4.7 Article

The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review

期刊

BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 121-143

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X11000446

关键词

Discrete emotion; emotion experience; emotion perception; meta-analysis; neuroimaging; psychological construction

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [NSF 0631637]
  2. Harvard University Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative
  3. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [R01MH076136]
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [DP1OD003312]
  5. National Institute on Aging (NIA) [R01 AG030311]
  6. Army Reasearch Institute (ARI) [W91WAW-08-C-0018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers have wondered how the brain creates emotions since the early days of psychological science. With a surge of studies in affective neuroscience in recent decades, scientists are poised to answer this question. In this target article, we present a meta-analytic summary of the neuroimaging literature on human emotion. We compare the locationist approach (i.e., the hypothesis that discrete emotion categories consistently and specifically correspond to distinct brain regions) with the psychological constructionist approach (i.e., the hypothesis that discrete emotion categories are constructed of more general brain networks not specific to those categories) to better understand the brain basis of emotion. We review both locationist and psychological constructionist hypotheses of brain-emotion correspondence and report meta-analytic findings bearing on these hypotheses. Overall, we found little evidence that discrete emotion categories can be consistently and specifically localized to distinct brain regions. Instead, we found evidence that is consistent with a psychological constructionist approach to the mind: A set of interacting brain regions commonly involved in basic psychological operations of both an emotional and non-emotional nature are active during emotion experience and perception across a range of discrete emotion categories.

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