Emotion Is not What You Think It Is: Startle Reflex Modulation (SRM) as a Measure of Affective Processing in NeuroIS

Author(s):  
Peter Walla ◽  
Monika Koller
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 298
Author(s):  
Sajeev Kunaharan ◽  
Sean Halpin ◽  
Thiagarajan Sitharthan ◽  
Peter Walla

Increased violence and aggressive tendencies are a problem in much of the world and are often symptomatic of many other neurological and psychiatric conditions. Among clinicians, current methods of diagnosis of problem aggressive behaviour rely heavily on the use of self-report measures as described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (DSM-5) and International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10). This approach does not place adequate emphasis on objective measures that are potentially sensitive to processes not feeding into subjective self-report. Numerous studies provide evidence that attitudes and affective content can be processed without leading to verbalised output. This exploratory study aimed to determine whether individuals in the normal population, grouped by self-reported aggression, differed in subjective versus objective affective processing. Participants (N = 52) were grouped based on their responses to the Buss–Durkee Hostility Inventory. They were then presented with affect-inducing images while brain event-related potentials (ERPs) and startle reflex modulation (SRM) were recorded to determine non-language-based processes. Explicit valence and arousal ratings for each image were taken to determine subjective affective effects. Results indicated no significant group differences for explicit ratings and SRM. However, ERP results demonstrated significant group differences between the ‘pleasant’ and ‘violent’ emotion condition in the frontal, central and parietal areas across both hemispheres. These findings suggest that parts of the brain process affective stimuli different to what conscious appraisal comes up with in participants varying in self-reported aggression.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris Schutte ◽  
Johanna M. P. Baas ◽  
Ivo Heitland ◽  
J. Leon Kenemans

AbstractPrevious studies have not clearly demonstrated whether motivational tendencies during reward feedback are mainly characterized by appetitive responses to a gain or mainly by aversive consequences of reward omission. In the current study this issue was addressed employing a passive head or tails game and using the startle reflex as an index of the appetitive-aversive continuum. A second aim of the current study was to use startle-reflex modulation as a means to compare the subjective value of monetary rewards of varying magnitude. Startle responses after receiving feedback that a potential reward was won or not won were compared with a baseline condition without a potential gain. Furthermore, startle responses during anticipation of no versus potential gain were compared. Consistent with previous studies, startle-reflex magnitudes were significantly potentiated when participants anticipated a reward compared to no reward, which may reflect anticipatory arousal. Specifically for the largest reward (20-cents) startle magnitudes were potentiated when a reward was at stake but not won, compared to a neutral baseline without potential gain. In contrast, startle was not inhibited relative to baseline when a reward was won. This suggests that startle modulation during feedback is better characterized in terms of potentiation when missing out on reward rather than in terms of inhibition as a result of winning. However, neither of these effects were replicated in a more targeted second experiment. The discrepancy between these experiments may be due to differences in motivation to obtain rewards or differences in task engagement. From these experiments it may be concluded that the nature of the processing of reward feedback and reward cues is very sensitive to experimental parameters and settings. These studies show how apparently modest changes in these parameters and settings may lead to quite different modulations of appetitive/aversive motivation. A future experiment may shed more light on the question whether startle-reflex modulation after feedback is indeed mainly characterized by the aversive consequences of reward omission for relatively large rewards.


2008 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S318
Author(s):  
M. Jiménez-Giménez ◽  
A. Koeneke ◽  
J. Borrell ◽  
G. Rubio

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e54003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Bublatzky ◽  
Pedro M. Guerra ◽  
M. Carmen Pastor ◽  
Harald T. Schupp ◽  
Jaime Vila

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. e12989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M. Bradley ◽  
Zvinka Z. Zlatar ◽  
Peter J. Lang

2004 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 884-892 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie H.M. Goozen ◽  
Heddeke Snoek ◽  
Walter Matthys ◽  
Inge Rossum ◽  
Herman Engeland

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document