4.7 Article

Cortical functional connectivity decodes subconscious, task-irrelevant threat-related emotion processing

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 1355-1363

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.051

关键词

Functional networks; Brain-reading; Emotion processing; Subconscious threat detection

资金

  1. NRSA [F31MH088104-02]
  2. National Institute of Drug Abuse [K01 DA029598-01]
  3. US Army TARDEC [W56HZV-04-P-L]
  4. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
  5. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  6. Molecular Genetic Studies of Fear and Anxiety
  7. Clinical Studies of Fear and Anxiety [PO1MH60970]
  8. NARSAD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is currently unclear to what extent cortical structures are required for and engaged during subconscious processing of biologically salient affective stimuli (i.e. the 'low-road' vs. 'many-roads' hypotheses). Here we show that cortical-cortical and cortical-subcortical functional connectivity (FC) contain substantially more information, relative to subcortical-subcortical FC (i.e. 'subcortical alarm' and other limbic regions), that predicts subliminal fearful face processing within individuals using training data from separate subjects. A plot of classification accuracy vs. number of selected whole-brain FC features revealed 92% accuracy when learning was based on the top 8 features from each training set. The most informative FC was between right amygdala and precuneus, which increased during subliminal fear conditions, while left and right amygdala FC decreased, suggesting a bilateral decoupling of this key limbic region during processing of subliminal fear-related stimuli. Other informative FC included angular gyrus, middle temporal gyrus and cerebellum. These findings identify FC that decodes subliminally perceived, task-irrelevant affective stimuli, and suggest that cortical structures are actively engaged by and appear to be essential for subliminal fear processing. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据