Transcript Cerebral Mediation of Emotion: Hostility and the Autonomic

The Virginia Tech
Neuropsychology Laboratory
A Functional Neural Systems Approach
Emotion: Health
Sex Differences & Aging
Emotional Disorders
HOSTILITY & HEALTH
A Robust Literature On Hostility,
Cardiovascular Lability, and
Cardiovascular Risk
SEX DIFFERENCES & HEALTH
LATERALITY ISSUES?
A Robust Literature On Sex Differences in
Cardiovascular Lability, and
Cardiovascular Risk
AGING & HEALTH
RIGHT HEMI-AGING?
A Robust Literature On
Cardiovascular Lability, and
Cardiovascular Risk
Cerebral Mediation of Emotion:
& the Autonomic Nervous System
• Right Brain
• Sympathetic Tone
• Sweating; >BP;>HR
• Glucose Mobilization
• Cholesterol Mobilization
• Left Brain
• Parasympathetic
• Quiescent State
• Digestion
• Absorption
NEUROPSYCHOLOGY &
EMOTION THEORY
• RIGHT HEMISPHERE MODEL
• HEILMAN (1982)
• RIGHT CEREBRUM:
•
Primary Role in Emotion & Arousal
• POSTERIOR = “Sensory Reception or Attention”
• ANTERIOR = “Motor Expression or Intention”
• VALENCE MODEL
• TUCKER & WILLIAMSON (1984)
• DAVIDSON (1993)
• “Balance Model” or “Valence Model”
• Relative Right Frontal Activation
•
NEGATIVE AFFECT
• Relative Left Frontal Activation
•
POSITIVE AFFECT
• BEHAVIORAL ACTIVATION MODEL (BIS/BAS)
• GRAY
•
A NONHUMAN ANIMAL MODEL
• BAS & LEFT FRONTAL ACTIVATION
•
POSITIVE AFFECT
•
APPROACH
• BIS & RIGHT FRONTAL ACTIVATION
•
NEGATIVE AFFECT
•
FEAR OR ANXIETY
• DOMINANCE-SUBMISSION MODEL
• DEMAREE, EVERHART, YOUNGSTROM, &
HARRISON (2004)
• LEFT FRONTAL ACTIVATION:
•
DOMINANCE
• RIGHT FRONTAL ACTIVATION:
•
SUBMISSION
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
• LESS CONTROVERSY:
•
Right Brain & Negative Emotion
• MORE CONTROVERSY:
•
Asymmetry For Positive Emotion
• Except for Heilman
• Models Ignore Sensory or Posterior Brain
DYNAMIC FUNCTIONAL
NEURAL SYSTEMS THEORY
• SENSORY ANALYSIS =
•
POSTERIOR BRAIN
•
SENSORY PROJECTION AREAS
• INHIBITORY REGULATION & MOTOR EXPRESSION
•
•
•
•
THE FRONTAL LOBES
INHIBITORY REGULATION
INTENTION
MOTOR PROJECTION AREAS
Our Functional Systems Approach:
Systematic Research & Replication
Functional Systems Approach
Vision
VISION
• FACIAL AFFECT, T-SCOPE, RT
• N = 52 (26 Men; 26 Women)
• Harrison, Gorelczenko, & Cook, 1990
• Left VF Advantage
• Asymmetry in Men Differs From Women
Ventral View of the Visual
Projections
Ekman’s Emotional Faces
Reaction Time (log 10) By Visual Field
1.02
1.015
1.01
1.005
1
LVF
RVF
0.995
0.99
0.985
0.98
0.975
MEN
WOMEN
Harrison & Gorel, 1990
Replication
• Harrison & Gorelczenko (1990)
• Crews & Harrison (1994)
• RT Faster at Left VF
• SYMMETRY for positive faces
• ASYMMETRY In Men Not = Women
• Herridge, Harrison, Shenal, Mollet (2003)
• ACCURACY Increased at Left VF
Reaction Time (secs) By Visual Field
1.25
1.2
1.15
HAPPY
ANGRY
1.1
1.05
1
Left
Right
VISUAL FIELD
Crews & Harrison, 1994
Reaction Time (LOG10) By Visual Field
0.06
0.05
0.04
HAPPY
ANGRY
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
Left
Right
VISUAL FIELD
Harrison & Gorel, 1990 (men & women)
Reaction Time (LOG10) By Visual Field
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
LVF
RVF
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
MEN
WOMEN
Harrison & Gorel, 1990 (men & women)
Accuracy (# Correct) By Visual Field
18
16
14
12
10
LVF
RVF
8
6
4
2
0
HAPPY
NEUTRAL
ANGRY
Herridge, Harrison, Shenal, Mollet, 2004
The Right Hemi-Aging Hypothesis
• McDowell, Harrison, Demaree, 1994
•
•
•
•
•
•
10 Faces Depicting 5 Affective Valences
50 Item Photo Album (Ekman’s Faces)
Elderly & Younger Men & Women (N=60)
Results:
Accuracy of Happy Affect Faces = No Difference
Elderly Impaired on Accuracy of Each Negative
Affect Valence (Sad, Angry, & Fearful)
Correct Responses By Age and Affect Category
McDowell, Harrison, Demaree, 1994
M 10
E 9
A 8
N
7
#
C 6
O 5
R 4
R 3
E 2
C
1
T
0
Younger
Elderly
Happy
Neutral
Sad
Angry
AFFECTIVE VALENCE
Fearful
• Billings, Harrison, & Alden, 1993
• Reduced Left Visual Field Bias Among
Elderly Women
• Neutral Faces
Reported Affect (Bias) For Neutral Faces by Visual Field
Billings, Harrison, & Alden, 1993
R 1.4
E
P
O 1.35
R
T 1.3
E
D 1.25
A
F 1.2
F
E 1.15
C
T
Left
Right
Younger
Elderly
Visual Hallucinations: A Clinical Study
• Walters, Harrison, Foster, Williamson, 2004
• Retrospective Review of Archival Data
• 200 Patients on Rehabilitation Unit at a
• Tertiary Care Medical Center
• 30 Identified With Visual Formaesthesias
• 16 Men & 14 Women
Visual Formaesthesias:
Affective Valence by Visual Field
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Positive
Negative
Left
Right
VISUAL FIELD
Walter,Harrison,Foster,Williamson,2004
Multimodal Paraesthesia
Thalamic Syndrome
• “Eye Drillers”, look a hole
through you, no noises,
they don’t like you, wear
black religious clothing
• “Hee Haw Boys”
• too happy, talk too much,
colorful Hawaiian shirts
Right Visual Field
Left Visual Field
Mollet, Walters, & Harrison, 2004
HOSTILITY & VISION
• Harrison & Gorelczenko, 1990 (243 Ss=13)
• High Hostile Men;
Low Hostile Men
• High Hostile Women; Low Hostile Women
• NO STRESS CHALLENGE!
• HOSTILE = NEGATIVE BIAS AT LVF
NEGATIVE AFFECT BIAS
NEUTRAL FACES IDENTIFIED AS “ANGRY”
1.8
1.78
1.76
1.74
LVF
RVF
1.72
1.7
1.68
1.66
1.64
HI-HOST
LO-HOST
Harrison & Gorel, 1990
• EMOTIONAL FACE RECOGNITION
• Herridge, Harrison, Mollet, & Shenal, 2004
• High Hostile Men; Low Hostile Men
• HOSTILE = Less Accurate at LVF
• COLD PRESSOR: Affects Accuracy
•
LOW HOSTILE:Less Accurate Post CP
EMOTIONAL FACE
RECOGNITION
16
#
C15.5
O 15
R
R14.5
E 14
C
13.5
T
LVF
RVF
13
LO-HOST
HI-HOST
Herridge, Harrison, Mollet,&Shenal, 2004
Emotional Face Recognition
Pre & Post Cold Pressor
#
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
16.5
16
15.5
15
LVF
RVF
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
LH: Base
HH: Base
LH: CP
HH: CP
Herridge, Harrison, Mollet,&Shenal,2004
Functional Systems Approach
Audition
AUDITION
• DICHOTIC WORDS
• Snyder, Harrison, & Gorman, 1996
•
•
•
•
•
N=45 men
tower, dower, power, bower
neutral, angry, happy, sad
REA WORDS > REA AFFECT
LEA AFFECT > LEA WORDS
Total Correct By Ear
#
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
16
14
12
10
WORD
AFFECT
8
6
4
2
0
LEFT
RIGHT
EAR
Snyder,Harrison,Gorman,1996
Replication
• LEA EMOTIONAL SOUNDS
• Emerson, Everhart, Williamson & Harrison, 1999
(children)
• REA WORD SOUNDS
• Emerson, Everhart, Williamson & Harrison, 1999
• Alden, Harrison,Snyder,&Everhart, 1997
• Demaree & Harrison, 1997
• Hagopian & Harrison, unpublished
(children)
(elderly)
(adults)
(children)
Percent Correct By Ear
%
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
0.6
0.5
0.4
WORD
AFFECT
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
LEFT
RIGHT
EAR
Emerson, Everhart, Williamson & Harrison, 1999
Ear Advantage For Emotional Valence
Dichotic Listening
%
70
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
60
50
40
Left Ear
Right Ear
30
20
10
0
SAD
ANGRY
HAPPY
NEUTRAL
VALENCE
Emerson,Everhart,Williamson & Harrison, 1999
• Asymmetry in Men Differs From Women
• Higgins & Harrison, unpublished
Sex Differences
Laterality For Speech Sounds
0.25
POC
0.2
S
C
O
R
E
0.15
Sex
0.1
0.05
0
Men
Women
Higgins & Harrison, unpublished
Sex Differences In Frontal Lobe Laterality
Focused Listening to Left or Right Ear
S
Y
S
T
O
L
I
C
B
P
135
130
125
120
Men
Women
115
110
105
100
Left Ear
Right Ear
SIDE OF FOCUS
The Right Hemi-Aging Hypothesis
• Alden, Harrison, Snyder, & Everhart, 1997
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Age Differences in Intention to Right & to Left Hemispace
Dichotic Listening
Elderly & Younger Women (N=54)
Results:
Right Ear Advantage for CV Sounds
No Difference
Elderly Impaired
on Directing Intention to the Left Ear
CVs Identified at the Left and Right Ear by Age & Focus
Alden, Harrison, Snyder, & Everhart, 1997
T
O
T
A
L
D
E
T
E
C
T
E
D
18
16
14
12
Older L
Older R
Younger L
Younger R
10
8
6
4
2
0
Left
No Focus
FOCUS
Right
HOSTILITY & AUDITION
•
•
•
•
COLD PRESSOR STRESS
DICHOTIC LISTENING
CARDIOVASCULAR MEASURES
Demaree & Harrison, 1997b
High Hostile vs. Low Hostile
• HIGH HOSTILE: Cardiac Reactivity (HR)
• Enhanced LEA
• RIGHT Cerebral Activation to Stress
• LOW HOSTILE: Cardiac Stability (HR)
• Enhanced REA
• LEFT Cerebral Activation to Stress
Heart Rate
Pre & Post Stress Conditions
76
H
E
A
R
T
74
72
Lo-Hostile
Hi-Hostile
70
68
R
A
T
E
66
64
Pre-Stress
PostStress
Demaree & Harrison, 1997B
Number of Left Ear Stimuli
By Stress Condition
# 11.6
I 11.4
D
11.2
E
N 11
T 10.8
I
F 10.6
I 10.4
E
10.2
D
10
LoHostile
HiHostile
PreStress
PostStress
Demaree & Harrison, 1997B
Functional Systems Approach
Vestibular
VESTIBULAR
•
•
•
•
•
•
RESEARCH (bug Joe--in progress)
Vection Induced Motion (rotating chair)
Activation of Right Temporal
Sensation of Spinning to the Left
Activation of Left Temporal
Sensation of Spinning to the Right
A Pilot Project
Why Do People Barf?
K. C. Harrison
The Mad Scientist
Pilot Project
• Spinning to Right 30 Rotations
• Increased Activation of the Right Brain
• Decreased Activation of the Left Brain
•
Dizziness = Leftward Vection
•
Temperature spike
•
Nausea and Balance Problems
•
Large Leftward Eye Movements
After Spinning 30 Times
The Brain is Out of Balance
“I Am Sick”
Delta
Theta
Decreased Activation Left Brain
Beta
Increased Activation Right Brain
Left & Right Frontal Lobe
Delta Magnitude
9
M
i
c
r
o
V
o
l
t
s
8
7
6
5
F1vsF2
F3vsF4
F7vsF8
4
3
2
1
0
Normal
Sick
Left Frontal Lobe
Normal
Sick
Right Frontal Lobe
Left & Right Brain
Temporal Parietal & Occipital Lobe (PTO)
Beta Magnitude
8
7
M
i
c
r
o
V
o
l
t
s
6
T3vsT4
T5vsT6
P3vsP4
C3vsC4
O1vsO2
5
4
3
2
1
0
Normal
Sick
Left Brain (PTO)
Normal
Sick
Right Brain (PTO)
PTSD Left Vection with Anger & Fear:
A Clinical Study With Quantitative EEG
• Rhodes & Harrison, unpublished
•
•
•
•
•
•
Profuse Sweating & Rapid Heart Rate
Fearful Facial Configuration
Abdominal Contractions
Bodily Tremor
Self Reported--Loss of Control
Leftward Vection
DELTA Magnitude
Left & Right Frontal Lobe
18
16
uV
14
12
10
8
F7-Left
F8-Right
6
4
2
0
Baseline
Anger
CONDITION
Rhodes & Harrison, unpublished
BETA Magnitude
Left & Right Temporal Lobe
35
30
uV
25
20
T3-Left
T4-Right
15
10
5
0
Baseline
Anger
CONDITION
Rhodes & Harrison, unpublished
Functional Systems Approach
Somatosensory
SOMATOSENSORY
• FACIAL CONFIGURATION
• Herridge, Harrison, & Demaree, 1997
• N = 26 men
• “ANGER”=Increase Conductance at LEFT
• “HAPPY”=Increase Conductance at RIGHT
• “NEUTRAL”= NO DIFFERENCE
DUCHENNE 1862
Ekman et al., 1990
Facial Muscle Contractions Alter
Skin Conductance (umhos)
20.5
20
u 19.5
m
h 19
o
18.5
L-HAND
R-HAND
18
17.5
HAPPY
ANGRY
NEUTRAL
Muscles Contracted
Herridge, Harrison, Demaree, 1997
Replication: A Clinical Study
• PATHOLOGICAL POSITIVE AFFECT
•
“GELASTIC LABILITY”
• Demakis, Herridge, & Harrison, 1994
• Multiple Baseline Reversal Design
• Three Replications
• Skin Conductance (Umhos)
Gelastic Lability (Percent Change)
Asymmetry in Skin Conductance
120
%
C
H
A
N
G
E
100
80
L-HAND
R-HAND
60
40
20
0
NEUTRAL
HAPPY
B E HAV I O R
Demakis,Herridge,Harrison,1994
HOSTILITY & SOMATOSENSORY
•
•
•
•
FACIAL AFFECT CONFIGURATION
REPETITIVE TESTING (BLOCK 1 & 2)
SKIN CONDUCTANCE (Umhos)
Herridge, Harrison, & Demaree, 1997
High Hostile vs. Low Hostile
• HIGH HOSTILE:
• Enhanced Sympathetic Tone
• Slow Habituation at LEFT Hand
• LOW HOSTILE:
• Diminished Sympathetic Tone
• Slow Habituation at RIGHT Hand
Skin Conductance Habituation
U
m
h
o
s
21.5
21
20.5
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
16.5
16
Block 1
Block 2
Left
Right
Low Hostile
Left
Right
High Hostile
Herridge,Harrison,Demaree, 1997
Hostility & Temperature
•
•
•
•
A thesis for someone.
Note: temperature dysaesthesia
Lesion = “Cold” and Cold to the Touch
Investigate Role of Somaesthesis in
Cardiovascular Dynamics (at corresponding
body locations---homunculus)
Functional Systems Approach
Motor Strength
MOTOR
RIGHT HAND ADVANTAGE-STRENGTH
DEPRESSION
Crews, Harrison, & Rhodes, 1999 (women)
Emerson, Harrison, & Everhart, 2000 (boys)
ANXIETY
Everhart, Harrison, Shenal, Williamson,Wuensch, 2002(men)
HOSTILITY
Demaree, Harrison, & Higgins, 2000 (men)
SEX DIFFERENCES
Higgins & Harrison (unpublished)
Motor Asymmetry in Men Differs From Women
Grip Strength
G
R
I
P
K
g
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Men
Women
Left
Right
HAND
The Right Hemi-Aging Hypothesis
• Shapiro, Harrison, Crews, & Everhart, 1996
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Right Handed Ss (Coren, Porac, & Duncan)
Elderly & Younger Women (N=26)
Dynomometer Grip Strength
Context: Dim & Bright Light
Results:
Asymmetry = Significant in Bright Light
Asymmetry = No Difference in Dim Light
Elderly Left Hand Weaker in Bright Light
Note: Only Partial Data Reported. Needs Replication
Grip Strength as a Function of Context
Shapiro, Harrison, Crews, & Everhart, 1996
25
K
I
20
L
L
O 15
G
R 10
A
M
5
S
Left
Right
Left
Right
0
Younger
DIM
BRIGHT
Elderly
DIM
BRIGHT
HOSTILITY & MOTOR
• HAND GRIP STRENGTH
• Demaree, Harrison, Higgins, 2002
• HIGH HOSTILE:
•
FLEXOR STRONGER AT LEFT
• LOW HOSTILE:
•
FLEXOR STRONGER AT RIGHT
Hostility & Grip Strength
50
G
R
I
P
48
k
G
42
46
Hi-Host
Lo-Host
44
40
38
Left Hand
Right Hand
Demaree,Harrison,Higgins,2002
REPLICATIONS
• Emerson,Harrison,Everhart,Williamson,2000
• Anxious Depressed School-Aged Boys
• Stronger at Left Hand, Weaker at Right Hand
• Crews, Harrison, Rhodes, & Demaree, 1995
• “Anxious-Depressed Women”
• Stronger at Left Hand, Weaker at Right Hand
Facial Motor Tone
• Left Frontal
• Right Hemiface
Right Frontal
Left Hemiface
Facial Motor Tone:
Electromyogram
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hypothesis: Facial Asymmetry
Predict
Increased Left Facial Tone in Hostiles
Less Asymmetry in Women
could be a thesis for you
Sympathetic
-- Left Hemifacial Tone
Parasympathetic -- Right Hemifacial Tone
Hostility & Facial Motor Tone
• FACIAL INTENSITY & AFFECT
• Rhodes & Harrison, pending
• Predict
•
Heightened Left Hemifacial Tone
•
Increased Left Hemifacial Reactivity
•
Relationship Between
•
Left Hemiface and Cardiac Reactivity
Facial Motor Tone as a Function of Stress
(Rhodes & Harrison, 2004)
16
M
I
C
R
O
V
O
L
T
S
14
12
10
LoHostile
HiHostile
8
6
4
2
0
Base
CP
Recov
Left Masseter
Base
CP
Recov
Right Masseter
Systolic Blood Pressure as a Function of Stress
(Rhodes & Harrison, 2004)
135
S
Y
S
T
O
L
I
C
B
P
130
125
LoHostile
HiHostile
120
115
mmHg
110
Baseline
ColdPress
CONDITION
Recovery
PREMOTOR
• RAPID ALTERNATING MOVEMENTS
• Harrison, 1991
• Dual Concurrent Motor Tasks
• Reading Aloud
• Tapping
•
Right or Left Hand
•
Right or Left Elbow
Rapid Alternating Movements
%
C
H
A
N
G
E
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Left
Right
Hand
Elbow
Tapping Location
Harrison, 1991
Planned Research
• RAM
• Predict
•
Reduced Asymmetry in Women
• Concurrent Emotional Task
•
Increased Dual Task Capacity in Women
Functional Systems Approach
Frontal Eye Fields
Research Underway
• Frontal Eye Fields
• Mollet, Walters, & Harrison (pending)
• Lateral Eye Movements
• Hypothesis:
• Leftward  Increased Sympathetic Tone
• RightwardIncreased Parasympathetic Tone
Functional Systems Approach
Premotor Region
• Left Frontal
Verbal Fluency
Right Frontal
Design Fluency
Pet Scan During Noun/Verb Processing
(From Carlson, 2002)
Speech Fluency
A Clinical Study of Stuttering
•
•
•
•
•
Foster & Harrison, (submitted)
Patient
Developmental Nonfluent Aphasia
NONFLUENT “STUTTERING”
A CASE STUDY WITH QEEG
Left Frontal Delta 2 Magnitude
Quiet vs. Speech
M
I
C
R
O
V
O
L
T
14
12
10
8
F3
F7
6
4
2
0
QUIET
SPEECH
Foster & Harrison, 2004
Left & Right Frontal Delta 2 Magnitude
Quiet vs. Speech
M
I
C
R
O
V
O
L
T
14
12
10
8
Left
Right
6
4
2
0
F3 vs F4
F7 vs F8
QUIET
F3 vs F4
F7 vs F8
SPEECH
Foster & Harrison, 2004
Design Fluency
Right Frontal
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Foster, Williamson, & Harrison, 2004
Normal College Students (N = 45)
Ruff Figural Fluency Test
Hi Fluency (N = 15)
Lo Fluency (N = 15)
QEEG Right Frontal Delta Magnitude
Results
Lo Fluency = Increased Right Frontal Delta
Foster Graphs
• SCAN
Hostility & Fluency
Verbal Fluency vs. Design Fluency
• Williamson & Harrison, (2000; 2004)
• HIGH HOSTILE:
• Design Fluency----Increased Systole
• Verbal Fluency----Decreased Systole
• VERBAL FLUENCY:
• Increased Systole in LOW HOSTILES
• Decreased Systole in HIGH HOSTILES
Systolic Blood Pressure
Pre & Post Stress Conditions
m
m
122
Hg
119
121
120
118
Verbal
Design
117
116
115
114
113
Baseline
Stress
High Hostile
Baseline
Stress
Low Hostile
Williamson & Harrison, 2003
Perseverative Errors
Verbal Fluency vs. Design Fluency
• High Hostile Men
• More Perseverative Errors in Design Fluency
• High Hostile Men
• More Perseverative Errors Overall (Main Effect)
PERSEVERATIVE ERRORS
M
E
A
N
E
R
R
O
R
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
Verbal
Nonverb
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Lo-Hostile
Hi-Hostile
GROUP
Planned Research
• OBESITY & HEALTH
• Left & Right Frontal
• Regulation of the Gut
•
Design Fluency
•
Verbal Fluency
•
Should interfere with GI
•
Digestion
•
Should Interfere With Verbal Fluency In Men
Hostility & Self Awareness
• Demaree & Harrison, 1997a
• Neuropsychology Review
• Less Aware of Role of Self in Anger
• Conclude Others Responsible
• Demaree & Harrison, (pending)
• HIGH HOSTILE-Less Accurate Group ID
Accuracy of Group Identification
%
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Lo-Hostile
Hi-Hostile
Demaree & Harrison, 1997D
Hostility & Self Awareness
• Emerson & Harrison, 1990
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
45 Women
Stroop Stressor
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory
Low Anger--------Low Denial
High Anger--------Low Denial
Low Anger--------High Denial
High Hostile vs. Low Hostile
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GROUPS
LOW ANGER--HIGH DENIAL
Highest Reactivity
HIGH ANGER--LOW DENIAL
High Reactivity
LOW ANGER--LOW DENIAL
Stability
Blood Pressure
Pre & Post Stress
% 10
C 9
8
H
7
A
6
N
5
G 4
E 3
2
1
0
Lo/Lo
Hi/Lo
GROUP
Emerson & Harrison, 1990
Lo/Hi
Learning--Visual
• EKMAN’S AFFECTIVE FACES
• Harrison, Gorel, & Cook
• RAPID PROCESSING OF HAPPY FACES
• SLOW PROCESSING OF ANGRY FACES
LEARNING—Visual
Happy vs. Angry Faces
LEARNING--Audition
• THE AAVLT
• AUDITORY AFFECT VERBAL LEARNING TEST
• Snyder & Harrison, 1997
• Shenal & Harrison, 2003
• Mollet & Harrison, (Submitted)
• See Also: Everhart, Demaree, & Harrison, 2004
• Book Chapter in Psychology of Moods
•
POSITIVE WORD LIST
•
NEGATIVE WORD LIST
•
NEUTRAL WORD LIST
Sample Words Rated for
Familiarity & Affect Intensity
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL
Smile
Murder
Drum
Joy
Kill
Curtain
Happy
Cruel
Bell
Cheerful
Hate
House
Familiarity & Pleasantness Ratings:
Toglia & Battig (1978)
Emotional Learning
& Blood Pressure
• Snyder, Harrison, Shenal, 1997
• POSITIVE:
• NEGATIVE:
• NEUTRAL:
Decreased Blood Pressure
Increased Blood Pressure
No Change
Mean Arterial Blood Pressure
M
A
P
mm
Hg
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
Before
After
Positive
Negative
GROUP
Snyder, Harrison, Shenal, 1997
Neutral
REPLICATION
• Shenal & Harrison, 2003
• NEGATIVE LIST:
Increased Blood Pressure
• EXTENSION
• NEUTRAL SPEECH SOUNDS
•
LOWERS B.P.
• SEX DIFFERENCES
• Higgins & Harrison, (unpublished)
Emotion & Verbal Learning
• DOES HOSTILITY AFFECT VERBAL
LIST LEARNING?
• Mollet’s Thesis
• THE AAVLT
• NEUTRAL
• POSITIVE
• NEGATIVE
Words
Gradual Learning Curve
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
F(4,176) = 395.46, p < .0001
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Trial
Post hoc Comparisons:
Trial 1: M= 2.20, SD = 1.19, Trial 2: M= 3.16, SD = 1.21, Trial 3: M = 3.71, SD = 1.13
Trail 4: M = 4.02, SD = 1.00, Trial 5: M = 4.25, SD = .94
Primacy & Recency Effects
4
3.5
Words
3
Beg
Mid
End
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Location
F(2,88) = 77.44, p < .0001)
Post hoc Comparisons:
Beginning: M = 3.95, SD = 1.08
Middle: M = 2.98, SD = 1.47
End: M = 3.48, SD = 1.18
Better Recall of Negative List
3.6
3.55
Words
3.5
3.45
Neutral
Positive
Negative
3.4
3.35
3.3
3.25
3.2
List
(F(2,88) = 5.90, p < .004)
Post hoc Comparisons:
Negative: M = 3.58, SD = 1.38
Positive: M = 3.36, SD = 1.26
Neutral: M = 3.47, SD = 1.29
Words
Primacy Effect for Negative List
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Neutral
Positive
Negative
Beginning
Middle
Location
F (4,176) = 13.79, p < .0001
End
High Hostiles Slow Verbal Learners of
Neutral & Positive Words
Words
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Neu
Pos
Neg
1
0.5
0
1
2
3
4
Trial
Low Hostile
F (8,352) = 2.47, p < .02)
5
1
2
3
4
Trial
High Hostile
5
Hi Hostiles Recall Negative Words Best
Words
3.55
3.5
3.45
3.4
3.35
3.3
3.25
3.2
3.15
3.1
3.05
F(2,44) = 5.55, p < .01
Negative: M = 3.57, SD = 1.37
Positive: M = 3.28, SD =1.21
Neutral: M = 3.39, SD = 1.29
Neutral
Positive
Negative
List
HIGH HOSTILE
Emotion Intensity & QEEG
• DOES EMOTION INTENSITY VARY
WITH CORTICAL ACTIVATION –EEG?
• Foster &Harrison, 2002
Emotional Memory
Subjective Anger Intensity & QEEG Beta Magnitude
Low Beta
High Beta
Low Beta
High Beta
MEN
WOMEN
Intensity of Emotion Correlates With Cerebral Activation
Foster & Harrison, 2002
Age of Emotional Memory & QEEG
• Foster & Harrison, 2003
• INSERT GRAPHS
Cardiovascular Response & QEEG
CORTICAL ACTIVATION (EEG)
CORRELATES WITH CARDIOVASCULAR
RESPONSE
Foster & Harrison, 2004
Alpha & Beta Magnitude Correlate With Heart Rate and
Blood Pressure
Especially Frontal and Temporal Sites
• Scan Foster Graphs here
• See my desk for copy
Demaree, Harrison, & Rhodes (2000)
• We used quantitative
electroencephalography (QEEG)
– Measures brain activation in MicroVolts
Hostility & Quantitative EEG
• COLD PRESSOR STRESS
• CARDIOVASCULAR MEASURES
• QUANTITATIVE EEG
• Left Frontal………….….....……F7
• Left Temporal…………...…...…T3
• Right Frontal……………..……..F8
• Right Temporal………......……..T4
Heart Rate
Pre & Post Stress Condition
H
E
A
R
T
R
A
T
E
80
70
60
50
LoHostile
HiHostile
40
30
20
10
0
PreStress
PostStress
CONDITION
Demaree & Harrison, 1997C
Systolic Blood Pressure
Pre & Post Stress
134
m
m
H
g
132
130
128
Lo-Hostile
Hi-Hostile
126
124
122
120
118
PreStress
PostStress
CONDITION
Demaree & Harrison, 1997C
QEEG Beta Magnitude
By Electrode Site
B
E
T
A
12
*
11.5
11
M
A 10.5
G
10
N
I
9.5
T
U
9
D
E
F7
T3
F8
T4
Lo-Hostile
Hi-Hostile
Demaree & Harrison, 1997C
A PROPOSED SYSTEM
• RIGHT ORBITOFRONTAL• Deactivate-Hostility
• Activate-Decreased Hostility
• (Butters, 1970)
• RIGHT ANTERIOR TEMPORAL• Activate-Hostility (Ursin, 1960)
• Deactivate-Placid ( Woods, 1956)
PROPOSED ROLE IN
AUTONOMIC REGULATION
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIGHT FRONTAL INHIBITION
OVER LEFT VENTRICULAR REFLEX
(Harrison, unpublished)
& RIGHT TEMPORAL REGION
ACTIVATE-Sympathetic Arousal
(Gatchel & Barnes, 1989; Heilman-1993)
DEACTIVATE-Sympathetic Hypoarousal &
Bland Affect (Heilman-, 1970)
LEFT TEMPORAL-OPPOSITION
PROPOSED MECHANISMS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kinsbourne on Functional Cerebral Space
Dual Task Interference for Shared Space
HOSTILE: Sympathetic Tone
Dual Task :
Primary Task = Anger
Secondary Task = Sympathetic Tone
Stress Yields Sympathetic Disregulation
•
•
•
•
NONHOSTILE: Parasympathetic Tone
Dual Task:
Primary Task = Positive Affect
Secondary Task = Parasympathetic Tone
EXTRA SLIDES
EXTRA SLIDES
Smith (1994) On Hostility
• “…hostility connotes a devaluation of the
worth and motives of others, an expectation
that others are likely sources of wrong
doing, a relational view of being in
opposition toward others, and a desire to
inflict harm or see others harmed” (p.26).
A PROPOSED SYSTEM
• RIGHT ORBITOFRONTAL• DEACTIVATE- Increased Hostility
• ACTIVATE- Decreased Hostility
•
• RIGHT ANTERIOR TEMPORAL• ACTIVATEHostile (Ursin, 1960)
• DEACTIVATE- Placid (Woods, 1956)
PROPOSAL FOR AUTONOMIC
REGULATION
• RIGHT TEMPORAL REGION
• ACTIVATE- Sympathetic Arousal
•
(Gatchel & Barnes, 1989; Heilman-1993)
• DEACTIVATE- Sympathetic Hypoarousal &
•
Bland Affect (Heilman-, 1970)
• LEFT TEMPORAL REGION
•
ACTIVATE- Parasympathetic Arousal
•
(Wittling, 2000)
The Quigmans
Roanoke Times, 2002
Functional Systems Approach
Vision
Functional Systems Approach
Audition
Functional Systems Approach
Vestibular
Vestibular
•
•
•
•
•
•
Park & Harrison (in progress)
Induced Vection (spinning drum)
Activation of Right Temporal
Sensation of Spinning to the Left
Activation of Left Temporal
Sensation of Spinning to the Right
Functional Systems Approach
Somatosensory
Functional Systems Approach
Motor Strength
Depressed Boys & Grip Strength
19
G
R 18.5
I 18
P
Depressed
Non-Depr
17.5
17
k 16.5
G
16
Left Hand
Right Hand
Emerson,Harrison,Everhart,Williamson,2000
Depressed Women &
Left Hand Grip Strength
G
R
I
18.5
18
17.5
17
16.5
P
k
G
A-D
NA-ND
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
1
2
T R I A L
3
4
Functional Systems Approach
Facial Motor Tone
• Left Frontal
• Right Hemiface
Right Frontal
Left Hemiface
Functional Systems Approach
Frontal Eye Fields
Hostility &
The Frontal Eye Fields
•
•
•
•
•
•
Beck & Harrison (in progress)
Leftward Eye Movements
Rightward Eye Movements
Hypotheses
Blood Pressure
Behavior
Hostility & Learning
Positive vs. Negative Emotion
• Mollet & Harrison, 2004
List (Cold Pressor Group)
3.65
3.6
3.55
Words
3.5
3.45
Neutral
Positive
Negative
3.4
3.35
3.3
3.25
3.2
F(2,44) = 5.52, p < .01
Negative: M = 3.68, SD = 1.34
Neutral: M = 3.45, SD = 1.30
Positive: M = 3.40, SD = 1.31
Cold Pressor
List
FUNCTIONAL BRAIN
ASYMMETRY
• THE “ALIEN-ARM SYNDROME”
• LEFT BRAIN• LINGUISTIC & LOGICAL ANALYSIS
• RIGHT BRAIN• EMOTION & NEGATIVE EMOTION
• SPATIAL ANALYSIS
•
CLINICAL EXAMPLES
• AUDITORY AFFECT RECOGNITION
• “I just won a million dollars”
• “My mom just died”
• CONSTRUCTIONAL DRAWING
• “Draw a clock”
• “Draw a picture of a clock”
“Draw a Clock”
“Draw a Picture of a Clock”
Ley and Brydon (1979)
• Found significant LVF (right cerebrum) bias
for emotional valence recognition
• Subjects were quicker and more accurate in
determining facial valence when presented
to LVF
Strauss and Moscovitch (1981)
• Tachistoscopically presented 2 emotional
faces to either LVF or RVF (40 men and 40
women)
– Subjects were significantly better at
determining whether faces were of the same or
different affect when presented to LVF
– Also quicker and more accurate in determining
the facial valence within the LVF
Ley and Brydon (1979)
• Found significant LVF (right cerebrum) bias
for emotional valence recognition
• Subjects were quicker and more accurate in
determining facial valence when presented
to LVF
TOTAL TIME LAUGHING OR
SMILING
160
140
120
100
REP. 1
REP. 2
REP. 3
80
60
40
20
0
BASE-1
NEUTRAL
BASE-2
Demakis,Herridge,Harrison, 1994
SAD
Delta 2 Magnitude During
Quiet in Nonfluent Dysphasia
M
I
C
R
O
V
O
L
T
7
6
5
4
Left Brain
RightBrain
3
2
1
0
F3 vs F4 F7 vs F8 T3 vs T4 T5 vs T6 P3 vs P4
ELECTRODE LOCATION
Foster & Harrison
Delta 2 Magnitude During
Speech in Nonfluent Dysphasia
M
I
C
R
O
V
O
L
T
14
12
10
8
Left Brain
RightBrain
6
4
2
0
F3 vs F4 F7 vs F8 T3 vs T4 T5 vs T6 P3 vs P4
ELECTRODE LOCATION
Foster & Harrison
Depressed Women & Grip Fatigue
4
3.5
3
Kg.
2.5
Left Hand
RightHand
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Lo-Depr.
Hi-Depr.