Neural correlates of affective influence on choice.

School of Psychology, Bangor University, LL57 2AS, UK.
Brain and Cognition (Impact Factor: 2.68). 10/2009; 72(2):282-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.09.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Making the right choice depends crucially on the accurate valuation of the available options in the light of current needs and goals of an individual. Thus, the valuation of identical options can vary considerably with motivational context. The present study investigated the neural structures underlying context dependent evaluation. We instructed participants to choose from food menu items based on different criteria: on their anticipated taste or on ease of preparation. The aim of the manipulation was to assess which neural sites were activated during choice guided by incentive value, and which during choice based on a value-irrelevant criterion. To assess the impact of increased motivation, affect-guided choice and cognition-guided choice was compared during the sated and hungry states. During affective choice, we identified increased activity in structures representing primarily valuation and taste (medial prefrontal cortex, insula). During cognitive choice, structures showing increased activity included those implicated in suppression and conflict monitoring (lateral orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate). Hunger influenced choice-related activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Our results show that choice is associated with the use of distinct neural structures for the pursuit of different goals.

Download full-text


Available from: John A Parkinson, Jun 19, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Psychological research increasingly indicates that emotional processes interact with other aspects of cognition. Studies have demonstrated both the ability of emotional stimuli to influence a broad range of cognitive operations, and the ability of humans to use top-down cognitive control mechanisms to regulate emotional responses. Portions of the prefrontal cortex appear to play a significant role in these interactions. However, the manner in which these interactions are implemented remains only partially elucidated. In the present review we describe the anatomical connections between ventral and dorsal prefrontal areas as well as their connections with limbic regions. Only a subset of prefrontal areas are likely to directly influence amygdalar processing, and as such models of prefrontal control of emotions and models of emotional regulation should be constrained to plausible pathways of influence. We also focus on how the specific pattern of feedforward and feedback connections between these regions may dictate the nature of information flow between ventral and dorsal prefrontal areas and the amygdala. These patterns of connections are inconsistent with several commonly expressed assumptions about the nature of communications between emotion and cognition.
    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 08/2011; 36(1):479-501. DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.08.005 · 10.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This literature review uses four dimensions to classify and compare how food-related decision-making is conceptualized and experimentally assessed in neuroscience and other disciplines: (1) food-related decision-making other than the decision of what to eat that is part of each eating episode, (2) decision complexes other than the eating episode itself, (3) the evolution of food-related decision-making over time, and (4) the nature of food related decisions. In neuroscience in particular, food-related decision-making research has been dominated by studies exploring the influence of a wide range of factors on the final outcome, the type and amount of foods eaten. In comparison, the steps that are leading up to this outcome have only rarely been discussed. Neuroscientists should broaden their historically narrow conceptualization of food-related decision-making. Then neuroscience research could help group the numerous hypothesized influences for each of the decision complexes into meaningful clusters that rely on the same or similar brain mechanisms and that thus function in similar ways. This strategy could help researchers improve existing broad models of human food-related decision-making from other disciplines. The integration of neuroscientific and behavioral science approaches can lead to a better model of food-related decision-making grounded in the brain and relevant to the design of more effective school and nonschool lifestyle interventions to prevent and treat obesity in children, adolescents, and adults.
    Mind Brain and Education 12/2012; 6(4). DOI:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01159.x · 1.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to examine the brain activity manifested while non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with and without anorexia were exposed to visual food stimuli. We included 26 treatment-naïve patients who had been recently diagnosed with advanced NSCLC. Patients with brain metastasis were excluded. The patients were classified into anorectic and non-anorectic groups. Data from functional magnetic resonance imaging based on blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signals were analyzed while the patients perceived pleasant and unpleasant food pictures. The brain records were analyzed with SPM 5 using a voxelwise multiple regression analysis. The non-anorexic patients demonstrated BOLD activation, comprising frontal brain regions in the premotor and the prefrontal cortices, only while watching unpleasant stimuli. The anorectic patients demonstrated no activation while watching the pleasant and unpleasant food pictures. Anorectic patients with lung cancer present a lack of activation in the brain regions associated with food stimuli processing. These results are consistent with experiences in the clinical environment: Patients describe themselves as not experiencing sensations of hunger or having an appetite.
    Nutrition 07/2013; 29(7-8):1013-9. DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2013.01.020 · 3.05 Impact Factor