Accepted Manuscript Title: Emotion regulation: Quantitative meta-analysis of functional activation and deactivation Author: D.W. Frank M. Dewitt M. Hudgens-Haney D.J. Schaeffer B.H. Ball N. Schwartz A.A. Hussein L.M. Smart D. Sabatinelli PII: DOI: Reference:
S0149-7634(14)00148-1 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.010 NBR 1969
To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
17-1-2014 17-6-2014 18-6-2014
Please cite this article as: Frank, D.W., Dewitt, M., Hudgens-Haney, M., Schaeffer, D.J., Ball, B.H., Schwartz, N., Hussein, A.A., Smart, L.M., Sabatinelli, D.,Emotion regulation: Quantitative meta-analysis of functional activation and deactivation, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.010 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Activation Likelihood Estimation meta-analysis of human emotional regulation Downregulation and upregulation contrasts are compared Amygdala / parahippocampal decrease in downregulation and increase in upregulation
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
Distinct frontal networks appear to drive upregulation & downregulation
ip t
Superior frontal, cingulate & premotor activity increases across regulation states
Page 1 of 33
ip t cr
an
us
Emotion regulation: Quantitative meta-analysis of functional activation and deactivation
D. W. Frankb, M. Dewitta, M. Hudgens-Haneyb, D. J. Schaefferb, B. H. Balla, N. Schwartzb, A. A.
M
Husseina, L. M. Smarta, & D. Sabatinelli*a, b, c
a
b
d
Department of Psychology
te
Department of Neuroscience
c
Ac ce p
BioImaging Research Center University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602
*Corresponding author: Dean Sabatinelli, Ph.D. 1 (706) 542-3094 [email protected] 523 Psychology Building University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602
Page 2 of 33
Abstract Emotion regulation is hypothesized to be a multifaceted process by which individuals willfully modulate the intensity and direction of emotional response via prefrontally-mediated
ip t
inhibition of subcortical response-related regions of the brain. Here we employ Activation
Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies to
cr
1) reveal a consistent network of structures active during emotion regulation, 2) identify the
us
target regions inactivated by the willful regulation process, and 3) investigate the consistency of activated structures associated with downregulation and upregulation. Results reveal signal
an
change in bilateral amygdala / parahippocampal gyrus that decreased in downregulated states and increased in upregulated states, while cortical regions including superior frontal gyrus,
M
cingulate, and premotor areas exhibited enhanced activity across all regulation conditions. These results provide consistent evidence for the role of amygdala activity in experienced
d
emotional intensity, where intentional dampening and exaggeration are clearly expressed.
te
However, the execution of emotional upregulation and downregulation may involve distinct
Ac ce p
subsets of frontocortical stuctures.
Keywords: Emotion regulation, fMRI, Meta-analysis, Amygdala, Deactivation
Page 3 of 33
1. Introduction The willful modulation of responses to emotionally evocative stimuli is thought to involve interactions among the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), anterior
ip t
cingulate cortex (ACC), and amygdala (Banks et al., 2007; Kim and Hamann, 2007; Ochsner et al., 2002; Ochsner et al., 2004). Among other functions, the LPFC and ACC are critical in the
cr
performance of cognitive control tasks such as conflict monitoring (van Veen and Carter, 2002),
us
working memory (Rypma et al., 1999), and the guidance of attention (Banich et al., 2000), whereas the amygdala is heavily involved in emotional processing (Garavan et al., 2001; Lane
an
et al., 1999). Thus, the association of these brain structures identified with emotion regulation tasks is consistent with their ascribed roles in human behavior. The initial goal of the current
M
work is to identify a consistent set of activated brain regions reported in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) investigations of emotional regulation processes using quantitative
d
meta-analysis, taking advantage of enhanced statistical power and dampening the contributions
te
of idiosyncratic experimental designs to reveal a consistent and reliable activated network (Eickoff et al., 2012). Our second goal exploits the distinctive nature of the proposed emotion
Ac ce p
regulation network, in which an intentional process is associated with both the activation of regulating structures and inhibition (or in some cases enhancement) of regulated structures, which is particularly amenable to the fMRI measure that provides estimates of signal decreases as well as increases.
Investigations of the brain mechanisms of emotional regulation often include conditions in which participants are instructed to modulate their affective state in a single direction (e.g., to decrease felt emotion). Distinct brain regions have been identified in the comparatively few paradigms that have included both increase and decrease tasks, suggesting directiondependent regulation networks (Kim and Hamann, 2007; Urry et al., 2006). This creates somewhat of an interpretational challenge in assessing the specificity of an emotional regulation
Page 4 of 33
network, in that different control structures or relative activity levels of nodes in a consistent control network may exist across downregulation and upregulation demands. Meta-analysis may therefore be useful to compare results from emotional enhancement and suppression
ip t
conditions across a number of studies to detect the presence of direction-specific mechanisms involved in emotion regulation.
cr
Three meta-analytic investigations of emotion regulation have been published recently
us
(Buhle et al., 2013; Diekhof et al., 2011; Kohn et al., 2014), however the present effort will differ from these works in multiple ways. One significant distinction is that ours will include a contrast
an
in which enhanced emotional reactivity is assessed, thus providing an opportunity to test how the direction of regulation alters the composition of brain structures involved. A second novel
M
feature of our meta analysis is the addition of a contrast depicting activation decreases during regulation states. This inclusion combines the advantages of the distinctive psychological task in
d
which a dampening of response may conceivably result in the measureable decrease of
possible in prior reports.
te
regional brain activity. Finally, we hope to include a larger number of studies than has been
Ac ce p
To address these research questions, the current work employed the latest iteration of the Activity Likelihood Estimation (ALE) fMRI meta-analysis method (Eickoff et al., 2009) to combine the results of emotional regulation studies published over a 10 year period, including studies in which increased and decreased blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal were reported during experimental conditions in which individuals downregulated or upregulated their affective state.
Page 5 of 33
2. Methods 2.1. Article selection Articles from 1994 through 2014 were identified using a specific search string in the
ip t
PubMed database:
("1994/01/01"[Publication Date]: "2014/12/31"[Publication Date]) AND ((emotion* OR
cr
affective OR fear OR valence ) AND (regulat* OR suppress* OR reappraisal) AND (fMRI OR
us
neuroimag* OR "functional MRI" OR "functional magnetic resonance imaging")).
Studies were included if the authors reported whole-brain coordinates in Talairach or MNI space
an
and sampled at least five subjects over 18 years of age. Contrasts that compared regulation conditions (e.g., instructed reappraisal or suppression) to non-regulation or baseline conditions
M
(e.g. passive viewing) were included. In studies for which coordinate tables resulting from more than one contrast were reported (e.g., downregulation and upregulation contrasts), both were
d
included. Only the results from within-subject contrasts were included, which accounted for the
te
great majority of studies. Studies of clinical populations were excluded, however results from healthy control groups reported in clinical studies were included if listed separately.
Ac ce p
2.2. Contrast selection
ALE contrasts reflect statistically significant whole brain clusters that were active for four contrasts:
1. Downregulation
>
no regulation
2. Downregulation
no regulation
4. Upregulation
2001 Beauregard Control Downregulate > 2002 Ochsner Control Downregulate > Control 2003 Hariri Downregulate > Control 2003 Levesque Downregulate > 2004 Ochsner Control Downregulate > Control 2005 Gillath Downregulate > Control 2005 Phan Downregulate > 2006 Beauregard Control Downregulate > Control 2006 Harenski
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
22 (12F) 28 22.7 17 (17F) (3.5) 24 12 (12F) (1.8) 43.9 17 (8F) (10.1) 21.6 21 (11F) (2.5) 21.8 30 (17F) (2.1) 31.8 16 (9F) (7.7) 24.4 18 (18F) (3.5) 24.8 17 (17F) (4) 23 & 42 (22F) 69 22.1 18 (9F) (3.7) 21.9 22 (13F) (3.3) 23.5 21 (10F) (3.6) 24.9 26 (26F) (5.6)
Reappraise < natural reaction
Unpleasant outcome in ultimatum game
Reappraise < view
Unpleasant faces
Reduce sexual arousal > view
erotic film clips
10 (0F) 23.5
Unpleasant scenes
15 (15F) 21.9
Unpleasant scenes
11 (6F)
Ac ce p
Year 1st Author
Reappraise > view think about scenes > match scenes
32
Suppress > natural reaction Unpleasant film clips
20 (20F) 24.3
Reappraise > natural reaction Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F) 20.6
Suppress > think
Unpleasant imagery
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view
Unpleasant film clips
20 (20F) 20 27.6 14 (8F) (4.4) 45 12 (9F) (10)
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
10 (10F) 18-29
Page 25 of 33
15 (8F)
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise> view
Unpleasant scenes
19 (11F) 62-64 27.6 14 (8F) (4.4)
Suppress > view
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
22 (12F) 28
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F) 23.3
Reappraise > view
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view Reappraise or Suppress > view
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
cr
an
us
Unpleasant film clips
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view
Unpleasant faces
Suppress > experience
Unpleasant scene recall
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
d
M
Reappraise > view Reappraise or Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Feel < think
Self reflection
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant and Pleasant faces
Distancing > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Ac ce p
Suppress > natural reaction Unpleasantative rumination Reappraise > natural reaction monetary reward task Reappraise or Suppress > view Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes Reappraise > natural reaction Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > natural reaction gambling task
26
ip t
Suppress > natural reaction Fear conditioning
te
Downregulate > Control Downregulate > Control 2006 Urry Downregulate > 2007 Banks Control Downregulate > 2007 Blair Control Downregulate > Control 2007 Eippert Downregulate > 2007 Herwig Control Downregulate > 2007 Kim Control Downregulate > Control 2008 Goldin Downregulate > 2008 Wager Control Downregulate > 2009 Domes Control Downregulate > Control 2009 Mak Downregulate > 2010 Abler Control Downregulate > 2010 Amting Control Downregulate > Control 2010 Butler Downregulate > 2010 Erk Control Downregulate > 2010 Hayes Control Downregulate > Control 2010 Herwig Downregulate > 2010 Hooker Control Downregulate > 2010 Koenigsberg Control Downregulate > Control 2010 McRae Downregulate > 2010 Modinos Control Downregulate > 2011 Andreescu Control Downregulate > 2011 Staudinger Control Downregulate > Control 2011 Vritčka Downregulate > 2011 Winecoff Control Downregulate > Control 2012 Golkar Downregulate > 2012 Veit Control 2013 Hessner Downregulate > 2006 Kalisch
34 (18F) 23-36 10 (10F) 20.7 22.7 17 (17F) (3.5) 30 (18F) 22.3 25.2 33 (17F) (1.9) 24 12 (12F) (1.8) 23 30 (14F) (3.7) 24.9 16 (6F) (2.7) 22.6 14 (7F) (3.9) 43.9 17 (8F) (10.1) 21.6 21 (11F) (2.5) 30 (17F) 23-41 21 27 (14F) (2.4) 31.8 16 (9F) (7.7) 24.4 18 (18F) (3.5) 21.1 18 (7F) (2.8) 76.3 10 (2F) (4) 25.1 24 (13F) (2.8) 24.8 19 (19F) (4) 23 & 42 (22F) 69 24 58 (32F) (2.3) 11 (8F) 21-28 40 (24F) 20.1
Page 26 of 33
Unpleasant faces, criticism, & Reappraise > natural reaction beliefs Unpleasant outcome in Reappraise > natural reaction ultimatum game
27 (13F) 21 (10F)
(1.7) 32.6 (9.5) 23.5 (3.6) 19.6 (1.2) 21.3 (2.3) 24.9 (5.6)
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F)
Reappraise or Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
42 (42F)
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant faces
Reappraise > view
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
16 (9F) 22.7
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
30 (13F) 22
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F) 20.6
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
19 (11F) 62-64
cr
us
an
Increase > view
ip t
reappraisal > view
26 (26F)
Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F) 23.3
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
10 (10F) 20.7
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
29 (18F) 61-65 25.2 33 (17F) (1.9)
Feel > think Reappraise last run > Reappraise first run
self reflection
30 (17F) 23-41
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
13 (9F) 21-52
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
11 (8F) 21-28
te
d
M
Increase > view
Ac ce p
Control Downregulate > 2013 Ziv Control Downregulate > Control 2013 Grecucci Downregulate > 2013 Seo Control Downregulate > 2013 Vanderhasselt Control Downregulate > Control 2014 Otto Downregulate > 2014 Morris Control Downregulate > 2014 Silvers Control Upregulate > Control 2004 Ochsner Upregulate > Control 2006 Urry Upregulate > 2007 Eippert Control Upregulate > 2007 Kim Control Upregulate > 2007 van Reekum Control Upregulate > 2010 Domes Control Upregulate > 2010 Herwig Control Upregulate > Control 2010 Johnston Upregulate > 2012 Veit Control Upregulate > 2013 Holland Control Upregulate > Control 2013 Holland Upregulate > 2013 Grecucci Control
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
Increase > natural reaction
Unpleasant outcome in ultimatum game
22.1 (3.7) 21.9 22 (13F) (3.3) 23.5 21 (10F) (3.6) 18 (9F)
Page 27 of 33
Table 2. ALE Clusters Resulting from Downregulate < Control Contrasts, FDR p < .01 x
y
z
L Amygdala / Parahippocampal Gyrus
1816
-20
-6
-14
R Amygdala / Parahippocampal Gyrus
992
20
0
-14
L Inferior Parietal Lobule
288
-54
-26
22
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Volume (mm3)
Structure
Page 28 of 33
Table 3. ALE Clusters Resulting from Downregulate > Control Contrasts, FDR p < .01 x
y
z
L Inferior Frontal Gyrus
4104
-46
17
-4
L Superior Frontal Gyrus / Supplementary Motor Area
3192
-6
8
60
R Inferior Frontal Gyrus
2576
45
22
L Middle Temporal Gyrus
2360
-56
-36
L Middle Frontal Gyrus / FEF
1968
-40
6
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
1328
-14
R Superior Frontal Gyrus / Cingulate Cortex
1128
6
L Angular Gyrus
920
R Middle Frontal Gyrus / FEF
872
L Anterior Cingulate Cortex
ip t
Volume (mm3)
4
-2
46
cr
Structure
40
20
44
-45
-61
32
36
18
44
640
-8
20
32
R Inferior Frontal Gyrus
328
38
44
2
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
264
-30
48
14
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
42
Page 29 of 33
y
z
L Posterior Cingulate Cortex
392
-6
-48
26
L Putamen
368
-20
6
8
L Thalamus
352
-8
-8
2
L Supplementary Motor Area
328
-4
-2
60
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
312
-14
40
36
L Amygdala
288
-18
-10
-10
R Globus Pallidus
272
10
0
2
L Anterior Cingulate Cortex
256
-4
12
cr
x
us
Volume (mm3)
40
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
Structure
ip t
Table 4. ALE Clusters Resulting from Upregulate > Control Contrasts, FDR p < .01
Page 30 of 33
y
z
L Insula / Inferior Frontal Gyrus
1160
-50
7
13
L Putamen
1136
-20
6
8
L Posterior Cingulate Cortex
848
-6
-48
26
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
824
-13
44
38
L Thalamus
816
-8
-8
2
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
808
-4
-2
60
R Globus Pallidus
744
10
0
2
L Anterior Cingulate Cortex
576
-4
12
L Amygdala
520
-18
-10
R Insula
328
44
10
-2
R Precentral Gyrus
288
52
-6
50
L Cingulate Cortex
256
-8
6
26
cr
x
us
Volume (mm3)
40
M
an
-10
Ac ce p
te
d
Structure
ip t
Table 5. ALE Clusters Resulting from Upregulate > Control Contrasts, FDR < .05
Page 31 of 33
Ac
ce
pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
i
Figure 1
Page 32 of 33
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Figure 2
Page 33 of 33
S0149-7634(14)00148-1 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.010 NBR 1969
To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
17-1-2014 17-6-2014 18-6-2014
Please cite this article as: Frank, D.W., Dewitt, M., Hudgens-Haney, M., Schaeffer, D.J., Ball, B.H., Schwartz, N., Hussein, A.A., Smart, L.M., Sabatinelli, D.,Emotion regulation: Quantitative meta-analysis of functional activation and deactivation, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.010 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Activation Likelihood Estimation meta-analysis of human emotional regulation Downregulation and upregulation contrasts are compared Amygdala / parahippocampal decrease in downregulation and increase in upregulation
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
Distinct frontal networks appear to drive upregulation & downregulation
ip t
Superior frontal, cingulate & premotor activity increases across regulation states
Page 1 of 33
ip t cr
an
us
Emotion regulation: Quantitative meta-analysis of functional activation and deactivation
D. W. Frankb, M. Dewitta, M. Hudgens-Haneyb, D. J. Schaefferb, B. H. Balla, N. Schwartzb, A. A.
M
Husseina, L. M. Smarta, & D. Sabatinelli*a, b, c
a
b
d
Department of Psychology
te
Department of Neuroscience
c
Ac ce p
BioImaging Research Center University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602
*Corresponding author: Dean Sabatinelli, Ph.D. 1 (706) 542-3094 [email protected] 523 Psychology Building University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602
Page 2 of 33
Abstract Emotion regulation is hypothesized to be a multifaceted process by which individuals willfully modulate the intensity and direction of emotional response via prefrontally-mediated
ip t
inhibition of subcortical response-related regions of the brain. Here we employ Activation
Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies to
cr
1) reveal a consistent network of structures active during emotion regulation, 2) identify the
us
target regions inactivated by the willful regulation process, and 3) investigate the consistency of activated structures associated with downregulation and upregulation. Results reveal signal
an
change in bilateral amygdala / parahippocampal gyrus that decreased in downregulated states and increased in upregulated states, while cortical regions including superior frontal gyrus,
M
cingulate, and premotor areas exhibited enhanced activity across all regulation conditions. These results provide consistent evidence for the role of amygdala activity in experienced
d
emotional intensity, where intentional dampening and exaggeration are clearly expressed.
te
However, the execution of emotional upregulation and downregulation may involve distinct
Ac ce p
subsets of frontocortical stuctures.
Keywords: Emotion regulation, fMRI, Meta-analysis, Amygdala, Deactivation
Page 3 of 33
1. Introduction The willful modulation of responses to emotionally evocative stimuli is thought to involve interactions among the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), anterior
ip t
cingulate cortex (ACC), and amygdala (Banks et al., 2007; Kim and Hamann, 2007; Ochsner et al., 2002; Ochsner et al., 2004). Among other functions, the LPFC and ACC are critical in the
cr
performance of cognitive control tasks such as conflict monitoring (van Veen and Carter, 2002),
us
working memory (Rypma et al., 1999), and the guidance of attention (Banich et al., 2000), whereas the amygdala is heavily involved in emotional processing (Garavan et al., 2001; Lane
an
et al., 1999). Thus, the association of these brain structures identified with emotion regulation tasks is consistent with their ascribed roles in human behavior. The initial goal of the current
M
work is to identify a consistent set of activated brain regions reported in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) investigations of emotional regulation processes using quantitative
d
meta-analysis, taking advantage of enhanced statistical power and dampening the contributions
te
of idiosyncratic experimental designs to reveal a consistent and reliable activated network (Eickoff et al., 2012). Our second goal exploits the distinctive nature of the proposed emotion
Ac ce p
regulation network, in which an intentional process is associated with both the activation of regulating structures and inhibition (or in some cases enhancement) of regulated structures, which is particularly amenable to the fMRI measure that provides estimates of signal decreases as well as increases.
Investigations of the brain mechanisms of emotional regulation often include conditions in which participants are instructed to modulate their affective state in a single direction (e.g., to decrease felt emotion). Distinct brain regions have been identified in the comparatively few paradigms that have included both increase and decrease tasks, suggesting directiondependent regulation networks (Kim and Hamann, 2007; Urry et al., 2006). This creates somewhat of an interpretational challenge in assessing the specificity of an emotional regulation
Page 4 of 33
network, in that different control structures or relative activity levels of nodes in a consistent control network may exist across downregulation and upregulation demands. Meta-analysis may therefore be useful to compare results from emotional enhancement and suppression
ip t
conditions across a number of studies to detect the presence of direction-specific mechanisms involved in emotion regulation.
cr
Three meta-analytic investigations of emotion regulation have been published recently
us
(Buhle et al., 2013; Diekhof et al., 2011; Kohn et al., 2014), however the present effort will differ from these works in multiple ways. One significant distinction is that ours will include a contrast
an
in which enhanced emotional reactivity is assessed, thus providing an opportunity to test how the direction of regulation alters the composition of brain structures involved. A second novel
M
feature of our meta analysis is the addition of a contrast depicting activation decreases during regulation states. This inclusion combines the advantages of the distinctive psychological task in
d
which a dampening of response may conceivably result in the measureable decrease of
possible in prior reports.
te
regional brain activity. Finally, we hope to include a larger number of studies than has been
Ac ce p
To address these research questions, the current work employed the latest iteration of the Activity Likelihood Estimation (ALE) fMRI meta-analysis method (Eickoff et al., 2009) to combine the results of emotional regulation studies published over a 10 year period, including studies in which increased and decreased blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal were reported during experimental conditions in which individuals downregulated or upregulated their affective state.
Page 5 of 33
2. Methods 2.1. Article selection Articles from 1994 through 2014 were identified using a specific search string in the
ip t
PubMed database:
("1994/01/01"[Publication Date]: "2014/12/31"[Publication Date]) AND ((emotion* OR
cr
affective OR fear OR valence ) AND (regulat* OR suppress* OR reappraisal) AND (fMRI OR
us
neuroimag* OR "functional MRI" OR "functional magnetic resonance imaging")).
Studies were included if the authors reported whole-brain coordinates in Talairach or MNI space
an
and sampled at least five subjects over 18 years of age. Contrasts that compared regulation conditions (e.g., instructed reappraisal or suppression) to non-regulation or baseline conditions
M
(e.g. passive viewing) were included. In studies for which coordinate tables resulting from more than one contrast were reported (e.g., downregulation and upregulation contrasts), both were
d
included. Only the results from within-subject contrasts were included, which accounted for the
te
great majority of studies. Studies of clinical populations were excluded, however results from healthy control groups reported in clinical studies were included if listed separately.
Ac ce p
2.2. Contrast selection
ALE contrasts reflect statistically significant whole brain clusters that were active for four contrasts:
1. Downregulation
>
no regulation
2. Downregulation
no regulation
4. Upregulation
2001 Beauregard Control Downregulate > 2002 Ochsner Control Downregulate > Control 2003 Hariri Downregulate > Control 2003 Levesque Downregulate > 2004 Ochsner Control Downregulate > Control 2005 Gillath Downregulate > Control 2005 Phan Downregulate > 2006 Beauregard Control Downregulate > Control 2006 Harenski
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
22 (12F) 28 22.7 17 (17F) (3.5) 24 12 (12F) (1.8) 43.9 17 (8F) (10.1) 21.6 21 (11F) (2.5) 21.8 30 (17F) (2.1) 31.8 16 (9F) (7.7) 24.4 18 (18F) (3.5) 24.8 17 (17F) (4) 23 & 42 (22F) 69 22.1 18 (9F) (3.7) 21.9 22 (13F) (3.3) 23.5 21 (10F) (3.6) 24.9 26 (26F) (5.6)
Reappraise < natural reaction
Unpleasant outcome in ultimatum game
Reappraise < view
Unpleasant faces
Reduce sexual arousal > view
erotic film clips
10 (0F) 23.5
Unpleasant scenes
15 (15F) 21.9
Unpleasant scenes
11 (6F)
Ac ce p
Year 1st Author
Reappraise > view think about scenes > match scenes
32
Suppress > natural reaction Unpleasant film clips
20 (20F) 24.3
Reappraise > natural reaction Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F) 20.6
Suppress > think
Unpleasant imagery
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view
Unpleasant film clips
20 (20F) 20 27.6 14 (8F) (4.4) 45 12 (9F) (10)
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
10 (10F) 18-29
Page 25 of 33
15 (8F)
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise> view
Unpleasant scenes
19 (11F) 62-64 27.6 14 (8F) (4.4)
Suppress > view
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
22 (12F) 28
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F) 23.3
Reappraise > view
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view Reappraise or Suppress > view
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
cr
an
us
Unpleasant film clips
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view
Unpleasant faces
Suppress > experience
Unpleasant scene recall
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
d
M
Reappraise > view Reappraise or Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Feel < think
Self reflection
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant and Pleasant faces
Distancing > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > view
Ac ce p
Suppress > natural reaction Unpleasantative rumination Reappraise > natural reaction monetary reward task Reappraise or Suppress > view Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes Reappraise > natural reaction Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
Reappraise > natural reaction gambling task
26
ip t
Suppress > natural reaction Fear conditioning
te
Downregulate > Control Downregulate > Control 2006 Urry Downregulate > 2007 Banks Control Downregulate > 2007 Blair Control Downregulate > Control 2007 Eippert Downregulate > 2007 Herwig Control Downregulate > 2007 Kim Control Downregulate > Control 2008 Goldin Downregulate > 2008 Wager Control Downregulate > 2009 Domes Control Downregulate > Control 2009 Mak Downregulate > 2010 Abler Control Downregulate > 2010 Amting Control Downregulate > Control 2010 Butler Downregulate > 2010 Erk Control Downregulate > 2010 Hayes Control Downregulate > Control 2010 Herwig Downregulate > 2010 Hooker Control Downregulate > 2010 Koenigsberg Control Downregulate > Control 2010 McRae Downregulate > 2010 Modinos Control Downregulate > 2011 Andreescu Control Downregulate > 2011 Staudinger Control Downregulate > Control 2011 Vritčka Downregulate > 2011 Winecoff Control Downregulate > Control 2012 Golkar Downregulate > 2012 Veit Control 2013 Hessner Downregulate > 2006 Kalisch
34 (18F) 23-36 10 (10F) 20.7 22.7 17 (17F) (3.5) 30 (18F) 22.3 25.2 33 (17F) (1.9) 24 12 (12F) (1.8) 23 30 (14F) (3.7) 24.9 16 (6F) (2.7) 22.6 14 (7F) (3.9) 43.9 17 (8F) (10.1) 21.6 21 (11F) (2.5) 30 (17F) 23-41 21 27 (14F) (2.4) 31.8 16 (9F) (7.7) 24.4 18 (18F) (3.5) 21.1 18 (7F) (2.8) 76.3 10 (2F) (4) 25.1 24 (13F) (2.8) 24.8 19 (19F) (4) 23 & 42 (22F) 69 24 58 (32F) (2.3) 11 (8F) 21-28 40 (24F) 20.1
Page 26 of 33
Unpleasant faces, criticism, & Reappraise > natural reaction beliefs Unpleasant outcome in Reappraise > natural reaction ultimatum game
27 (13F) 21 (10F)
(1.7) 32.6 (9.5) 23.5 (3.6) 19.6 (1.2) 21.3 (2.3) 24.9 (5.6)
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F)
Reappraise or Suppress > view
Unpleasant scenes
42 (42F)
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant faces
Reappraise > view
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
16 (9F) 22.7
Reappraise > view
Unpleasant scenes
30 (13F) 22
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F) 20.6
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
19 (11F) 62-64
cr
us
an
Increase > view
ip t
reappraisal > view
26 (26F)
Unpleasant scenes
24 (24F) 23.3
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
10 (10F) 20.7
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
29 (18F) 61-65 25.2 33 (17F) (1.9)
Feel > think Reappraise last run > Reappraise first run
self reflection
30 (17F) 23-41
Pleasant & Unpleasant scenes
13 (9F) 21-52
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
11 (8F) 21-28
te
d
M
Increase > view
Ac ce p
Control Downregulate > 2013 Ziv Control Downregulate > Control 2013 Grecucci Downregulate > 2013 Seo Control Downregulate > 2013 Vanderhasselt Control Downregulate > Control 2014 Otto Downregulate > 2014 Morris Control Downregulate > 2014 Silvers Control Upregulate > Control 2004 Ochsner Upregulate > Control 2006 Urry Upregulate > 2007 Eippert Control Upregulate > 2007 Kim Control Upregulate > 2007 van Reekum Control Upregulate > 2010 Domes Control Upregulate > 2010 Herwig Control Upregulate > Control 2010 Johnston Upregulate > 2012 Veit Control Upregulate > 2013 Holland Control Upregulate > Control 2013 Holland Upregulate > 2013 Grecucci Control
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
Increase > view
Unpleasant scenes
Increase > natural reaction
Unpleasant outcome in ultimatum game
22.1 (3.7) 21.9 22 (13F) (3.3) 23.5 21 (10F) (3.6) 18 (9F)
Page 27 of 33
Table 2. ALE Clusters Resulting from Downregulate < Control Contrasts, FDR p < .01 x
y
z
L Amygdala / Parahippocampal Gyrus
1816
-20
-6
-14
R Amygdala / Parahippocampal Gyrus
992
20
0
-14
L Inferior Parietal Lobule
288
-54
-26
22
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Volume (mm3)
Structure
Page 28 of 33
Table 3. ALE Clusters Resulting from Downregulate > Control Contrasts, FDR p < .01 x
y
z
L Inferior Frontal Gyrus
4104
-46
17
-4
L Superior Frontal Gyrus / Supplementary Motor Area
3192
-6
8
60
R Inferior Frontal Gyrus
2576
45
22
L Middle Temporal Gyrus
2360
-56
-36
L Middle Frontal Gyrus / FEF
1968
-40
6
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
1328
-14
R Superior Frontal Gyrus / Cingulate Cortex
1128
6
L Angular Gyrus
920
R Middle Frontal Gyrus / FEF
872
L Anterior Cingulate Cortex
ip t
Volume (mm3)
4
-2
46
cr
Structure
40
20
44
-45
-61
32
36
18
44
640
-8
20
32
R Inferior Frontal Gyrus
328
38
44
2
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
264
-30
48
14
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
42
Page 29 of 33
y
z
L Posterior Cingulate Cortex
392
-6
-48
26
L Putamen
368
-20
6
8
L Thalamus
352
-8
-8
2
L Supplementary Motor Area
328
-4
-2
60
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
312
-14
40
36
L Amygdala
288
-18
-10
-10
R Globus Pallidus
272
10
0
2
L Anterior Cingulate Cortex
256
-4
12
cr
x
us
Volume (mm3)
40
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
Structure
ip t
Table 4. ALE Clusters Resulting from Upregulate > Control Contrasts, FDR p < .01
Page 30 of 33
y
z
L Insula / Inferior Frontal Gyrus
1160
-50
7
13
L Putamen
1136
-20
6
8
L Posterior Cingulate Cortex
848
-6
-48
26
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
824
-13
44
38
L Thalamus
816
-8
-8
2
L Superior Frontal Gyrus
808
-4
-2
60
R Globus Pallidus
744
10
0
2
L Anterior Cingulate Cortex
576
-4
12
L Amygdala
520
-18
-10
R Insula
328
44
10
-2
R Precentral Gyrus
288
52
-6
50
L Cingulate Cortex
256
-8
6
26
cr
x
us
Volume (mm3)
40
M
an
-10
Ac ce p
te
d
Structure
ip t
Table 5. ALE Clusters Resulting from Upregulate > Control Contrasts, FDR < .05
Page 31 of 33
Ac
ce
pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
i
Figure 1
Page 32 of 33
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Figure 2
Page 33 of 33
