scholarly journals Modulation of Emotional Faces Processing and Its Implication for Depression and Anxiety

Neuroimaging ◽  
10.5772/9880 ◽  
2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Marta ◽  
Frederico Guilherme
2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 2253-2264 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. R. Demenescu ◽  
R. Renken ◽  
R. Kortekaas ◽  
M.-J. van Tol ◽  
J. B. C. Marsman ◽  
...  

BackgroundDepression has been associated with limbic hyperactivation and frontal hypoactivation in response to negative facial stimuli. Anxiety disorders have also been associated with increased activation of emotional structures such as the amygdala and insula. This study examined to what extent activation of brain regions involved in perception of emotional faces is specific to depression and anxiety disorders in a large community-based sample of out-patients.MethodAn event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) paradigm was used including angry, fearful, sad, happy and neutral facial expressions. One hundred and eighty-two out-patients (59 depressed, 57 anxiety and 66 co-morbid depression-anxiety) and 56 healthy controls selected from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) were included in the present study. Whole-brain analyses were conducted. The temporal profile of amygdala activation was also investigated.ResultsFacial expressions activated the amygdala and fusiform gyrus in depressed patients with or without anxiety and in healthy controls, relative to scrambled faces, but this was less evident in patients with anxiety disorders. The response shape of the amygdala did not differ between groups. Depressed patients showed dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) hyperactivation in response to happy faces compared to healthy controls.ConclusionsWe suggest that stronger frontal activation to happy faces in depressed patients may reflect increased demands on effortful emotion regulation processes triggered by mood-incongruent stimuli. The lack of strong differences in neural activation to negative emotional faces, relative to healthy controls, may be characteristic of the mild-to-moderate severity of illness in this sample and may be indicative of a certain cognitive-emotional processing reserve.


2018 ◽  
Vol 264 ◽  
pp. 385-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kylie M. Routledge ◽  
Leanne M. Williams ◽  
Anthony W.F. Harris ◽  
Peter R. Schofield ◽  
C. Richard Clark ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay M. Niccolai ◽  
Thomas Holtgraves

This research examined differences in the perception of emotion words as a function of individual differences in subclinical levels of depression and anxiety. Participants completed measures of depression and anxiety and performed a lexical decision task for words varying in affective valence (but equated for arousal) that were presented briefly to the right or left visual field. Participants with a lower level of depression demonstrated hemispheric asymmetry with a bias toward words presented to the left hemisphere, but participants with a higher level of depression displayed no hemispheric differences. Participants with a lower level of depression also demonstrated a bias toward positive words, a pattern that did not occur for participants with a higher level of depression. A similar pattern occurred for anxiety. Overall, this study demonstrates how variability in levels of depression and anxiety can influence the perception of emotion words, with patterns that are consistent with past research.


2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. McGuire ◽  
Michael J. Hogan ◽  
Todd G. Morrison

Abstract. Objective: To factor analyze the Pain Patient Profile questionnaire (P3; Tollison & Langley, 1995 ), a self-report measure of emotional distress in respondents with chronic pain. Method: An unweighted least squares factor analysis with oblique rotation was conducted on the P3 scores of 160 pain patients to look for evidence of three distinct factors (i.e., Depression, Anxiety, and Somatization). Results: Fit indices suggested that three distinct factors, accounting for 32.1%, 7.0%, and 5.5% of the shared variance, provided an adequate representation of the data. However, inspection of item groupings revealed that this structure did not map onto the Depression, Anxiety, and Somatization division purportedly represented by the P3. Further, when the analysis was re-run, eliminating items that failed to meet salience criteria, a two-factor solution emerged, with Factor 1 representing a mixture of Depression and Anxiety items and Factor 2 denoting Somatization. Each of these factors correlated significantly with a subsample's assessment of pain intensity. Conclusion: Results were not congruent with the P3's suggested tripartite model of pain experience and indicate that modifications to the scale may be required.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document