Hierarchical Brain Systems Support Multiple Representations of Valence and Mixed Affect

Abstract

Complex emotional experience is simplified and broken down into more elemental components for the service of scientific study. With this simplification, it is unclear which theoretical approach is most useful, and whether these more elemental components have a basis in underlying psychological computation or neural circuitry. Brain systems related to positive and negative processing have been studied across levels of analysis, from large-scale brain networks (macro-level), to specific circuits between brain regions (meso-level), to distributions of neurons within regions (micro-level). Although valence and arousal have been thought to comprise a "core" affect, our emotional lives are often filled with mixed emotions where positivity and negativity appear to co-occur, and psychological models need to account for these states. Indeed, a burgeoning line of research focuses on these states of ambivalence, and neuroeconomic theory is increasingly considering how decision-making unfolds in uncertain situations. Here we review the neuroscience literature on systems that support the processing of positive and negative information across levels of analysis, and illustrate how the spectrum of valenced information is supported by both separable and overlapping brain systems. We argue that this brain organization allows for the simultaneous and parallel processing of multiple types of valenced information, and discuss how this might give rise to mixed evaluative processes. We clarify and continue a distinction made in this issue between "perceptions of affective quality" and the "experience of emotions," drawing from our operationalization of these psychological terms in previous theoretical frameworks (Cunningham & Zelazo, 2007; Cunningham, Zelazo, Packer, & van Bavel, 2007). Our affective responses to internally and externally generated stimuli are shaped by previous experience, our current states, and our expectations for the future (Cunningham, Dunfield, & Stillman, 2013; Cunningham et al., 2007). Thus, the interactions among multiple systems and the current representations active at a particular time contribute to

An Appraisal-Driven Componential Approach to the Emotional Brain

“…Thus, the high level "core affect" notion treats the valence dimension in a homogeneous fashion, presumably assuming uniform neural processes and physiological manifestations. In contrast, appraisal approaches, in particular the CPM, postulate different types of valence appraisals with different neural and physiological underpinnings (Shuman, Sander, & Scherer, 2013), which is consistent with the recent proposal that hierarchical brain systems support multiple valence representations (Man, Nohlen, Melo, & Cunningham, 2017).…”

Bittersweet: The Neuroscience of Ambivalent Affect

“…An important possibility this debate has failed to consider is that both concurrence and vacillation may be involved, albeit at different physiological levels. A complete affective experience comprises multiple levels of processing related to different systems of the brain hierarchy (Berridge, 2019; Immordino-Yang, 2010; Man, Nohlen, Melo, & Cunningham, 2017; Norris et al, 2010; Tye, 2018). In our view, it is critical to distinguish between the largely subcortical level, at which emotional action programs are triggered, and the cortical level, at which the experience of emotional feelings largely depend.…”

Challenge and Threat: A Critical Review of the Literature and an Alternative Conceptualization

“…These initial evaluations occur in parallel and independently (e.g., Zayas and Shoda, 2015). Indeed, in a review of neuroscience literature, Man et al (2017) argue that the architecture of the brain permits the simultaneous processing of positive and negative information. This suggests that conceiving a situation as an opportunity both for gain and loss is consistent with the idea that challenge and threat can be activated independently (i.e., individually), and together coactivated (see also Sirsch, 2003).…”