Multimodal Imaging Evidence for a Frontoparietal Modulation of Visual Cortex during the Selective Processing of Conditioned Threat

Petro, Nathan M.; Gruss, L. Forest; Yin, Shuai; Huang, Haiqing; Miskovic, Vladimir; Ding, Mingzhou; Keil, Andreas

doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01114

Cited by 51 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of note, similar to previous findings regarding emotion effects for pictures (Bisby, Horner, Hørlyck, & Burgess, 2016), despite similar activation levels in the amygdala, visual cortex responses markedly differed between negative and neutral stimuli. A consistent emotional response to aversive stimuli across different tasks in the visual cortex, but not the amygdala, has also been reported by Villalta-Gil et al (2017) and highlights the role of extra-amygdalar sources in emotional enhancement of visual processing (Pessoa & Adolphs, 2010;Petro et al, 2017), likely including the sensory cortices themselves (Miskovic & Anderson, 2018). For fearful faces, amygdala activation was elevated in both hemispheres, but there was a trend for a stronger emotion effect in the left amygdala.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Negative content enhances stimulus‐specific cerebral activity during free viewing of pictures, faces, and words

Reisch

Wegrzyn

Woermann

et al. 2020

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative visual stimuli have been found to elicit stronger brain activation than do neutral stimuli. Such emotion effects have been shown for pictures, faces, and words alike, but the literature suggests stimulus‐specific differences regarding locus and lateralization of the activity. In the current functional magnetic resonance imaging study, we directly compared brain responses to passively viewed negative and neutral pictures of complex scenes, faces, and words (nouns) in 43 healthy participants (21 males) varying in age and demographic background. Both negative pictures and faces activated the extrastriate visual cortices of both hemispheres more strongly than neutral ones, but effects were larger and extended more dorsally for pictures, whereas negative faces additionally activated the superior temporal sulci. Negative words differentially activated typical higher‐level language processing areas such as the left inferior frontal and angular gyrus. There were small emotion effects in the amygdala for faces and words, which were both lateralized to the left hemisphere. Although pictures elicited overall the strongest amygdala activity, amygdala response to negative pictures was not significantly stronger than to neutral ones. Across stimulus types, emotion effects converged in the left anterior insula. No gender effects were apparent, but age had a small, stimulus‐specific impact on emotion processing. Our study specifies similarities and differences in effects of negative emotional content on the processing of different types of stimuli, indicating that brain response to negative stimuli is specifically enhanced in areas involved in processing of the respective stimulus type in general and converges across stimuli in the left anterior insula.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Negative content enhances stimulus‐specific cerebral activity during free viewing of pictures, faces, and words

Reisch

Wegrzyn

Woermann

et al. 2020

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present study suggests that such competitive interac tions are most pronounced in situations in which threat cues are defined by multiple features, again paralleling canonical findings in selective attention and visual search (Treisman & Kanwisher, 1998). In line with this notion, recent evi dence from concurrent EEG-fMRI recordings during aver sive Pavlovian conditioning suggests that the same cortical regions associated with spatial and feature-based attention may also be involved in the selection of threat cue represen tations (Petro et al, 2017). Thus, multimodal neuroimaging with the present experimental design may allow refining and testing of the hypothesis that frontoparietal attention networks under the control of limbic circuits mediate the selective visuocortical facilitation of threat (Yin, Liu, Petro, Keil, & Ding, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Attention to a threat‐related feature does not interfere with concurrent attentive feature selection

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual features associated with a task and those that predict noxious events both prompt selectively heightened visuocortical responses. Conflicting views exist regarding how the competition between a task‐related and a threat‐related feature is resolved when they co‐occur in time and space. Utilizing aversive classical Pavlovian conditioning, we investigated the visuocortical representation of two simultaneously presented, fully overlapping visual stimuli. Isoluminant red and green random dot kinematogram (RDK) stimuli were flickered at distinct tagging frequencies (8.57 Hz, 12 Hz) to elicit distinguishable steady‐state visual evoked potentials (ssVEPs). Occasional coherent motion events prompted a motor response (task) or predicted a noxious noise (threat). These events occurred either in the green (task cue), the red (threat cue), or in both RDKs simultaneously. In the initial habituation phase, participants responded to coherent motion of the green RDK with a key press, but no loud noise was presented at any time. Here, selective amplification was seen for the task‐relevant (green) RDK, and interference was observed when both RDKs simultaneously showed coherent motion. Upon pairing the threat cue with the noxious noise in the subsequent acquisition phase, the threat cue‐evoked ssVEP (red RDK) was also amplified, but this amplification did not interact with amplification of the task cue or alter the behavioral or visuocortical interference effect observed during simultaneous coherent motion. Although competing feature conjunctions resulted in interference in the visual cortex, the acquisition of a bias toward an individual threat‐related feature did not result in additional cost effects.

show abstract

“…The present study suggests that such competitive interactions are most pronounced in situations in which threat cues are defined by multiple features, again paralleling canonical findings in selective attention and visual search (Treisman and Kanwisher, 1998). In line with this notion, recent evidence from concurrent EEG-fMRI recordings during aversive Pavlovian conditioning suggests that the same cortical regions associated with spatial and feature-based attention may also be involved in the selection of threat cue representations (Petro et al, 2017). Thus, multimodal neuroimaging with the present experimental design may allow refining and testing of the hypothesis that fronto-parietal attention networks under the control of limbic circuits mediate the selective visuocortical facilitation of threat (Yin et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Attention to a threat-related feature does not interfere with concurrent attentive feature selection

Boylan

Kelly

Thigpen

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

16Visual features that are associated with a task and those that predict noxious events both prompt 17 selectively heightened visuocortical responses. Conflicting views exist regarding how the 18 competition between a task-related and a threat-related feature is resolved when they co-occur in 19 time and space. Utilizing aversive differential Pavlovian conditioning, we investigated the 20 visuocortical representation of two simultaneously presented, fully overlapping visual stimuli. 21 Stimuli were isoluminant red and green random dot kinematograms (RDKs) which flickered at 22 two tagging frequencies (8.57 Hz, 12 Hz) to elicit distinguishable steady-state visual evoked 23 potentials (ssVEPs). Occasional coherent motion events prompted a motor response or predicted 24 a noxious noise. These events occurred either in the green (task cue), the red (threat cue), or in 25 both RDKs simultaneously. In an initial habituation phase, participants responded to coherent 26 motion of the green RDK with a key press, but no loud noise was presented at any time. Here, 27 selective amplification was seen for the task-relevant (green) RDK, but interference was 28 observed when both RDKs simultaneously showed coherent motion. Upon pairing the threat cue 29 with the noxious noise in the subsequent acquisition phase, the threat cue-evoked ssVEP (red 30 RDK) was also amplified, but this amplification did not interact with amplification of the task 31 cue, and did not alter the behavioral or visuocortical interference effect seen during simultaneous 32 coherent motion. Results demonstrate that although competing feature conjunctions result in 33 interference in visual cortex, the acquisition of a bias towards an individual threat-related feature 34 does not result in additional cost effects. 35 36 37 Cortical competition between task and threat cues 3 Significance statement 38 Selectively perceiving and adaptively responding to cues associated with danger are fundamental 39 functions of the vertebrate brain. In humans, their disruption or dysregulation is at the core of 40 many psychiatric diagnoses, including fear, anxiety, post-traumatic syndromes, and mood 41 disorders. The present study examined the competitive interactions between the prioritization of 42 threat cues and a concurrent cognitive task, to characterize how the human attention system 43 manages limited resources in the presence of threat. Results showed that the selection of an 44 individual feature signaling imminent threat is not at the cost of concurrent attention 45 performance, even when threat and task stimuli overlapped in space. Findings support recent 46 models of emotion/attention interactions that emphasize flexible, feature-based allocation of 47 resources to biologically relevant stimuli. 48 49 Cortical competition between task and threat cues 4 Introduction 50 The visual system receives dense sensory information, continually exceeding the limited 51 capacity of visual cognition. In response to this challenge, the human brain has evolved 52 mechanisms...

show abstract

Multimodal Imaging Evidence for a Frontoparietal Modulation of Visual Cortex during the Selective Processing of Conditioned Threat

Cited by 51 publications

References 92 publications

Negative content enhances stimulus‐specific cerebral activity during free viewing of pictures, faces, and words

Negative content enhances stimulus‐specific cerebral activity during free viewing of pictures, faces, and words

Attention to a threat‐related feature does not interfere with concurrent attentive feature selection

Attention to a threat-related feature does not interfere with concurrent attentive feature selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About