Topic 12: Emotion Flashcards
What is affective neuroscience?
studies the neural mechanisms underlying emotion
emotional contexts can modulate many cognitive processes, making it a relevant influence on a huge range of things (memory, cognitive control, decision making, social behavior)
the study of affective neuroscience also has some pretty clear potential practical/applied benefits
What is the relationship between the amygdala and fear-based responses?
the amygdala is located in the medial temporal lobe (MTL), close to ventral anterior IT cortex
not typically considered part of the visual system, though it may play a particularly important role in responding to information in that modality
associated with the organization of various emotional responses (with much work aimed at understanding it’s role in fear-based responses)
What was the study by Adolphs, Tranel, and Damasio (1998) on judging trustworthiness?
studied three patients with bilateral amygdala lesions making judgments about the trustworthiness of various faces
the face stimuli had been independently rated on the dimension of trustworthiness by healthy controls
the faces judged to be least trustworthy by controls were not judged to be any less trustworthy by these patients
What was the methodology of the study by Engell, Haxby, and Todorov (2007) on judging trustworthiness?
applied a similar procedure as used by Adolphs, Tranel, and Damasio (1998) to an fMRI study
intially told participants the experiment was about memory for faces, then scanned them while they were viewing the face stimuli
then measured their behavior correlates (trustworthiness judgments) in a seperate session
What were the findings of the study by Engell, Haxby, and Todorov (2007) on judging trustworthiness?
the correlation is stronger between the amygdala activity of an individual and the group average ratings of trustworthiness for that associated face, as compared to the amygdala activity of an individual and their own average ratings of trustworthiness for that associated face
What was the interpretation of the study by Engell, Haxby, and Todorov (2007) on judging trustworthiness?
the result of the study was interpreted as reflecting two sources of variance:
a relatively automatic and consistent contribution from the amygdala
a more controlled and variable contribution from higher-level areas (e.g. the frontal cortex)
What does the source of variance of a relatively automatic and consistent contribution from the amygdala tell us about trustworthiness judgments?
if our judgments about the trustworthiness of faces is influenced by amygdala activation, the group average related to this signal should capture some of the variance in these judgments
What does the source of variance of a more controlled and variable contribution from higher-level areas (e.g., the frontal cortex) tell us about trustworthiness judgments?
however, adding more complexity (and variability) to that “base” signal, factors like personal history then become relevant at the individual level (e.g. you grew up with someone who looks similar to one of the faces you’re judging), which will have little to no relationship with amygdala activation
What is the study by Vuilleumier et al. (2004) on imaging clinical populations with amygdala damage?
showed that patients with amygdala damage have the same typical response to faces, as compared to houses, as healthy controls
however, they do not show a difference in their response to fearful (as compared to neutral) faces
seems to support the interpretation provided by Adolphs, Tranel, and Damasio (1998)
What are the ethical concerns with judging trustworthiness?
how do we make “trustworthiness” judgments based on faces?
would we expect biases to creep into the equation? if so, how should this be handled?
for example, should we incorporate those biases into models that try to predict how people judge trustworthiness based on appearance?
if so, is there a risk that AI will further perpetuate those biases?
What was the goal of the study by Cahill, Prins, Weber, & McGaugh (1994)?
administered the beta-adrenergic antagonist porpranolol and manipulated the emotional tone of a narrative presented (emotionally arousing or neutral), then tested their memory
among other things, adrenergic receptors are sensitive to norepinephrine and epinephrine
What were the four experimental groups in the study by Cahill, Prins, Weber, & McGaugh (1994)?
two groups received propranolol: of those, one saw the emotional story and the other the neutral story
two groups received a placebo: again, one emotional and one neutral
What were the results of the study by Cahill, Prins, Weber, & McGaugh (1994)?
the arousing story/placebo group showed a memory advantage (related to the greater emotional content in their version of the story)
the arousing-story/drug group did not show this benefit (presumably, because the drug suppressed their amygdala activity)
interestingly, the subjective ratings of the emotionality of the story in the arousing-story/drug group did not differ from the arousing-story/placebo group
suggests the effects are (at least somewhat) constrained to mechanisms related to memory formation, rather than the “in the moment” experience
What are common factors in processing what could be broadly described as fear?
trustworthiness judgments
viewing of faces expressing fear
recall of stories involving more or less emotional content (which involved graphic descriptions of injury)
Why would evolution have shaped the amygdala to be so sensitive to fear?
although people who are afraid are not necessarily likely to pose a specific threat to you, whatever is influencing their experience of fear might be relevant for our survival
What were the results of the study involving fear processing in patients with amygdala damage?
we recently saw that patients with amygdala damage, in contrast to healthy controls, do not show the typical elevated amygdala activity in response to faces expressing fear
healthy controls also produce this kind of response when fearful faces are only shown for very brief periods of time (e.g. 33 ms) and masked
this kind of stimulus presentation results in participants reporting no subjective awareness of seeing the fearful face, yet still activates the amygdala
these kinds of results suggest the fear is identified extremely rapidly and efficiently, and can even occur without conscious awareness
What was the hypothesis tested in the Whalen et al. (2004) study?
tested the hypothesis that the amygdala uses a heuristic related to “wide eyes” to make these rapid judgments
What was the stimuli used in the Whalen et al. (2004) study?
expressions associated with wide-eyes: anger, fear, surprise
expressions not associated with wide-eyes: happy, sad, neutral
eliminated all the other information contained in the stimuli the might be informative of emotion, other than eye wideness
manipulated the amount of sclera (whites of the eye) visible, presented for only 17 ms
What were the methods used in the Whalen et al. (2004) study?
show fearful or happy faces, with (eye blacks condition) or without (eye whites condition) the figure and ground luminance reversed
note that the “eye blacks” condition stimuli is identical to that in the “eye whites” condition, with one exception: coloration
i.e. shape, contour, etc. are all the same, and this therefore controls for the possibility that any other information besides coloration is being used
the “eye black” condition does not represent stimuli that exist in the natural world, and thus it was predicted that the amygdala will not respond in the same way to those stimuli
What were the results of the Whalen et al. (2004)?
as predicted, amygdala activation was greater for fearful faces as compared to happy, though only i the “eye whites” condition (as compared to the “eye blacks” condition)
supports the ides that this low-level visual cue (eye wideness), in an ecologically valid (i.e., natural) way, is something the amygdala is sensitive to
this same research group also found a similar effect for pupil dilation, suggesting another low-level visual cue that could help with the rapid interpretation of fear
What is the implicit association test (IAT)?
has been widely used in an attempt to study various kinds of implicitly held biases
the IAT attempts to quantify bias by looking for differences in response times across overlapping sets of response mappings
the mappings are then reversed and the critical question is, which response mapping (if either) are you fastest to use when classifying things as American: when it uses the same button that was recently associated with classifying things as “good” or “bad”?
this approach involves looking for compatibility effects
What is an example of an IAT looking for an “American bias”
press the left shift button for words that you associate with good things (left = good) and the right shift button for words you associate with bad things (right = bad)
depending on what stimuli is presented, you will also sometimes need to press the left shift button when seeing words you associate with Canadians (left = good or Canadian) and the right shift button for words you associate with Americans (right = bad or American)
you now need to press the left shift button for words you associate with Americans and good things (left = good or American) and the right shift button for Canadians and bad things (right = bad or Canadian things)
if you’re faster to classify Americans using the same button you’ve just associated with “bad things”, that is supposed to mean that you have a preexisting association between Americans and bad things, meaning you have a bias against them (at least in theory)
How is the IAT used to measure racial bias?
Valanced (i.e. good/bad) judgments are made about various unrelated stimuli, such as pictures that are categorized as positive or negative (e.g. using the right and left shift buttons)
judgments about the construct being examined for bias are also made, such as categorizing faces as either black or white (e.g. using the right and left shift buttons)
the mappings are reversed several times and analyses focus o whether a compatibility effect is associated with either response mapping
What are the results of using IAT to measure racial bias?
some published work has found that white participants can be faster to categorize stimuli as “black” when using the same button that is also currently being used (and/or was recently used) to categorize things as “bad”
although controversial, this has been argued as evidence for “implicitly held racial bias”