4.0 Article

Frontopolar and anterior temporal cortex activation in a moral judgment task - Preliminary functional MRI results in normal subjects

Journal

ARQUIVOS DE NEURO-PSIQUIATRIA
Volume 59, Issue 3B, Pages 657-664

Publisher

ASSOC ARQUIVOS NEURO- PSIQUIATRIA
DOI: 10.1590/S0004-282X2001000500001

Keywords

frontal lobes; moral judgment; acquired sociopathy; psychopathy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To study the brain areas which are activated when normal subjects make moral judgments. Method: Ten normal adults underwent BOLD functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during the auditory presentation of sentences that they were instructed to silently judge as either right or wrong. Half of the sentences had an explicit moral content (We break the law when necessary), the other half comprised factual statements devoid of moral connotation (Stones are made of water). After scanning, each subject rated the moral content, emotional valence, and judgment difficulty of each sentence on Likert-like scales. To exclude the effect of emotion on the activation results, individual responses were hemodynamically modeled for event-related fMRI analysis. The general linear model was used to evaluate the brain areas activated by moral judgment. Results: Regions activated during moral judgment included the frontopolar cortex (FPC) medial frontal gyrus, right anterior temporal cortex, lenticular nucleus, and cerebellum. Activation of FPC and medial frontal gyrus (BA 10/46 and 9) were largely independent of emotional experience and represented the largest areas of activation. Conclusions: These results concur with clinical observations assigning a critical role for the frontal poles and right anterior temporal cortex in the mediation of complex judgment processes according to moral constraints. The FPC may work in concert with the orbitofrontal and dorsolateral cortex in the regulation of human social conduct.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available