Limits...
Impaired threat prioritisation after selective bilateral amygdala lesions.

Bach DR, Hurlemann R, Dolan RJ - Cortex (2014)

Bottom Line: Here we use a face-in-the-crowd (FITC) task which in healthy control individuals reveals prioritised threat processing, evident in faster serial search for angry compared to happy target faces.In lesion patients we show a reversal of a threat detection advantage indicating a profound impairment in prioritising threat information.This is the first direct demonstration that human amygdala lesions impair prioritisation of threatening faces, providing evidence that this structure has a causal role in responding to imminent danger.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, UK; Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: dominik.bach@uzh.ch.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

A – Response times for AM, BG, and the control group. Both patients responded slower to angry than to happy faces, while healthy individuals show the reverse pattern, termed anger superiority effect. Response times linearly depend on set size in the control group, but are non-linearly dependent on set size in patients. B – Sensitivity (d′) for AM, BG, and the control group. C – Response criterion for AM, BG, and the control group. Higher values denote a higher probability of reporting an absent target as present, and lower values a higher probability of reporting a present target as absent.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4317193&req=5

fig2: A – Response times for AM, BG, and the control group. Both patients responded slower to angry than to happy faces, while healthy individuals show the reverse pattern, termed anger superiority effect. Response times linearly depend on set size in the control group, but are non-linearly dependent on set size in patients. B – Sensitivity (d′) for AM, BG, and the control group. C – Response criterion for AM, BG, and the control group. Higher values denote a higher probability of reporting an absent target as present, and lower values a higher probability of reporting a present target as absent.

Mentions: In our control sample, set size, target emotion, and target presence influenced RT as shown previously (see Fig. 2A and Table 1), with a linear impact of set size. This result was confirmed by fitting a linear regression model to predict RT from set size, separately for each combination of target presence and target emotion. An ANOVA on search slope estimates (Table 2) underlines that search slope is influenced by target face – angry target faces have a shallower search slope – and by target presence. There were no effects in an ANOVA on intercepts of the regression model, as expected.


Impaired threat prioritisation after selective bilateral amygdala lesions.

Bach DR, Hurlemann R, Dolan RJ - Cortex (2014)

A – Response times for AM, BG, and the control group. Both patients responded slower to angry than to happy faces, while healthy individuals show the reverse pattern, termed anger superiority effect. Response times linearly depend on set size in the control group, but are non-linearly dependent on set size in patients. B – Sensitivity (d′) for AM, BG, and the control group. C – Response criterion for AM, BG, and the control group. Higher values denote a higher probability of reporting an absent target as present, and lower values a higher probability of reporting a present target as absent.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4317193&req=5

fig2: A – Response times for AM, BG, and the control group. Both patients responded slower to angry than to happy faces, while healthy individuals show the reverse pattern, termed anger superiority effect. Response times linearly depend on set size in the control group, but are non-linearly dependent on set size in patients. B – Sensitivity (d′) for AM, BG, and the control group. C – Response criterion for AM, BG, and the control group. Higher values denote a higher probability of reporting an absent target as present, and lower values a higher probability of reporting a present target as absent.
Mentions: In our control sample, set size, target emotion, and target presence influenced RT as shown previously (see Fig. 2A and Table 1), with a linear impact of set size. This result was confirmed by fitting a linear regression model to predict RT from set size, separately for each combination of target presence and target emotion. An ANOVA on search slope estimates (Table 2) underlines that search slope is influenced by target face – angry target faces have a shallower search slope – and by target presence. There were no effects in an ANOVA on intercepts of the regression model, as expected.

Bottom Line: Here we use a face-in-the-crowd (FITC) task which in healthy control individuals reveals prioritised threat processing, evident in faster serial search for angry compared to happy target faces.In lesion patients we show a reversal of a threat detection advantage indicating a profound impairment in prioritising threat information.This is the first direct demonstration that human amygdala lesions impair prioritisation of threatening faces, providing evidence that this structure has a causal role in responding to imminent danger.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, UK; Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: dominik.bach@uzh.ch.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus