4.5 Article

The Right Hemisphere Is Responsible for the Greatest Differences in Human Brain Response to High-Arousing Emotional versus Neutral Stimuli: A MEG Study

Journal

BRAIN SCIENCES
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11080960

Keywords

bootstrapping; emotion; magnetoencephalography (MEG); right hemisphere

Categories

Funding

  1. BMBF [16SV7209, BU 1327/4-1]
  2. Intramural Research Program at the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health (IRP-NIMH-NIH) [ZIAMH002927]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study using MEG and bootstrapping method found that the greatest differences in brain response to high-arousing emotional and neutral stimuli occur in the right temporo-parietal region. This highlights the essential role of the right hemisphere in emotion processing.
Studies investigating human brain response to emotional stimuli-particularly high-arousing versus neutral stimuli-have obtained inconsistent results. The present study was the first to combine magnetoencephalography (MEG) with the bootstrapping method to examine the whole brain and identify the cortical regions involved in this differential response. Seventeen healthy participants (11 females, aged 19 to 33 years; mean age, 26.9 years) were presented with high-arousing emotional (pleasant and unpleasant) and neutral pictures, and their brain responses were measured using MEG. When random resampling bootstrapping was performed for each participant, the greatest differences between high-arousing emotional and neutral stimuli during M300 (270-320 ms) were found to occur in the right temporo-parietal region. This finding was observed in response to both pleasant and unpleasant stimuli. The results, which may be more robust than previous studies because of bootstrapping and examination of the whole brain, reinforce the essential role of the right hemisphere in emotion processing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available