Emotion processing - circuitry

ventral and medial sectors of the prefrontal

cortex, the insular cortex, as well as the
striatum, amygdala and parietal cortex
Insula
Latin word for "island”
Some consider it a separate lobe; others call it part of temporal lobe
Interoceptive awareness; homeostatic functions; limbic
DUAL PROCESS APPROACH
Argue for the existence of two separate,
opposing decision systems.

Choice results from competition between

these two systems

One system - emotional, fast, automatic,

“hot,” and/or subconscious
Other system is cognitive, slow, deliberative,
“cool,” and/or explicit.
DUAL PROCESS APPROACH
System1/System2:

System 1 “operates automatically and quickly, with little

or no effort and no sense of voluntary control. System 2
allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that
demand it, including complex computations. The
operations of System 2 are often associated with the
subjective experience of agency, choice, and
concentration” (Kahneman 2011, pp. 20–21).
DUAL PROCESS APPROACH
Another theory positing a hot emotional system and a
cool cognitive system, “risk taking [is] the result of a
competition between two neural systems. . .Affective
processing is spontaneous and automatic, operates by
principles of similarity and contiguity, and influences
behavior by affective impulses. . . . The cognitive-
control system . . . is the neural basis of deliberative
processing, which is effortful, controlled, and operates
according to formal rules of logic . . . [and] it is the
neural basis of inhibitory control, a mechanism that
can block affective impulses and therefore enables
deliberative decision making even in affect-charged
situations” (Figner et al. 2009, p. 710).
DUAL PROCESS APPROACH
The notion that there are distinct systems for emotion and cognition
was also apparent in early theories of brain anatomy.

Building on earlier work by Paul Broca and James Papez, Paul

Maclean introduced the term “limbic system” in 1952 to describe the
phylogenetically older brain regions that lined the inner border of the
cortex.

He proposed that these regions were responsible for basic emotional

responses

Limbic system concept is no longer useful

Hippocampus
Orbitofrontal Cortex
Need to facilitate the development of a more complete and detailed
understanding of the representation of emotion in the brain
A circuit for emotion ?
Attempts to more accurately refine the cognitive/emotion distinction
(Cohen 2005)

“The mechanisms of emotion and

cognition are intertwined from early
perception to complex reasoning.”
[Phelps 2006]

No clear evidence for a unified

system that drives emotion
Decision Making processes

Emotional decision-making requires the

integration of information about the expected
valences, magnitudes and probabilities of
available response options.
Disruption of these processes may give rise to
risk-prone behaviour where choice is driven by
available positive outcomes, despite possible
adverse consequences.
Dual systems to Modulatory aproach

Research suggests a modulatory role for emotion’s

influence on cognition

Translating this modulatory view to the study of

decision making –
Affective processes may influence a primary
factor underlying choice behavior: the
computation of subjective value.

Two ways to look at it

(A) How is decision making altered during an
incidental affective state
(B) Emotional reaction to choice adds to subjective
value
Stress affects Choice - Neurohumoral

Stress HPA axis activation (Glucocorticoid release)

Sympathetic activation
(catecholamines)
STRESS

PFC function is impaired

Mild – enhances Hippocampal
function
Strong – impairs Hippocampal Striatal function
function enhanced

Amygdala – function enhanced

(Modulates other areas)
Stress affects Choice

PFC – Goal directed

decisions
Striatum – choices based on
habit
Devaluation Task –
Alters the value of the reward
Dias-Ferreira et al. (2009)
Rats press a lever to get food reward; They are fed to satiety.
One group unstressed Reduce response (goal directed)
One group stressed prior to test Keep pressing the lever (habitual)
Emotion contributes to valuation.

The amygdala influences the

computation of subjective value
in the striatum and the OFC/
VMPFC and modulates learning
from reinforcement
Subjective value and Brain

Meta-analysis of fMRI studies (Bartra

et al. 2013)
Linear relationship between
subjective value and activity in the
OFC/VMPFC and the ventral
striatum.
U shaped relationship between
Insula activity and subjective value
The insula may contribute to value
computation in situations of high
 MOOD and Decision Making
Research on the neural basis of moods is limited by two significant
constraints.
First, moods are relatively lasting states, which prevents quickly
switching from one mood to another.
Second, the primary measure of a mood state is via
subjective report.

The effect of mood on the neural substrates of

decision making has been explored using a social
decision-making task - the ultimatum game.
🞑
🞑
Ultimatum Game
There are two players: (a) proposer and (b) responder

Proposer has a sum of money to divide with a

responder, who can choose whether to accept or
reject the proposer’s offer.

If responder rejects offer - both players get nothing.

In theory, any offer should be accepted because the

alternative is nothing/zero gain.

However, previous research has shown that offers of

20% or less of the total sum are rejected approximately
half the time (Thaler 1988).
Ultimatum Game
Sanfey et al. (2003) Activation in the right dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was greater than activation in
the insula when responders accepted unfair offers.

By contrast, insula activation was greater than right

DLPFC activation when responders rejected unfair offers.

Has been interpreted as evidence for

- the prepotent, emotional response was to reject

unfair offers (Insula)

- And regions associated with higher-level

cognition had to override that to accept such offers.
(DLPFC)
Making Risky Decisions
 The Iowa Gambling Task
A B C D

Four decks to pick cards:

Two decks have high immediate, but low overall reward

(the bad decks: A & B).

Two decks have a low immediate, but high overall

reward (the good decks: C & D)

Reward contingencies must be discovered

Bechara et al. (1994)

🞑
🞑
🞑
The Iowa Gambling Task
Bad Decks Good Decks
A B C D

Reward
per card $100 $100 $50 $50

Av. loss
per card $125 $125 $25 $25
Behavioral Results with Normals and Patients with Ventromedial
Prefrontal Damage

(Bechara et al.,
Skin conductance results in same experiment

(Bechara et al.,
 Iowa Gambling Test
Patients with VMPFC damage draw excessively from decks with
negative consequences (high reward/higher loss vs. low
reward, lower loss)

Healthy participant generate high skin conductance prior to

making a bad decision before knowing the best strategy

Somatic markers: patients with VMPFC damage fail to generate

skin conductance response in relation to bad decks

Patients with non-VMPFC damage can also be impaired (e.g.,

Manes et al., 2002) Bechara et al. (1994)
Cognition

“We make judgments not only by assessing probabilities and consequences, but
also (and primarily) by evaluating their emotional attributes” -- Antonio Damasio
🞑
🞑
🞑
🞑
 Somatic Marker Hypothesis
Link between factual knowledge and bioregulatory
states
During decision-making, emotional and visceral
representations bias decision making
Representations associated with an option (from
prior experience) are re-activated to bias decision-
making covertly
Somatosensory pattern marks the scenario as either
good or bad, allowing the rapid rejection/
endorsement of specific option-outcome pairs
🞑
🞑
🞑
🞑
Cogntive Emotion Regulation
The influence of emotion on choice
can be altered using cognitive emotion
regulation techniques
This is mediated by the DLPFC and
VMPFC.

Emotional reactions can be increased

or decreased with these techniques
(Ochsner & Gross 2005)

Leading to corresponding changes in

the amygdala and striatum
(Delgado et al. 2008a; Sokol-Hessner et
al. 2013).
An elegant demonstration
An experiment by Baba Shiv and colleagues at Stanford University
A large sample of undergraduates were divided into two groups.
One group had to remember a two-digit number while the second
group was given a seven-digit number.
Then they had to walk down the hall and report the number in
another room.
On the way they were presented with two different snack options: a
slice of chocolate cake or a bowl of fruit salad.

The students with seven digits to remember were nearly

twice as likely to choose the cake as students given two
digits.
Increased "cognitive load” - the prefrontal cortex is
overtaxed – leading to poor self regulation/
inappropriate decisions.
Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999)