Individual differences in valence bias: fMRI evidence of the initial negativity hypothesis

Abstract

Facial expressions offer an ecologically valid model for examining individual differences in affective decision-making. They convey an emotional signal from a social agent and provide important predictive information about one’s environment (presence of potential rewards or threats). Although some expressions provide clear predictive information (angry, happy), others (surprised) are ambiguous in that they predict both positive and negative outcomes. Thus, surprised faces can delineate an individual’s valence bias, or the tendency to interpret ambiguity as positive or negative. Our initial negativity hypothesis suggests that the initial response to ambiguity is negative, and that positivity relies on emotion regulation. We tested this hypothesis by comparing brain activity during explicit emotion regulation (reappraisal) and while freely viewing facial expressions, and measuring the relationship between brain activity and valence bias. Brain regions recruited during reappraisal showed greater activity for surprise in individuals with an increasingly positive valence bias. Additionally, we linked amygdala activity with an initial negativity, revealing a pattern similarity in individuals with negative bias between viewing surprised faces and maintaining negativity. Finally, these individuals failed to show normal habituation to clear negativity. These results support the initial negativity hypothesis, and are consistent with emotion research in both children and adult populations.

Exploring valence bias as a metric for frontoamygdalar connectivity and depressive symptoms in childhood

“…These findings are consistent with our "initial negativity hypothesis" that posits that the initial or default interpretation of surprise is more negative (Neta, Davis, & Whalen, 2011;Neta & Tong, 2016;Neta & Whalen, 2010) and associated with increased amygdala activity Neta & Whalen, 2010). In contrast, positive ratings depend upon slower and more elaborate emotion regulation processes which override the initial negativity and putatively downregulate the amygdala response (Kaffenberger, Brühl, Baumgartner, Jäncke, & Herwig, 2010;Neta et al, 2011;Neta & Tong, 2016;Neta & Whalen, 2010;Petro, Tong, Henley, & Neta, 2018), processes that are likely compromised in depression and anxiety (Beck, 1976;Reef et al, 2011;Williams et al, 2007). Indeed, age-related differences in this emotion regulation circuity (i.e., amygdala-mPFC connectivity ) are associated with mental health risk factors in adults (Hare et al, 2008).…”

Positivity effect in aging: Evidence for the primacy of positive responses to emotional ambiguity

“…Data were collected from 57 young (27 female, ages 17-30 years, mean(SD) age = 20.75(2.93)) and 52 older adults (36 female, ages 60-88 years, mean(SD) age = 69.92(6.83)) who reported having no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders, nor taking any psychotropic medication. The data from the sample of younger adults have been analyzed previously in Petro, Tong, Henley, and Neta (2018), but this previous analysis did not investigate effects related to amygdala habituation. During recruitment, older adults were administered the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (Welsh et al, 1993); those with a score of 9/20 or higher on the recall portion of the interview and a total score of 24/39 or higher were invited to participate in the study.…”

“…After these two runs, an additional two runs were completed in which fearful instead of surprised faces were presented, but the BOLD analysis of these runs is largely outside the scope of the current report (except for defining an amygdala region of interest; see below). Each individual block consisted of 32 faces (4 presentations of 8 unique identities), each presented for 200 ms and separated by a fixation cross for 300 ms, as in prior work Petro et al, 2018). Thus, the duration of each block was 16 seconds, and 14 seconds separated each face block during which a fixation cross was presented.…”

“…For instance, individuals with a more negative valence bias show increased amygdala and decreased vmPFC activity (Kim, Somerville, Johnstone, et al, 2003a;Petro et al, 2019). More recent evidence has shown that the same lateral frontal regions that are recruited during explicit emotion regulation are also recruited in response to surprised faces, but more so in individuals with a positive valence bias (Petro et al, 2018). These findings are consistent with other work that suggests that the initial response to dual-valence ambiguity (in young adults) is more negative, and that positivity may rely on a slower, regulatory process that overrides the initial negativity (Kaffenberger et al, 2010;Kim et al, 2003a;Neta et al, 2011Neta et al, , 2019Neta & Tong, 2016;Neta & Whalen, 2010).…”

Full awareness or mindfulness in the practice of current clinical psychology and psychiatry: Explanatory contributions

“…: 003-0010. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17352/apt.000010Mindfulness training seems to improve focalized attention, with the support of 1) the anterior cingulate cortex -its activation is related to the integration and direction of attention and motivation as well as motor control-, 2) the insula -its activation is related to interoception-, 3) the temporoparietal junction and the frontolimbic neural system, which activates the left prefrontal cortex -related to positive emotions and higher resilience-[54][55][56][57], among others. All these changes can work together by establishing better selfregulation.…”