candidate than the AMG as a measure of individual differences with convergent validity across negative emotion processing paradigms.
The amygdala (AMG) has been repeatedly implicated in the processing of threatening and negatively valenced stimuli and multiple fMRI paradigms have reported personality, genetic, and psychopathological associations with individual differences in AMG activation in these paradigms. Yet the interchangeability of activations in these probes has not been established, thus it remains unclear if we can interpret AMG responses on specific tasks as general markers of its reactivity. In this study we aimed to assess if different tasks that have been widely used within the Affective Neuroscience literature consistently recruit the AMG. METHOD: Thirty-two young healthy subjects completed four fMRI tasks that have all been previously shown to probe the AMG during processing of threatening stimuli: the Threat Face Matching (TFM), the Cued Aversive Picture (CAP), the Aversive and Erotica Pictures (AEP) and the Screaming Lady paradigm (SLp) tasks. Contrasts testing response to aversive stimuli relative to baseline or neutral stimuli were generated and correlations between activations in the AMG were calculated across tasks were performed for ROIs of the AMG. RESULTS: The TFM, CAP and AEP, but not the SLp, successfully recruit the AMG, among other brain regions, especially when contrasts were against baseline or nonsocial stimuli. Conjunction analysis across contrasts showed that visual cortices (VisCtx) were also consistently recruited. Correlation analysis between the extracted data for right and left AMG did not yield significant associations across tasks. By contrast, the extracted signal in VisCtx showed significant associations across tasks (range r=0.511-r=0.630). CONCLUSIONS: Three of the four paradigms revealed significant AMG reactivity, but individual differences in the magnitudes of AMG reactivity were not correlated across paradigms. By contrast, VisCtx activation appears to be a better candidate than the AMG as a measure of individual differences with convergent validity across negative emotion processing paradigms.
Authors: Jack B Nitschke; Issidoros Sarinopoulos; Kristen L Mackiewicz; Hillary S Schaefer; Richard J Davidson Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2005-09-21 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Patrick M Fisher; Cheryl L Grady; Martin K Madsen; Stephen C Strother; Gitte M Knudsen Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Ahmad R Hariri; Venkata S Mattay; Alessandro Tessitore; Bhaskar Kolachana; Francesco Fera; David Goldman; Michael F Egan; Daniel R Weinberger Journal: Science Date: 2002-07-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Corinna Hartling; Sophie Metz; Corinna Pehrs; Milan Scheidegger; Rebecca Gruzman; Christian Keicher; Andreas Wunder; Anne Weigand; Simone Grimm Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2021-04-21
Authors: Juyoen Hur; Claire M Kaplan; Jason F Smith; Daniel E Bradford; Andrew S Fox; John J Curtin; Alexander J Shackman Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lea Marie Reisch; Martin Wegrzyn; Malena Mielke; Alexandra Mehlmann; Friedrich G Woermann; Johanna Kissler; Christian G Bien Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 5.399
Authors: Lea Marie Reisch; Martin Wegrzyn; Friedrich G Woermann; Christian G Bien; Johanna Kissler Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 5.399