If it bleeds, it leads: separating threat from mere negativity

Abstract

Most theories of emotion hold that negative stimuli are threatening and aversive. Yet in everyday experiences some negative sights (e.g. car wrecks) attract curiosity, whereas others repel (e.g. a weapon pointed in our face). To examine the diversity in negative stimuli, we employed four classes of visual images (Direct Threat, Indirect Threat, Merely Negative and Neutral) in a set of behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Participants reliably discriminated between the images, evaluating Direct Threat stimuli most quickly, and Merely Negative images most slowly. Threat images evoked greater and earlier blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) activations in the amygdala and periaqueductal gray, structures implicated in representing and responding to the motivational salience of stimuli. Conversely, the Merely Negative images evoked larger BOLD signal in the parahippocampal, retrosplenial, and medial prefrontal cortices, regions which have been implicated in contextual association processing. Ventrolateral as well as medial and lateral orbitofrontal cortices were activated by both threatening and Merely Negative images. In conclusion, negative visual stimuli can repel or attract scrutiny depending on their current threat potential, which is assessed by dynamic shifts in large-scale brain network activity.

Introducing the Open Affective Standardized Image Set (OASIS)

“…Moreover, not all negative images are created equal. The behavioral and neural responses to negative stimuli differ, depending on whether they are perceived as immediately threatening to the individual or as merely being negative and nonthreatening (Kveraga et al, 2015). Importantly, affect can also be conceptualized as a set of discrete states rather than as dimensional (Barrett, 1998;Ekman, 1992;Izard, 1992), and, similarly to the IAPS images (Libkuman, Otani, Kern, Viger, & Novak, 2007;Mikels et al, 2005), the images included in the OASIS dataset could also be rated using discrete emotion labels rather than two-or three-dimensional scales.…”

Predictions penetrate perception: Converging insights from brain, behaviour and disorder

“…Viewing threatening visual stimuli is accompanied by increased activity in regions implicated in threat detection and initiating “fight-or-flight” responses in the sympathetic system, such as the amygdala, periaqueductal grey, and the orbitofrontal cortex (Kveraga et al, 2015). However, the activity in these regions, as well as behavioural threat ratings, were found to be dependent on the context of the threat: images of someone handling a gun at a shooting range vs. being robbed at gunpoint evoked vastly different response patterns.…”

“…Threatening objects or animals oriented towards the observer heightened the personal feeling of danger compared to when they were oriented towards someone else. Moreover, in a threat detection task, context influenced how quickly threatening objects or animals were recognised: threatening objects and animals were recognised quickest in direct-threat contexts (Kveraga et al, 2015, Supp. Mat.).…”

Interactions between emotion and action in the brain

“…SMA and the right precentral gyrus, the differential response to threat vs. neutral was enhanced when the context was more relevant to the participant (directed towards condition). Whereas an increase in activation of cortical motor-related areas while participants observe negative stimuli has been reported (de Gelder et al, 2004;Grèzes, Pichon & de Gelder, 2007, Pichon, de Gelder & Grèzes, 2008, Pichon, de Gelder & Grèzes, 2009, Ahs et al, 2009, Pereira et al, 2010, Van den Stock et al, 2011, Conty et al, 2012, Pichon, de Gelder & Grèzes, 2012, Kveraga et al, 2015, the role of self-relevance remains poorly understood. Grèzes et al, (2013) reported that both the SMA and the precentral gyrus were engaged preferentially to body expressions of anger oriented to self when compared to anger oriented to other, and suggested that the recruitment of these areas might be related to the need of selecting specific behavioural strategies when one is the potential target of someone's anger.…”

“…Furthermore, the emotional valence of a stimulus with which one is about to interact influences motor planning, as captured through the readiness potential, an electrophysiological marker of motor preparation (de Oliveira et al, 2012, Campagnoli et al, 2015. The existence of emotion-action interactions is also supported by functional neuroimaging studies of emotional modulation of motor-related brain areas (de Gelder et al, 2004, Grèzes, Pichon & de Gelder, 2007, Pichon, de Gelder & Grèzes, 2008, Pichon, de Gelder & Grèzes, 2009, Ahs et al, 2009, Pereira et al, 2010, Pichon, de Gelder & Grèzes, 2012, Kveraga et al, 2015, Kolesar, Kornelsen & Smith, 2017, Meyer, Padmala & Pessoa, 2019, even at the level of the spinal cord (Smith & Kornelsen, 2011, McIver, Kornelsen & Smith, 2013, Kornelsen, Smith & McIver, 2014.…”