The Virginia Tech Neuropsychology Laboratory
description
Transcript of The Virginia Tech Neuropsychology Laboratory
The Virginia TechNeuropsychology Laboratory
A Functional Neural Systems Approach Emotion: Health
Sex Differences & Aging Emotional Disorders
HOSTILITY & HEALTH
A Robust Literature On Hostility, Cardiovascular Lability, and
Cardiovascular Risk
SEX DIFFERENCES & HEALTHLATERALITY ISSUES?
A Robust Literature On Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Lability, and
Cardiovascular Risk
AGING & HEALTHRIGHT HEMI-AGING?
A Robust Literature On Cardiovascular Lability, and
Cardiovascular Risk
Cerebral Mediation of Emotion:& the Autonomic Nervous System
• Right Brain• Sympathetic Tone• Sweating; >BP;>HR• Glucose Mobilization• Cholesterol Mobilization
• Left Brain • Parasympathetic• Quiescent State• Digestion• Absorption
NEUROPSYCHOLOGY & EMOTION THEORY
• RIGHT HEMISPHERE MODEL• HEILMAN (1982)
• RIGHT CEREBRUM:• Primary Role in Emotion & Arousal
• POSTERIOR = “Sensory Reception or Attention”• ANTERIOR = “Motor Expression or Intention”
• VALENCE MODEL• TUCKER & WILLIAMSON (1984)• DAVIDSON (1993)• “Balance Model” or “Valence Model”
• Relative Right Frontal Activation• NEGATIVE AFFECT• Relative Left Frontal Activation• POSITIVE AFFECT
• BEHAVIORAL ACTIVATION MODEL (BIS/BAS)• GRAY• A NONHUMAN ANIMAL MODEL
• BAS & LEFT FRONTAL ACTIVATION• POSITIVE AFFECT• APPROACH• BIS & RIGHT FRONTAL ACTIVATION• NEGATIVE AFFECT• FEAR OR ANXIETY
• DOMINANCE-SUBMISSION MODEL• DEMAREE, EVERHART, YOUNGSTROM, &
HARRISON (2004)
• LEFT FRONTAL ACTIVATION:• DOMINANCE• RIGHT FRONTAL ACTIVATION:• SUBMISSION
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
• LESS CONTROVERSY:• Right Brain & Negative Emotion
• MORE CONTROVERSY:• Asymmetry For Positive Emotion
• Except for Heilman• Models Ignore Sensory or Posterior Brain
DYNAMIC FUNCTIONAL NEURAL SYSTEMS THEORY
• SENSORY ANALYSIS =• POSTERIOR BRAIN• SENSORY PROJECTION AREAS
• INHIBITORY REGULATION & MOTOR EXPRESSION• THE FRONTAL LOBES• INHIBITORY REGULATION• INTENTION• MOTOR PROJECTION AREAS
Our Functional Systems Approach:Systematic Research & Replication
Functional Systems ApproachVision
VISION
• FACIAL AFFECT, T-SCOPE, RT• N = 52 (26 Men; 26 Women)• Harrison, Gorelczenko, & Cook, 1990
• Left VF Advantage • Asymmetry in Men Differs From Women
Ventral View of the Visual Projections
Ekman’s Emotional Faces
Harrison & Gorel, 1990
Reaction Time (log 10) By Visual Field
0.9750.98
0.9850.99
0.9951
1.0051.01
1.0151.02
MEN WOMEN
LVFRVF
Replication
• Harrison & Gorelczenko (1990)• Crews & Harrison (1994)• RT Faster at Left VF• SYMMETRY for positive faces• ASYMMETRY In Men Not = Women• Herridge, Harrison, Shenal, Mollet (2003)• ACCURACY Increased at Left VF
Crews & Harrison, 1994
Reaction Time (secs) By Visual Field
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
Left Right
HAPPYANGRY
VISUAL FIELD
Harrison & Gorel, 1990 (men & women)
Reaction Time (LOG10) By Visual Field
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Left Right
HAPPYANGRY
VISUAL FIELD
Harrison & Gorel, 1990 (men & women)
Reaction Time (LOG10) By Visual Field
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
MEN WOMEN
LVFRVF
Herridge, Harrison, Shenal, Mollet, 2004
Accuracy (# Correct) By Visual Field
02468
1012141618
HAPPY NEUTRAL ANGRY
LVFRVF
The Right Hemi-Aging Hypothesis
• McDowell, Harrison, Demaree, 1994 • 10 Faces Depicting 5 Affective Valences• 50 Item Photo Album (Ekman’s Faces)• Elderly & Younger Men & Women (N=60)• Results:• Accuracy of Happy Affect Faces = No Difference• Elderly Impaired on Accuracy of Each Negative
Affect Valence (Sad, Angry, & Fearful)
Correct Responses By Age and Affect Category McDowell, Harrison, Demaree, 1994
0123456789
10
Happy Neutral Sad Angry Fearful
YoungerElderly
MEAN # CORRECT
AFFECTIVE VALENCE
• Billings, Harrison, & Alden, 1993• Reduced Left Visual Field Bias Among
Elderly Women• Neutral Faces
Reported Affect (Bias) For Neutral Faces by Visual Field
Billings, Harrison, & Alden, 1993
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
Younger Elderly
LeftRight
REPORTED
AFFECT
Visual Hallucinations: A Clinical Study
• Walters, Harrison, Foster, Williamson, 2004
• Retrospective Review of Archival Data• 200 Patients on Rehabilitation Unit at a • Tertiary Care Medical Center• 30 Identified With Visual Formaesthesias• 16 Men & 14 Women
Walter,Harrison,Foster,Williamson,2004
Visual Formaesthesias: Affective Valence by Visual Field
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Left Right
PositiveNegative
VISUAL FIELD
PERCENT
Mollet, Walters, & Harrison, 2004
Multimodal Paraesthesia Thalamic Syndrome
• “Eye Drillers”, look a hole through you, no noises, they don’t like you, wear black religious clothing
• “Hee Haw Boys”• too happy, talk too much,
colorful Hawaiian shirts
Left Visual Field Right Visual Field
HOSTILITY & VISION
• Harrison & Gorelczenko, 1990 (243 Ss=13)
• High Hostile Men; Low Hostile Men• High Hostile Women; Low Hostile Women
• NO STRESS CHALLENGE!• HOSTILE = NEGATIVE BIAS AT LVF
NEGATIVE AFFECT BIASNEUTRAL FACES IDENTIFIED AS “ANGRY”
1.64
1.66
1.68
1.7
1.72
1.74
1.76
1.78
1.8
HI-HOST LO-HOST
LVFRVF
Harrison & Gorel, 1990
• EMOTIONAL FACE RECOGNITION• Herridge, Harrison, Mollet, & Shenal, 2004
• High Hostile Men; Low Hostile Men
• HOSTILE = Less Accurate at LVF• COLD PRESSOR: Affects Accuracy• LOW HOSTILE:Less Accurate Post CP
Herridge, Harrison, Mollet,&Shenal, 2004
EMOTIONAL FACE RECOGNITION
13
13.5
14
14.5
15
15.5
16
LO-HOST HI-HOST
LVFRVF
#CORRECT
Herridge, Harrison, Mollet,&Shenal,2004
Emotional Face Recognition Pre & Post Cold Pressor
12.5
13
13.5
14
14.5
15
15.5
16
16.5
LH: Base HH: Base LH: CP HH: CP
LVFRVF
#CORRECT
Functional Systems ApproachAudition
AUDITION
• DICHOTIC WORDS• Snyder, Harrison, & Gorman, 1996
• N=45 men• tower, dower, power, bower• neutral, angry, happy, sad• REA WORDS > REA AFFECT• LEA AFFECT > LEA WORDS
Snyder,Harrison,Gorman,1996
Total Correct By Ear
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
LEFT RIGHT
WORDAFFECT
EAR
#CORRECT
Replication• LEA EMOTIONAL SOUNDS• Emerson, Everhart, Williamson & Harrison, 1999
(children)
• REA WORD SOUNDS• Emerson, Everhart, Williamson & Harrison, 1999 (children)• Alden, Harrison,Snyder,&Everhart, 1997 (elderly)• Demaree & Harrison, 1997 (adults)• Hagopian & Harrison, unpublished (children)
Emerson, Everhart, Williamson & Harrison, 1999
Percent Correct By Ear
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
LEFT RIGHT
WORDAFFECT
%
CORRECT
EAR
Emerson,Everhart,Williamson & Harrison, 1999
Ear Advantage For Emotional Valence Dichotic Listening
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SAD ANGRY HAPPY NEUTRAL
Left EarRight Ear
%
CORRECT
VALENCE
• Asymmetry in Men Differs From Women• Higgins & Harrison, unpublished
Higgins & Harrison, unpublished
Sex DifferencesLaterality For Speech Sounds
POC
SCORE
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Men Women
Sex
Sex Differences In Frontal Lobe LateralityFocused Listening to Left or Right Ear
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
Left Ear Right Ear
MenWomen
SYSTOLIC
BP SIDE OF FOCUS
The Right Hemi-Aging Hypothesis
• Alden, Harrison, Snyder, & Everhart, 1997 • Age Differences in Intention to Right & to Left Hemispace• Dichotic Listening• Elderly & Younger Women (N=54)• Results:• Right Ear Advantage for CV Sounds• No Difference • Elderly Impaired • on Directing Intention to the Left Ear
CVs Identified at the Left and Right Ear by Age & Focus
Alden, Harrison, Snyder, & Everhart, 1997
02468
1012141618
Left No Focus Right
Older LOlder RYounger LYounger R
TOTAL DETECTED
FOCUS
HOSTILITY & AUDITION
• COLD PRESSOR STRESS• DICHOTIC LISTENING• CARDIOVASCULAR MEASURES• Demaree & Harrison, 1997b
High Hostile vs. Low Hostile
• HIGH HOSTILE: Cardiac Reactivity (HR)• Enhanced LEA• RIGHT Cerebral Activation to Stress
• LOW HOSTILE: Cardiac Stability (HR)• Enhanced REA• LEFT Cerebral Activation to Stress
Demaree & Harrison, 1997B
Heart Rate Pre & Post Stress Conditions
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
Pre-Stress PostStress
Lo-HostileHi-Hostile
HEART
RATE
Demaree & Harrison, 1997B
Number of Left Ear StimuliBy Stress Condition
10
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8
11
11.2
11.4
11.6
PreStress PostStress
LoHostileHiHostile
#IDENTIFIED
Functional Systems ApproachVestibular
VESTIBULAR
• RESEARCH (bug Joe--in progress)
• Vection Induced Motion (rotating chair)• Activation of Right Temporal• Sensation of Spinning to the Left• Activation of Left Temporal• Sensation of Spinning to the Right
A Pilot ProjectWhy Do People Barf?
K. C. Harrison
The Mad Scientist
Pilot Project
• Spinning to Right 30 Rotations• Increased Activation of the Right Brain• Decreased Activation of the Left Brain• Dizziness = Leftward Vection• Temperature spike • Nausea and Balance Problems• Large Leftward Eye Movements
After Spinning 30 TimesThe Brain is Out of Balance
“I Am Sick”
Delta BetaTheta
Decreased Activation Left Brain Increased Activation Right Brain
Left & Right Frontal LobeDelta Magnitude
0123456789
Normal Sick Normal Sick
F1vsF2F3vsF4F7vsF8
Left Frontal Lobe Right Frontal Lobe
MicroVol ts
Left & Right BrainTemporal Parietal & Occipital Lobe (PTO)
Beta Magnitude
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Normal Sick Normal Sick
T3vsT4T5vsT6P3vsP4C3vsC4O1vsO2
Left Brain (PTO) Right Brain (PTO)
MicroVol ts
PTSD Left Vection with Anger & Fear:A Clinical Study With Quantitative EEG
• Rhodes & Harrison, unpublished• Profuse Sweating & Rapid Heart Rate• Fearful Facial Configuration• Abdominal Contractions• Bodily Tremor• Self Reported--Loss of Control• Leftward Vection
Rhodes & Harrison, unpublished
DELTA Magnitude Left & Right Frontal Lobe
02468
1012141618
Baseline Anger
F7-LeftF8-Right
CONDITION
uV
Rhodes & Harrison, unpublished
BETA Magnitude Left & Right Temporal Lobe
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Baseline Anger
T3-LeftT4-Right
CONDITION
uV
Functional Systems ApproachSomatosensory
SOMATOSENSORY
• FACIAL CONFIGURATION• Herridge, Harrison, & Demaree, 1997• N = 26 men
• “ANGER”=Increase Conductance at LEFT• “HAPPY”=Increase Conductance at RIGHT• “NEUTRAL”= NO DIFFERENCE
DUCHENNE 1862
Ekman et al., 1990
Herridge, Harrison, Demaree, 1997
Facial Muscle Contractions Alter Skin Conductance (umhos)
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
HAPPY ANGRY NEUTRAL
L-HANDR-HAND
umho
Muscles Contracted
Replication: A Clinical Study
• PATHOLOGICAL POSITIVE AFFECT• “GELASTIC LABILITY”• Demakis, Herridge, & Harrison, 1994
• Multiple Baseline Reversal Design• Three Replications• Skin Conductance (Umhos)
Demakis,Herridge,Harrison,1994
Gelastic Lability (Percent Change)Asymmetry in Skin Conductance
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
NEUTRAL HAPPY
L-HANDR-HAND
B E H A V I O R
% CHANGE
HOSTILITY & SOMATOSENSORY
• FACIAL AFFECT CONFIGURATION• REPETITIVE TESTING (BLOCK 1 & 2)• SKIN CONDUCTANCE (Umhos)• Herridge, Harrison, & Demaree, 1997
High Hostile vs. Low Hostile
• HIGH HOSTILE:• Enhanced Sympathetic Tone• Slow Habituation at LEFT Hand• LOW HOSTILE:• Diminished Sympathetic Tone• Slow Habituation at RIGHT Hand
Herridge,Harrison,Demaree, 1997
Skin Conductance Habituation
1616.5
1717.5
1818.5
1919.5
2020.5
2121.5
Left Right Left Right
Block 1Block 2
Umhos
Low Hostile High Hostile
Hostility & Temperature
• A thesis for someone.• Note: temperature dysaesthesia• Lesion = “Cold” and Cold to the Touch• Investigate Role of Somaesthesis in
Cardiovascular Dynamics (at corresponding body locations---homunculus)
Functional Systems ApproachMotor Strength
MOTOR
RIGHT HAND ADVANTAGE-STRENGTH DEPRESSION Crews, Harrison, & Rhodes, 1999 (women) Emerson, Harrison, & Everhart, 2000 (boys) ANXIETY Everhart, Harrison, Shenal, Williamson,Wuensch, 2002(men) HOSTILITY Demaree, Harrison, & Higgins, 2000 (men)
SEX DIFFERENCES Higgins & Harrison (unpublished) Motor Asymmetry in Men Differs From Women
Grip Strength
05
101520253035404550
Left Right
MenWomen
GRIPKg
H A N D
The Right Hemi-Aging Hypothesis
• Shapiro, Harrison, Crews, & Everhart, 1996 • Right Handed Ss (Coren, Porac, & Duncan)• Elderly & Younger Women (N=26)• Dynomometer Grip Strength• Context: Dim & Bright Light• Results:• Asymmetry = Significant in Bright Light• Asymmetry = No Difference in Dim Light• Elderly Left Hand Weaker in Bright Light• Note: Only Partial Data Reported. Needs Replication
Grip Strength as a Function of Context Shapiro, Harrison, Crews, & Everhart, 1996
0
5
10
15
20
25
Younger Elderly
LeftRightLeftRight
DIM BRIGHT DIM BRIGHT
KI LLOGRAMS
HOSTILITY & MOTOR
• HAND GRIP STRENGTH• Demaree, Harrison, Higgins, 2002
• HIGH HOSTILE:• FLEXOR STRONGER AT LEFT• LOW HOSTILE:• FLEXOR STRONGER AT RIGHT
Demaree,Harrison,Higgins,2002
Hostility & Grip Strength
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
Left Hand Right Hand
Hi-HostLo-Host
GRIP
kG
REPLICATIONS
• Emerson,Harrison,Everhart,Williamson,2000• Anxious Depressed School-Aged Boys• Stronger at Left Hand, Weaker at Right Hand
• Crews, Harrison, Rhodes, & Demaree, 1995• “Anxious-Depressed Women”• Stronger at Left Hand, Weaker at Right Hand
Facial Motor Tone
• Left Frontal Right Frontal• Right Hemiface Left Hemiface
Facial Motor Tone:Electromyogram
• Hypothesis: Facial Asymmetry• Predict• Increased Left Facial Tone in Hostiles• Less Asymmetry in Women• could be a thesis for you
• Sympathetic -- Left Hemifacial Tone• Parasympathetic -- Right Hemifacial Tone
Hostility & Facial Motor Tone
• FACIAL INTENSITY & AFFECT• Rhodes & Harrison, pending
• Predict• Heightened Left Hemifacial Tone• Increased Left Hemifacial Reactivity• Relationship Between• Left Hemiface and Cardiac Reactivity
Facial Motor Tone as a Function of Stress (Rhodes & Harrison, 2004)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Base CP Recov Base CP Recov
LoHostileHiHostile
Left Masseter Right Masseter
M I CROVOL TS
Systolic Blood Pressure as a Function of Stress (Rhodes & Harrison, 2004)
110
115
120
125
130
135
Baseline ColdPress Recovery
LoHostileHiHostile
SYSTOL I C
BP
mmHg
CONDITION
PREMOTOR
• RAPID ALTERNATING MOVEMENTS• Harrison, 1991
• Dual Concurrent Motor Tasks• Reading Aloud• Tapping• Right or Left Hand• Right or Left Elbow
Harrison, 1991
Rapid Alternating Movements
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Hand Elbow
LeftRight
%CHANGE
Tapping Location
Planned Research
• RAM• Predict• Reduced Asymmetry in Women• Concurrent Emotional Task• Increased Dual Task Capacity in Women
Functional Systems ApproachFrontal Eye Fields
Research Underway
• Frontal Eye Fields • Mollet, Walters, & Harrison (pending)
• Lateral Eye Movements• Hypothesis:• Leftward Increased Sympathetic Tone• RightwardIncreased Parasympathetic Tone
Functional Systems ApproachPremotor Region
• Left Frontal Right Frontal Verbal Fluency Design FluencyVerbal Fluency Design Fluency
Pet Scan During Noun/Verb Processing (From Carlson, 2002)
Speech Fluency A Clinical Study of Stuttering
• Foster & Harrison, (submitted)
• Patient• Developmental Nonfluent Aphasia• NONFLUENT “STUTTERING” • A CASE STUDY WITH QEEG
Foster & Harrison, 2004
LeftLeft Frontal Delta 2 Magnitude Quiet vs. Speech
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
F3F7
M I C R O V O L T
QUIET SPEECH
Foster & Harrison, 2004
Left & RightLeft & Right Frontal Delta 2 Magnitude Quiet vs. Speech
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
F3 vs F4 F7 vs F8 F3 vs F4 F7 vs F8
LeftRight
M I C R O V O L T
QUIET SPEECH
Design FluencyDesign FluencyRight Frontal
• Foster, Williamson, & Harrison, 2004• Normal College Students (N = 45)• Ruff Figural Fluency TestRuff Figural Fluency Test• Hi Fluency (N = 15)• Lo Fluency (N = 15)• QEEG Right Frontal Delta MagnitudeQEEG Right Frontal Delta Magnitude• Results• Lo Fluency = Increased Right Frontal DeltaLo Fluency = Increased Right Frontal Delta
Foster Graphs
• SCAN
Hostility & FluencyVerbal Fluency vs. Design FluencyVerbal Fluency vs. Design Fluency
• Williamson & Harrison, (2000; 2004)
• HIGH HOSTILE:• Design Fluency----Increased Systole• Verbal Fluency----Decreased Systole• VERBAL FLUENCY:• Increased Systole in LOW HOSTILES• Decreased Systole in HIGH HOSTILES
Williamson & Harrison, 2003
Systolic Blood PressurePre & Post Stress Conditions
113114115116117118119120121122
Baseline Stress Baseline Stress
VerbalDesign
High Hostile Low Hostile
mm
Hg
Perseverative ErrorsPerseverative ErrorsVerbal Fluency vs. Design Fluency
• High Hostile Men• More Perseverative Errors in Design FluencyDesign Fluency
• High Hostile Men• More Perseverative Errors Overall (Main Effect)
PERSEVERATIVE ERRORS
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Lo-Hostile Hi-Hostile
Verbal Nonverb
M E A N
E R R O R
GROUP
Planned Research
• OBESITY & HEALTHOBESITY & HEALTH• Left & Right Frontal• Regulation of the Gut• Design Fluency• Verbal Fluency• Should interfere with GI• DigestionDigestion• Should Interfere With Verbal Fluency In MenShould Interfere With Verbal Fluency In Men
Hostility & Self Awareness
• Demaree & Harrison, 1997a
• Neuropsychology Review• Less Aware of Role of Self in AngerLess Aware of Role of Self in Anger• Conclude Others Responsible
• Demaree & Harrison, (pending)
• HIGH HOSTILE-Less Accurate Group ID
Demaree & Harrison, 1997DDemaree & Harrison, 1997D
Accuracy of Group IdentificationAccuracy of Group Identification
0102030405060708090
Lo-Hostile Hi-Hostile
%accuracy
Hostility & Self Awareness
• Emerson & Harrison, 1990 • 45 WomenWomen• Stroop Stressor• Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale• State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory• Low Anger--------Low Denial• High Anger--------Low Denial• Low Anger--------High Denial
High Hostile vs. Low Hostile
• GROUPS• LOW ANGER--HIGH DENIAL• Highest Reactivity• HIGH ANGER--LOW DENIAL• High Reactivity• LOW ANGER--LOW DENIAL• Stability
Emerson & Harrison, 1990Emerson & Harrison, 1990
Blood PressureBlood PressurePre & Post StressPre & Post Stress
0123456789
10
Lo/Lo Hi/Lo Lo/Hi
%CHANGE
GROUP
Learning--Visual
• EKMAN’S AFFECTIVE FACES• Harrison, Gorel, & Cook• RAPID PROCESSING OF HAPPY FACES• SLOW PROCESSING OF ANGRY FACES
LEARNING—VisualHappy vs. Angry Faces
LEARNING--Audition• THE AAVLT• AUDITORY AFFECT VERBAL LEARNING TESTAUDITORY AFFECT VERBAL LEARNING TEST• Snyder & Harrison, 1997• Shenal & Harrison, 2003• Mollet & Harrison, (Submitted)• See Also: Everhart, Demaree, & Harrison, 2004See Also: Everhart, Demaree, & Harrison, 2004• Book Chapter in Book Chapter in Psychology of MoodsPsychology of Moods• POSITIVE WORD LIST• NEGATIVE WORD LIST• NEUTRAL WORD LIST
Sample Words Rated for Familiarity & Affect Intensity
POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL
Smile Murder Drum
Joy Kill Curtain
Happy Cruel Bell
Cheerful Hate House
Familiarity & Pleasantness Ratings:Toglia & Battig (1978)
Emotional Learning & Blood Pressure
• Snyder, Harrison, Shenal, 1997
• POSITIVE: Decreased Blood Pressure• NEGATIVE: Increased Blood Pressure• NEUTRAL: No Change
Mean Arterial Blood Pressure
8889909192939495969798
Positive Negative Neutral
BeforeAfter
M
A
P
mmHg
Snyder, Harrison, Shenal, 1997 GROUP
REPLICATION
• Shenal & Harrison, 2003• NEGATIVE LIST: Increased Blood Pressure
• EXTENSION• NEUTRAL SPEECH SOUNDS• LOWERS B.P.• SEX DIFFERENCES• Higgins & Harrison, (unpublished)
Emotion & Verbal Learning
• DOES HOSTILITY AFFECT VERBAL LIST LEARNING?
• Mollet’s Thesis• THE AAVLT• NEUTRAL• POSITIVE• NEGATIVE
Gradual Learning Curve
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Wor
ds
Trial
FirstSecondThirdFourthFifth
F(4,176) = 395.46, p < .0001
Post hoc Comparisons: Trial 1: M= 2.20, SD = 1.19, Trial 2: M= 3.16, SD = 1.21, Trial 3: M = 3.71, SD = 1.13Trail 4: M = 4.02, SD = 1.00, Trial 5: M = 4.25, SD = .94
Primacy & Recency Effects
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
Wor
ds
Location
BegMidEnd
F(2,88) = 77.44, p < .0001) Post hoc Comparisons: Beginning: M = 3.95, SD = 1.08 Middle: M = 2.98, SD = 1.47 End: M = 3.48, SD = 1.18
Better Recall of Negative List
3.2
3.25
3.3
3.35
3.4
3.45
3.5
3.55
3.6
Wor
ds
List
NeutralPositiveNegative
(F(2,88) = 5.90, p < .004) Post hoc Comparisons: Negative: M = 3.58, SD = 1.38 Positive: M = 3.36, SD = 1.26Neutral: M = 3.47, SD = 1.29
Primacy Effect for Negative List
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Wor
ds
Beginning Middle EndLocation
NeutralPositiveNegative
F (4,176) = 13.79, p < .0001
High Hostiles Slow Verbal Learners of Neutral & Positive Words
Trial Low Hostile
Trial High Hostile
F (8,352) = 2.47, p < .02)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Wor
ds
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
NeuPosNeg
Hi Hostiles Recall Negative Words Best
3.053.1
3.153.2
3.253.3
3.353.4
3.453.5
3.55W
ords
ListHIGH HOSTILE
NeutralPositiveNegative
F(2,44) = 5.55, p < .01
Negative: M = 3.57, SD = 1.37 Positive: M = 3.28, SD =1.21 Neutral: M = 3.39, SD = 1.29
Emotion Intensity & QEEG
• DOES EMOTION INTENSITY VARY WITH CORTICAL ACTIVATION –EEG?
• Foster &Harrison, 2002
Emotional MemorySubjective Anger Intensity & QEEG Beta Magnitude
Low Beta High Beta Low Beta High Beta
MEN WOMENIntensity of Emotion Correlates With Cerebral Activation
Foster & Harrison, 2002
Age of Emotional Memory & QEEG
• Foster & Harrison, 2003
• INSERT GRAPHS
Cardiovascular Response & QEEG
CORTICAL ACTIVATION (EEG)CORRELATES WITH
CARDIOVASCULAR RESPONSEFoster & Harrison, 2004
Alpha & Beta Magnitude Correlate With Heart Rate and Blood Pressure
Especially Frontal and Temporal Sites
• Scan Foster Graphs here• See my desk for copy
Demaree, Harrison, & Rhodes (2000)
• We used quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG)– Measures brain activation in MicroVolts
Hostility & Quantitative EEG
• COLD PRESSOR STRESS• CARDIOVASCULAR MEASURES• QUANTITATIVE EEG• Left Frontal………….….....……F7• Left Temporal…………...…...…T3• Right Frontal……………..……..F8• Right Temporal………......……..T4
Demaree & Harrison, 1997C
Heart Rate Pre & Post Stress Condition
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
PreStress PostStress
LoHostileHiHostile
HEART
RATE
CONDITION
Demaree & Harrison, 1997C
Systolic Blood PressurePre & Post Stress
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
PreStress PostStress
Lo-HostileHi-Hostile
mm
Hg
CONDITION
Demaree & Harrison, 1997C
QEEG Beta Magnitude By Electrode Site
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
Lo-Hostile Hi-Hostile
F7T3F8T4
BETA
MAGNITUDE
*
A PROPOSED SYSTEM
• RIGHT ORBITOFRONTAL-• Deactivate-Hostility• Activate-Decreased Hostility• (Butters, 1970)• RIGHT ANTERIOR TEMPORAL-• Activate-Hostility (Ursin, 1960)• Deactivate-Placid ( Woods, 1956)
PROPOSED ROLE IN AUTONOMIC REGULATION
• RIGHT FRONTAL INHIBITION• OVER LEFT VENTRICULAR REFLEX • (Harrison, unpublished) • & RIGHT TEMPORAL REGION• ACTIVATE-Sympathetic Arousal• (Gatchel & Barnes, 1989; Heilman-1993)• DEACTIVATE-Sympathetic Hypoarousal & • Bland Affect (Heilman-, 1970)• LEFT TEMPORAL-OPPOSITION
PROPOSED MECHANISMS
• Kinsbourne on Functional Cerebral Space• Dual Task Interference for Shared Space• HOSTILE: Sympathetic Tone• Dual Task :• Primary Task = Anger• Secondary Task = Sympathetic Tone• Stress Yields Sympathetic Disregulation
• NONHOSTILE: Parasympathetic Tone• Dual Task:• Primary Task = Positive Affect• Secondary Task = Parasympathetic Tone
EXTRA SLIDES
EXTRA SLIDES
Smith (1994) On Hostility
• “…hostility connotes a devaluation of the worth and motives of others, an expectation that others are likely sources of wrong doing, a relational view of being in opposition toward others, and a desire to inflict harm or see others harmed” (p.26).
A PROPOSED SYSTEM
• RIGHT ORBITOFRONTAL-• DEACTIVATE- Increased Hostility• ACTIVATE- Decreased Hostility• • RIGHT ANTERIOR TEMPORAL-• ACTIVATE- Hostile (Ursin, 1960)
• DEACTIVATE- Placid (Woods, 1956)
PROPOSAL FOR AUTONOMIC REGULATION
• RIGHT TEMPORAL REGION• ACTIVATE- Sympathetic Arousal• (Gatchel & Barnes, 1989; Heilman-1993)• DEACTIVATE- Sympathetic Hypoarousal & • Bland Affect (Heilman-, 1970)• LEFT TEMPORAL REGION• ACTIVATE- Parasympathetic Arousal• (Wittling, 2000)
The QuigmansRoanoke Times, 2002
Functional Systems ApproachVision
Functional Systems ApproachAudition
Functional Systems ApproachVestibular
Vestibular
• Park & Harrison (in progress)• Induced Vection (spinning drum)• Activation of Right Temporal• Sensation of Spinning to the Left• Activation of Left Temporal• Sensation of Spinning to the Right
Functional Systems ApproachSomatosensory
Functional Systems ApproachMotor Strength
Emerson,Harrison,Everhart,Williamson,2000
Depressed Boys & Grip Strength
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
Left Hand Right Hand
DepressedNon-Depr
GRI
P
kG
Depressed Women & Left Hand Grip Strength
1414.5
1515.5
1616.5
1717.5
1818.5
1 2 3 4
A-DNA-ND
T R I A L
GR
I
P
kG
Functional Systems ApproachFacial Motor Tone
• Left Frontal Right Frontal• Right Hemiface Left Hemiface
Functional Systems ApproachFrontal Eye Fields
Hostility & The Frontal Eye Fields
• Beck & Harrison (in progress)• Leftward Eye Movements• Rightward Eye Movements• Hypotheses• Blood Pressure• Behavior
Hostility & LearningPositive vs. Negative Emotion
• Mollet & Harrison, 2004
List (Cold Pressor Group)
3.23.253.3
3.353.4
3.453.5
3.553.6
3.65W
ords
List
NeutralPositiveNegative
Cold PressorF(2,44) = 5.52, p < .01 Negative: M = 3.68, SD = 1.34 Neutral: M = 3.45, SD = 1.30 Positive: M = 3.40, SD = 1.31
FUNCTIONAL BRAIN ASYMMETRY
• THE “ALIEN-ARM SYNDROME”• LEFT BRAIN-• LINGUISTIC & LOGICAL ANALYSIS• RIGHT BRAIN-• EMOTION & NEGATIVE EMOTION• SPATIAL ANALYSIS•
CLINICAL EXAMPLES
• AUDITORY AFFECT RECOGNITION• “I just won a million dollars”• “My mom just died”• CONSTRUCTIONAL DRAWING• “Draw a clock”• “Draw a picture of a clock”
“Draw a Clock”“Draw a Picture of a Clock”
Ley and Brydon (1979)
• Found significant LVF (right cerebrum) bias for emotional valence recognition
• Subjects were quicker and more accurate in determining facial valence when presented to LVF
Strauss and Moscovitch (1981)
• Tachistoscopically presented 2 emotional faces to either LVF or RVF (40 men and 40 women)– Subjects were significantly better at
determining whether faces were of the same or different affect when presented to LVF
– Also quicker and more accurate in determining the facial valence within the LVF
Ley and Brydon (1979)
• Found significant LVF (right cerebrum) bias for emotional valence recognition
• Subjects were quicker and more accurate in determining facial valence when presented to LVF
Demakis,Herridge,Harrison, 1994
TOTAL TIME LAUGHING OR SMILING
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
BASE-1 NEUTRAL BASE-2 SAD
REP. 1REP. 2REP. 3
Foster & Harrison
Delta 2 Magnitude During Quiet in Nonfluent Dysphasia
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F3 vs F4 F7 vs F8 T3 vs T4 T5 vs T6 P3 vs P4
Left BrainRightBrain
M I C R O V O L T
ELECTRODE LOCATION
Foster & Harrison
Delta 2 Magnitude During Speech in Nonfluent Dysphasia
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
F3 vs F4 F7 vs F8 T3 vs T4 T5 vs T6 P3 vs P4
Left BrainRightBrain
M I C R O V O L T
ELECTRODE LOCATION
Depressed Women & Grip Fatigue
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Lo-Depr. Hi-Depr.
Left HandRightHand
Kg.