Functional atlas of emotional faces processing: a voxel-based meta-analysis of 105 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies.
Functional atlas of emotional faces processing: a voxel-based meta-analysis of 105 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies.
复制标题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009-11
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Fusar-Poli;A. Placentino;F. Carletti;P. Landi;P. Allen;S. Surguladze;F. Benedetti;Marta Abbamonte-Mart
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Fusar-Poli;A. Placentino;F. Carletti;P. Landi;P. Allen;S. Surguladze;F. Benedetti;Marta Abbamonte-Mart
我们的大多数社会互动都涉及到从他人脸上感知情感信息。此外，这种情绪过程在包括精神病和抑郁症在内的一系列临床疾病中被认为是异常的。然而，情绪面部处理背后的确切神经功能地图并没有很好地定义。方法：两位独立的研究人员分别进行了PubMed（1990年至2008年5月）的综合搜索，以查找在健康参与者中使用一种变体的情绪面孔范式的所有功能磁共振成像（fMRI）研究。搜索词是：“功能磁共振成像和快乐的脸”、“功能磁共振成像和悲伤的脸”、“功能磁共振成像和恐惧的脸”、“功能磁共振成像和愤怒的脸”、“功能磁共振成像和厌恶的脸”以及“功能磁共振成像和中性的脸”。我们提取空间坐标并将其插入电子数据库。我们对基于体素的meta分析进行了激活似然估计分析。在最初确定的研究中，105项符合我们的纳入标准。整个数据库由1785个大脑坐标组成，产生了1600名健康参与者的总体样本。基于体素的脑激活定量meta分析提供了1)人脸主效应的神经功能图；2)情绪效价的主效应；3)年龄、性别、外显加工与内隐加工、磁场强度的调节效应。对情绪化面孔的处理与视觉、边缘、颞顶和前额叶区域的激活增加有关；内果皮;还有小脑。快乐、恐惧和悲伤的面孔特别激活了杏仁核，而愤怒或厌恶的面孔对这一大脑区域没有影响。此外，杏仁核对恐惧表情的敏感度高于对快乐或悲伤表情的敏感度。在处理厌恶和愤怒的面孔时，有选择性地报道了岛叶激活。然而，厌恶的面孔比愤怒的面孔更敏感。相反，视觉皮层和小脑的神经反应在所有情绪状态下都可以观察到。虽然激活似然估计方法是目前神经影像学研究中最强大、最可靠的元分析方法之一，但它对效应大小不敏感。结论：本研究提供了详细的神经功能图谱，可为今后精神病患者情绪面部加工的fMRI研究提供规范性参考。我们发现，大脑边缘区和岛脑区控制基本情绪的神经网络存在选择性差异。
BACKGROUND Most of our social interactions involve perception of emotional information from the faces of other people. Furthermore, such emotional processes are thought to be aberrant in a range of clinical disorders, including psychosis and depression. However, the exact neurofunctional maps underlying emotional facial processing are not well defined. METHODS Two independent researchers conducted separate comprehensive PubMed (1990 to May 2008) searches to find all functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies using a variant of the emotional faces paradigm in healthy participants. The search terms were: "fMRI AND happy faces," "fMRI AND sad faces," "fMRI AND fearful faces," "fMRI AND angry faces," "fMRI AND disgusted faces" and "fMRI AND neutral faces." We extracted spatial coordinates and inserted them in an electronic database. We performed activation likelihood estimation analysis for voxel-based meta-analyses. RESULTS Of the originally identified studies, 105 met our inclusion criteria. The overall database consisted of 1785 brain coordinates that yielded an overall sample of 1600 healthy participants. Quantitative voxel-based meta-analysis of brain activation provided neurofunctional maps for 1) main effect of human faces; 2) main effect of emotional valence; and 3) modulatory effect of age, sex, explicit versus implicit processing and magnetic field strength. Processing of emotional faces was associated with increased activation in a number of visual, limbic, temporoparietal and prefrontal areas; the putamen; and the cerebellum. Happy, fearful and sad faces specifically activated the amygdala, whereas angry or disgusted faces had no effect on this brain region. Furthermore, amygdala sensitivity was greater for fearful than for happy or sad faces. Insular activation was selectively reported during processing of disgusted and angry faces. However, insular sensitivity was greater for disgusted than for angry faces. Conversely, neural response in the visual cortex and cerebellum was observable across all emotional conditions. LIMITATIONS Although the activation likelihood estimation approach is currently one of the most powerful and reliable meta-analytical methods in neuroimaging research, it is insensitive to effect sizes. CONCLUSION Our study has detailed neurofunctional maps to use as normative references in future fMRI studies of emotional facial processing in psychiatric populations. We found selective differences between neural networks underlying the basic emotions in limbic and insular brain regions.