Negative affect and craving during abstinence from smoking are both linked to default mode network connectivity.

BACKGROUND: Negative affect and craving during abstinence from cigarettes predict resumption of smoking. Therefore, understanding their neural substrates may guide development of new interventions. Negative affect and craving have traditionally been linked to functions of the brains threat and reward networks, respectively. However, given the role of default mode network (DMN), particularly the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), in self-related thought, we examined whether DMN activity underlies both craving and negative affective states in adults who smoke. METHODS: 46 adults who smoke abstained from smoking overnight and underwent resting-state fMRI, after self-reporting their psychological symptoms (negative affect) and craving on the Shiffman-Jarvik Withdrawal Scale and state anxiety (negative affect) on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Within-DMN functional connectivity using 3 different anterior PCC seeds was tested for correlations with self-report measures. Additionally, independent component analysis with dual regression was performed to measure associations of self-report with whole-brain connectivity of the DMN component. RESULTS: Craving correlated positively with connectivity of all three anterior PCC seeds with posterior PCC clusters (pcorr<0.04). The measures of negative affective states correlated positively with connectivity of the DMN component to various brain regions, including posterior PCC (pcorr=0.02) and striatum (pcorr<0.008). Craving and state anxiety were correlated with connectivity of an overlapping region of PCC (pcorr=0.003). Unlike the state measures, nicotine dependence and trait anxiety were not associated with PCC connectivity within DMN. CONCLUSIONS: Although negative affect and craving are distinct subjective states, they appear to share a common neural pathway within the DMN, particularly involving the PCC

Impulsive Choice and Altruistic Punishment Are Correlated and Increase in Tandem With Serotonin Depletion

Human cooperation may partly depend on the presence of individuals willing to incur personal costs to punish noncooperators. The psychological factors that motivate such 'altruistic punishment' are not fully understood; some have argued that altruistic punishment is a deliberate act of norm enforcement that requires self-control, while others claim that it is an impulsive act driven primarily by emotion. In the current study, we addressed this question by examining the relationship between impulsive choice and altruistic punishment in the ultimatum game. As the neurotransmitter serotonin has been implicated in both impulsive choice and altruistic punishment, we investigated the effects of manipulating serotonin on both measures. Across individuals, impulsive choice and altruistic punishment were correlated and increased following serotonin depletion. These findings imply that altruistic punishment reflects the absence rather than the presence of self control, and suggest that impulsive choice and altruistic punishment share common neural mechanisms

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article The Sunny Side of Fairness Preference for Fairness Activates Reward Circuitry (and Disregarding Unfairness Activates Self-Control Circuitry)

ABSTRACT—Little is known about the positive emotional impact of fairness or the process of resolving conflict between fairness and financial interests. In past research, fairness has covaried with monetary payoff, such that the mental processes underlying preference for fairness and those underlying preference for greater monetary outcome could not be distinguished. We examined self-reported happiness and neural responses to fair and unfair offers while controlling for monetary payoff. Compared with unfair offers of equal monetary value, fair offers led to higher happiness ratings and activation in several reward regions of the brain. Furthermore, the tendency to accept unfair proposals was associated with increased activity in right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in emotion regulation, and with decreased activity in the anterior insula, which has been implicated in negative affect. This work provides evidence that fairness is hedonically valued and that tolerating unfair treatment for material gain involves a pattern of activation resembling suppression of negative affect. Anyone who has watched children negotiate how to share a piece of cake knows that humans are exquisitely sensitive to fairness. Although economic models of decision making have traditionally assumed that individuals are motivated solely by material utility (e.g., financial payouts) and are not directly affected by social factors such as fairness (Camerer, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2005; Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986), there is increasing empirical evidence that fairness does play a role in economic decision making (Fehr & Schmidt, 1999; Sears & Funk, 1991). Fairness in economic-exchange tasks is typically defined as the equitable distribution of an initial stake of money between two people. Because fair outcomes tend to be more materiall

Carta de Josep Teixidor a Ramón Ortiz Fornaguera

Original carta manuscrita con firma.Carta de Teixidor a Ortiz Fornaguera

Subjective responses to emotional stimuli during labeling, reappraisal, and distraction.

Although multiple neuroimaging studies suggest that affect labeling (i.e., putting feelings into words) can dampen affect-related responses in the amygdala, the consequences of affect labeling have not been examined in other channels of emotional responding. We conducted four studies examining the effect of affect labeling on self-reported emotional experience. In study one, self-reported distress was lower during affect labeling, compared to passive watching, of negative emotional pictures. Studies two and three added reappraisal and distraction conditions, respectively. Affect labeling showed similar effects on self-reported distress as both of these intentional emotion regulation strategies. In each of the first three studies, however, participant predictions about the effects of affect labeling suggest that unlike reappraisal and distraction, people do not believe affect labeling to be an effective emotion regulation strategy. Even after having the experience of affect labels leading to lower distress, participants still predicted that affect labeling would increase distress in the future. Thus, affect labeling is best described as an incidental emotion regulation process. Finally, study four employed positive emotional pictures and here, affect labeling was associated with diminished self-reported pleasure, relative to passive watching. This suggests that affect labeling tends to dampen affective responses in general, rather than specifically alleviating negative affect