Neural systems supporting the preparatory control of emotional responses

Tor D. Wager, Brent L. Hughes, Matthew L. Davidson, Melissa Brandon, and Kevin N. Ochsner

Department of Psychology, Columbia University

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION RESULTS: fMRI activityRESULTS: fMRI activity

METHODSMETHODSExperimental design• n = 36 participants, EPI BOLD imaging on 1.5T GE (TR = 2 s, 31 slices 3.5 x 3.5 x 4.5 mm voxels). 6 subjects excluded prior to analysis because they were not within movement, normalization, or timing-accuracy tolerances.

• Three periods of interest: cue-processing (1 s), picture anticipation (4 s), picture viewing (stimulus period; 8 s). Catch trials and jittered intervals permitted separate estimation of activity in each period.• Three task conditions: Neutral picture viewing (Neu); Negative picture viewing (Neg); Reappraisal of negative picture (Reapp). Each condition cued with a symbol. Cues always valid. • Pre-processing and 1st level analysis with SPM2, canonical HRF. 2nd-level analysis using robust regression and custom mediation fMRI software. Display thresholds: p < .005 and 10 contiguous voxels• Contrasts of interest: [Neg - Neu] and [Reapp - Neg]

+How negative do you feel?

2 sec 4 sec 8 sec 4 – 7 sec 2.1 sec 4 – 7 secAnticipation and Stimulus Trial

+ +

+How negative do you feel?

+

Anticipation Only Trial

How negative do you feel?

+ +

Stimulus Only Trial

Figure 1. Study design includes three trial types: Anticipation and stimulus trials, Anticipation only trials, and Stimulus only trials, for each of the 3 conditions (Reapp, Look Negative, and Look Neutral).

Figure 3. Areas showing group activation and subsets of activated regions that are also correlated with success (p < .05)

RESULTS: REPORTED AFFECTRESULTS: REPORTED AFFECT

How we mentally prepare for an upcoming negative experience plays a key part in human emotional life. Negative expectations may enhance anxiety and the aversiveness of subsequent events. Alternatively, preparatory processing may be critical for establishing the cognitive context for dealing effectively with later events. Our long-term goal is to establish a working model of how brain systems interact to support flexible cognitive regulation of affect.

In this study, we examine the relationships between expectancy- and stimulus-related brain processes in an affective paradigm (viewing aversive pictures) from a multivariate perspective. We focus mainly on brain activity when preparing and executing cognitive reappraisal strategies to minimize negative emotion. We find that multiple brain networks make independent contributions to reported reappraisal success.

Questions• Does successful cognitive reappraisal involve establishing an appropriate task set before a stimulus appears? If so, we might expect anticipatory activation of networks related to successful reappraisal (e.g., lateral and medial prefrontal cortex) during anticipation.• Are there multiple brain networks that independently contribute to successful reappraisal? How much of the variability in reported success do they explain?• Are anticipatory contributions to reappraisal success mediated by or independent of changes in brain activity during picture viewing?

REFERENCESREFERENCESBeauregard, M., et al. 2001. J of Neuroscience, 21, RC165. Kalisch, R., et al. 2005. J Cog Neuro, 17: 874-883.Ochsner, K.N., et al. 2002.. J Cog Neuro 14:8.Ochsner, K.N., et al. 2004. NeuroImage, 23.Shrout & Bolger, 2002. Psychol Methods, 7: p. 422-45.Wager, T.D., et al. 2004. Science, 303.

Mediation and principal components analyses• Standard voxel-wise correlation analysis: Identify regions strongly correlated with reappraisal success during stimulus period (See Fig. 2) in [Reapp - Neg] contrast• Identify network: Perform principal components; average over high-loading voxels (r >= 0.5) to get single network activation score for each participant• Identify additional networks: Search for additional voxels correlated with reappraisal success. Mediation analysis, with bootstrap test for direct (unmediated) and mediated effects. Identify components.• Multiple regression to predict reappraisal success using average scores from multiple networks

Figure 2. Ratings of negative affect showed that reappraisal decreased negative affect reported in response to photos.

Larger decrease:more Reappraisal Success

(A)Does successful cognitive reappraisal involve establishing an appropriate task set? Probably not. Good reappraisers show less anticipatory frontal activity. Cue-processing increases in PFC are associated with reduced reappraisal efficacy. Anticipatory frontal activity decreases for reappraisal, and decreases are predictive of reappraisal success.

(B) Are there multiple brain networks that independently contribute to successful reappraisal? There are, as shown below.

Examining success-correlated regions for Reapp - Neg (yellow)

…

One principal component dominates…

…suggesting that many of these regions are intercorrelated

(and provide redundant information)Correlation with first PC score

Voxel loadings on first PC

Controlling for the average across the voxels above, a second set of voxels explains significant variance in success (also dominated by a single PC, shown in green)

Network 1

Network 2

Caudate

Putamen

Nuc. accumbens

In the Cue period, a third network predicted additional variance

Partial regression scatterplots from multiple regressionVariance in success

explained

0.27

0.57

0.76

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Stim-Step 1only

StimSteps1+2

Stim +Cue

Adjusted R-square

(C) Are anticipatory contributions to reappraisal success mediated by or independent of changes in brain activity during picture viewing? No. Anticipatory activity in midline regions predicts lower success, and this is independent of stimulus-processing activity.

Beta SE t p Raw rStim, Step 1 (yellow) 0.51 0.071 7.17 < .0001 0.56Stim, Step 2 (green) -0.31 0.073 -4.19 < .0001 0.06Cue period (blue) -0.23 0.048 -4.80 < .0001 -0.57

• 63% of variance explained by first PC

• Second PC does not explain significant additional variance in success

http://www.scan.psych.columbia.edu/Columbia Psychology SCAN group

r = -0.57

Reapp Success

Activation

Activation correlated with decreases in negative affect

Activation correlated with increases in negative affect

Deactivation

Deactivation correlated with increases in negative affect

Deactivation correlated with decreases in negative affect

Cue Period Anticipation Period Picture Viewing Period

Look

Neg

ativ

e -

Look

Neu

tral

Rea

ppra

isal

- L

ook

Neg

ativ

e

r = -0.48

Rea

pp -

Neg

Neg Affect

Neg

- N

eutr

al

Rea

pp -

Neg

Reapp Success

Cognitive & Affective Control Lab

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/tor/

* Download this poster at the website above