If it bleeds, it leads: separating threat from mere negativity
Adams, Reginald Jr.
MetadataShow full item record
CitationKveraga, Kestutis, Jasmine Boshyan, Reginald B. Adams, Jasmine Mote, Nicole Betz, Noreen Ward, Nouchine Hadjikhani, Moshe Bar, and Lisa F. Barrett. 2015. “If It Bleeds, It Leads: Separating Threat from Mere Negativity.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 10 (1): 28–35. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu007.
AbstractMost 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 para-hippocampal, 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.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41542738
- HMS Scholarly Articles