| Literature DB >> 34687490 |
Malena Mielke1, Lea Marie Reisch1,2, Alexandra Mehlmann1, Sebastian Schindler3, Christian G Bien2, Johanna Kissler1.
Abstract
Human vision prioritizes emotional stimuli. This is reflected in stronger electrocortical activation in response to emotional than neutral stimuli, measurable on the surface of the head. Feedback projections from brain structures deep within the medial temporal lobes (mTLs), in particular the amygdala, are thought to give rise to this phenomenon, although causal evidence is rare. Given the many pathways involved in visual processing, the influence of mTL structures could be restricted to specific time windows. Therefore, we delineate the temporal dynamics of the impact of right mTL structures on affective picture processing, investigating event-related potentials (ERPs) in 19 patients (10 female) with right mTL resections and 19 individually matched healthy participants, while they viewed negative and neutral scenes. Groups differed significantly at early- and mid-latency processing stages. Patients with right mTL resection, unlike controls, showed no (P1: 90-140 ms) or marginal (N1: 170-220 ms) emotion modulation. At mid-latency (early posterior negativity: 220-370 ms), emotion modulation over the ipsi-resectional right hemisphere was smaller in patients than in controls, but groups did not differ over the left hemisphere. During late parietal positivities (400-650 ms and 650-900 ms), both groups had similar emotion modulation. Our results demonstrate that right mTL structures attenuate particularly early processing of affectively negative scenes. This is theoretically consistent with an initial amygdala-dependent feedforward sweep in visual emotion processing whose absence is successively compensated. Findings specify the impact of right mTL structures on emotional picture processing and highlight the value of time-resolved measures in affective neuroscience.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34687490 PMCID: PMC8720182 DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25687
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Brain Mapp ISSN: 1065-9471 Impact factor: 5.038
FIGURE 1Lesion extent and overlap of 19 right temporal lobe resection patients. The color bar represents number of patients with overlapping resections
Sociodemographic details for participants
| rTLR patients ( | Healthy controls ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Range | Mean | SD | Range | |
| Age | 36.0 | 12.1 | 22–53 | 35.7 | 12 | 21–52 |
| Education (years) | 11.1 | 2.5 | 9–16 | 11.2 | 2.0 | 9–16 |
| STAI‐S (state) | 39.2 | 9.56 | 26–61 | 32.7 | 5.18 | 25–41 |
| STAI‐T (trait) | 40.1 | 11.2 | 24–63 | 34.1 | 9.02 | 24–58 |
| BDI | 8.16 | 6.77 | 0–24 | 2.89 | 3.03 | 0–10 |
| Time since resection (months) | 52.42 | 21.84 | 24–96 | — | — | — |
| Age at onset (years) | 15.87 | 8.78 | 2.00–39.00 | — | — | — |
| Age at resection (years) | 31.63 | 11.40 | 16.75–50.00 | — | — | — |
| Duration until resection (years) | 15.76 | 9.38 | 2.75–32.58 | — | — | — |
Note: BDI scores were higher for patients than controls (t[36] = 3.093, p = .004), but showed no severe depression for any subject. Further clinical information on the patients can be found in Table .
Abbreviations: BDI, Beck Depression Inventory, German Version (Hautzinger, Keller, & Kühner, 2009); STAI‐S, State–Trait Anxiety Inventory, State subscale; STAI‐T, State–Trait Anxiety Inventory, Trait subscale (Laux, Glanzmann, Schaffner, & Spielberger, 1981).
FIGURE 2Results for the P1 component (90–140 ms). (a) Difference topographies show electrocortical activity elicited by negative minus neutral pictures. (b) Bar charts show mean amplitudes in the electrode clusters used for statistical analyses. Overlaid dots represent individual observations. Error bars indicate +/−1 SE. Brackets indicate relevant comparisons within (lower level) or between (higher level) groups with symbols indicating significance of results. (c) Event‐related potential at a representative electrode (POz). The shaded area highlights the P1 time window. HC, healthy controls; neg, negative picture; ntr, neutral picture; rTLR, patients with right temporal lobe resection. *p < .05, n.s. p > .1
FIGURE 3Results for the N1 component (170–220 ms) and EPN (220–370 ms). (a) Difference topographies of scalp potentials elicited by negative minus neutral pictures. (b) Bar charts show mean amplitudes in the electrode clusters used for statistical analyses. Overlaid dots represent individual observations. Error bars indicate +/−1 SE. Brackets indicate relevant comparisons within (lower level) or between (higher level) groups with symbols indicating significance of results. (c) Event‐related potentials for two representative electrodes in the left (P7) and right (P8) electrode cluster. The shaded areas highlight the analyzed time windows. HC, healthy controls; neg, negative picture; ntr, neutral picture; rTLR, patients with right temporal lobe resection. o p < .1, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, n.s. p > .1
FIGURE 4Results for the LPP component. The early LPP (400–650 ms) is shown in the left panels, and the late LPP (650–900 ms) is shown in the right panels. (a) Difference topographies show difference scalp potentials for negative minus neutral picture processing. (b) Averaged scalp potential for a representative electrode (Cz). The shaded areas indicate analyzed time windows. (c) Bar charts show mean amplitudes of the electrode cluster used for statistical analyses. Overlaid dots represent individual observations. Error bars indicate +/−1 SE. HC, healthy controls; neg, negative picture; ntr, neutral picture; rTLR, patients with right temporal lobe resection. o p < .1, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, n.s. p > .1
One‐sample t tests of mean amplitude differences (negative–neutral) against zero
| rTLR patients ( | Healthy controls ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| df |
| Cohen's |
| df |
| Cohen's | |
| P1 | 0.256 | 18 | .801 | 0.059 | 2.644 | 18.0 | .016 | 0.607 |
| N1 | −2.035 | 18 | .057 | −0.467 | −4.297 | 18.0 | < .001 | −0.986 |
| EPN | −6.427 | 18 | < .001 | −1.474 | −6.450 | 18.0 | < .001 | −1.480 |
| LPP1 | 3.825 | 18 | .001 | 0.878 | 7.581 | 18.0 | < .001 | 1.739 |
| LPP2 | 3.332 | 18 | .004 | 0.764 | 7.528 | 18.0 | < .001 | 1.727 |
Note: For N1 and EPN, the difference potentials were averaged across both electrode clusters.
Abbreviations: rTLR, right temporal lobe resection; df, degrees of freedom; p, p‐value (two‐tailed).
FIGURE 5Global emotion effects over time. The time course of statistical emotion effects for each group is shown collapsed across the entire scalp. For each time point and sensor, in a mass‐univariate approach, an F‐test contrasting event‐related activity evoked by negative and neutral pictures was calculated. For display purposes, the root‐mean‐square of these effects across all 128 sensors is shown for each time point and within each group of participants. The scalp topography of the effects is detailed in Figure S1. Solid lines indicate healthy controls, and dashed lines are patients. rTLR, patients with right temporal lobe resection