12 research outputs found

    Forgetting of Emotional Information Is Hard: An fMRI Study of Directed Forgetting

    Get PDF
    Strong evidence suggests that memory for emotional information is much better than for neutral one. Thus, one may expect that forgetting of emotional information is difficult and requires considerable effort. The aim of this item-method directed forgetting functional magnetic resonance imaging study was to investigate this hypothesis both at behavioral and neural levels. Directed forgetting effects were observed for both neutral and emotionally negative International Affective Picture System images. Moreover, recognition rate of negative to-be-forgotten images was higher than in case of neutral ones. In the study phase, intention to forget and successful forgetting of emotionally negative images were associated with widespread activations extending from the anterior to posterior regions mainly in the right hemisphere, whereas in the case of neutral images, they were associated with just one cluster of activation in the right lingual gyrus. Therefore, forgetting of emotional information seems to be a demanding process that strongly activates a distributed neural network in the right hemisphere. In the test phase, in turn, successfully forgotten images—either neutral or emotionally negative—were associated with virtually no activation, even at the lowered P value threshold. These results suggest that intentional inhibition during encoding may be an efficient strategy to cope with emotionally negative memorie

    self-concept

    No full text

    Neural correlates of own name and own face detection in autism spectrum disorder.

    Get PDF
    Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a heterogeneous neurodevelopmental condition clinically characterized by social interaction and communication difficulties. To date, the majority of research efforts have focused on brain mechanisms underlying the deficits in interpersonal social cognition associated with ASD. Recent empirical and theoretical work has begun to reveal evidence for a reduced or even absent self-preference effect in patients with ASD. One may hypothesize that this is related to the impaired attentional processing of self-referential stimuli. The aim of our study was to test this hypothesis. We investigated the neural correlates of face and name detection in ASD. Four categories of face/name stimuli were used: own, close-other, famous, and unknown. Event-related potentials were recorded from 62 electrodes in 23 subjects with ASD and 23 matched control subjects. P100, N170, and P300 components were analyzed. The control group clearly showed a significant self-preference effect: higher P300 amplitude to the presentation of own face and own name than to the close-other, famous, and unknown categories, indicating preferential attentional engagement in processing of self-related information. In contrast, detection of both own and close-other's face and name in the ASD group was associated with enhanced P300, suggesting similar attention allocation for self and close-other related information. These findings suggest that attention allocation in the ASD group is modulated by the personal significance factor, and that the self-preference effect is absent if self is compared to close-other. These effects are similar for physical and non-physical aspects of the autistic self. In addition, lateralization of face and name processing is attenuated in ASD, suggesting atypical brain organization

    Neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: ERP evidence

    Get PDF
    One’s own name seems to have a special status in the processing of incoming information. In event-related potential (ERP) studies this preferential status has mainly been associated with higher P300 to one’s own name than to other names. Some studies showed preferential responses to own name even for earlier ERP components. However, instead of just being self-specific, these effects could be related to the processing of any highly relevant and/or frequently encountered stimuli. If this is the case: (1) processing of other highly relevant and highly familiar names (e.g., names of friends, partners, siblings, etc.) should be associated with similar ERP responses as processing of one’s own name and (2) processing of own and close others’ names should result in larger amplitudes of early and late ERP components than processing of less relevant and less familiar names (e.g., names of famous people, names of strangers, etc.). To test this hypothesis we measured and analyzed ERPs from 62 scalp electrodes in 22 subjects. Subjects performed a speeded two-choice recognition task—familiar vs. unfamiliar—with one’s own name being treated as one of the familiar names. All stimuli were presented visually. We found that amplitudes of P200, N250 and P300 did not differ between one’s own and close-other’s names. Crucially, they were significantly larger to own and close-other’s names than to other names (unknown and famous for P300 and unknown for P200 and N250). Our findings suggest that preferential processing of one’s own name is due to its personal-relevance and/or familiarity factors. This pattern of results speaks for a common preference in processing of different kinds of socially relevant stimuli

    Grand average event-related potentials (ERP) in the N170 time window in the ASD group vs. the control group, separately for each analyzed scalp position (PO7, PO8).

    No full text
    <p>upper panels present response to face stimuli, bottom panels present response to name stimuli, with all categories taken together. For faces, amplitudes of N170 (peak-to-peak vs. P100) were higher on PO8 than on PO7 and for names amplitudes were higher on PO7 than on PO8.</p

    Grand average event-related potentials (ERP) in the ASD group vs. the control group, presented separately for each category of stimuli (own, close-other, famous, unknown), each analyzed centro-parietal scalp position (CP3, CPz, CP4), and each type of stimuli (face, name).

    No full text
    <p>Grand average event-related potentials (ERP) in the ASD group vs. the control group, presented separately for each category of stimuli (own, close-other, famous, unknown), each analyzed centro-parietal scalp position (CP3, CPz, CP4), and each type of stimuli (face, name).</p
    corecore