4.7 Review

Processing of emotional vocalizations in bilateral inferior frontal cortex

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 37, 期 10, 页码 2847-2855

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.10.007

关键词

Voice; Emotional vocalizations; Prosody; Inferior frontal cortex; fMRI

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [SNSF 105314_124572/1]
  2. NCCR in Affective Sciences at the University of Geneva [51NF40-104897]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A current view proposes that the right inferior frontal cortex (IFC) is particularly responsible for attentive decoding and cognitive evaluation of emotional cues in human vocalizations. Although some studies seem to support this view, an exhaustive review of all recent imaging studies points to an important functional role of both the right and the left IFC in processing vocal emotions. Second, besides a supposed predominant role of the IFC for an attentive processing and evaluation of emotional voices in IFC, these recent studies also point to a possible role of the IFC in preattentive and implicit processing of vocal emotions. The studies specifically provide evidence that both the right and the left IFC show a similar anterior-to-posterior gradient of functional activity in response to emotional vocalizations. This bilateral IFC gradient depends both on the nature or medium of emotional vocalizations (emotional prosody versus nonverbal expressions) and on the level of attentive processing (explicit versus implicit processing), closely resembling the distribution of terminal regions of distinct auditory pathways, which provide either global or dynamic acoustic information. Here we suggest a functional distribution in which several IFC subregions process different acoustic information conveyed by emotional vocalizations. Although the rostro-ventral IFC might categorize emotional vocalizations, the caudo-dorsal IFC might be specifically sensitive to their temporal features. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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