8 chapter 8

empathy

+++++++

Emotions are a part of empathy. We experience empathy with ourselves and with our own bodies through the experience of emotions. They arise in interaction between our bodies and our environment.

It really is pretty simple. As humans we only have 5 basic emotions, and from these five we learn to differentiate all the other shades of the emotions we identify as we mature. Four of these five emotions – disgust, fear, sadness and anger – lie in the older limbic right hemisphere of our brains. These emotions are the ones that kept us alive. The fifth emotion, joy, is in our newer left hemisphere. Our right hemisphere develops earlier from the time of our birth than does our left hemisphere.

We can coin and propagate all the quote “positive thinking” techniques, including meditation, that we want to. But thinking does not always “make it so.” Facts are facts. The facts are that if an infant is not allowed joy and happiness in a safe, loving and secure environment from birth, the left joy center will not develop to its capacity. The early experiences prior to age 2 tell the brain as it develops what to do. If there is not adequate joy interactions, the neurons that COULD have formed themselves in the joy center simply leave the scene, and they do not come back. The brain is very efficient, and this region is one that demands experience to build it. Without enough happy experiences before age 2, this part of the brain will be smaller than it should be, without as many neurons as it could have had, and it will remain so for the rest of a person’s life.

Neurons are cell bodies that happen to have limbs – think of them as legs, arms, fingers and toes. Neurons in the happy center, even if they are a very limited collection allowed to develop birth to age 2, can later on add multiple limbs. So I am not saying that exercising the happy center is useless. But we must also realize the limitations. Never again will new neurons attach themselves, or include themselves in the joyful community part of the left brain. This means that biologically, physiologically, some people have to work much, much harder at being happy and may never get to the same level of joy that some people take for granted because they were loved and not abused and neglected from birth.

The flip side of this lack of early joy experiences is that at the same time these infants were not happy, they were experiencing terrifying and painful experiences that DID contribute to increase in the capacity for fear, anxiety and anguish. They were pushing their little shopping carts, as it were, through a completely different part of the store and had them filled with traumas and difficulties, not pleasure and happiness.

We must understand that as these varieties of experiences are happening to the little ones as their brains are developing, every part of their being and body is being altered as well. As we will explore in this text, they end up having an entirely different life because they ended up getting an entire different body – including nervous system, brain, and immune system. Their adaptive genetic potentials made sure this was so, because to all practical appearances, these little people were having to develop a brain that would serve them in a completely toxic, traumatic, dangerous and malevolent world.

When we flush our toilets or let the water out of our bathtubs north of the equator, the water swirls in one direction. If we perform these actions south of the equator, the waters circle in the opposite direction. I believe our bodies have evolved to form themselves in equally distinct opposite ways, depending on whether we were prepared for a safe or a dangerous world. This preparation begins with the stress level of the mother altering her hormones so that the communication has already begun before conception, and hence begins to program the offspring for the world from the start.

This is not unlike a long line of train tracks with switches that are flipped every step of the developmental journey, fine tuning adaptation to either a benevolent or a malevolent world, and sending the fetus and the infant off on an anticipated trajectory like an arrow into the future – be it toxic or be it not. Pointing at any individual and blaming either them or their genes for the long term consequence is neglecting the basic facts of life. Nature provides us with the miraculous ability to make the best of any situation to the best of our abilities. When we witness people with less than perfect lives we need to understand their beginnings and their journey to understand what types of adaptations were called into play along the way.

So on the simplest level the easiest place to begin to look for the directional input of our early genetic programming is to determine what the overall emotion of our current lives is – when we are medication free. There are just the five basic choices: happy, sad, disgusted, angry or scared. I disagree with the “personality experts” that these emotions are simply a reflection of our personality type. We need to know what both the genes and the experiences of our ancestors were to know what those interactions determined for them in the same way we need to know what ours were before we can ever begin to simply assign our emotional tone to our “innate” personalities.

This isn’t about personality so much as it is about what the environment has communicated to our genetic material about the state of the world we are being formed to fit into. I do not believe that “enlightenment” is so much about feeling blissful as it is about becoming informed about the facts of our existence as interactional, evolved and evolving beings in relationship with our environment. This in-forming is worth more than all the bliss in the world because it will reflect a state of fact in reality that THEN becomes something we can being to consciously moderate toward a different end – within reason and within bounds.

When we look back on our cave dwelling, stone age history we see that originally we survived using very few tools. In my book, I will say that we have a club in one hand and a spear with a large stone tip point in the other. Once we determine what our basic emotional overriding emotional tone is, that can be our spear. The nature of our club is equally as simple to determine: Where do we fall on the spectrum or continuum of sensitivity?

Just as we know that our overall emotional tone was completely influenced by the interaction of our genetic self with our environmental influences, so too was our natural sensitivity alignment equally influenced. But even though our natural sensitivity was influenced by our experience, we naturally all fall more toward one end than the other. Do we detect only the largest disturbances we encounter, or do we notice the tiniest variations in our environment? It’s that simple. Do we notice what LOOMS or do we notice what FLUTTERS?

I refer to this continuum as being our club because I believe the whole spectrum of variation in human types is simply a reflection of our place in the energy give-and-take as it developed in our species through time in relation to a vital, necessary, efficient division of labor based on who had what kind of proficiency potential. It quite being possible for everyone to be equally as capable at performing all the kinds of jobs that needed to be done within our groups a long, long time ago. Some were the hunters with the big stick clubs to bash and bring down the big game. Others were provided with the more delicate sticks that allowed us to poke around in the bushes and dirt to find the plants.

I would much rather think about all the degrees of differences and similarities between myself in relation to others not in “psychiatric” terms but in the practical terms of who is better prepared to interact with the environment in what ways, using which abilities, to contribute what kind of energy to the whole? Are we, most simply put, hunters or gathers? Are we animal chasing clubbing people or are we find the vital plants in the right season in the right place people? Are we plant people or are we animal people?

I like thinking about who we are as individuals in these terms because it makes me smile. It provides me with all sorts of comedic visuals that are connected to the most ancient, ancient experiences of my species. I can entertain myself with the visuals of fishing, say, that would have required a unique combinations of skills perhaps having been developed very well within a group of people who were on the middle of the loom-flutter range. I can imagine the frustration, the desperation, the detached-point-of-view humor of me today imagining situations in the past when someone whose constitution allowed them to bring down the lion or the mammoth stomping through a meadow trying to find a delicate plant needed to heal a particular ailment, not knowing what to look for or where, stomping to death a wide path full of vital life and ending up empty handed. I can imagine the tiny relationship plant people with their fist full of willow sticks trying to swat a bison to death and being knocked flat on their hind end or worse, again ending up empty handed.

Empty handed never suited either the survival or the advancement of our species. Our genes have conspired over thousands and thousands of generations to create in each of us a unique combination of potentials to provide for the good of ourselves and our species. Although we may be separated from our ancient ancestors by thousands upon thousands of years and miles of migrations, we each contain within ourselves a particular combination of assets. What we must realize is that the state of the world we were being prepared to enter from before our conception in the body of our mother has been communicated to our genes so that they could best continue to combine and recombine themselves in the best way possible to allow us the success of completing our missions.

Our first responsibility toward adju8sting ourselves consciously to a world so complicated that scientists will spend the rest of eternity trying to unravel its secrets and will never be able to complete that task, is to understand that we all have behind the scenes adjustments to the ongoing operation and manifestation of our genetic codes throughout our lifetimes that happened and continue to happen in response to degrees of threat or of safety. Being human today means that, except in the rarest of circumstances, we can enlighten ourselves through learning and education about our own bodies and our own responses within our environment so that we can exercise increasing levels of control over how we ARE in the world. It starts, in my humble opinion, by understanding who we are on as many levels as possible.

I suspect that all information about our place in our environment enters our body as a degree of stress – great or small. We are all geared in our own particular ways both to notice it and to respond to it. I believe that everything we detect in our environment that requires us to make some kind of an adjustment in response to threat – large or small – so that we can get back to balanced homeostasis, is processed through our immune system. Taken literally, even our emotions are immune system responses. Life is an ongoing interactive information gathering and response process. Every reaction that goes on inside our bodies involves signaling and communication.

Is it friend or is it foe? Is it going to eat me? How humbling might it be to realize that every response we automatically make within our environment is based on a detection of where we are in the food chain at any given instant of time? Do we fight, run, freeze? What alerts us and what do we do about it? That is the question.

++++

de Vigenmont & Singer 2006

My thought is that empathy proper is a cognitive operation

contextual approach, several modulatory factors

discovery of mirror neurons in 1996 in monkeys

“Brain imaging studies have shown overlapping brain activation patterns when subjects feel their own emotions and observe the same emotions in others….It has been suggested that:

(i) shared affective neuronal networks explain how we feel the emotions of others as if they were our own and

(ii) these networks are activated automatically whenever we observe others displaying emotion. But is empathy really automatically triggered every time we observe someone else displaying emotion?” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 435

narrowed definition of empathy –

“There is empathy if:

(i) one is in an affective state;

(ii) this state is isomorphic [identical, similar, alike] to another person’s affective state;

(iii) this state is elicited by the observation or imagination of another person’s affective state;

(iv) one knows that the other person is the source of one’s own affective state.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 435

this definition related to the neuronal basis of empathy — enables us to distinguish empathy from other related phenomena – such as …cognitive perspective-taking — making inferences based on what we know of a person but don’t feel the feeling ourselves

…emotional contagion – involves affect sharing but does not meet the condition of self-other distinction – not aware that the other is the cause of our feeling the same as other

..sympathy – an affective state related to the other but we are not having the feeling the same – I feel sorry for you because you feel jealous, angry or depressed but I don’t feel jealous, angry or depressed myself

“…observing another person’s emotional state activates parts of the neuronal network involved in processing that same state in oneself….” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 435

WHEN DO WE EMPATHIZE?

“In real life, we constantly witness people displaying contradictory emotions. If we were to consciously feel what they feel all the time, we would be in permanent emotional (436)turmoil, leaving no room for our own emotions.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 437

Some caregivers create just this situation for infants – caregiver attacking infant, or not clearly mirroring back the infant’s own emotions “properly” (or not at all) – caregiver overwhelming infant with adult’s emotions unrelated to infant’s, etc.

“We now provide neuroscientific evidence suggesting that empathy is not merely the consequence of the passive observation of emotional cues but that it is subject to contextual appraisal and modulation.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 437

infants have no contextual appraisal and modulation abilities – they are the ones that are supposed to be on the receiving end of this in the beginning, or their brains won’t grow right so they will be able to do this on their own later one

MODULATION OF THE EMPATHIC BRAIN

“Recently, neuroscientists have started investigating whether activity in shared emotional networks can be modulated. Evidence for a modulatory role of saliency and intensity of pain stimulus was observed by Aglioti’s group, who only saw an empathy-related reduction in motor excitability in the observer’s hand when a needle deeply penetrated the model’s muscle but not when the needle merely pricked the hand [21].” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 437

“Singer et al. [22] found modulation as a function of the affective link between the empathizer and the person in pain. de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 437 [fair play vs unfair play, empathy-related activation in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and anterior insula (AI) for both genders when they liked a fair player who was in pain –men but not women showed absence of such empathic activity when perceiving unfair player in pain – instead on average men showed increase in activity in areas associated with reward (nucleus accumbens) positively correlated with expressed desire for revenge]

Lamm et al. [23] subjects had smaller empathic response in pain-related areas when told the pain other was feeling was justified to cure them

Is this related to parents who think hurting a child is deserved and for their own good?

All suggesting empathic brain responses are prone to modulation

CONTEXTUAL APPROACH

Authors “…propose a contextual approach to empathy….that;

(i) empathy is modulated by appraisal processes and

(ii) this modulation is present even at the subpersonal [?] level of a neural empathic response, and can be fast, and implicit.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 437

leaves lots of room with those who have distorted cognitions – like my theory of the childhood broken-rule people

authors distinguish between two types of modulation of empathy

…”..one can modulate one’s empathy voluntarily, using the control one has over one’s emotional responses..” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 437

which those of us with inadequate infant brain development cannot easily do (regulate emotions)

…mentions Buddhist monk, I would say also like chemo doctors’ “functional empathy”, like professionals – journalists EMT, cops, etc

……also, earned secure attachment would fit here – we changed the way we experience empathy from the way we were treated ourselves

…:empathy can be modulated by implicit appraisal processes, which might strongly influence the magnitude of empathic responses.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 437

these would be the unconscious ones

four main categories of modulatory factors:

…intrinsic features of the shared emotions: intensity, saliency [striking point or feature] and valence (positive versus negative) of the emotion might have great influence on empathy of the perceiver of another’s emotions

…………….it might be easier to empathize with primary emotions such as fear, happiness or sadness rather than with secondary emotions such as jealousy

….relationship between characteristics of people involved

……..gender, personality, age, past experiences of empathizer

……..if empathizer does not have the specific experiences of the other, can use cognitive perspective taking, but cannot empathize

……..this is especially relevant, to me, in regard to traumas, authors use example of vertigo

..context of situation

………judgment as to if the other’s emotion is justified in situation

………..does other’s reaction make sense to us in the situation

………..empathy difficult if there is more than one person present each expressing different emotions

Past history of trauma is a major factor in empathy modulation. The first place to look for its effects are in the roles we are triggered to take in relation to the emotional world of human interactions we participate in. The role of perpetrator, victim or rescuer will manifest in all emotional reactions because emotion is intimately tied to the human aspect of drama that operates in our interactions with each other.

If there is emotional drama, we need to carefully be aware (beware) of which role we are in at the time we are perceiving another’s emotional state because our role will influence our reactions.

Without the interacting force of past trauma infiltrating our current emotional state, equality and facts will dominate. The facts of a situation can only be assessed through objectivity. This is difficult because of the subjective nature of the emotional realities we live in. How can we be objective about emotions when the very existence of emotions entails a subjective perspective?

We are not machines. Yet we are also not educated and do not usually have factual knowledge about our emotions. What causes them and what purpose do they have in our lives? Do they exist only because of drama, or can we have emotional reactions – including empathetic reactions – that are not tied deeply into drama?

If the basis in our bodies of emotions is tied to our inner point of homeostatic equilibrium, and if that set point was formed in traumatic interactions with a malevolent caregiver situation, we have to understand that our point of “being equal,” our point of non-traumatic dramatic interaction will mislead us. Not only is this “resting place” of centered balance without emotion not set right in the first place for us, but the switch that goes off to alert us of an emotional complication that we need to react to, is not set at a “secure base” place, either.

We grow up doing the best we can to stand on our own two feet, not being told that the boat we are standing in is not safe in the first place, and that we are in an inadequate boat that is itself in extremely dangerous turbulent waters. How are we to keep our balance, or even to experience that center point of balanced calmness if we have never had it in the first place?

People who were raised from infancy in a secure environment have a center point of balanced equilibrium – and that point is calmness. That is the point from which the degree of drama can be measured. That is the point that the cortex can come from so that it can realistically (!) assess the degree of drama in a situation or interaction so that the maximum “degrees of freedom” are possible in order than health-promoting, wellness of being choices and decisions can be made.

These choices include the amount of empathy we are going to allow ourselves to experience in any situation. If we are not consciously aware of our own background as it has built itself into our nervous system, including the brain, then any automatic reaction that we have – implicit reaction – cannot be counted upon to take us in directions that is best for us, either in the short or in the long run.

We are being asked to play a game in an unfair circumstance where others with a secure history (of attachment) have the unfair advantage over us. In addition, we are not told the game rules. Everyone assumes that secure history game rules should apply equally to everyone, while the reality is that at best only 60 – 65% of the population were raised in a secure enough environment that these rules in fact apply.

Because the majority of the population starts with a calm ground zero built within their bodies – nervous system and brain – everyone assumes that “mind” and therefore the operational theory of mind that all operate with and from is the same and equal. This is not so. And for every degree that our center point was not set at calmness due to the trauma that we were exposed to, we lose corresponding degrees of freedom to operate from a place of well being in our own preservation of self interest. (That is, if we even know who and where and what our self is in the first place.)

We have to understand that the emotional regulation and modulatory circuits in the brain are built from birth in an experience-dependent fashion and are well in place before we are a year old. Those “rules” and our ability to use them are thus well out of our conscious awareness and control. They place us in a reactive position rather than in an active or proactive position for the rest of our lives. Only to the degree that we can, in adulthood, obtain conscious knowledge about ourselves and apply this information in an aware and self-reflective manner can we hope to change these patterns so that we have a choice not remain caught in trauma drama as being victims, perpetrators or rescuers for the rest of our lives.

There is no better arena to assess our basic homeostatic center in relation to calm or chaos than in our empathetic relationships to others of our species. This is where we will see the degree of “pathetic” or “pathos” that is operating on the stage of our lives. To the exact degree that our center point was not set at calm equilibrium from birth (or before), our automatic reactions coming from our BODY will determine the course of our lives. And in no other place will this be truer than if we suffer from PTSD.

………..”Some of the modulatory factors can be partly explained by the role they have in increasing or decreasing attention to the emotion-eliciting stimulus (e.g. cue saliency and intensity; empathizer’s mood and level of arousal; empathizer and target’s familiarity with and similarity to each other; target’s intention to communicate that he wants the empathizer to share his emotions). However, the modulation of empathy cannot solely be explained by attention….future research will have to determine the relative importance of these factors and investigate their complex interplay in modulating empathic brain responses.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 438

WHEN DOES MODULATION OCCUR

Which stage of empathic processing does the modulation occur? Do appraisal processes happen before onset of or during empathic response?

It is interesting to see the change that is occurring as researchers begin to actually see from inside the brain how empathy is actually orchestrated. In describing how experts used to believe empathy operates, they are describing how it DOES usually operate for those of us with trauma built into our bodies. When they describe NOW what they see –I believe they are describing an ideal that operates for people who do NOT have trauma build into their bodies. They are describing a reality where choice is an option. For those of us with PTSD built into our bodies, our body makes the choice for us – informed consent is by default obliterated by the survival reactivity of the body who understands that the world is an extremely dangerous place that threatens it with immanent extinction.

The body will never allow the slower route through the cortex to be taken if it thinks destruction is the immediate goal and reality of life. In other words, by fact as well as by definition – in reality – empathy only happens when and where choice is an option. If we have no ability to choose, empathy is not an option in our reality. Thus is was so with my mother. Once we understand that we are not biologically designed – even in the best of circumstances – to respond with empathy, we can begin to explore all the possible intervening factors that might prevent empathy from being a possibility in somebody’s life. It is the difference between “an empathic response WILL be elicited” and “an empathic response MIGHT be elicited.” And, as yet, the jury is out……science cannot yet tell us which model is the fact and which is not…..

Resonance and appraisal in tandem and automatic:

“According to the late appraisal model, the empathic response is directly and automatically activated by the perception of an emotional cue. The default rule is that there is always an empathic response.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 438

…………this prior empathic response can be modulated or inhibited “at a later stage”

…………information about context, general and personal, is processed in parallel

…………outcome of this contextual appraisal process leads to modulation of the empathic response

……”This modulation can either be achieved by top-down inhibitory or excitatory processes or by horizontal competition between different motivational processes.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 438

……..”…in this model, there are two independent systems working in parallel, empathic resonance and appraisal processes.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 438

evaluated in context of information and not automatic

“According to the early appraisal model, the empathic response is not directly and automatically activated by the perception of an emotional cue. Rather, the emotional cue is evaluated in the context of external and internal information. Whether an empathic response is elicited depends on the outcome of the contextual appraisal process. Thus, the default rule is that an empathic response is not automatically activated but an empathic response might be elicited as the outcome of the appraisal process (Jacob and Jeannerod [29] have a similar view of mirror neurons).” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 438

This internal information can be implicit – perhaps it is usually implicit – so that our reactions seem automatic.

“Current neuroscientific studies on empathy cannot yet distinguish between these two proposed routes.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 438

………..sometimes contextual processing precedes activation of shared networks

……….future studies need to be designed that can distinguish between these two proposed routes

………see info on mirror neurons

….see Jacob & Jeannerod

…need improved analysis of effective connectivity, dynamics of cause, to determine “…whether the decrease in empathy-related activation in the ACC and AI in men observing unfair as compared with fair players in pain was causally preceded by an increase in activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, an area that has been associated with emotional control and inhibition [31, 32].” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 439 [Oschner et al 2002; Anderson et al 2004]

WHY DO WE EMPATHIZE

Why has evolution selected empathy?

………adaptive function of empathy – studies of other species

…”Shared emotional representations could have evolved as a byproduct of more general associative learning mechanisms….” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 439

…….understanding of evolutionary roles is merely speculative at this point

What is its role now that it has emerged?

..role in everyday life, studied by disturbances in empathy and in social and developmental psychology

………has two main advantages

“First, as compared with cognitive perspective-taking, it might not be the more direct route to understanding other people’s emotions but it is a faster route for prediction of their subsequent behavior. We propose that empathy provides a more precise and direct estimate of other people’s further actions because shared emotional networks also directly elicit the activation of associated relevant motivational and action systems. By sharing the emotional state of others, we also share their emotional and motivational significance…However, it should be noted that prediction accuracy depends on the similarity between the empathizer’s and the target’s experiential repertoires….” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 439

“Second, empathy provides knowledge about important environmental properties. For instance, by seeing someone being burnt by a machine, we attach a negative ‘avoidance’ value to the machine, without first having to experience the pain ourselves….In this sense, empathy is an efficient computation tool for acquiring knowledge about the values of the world around us…” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 439

SOCIAL ROLE

Empathy has “…been related to moral sense, altruism, justice, prosocial behavior and cooperation….people help others more when they report having empathized with them, whether they help to alleviate their own personal distress or because they care for the other person….However, it remains to be shown whether individual differences in empathic brain responses also predict subsequent prosocial behavior.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 439

“…is empathy a necessary and sufficient condition for these prosocial behaviors to arise?” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 439

“…we suggest that empathy per se does not suffice to induce prosocial behavior but that empathy has to be turned into sympathy to motivate helping. By contrast, empathic responses might also result in personal distress and thereby motivate self-related behavior, such as avoidance and withdrawal, instead of other-related prosocial behavior….Clearly, neuroscientific research is still in its infancy. As for questions concerning the interplay between empathy, sympathy and prosocial behavior, we need a better understanding of the neural signature underlying specific emotion and empathy before we can distinguish between empathic and sympathetic affective brain response.: de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 440

“Finally, we propose that the ability to share other people’s emotional experiences and to react to them in a fine-tuned manner might facilitate social communication and create social coherence. For example, in action imitation, the chameleon effect – the tendency to adapt other people’s postures, gestures and mannerisms – was found to create affiliation and fondness….[also has been shown to be stronger in people who rate higher on empathy scores]…Similarly, perceiving another person’s empathy for oneself is likely to increase affiliation and strengthen the emotional bond with that person.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 440

“The development of simultaneous recording techniques between multiple brains might be a promising step for future neuroscientific research in this domain.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 440

CONCLUSION

we share someone else’s emotions “…by means of shared affective neural networks, which are activated when we feel our own emotions, as well as when we observe others feeling emotions…empathic brain responses are modulated by appraisal processes which take into account information about the emotional stimuli, their situative context, characteristics of the empathizer and his/her relationship with the target….two major roles of empathy: one epistemological and one social. Empathy might enable us to make faster and more accurate predictions of other people’s needs and actions and discover salient aspects of our environment. Furthermore, empathy might serve as the origin of the motivation for altruistic behavior and cooperation. Finally, it might have a crucial role in human communications.” de Vigenmont & Singer, 2006, 440

+++++++++++++

++++

Simmons et al 2008

Abstract – Laboratory of Biological Dynamics and Theoretical Medicine, USA. ansimmons@ucsd.edu

Intolerance of uncertainty correlates with insula activation during affective ambiguity.

Intolerance of uncertainty (IU),

or the increased affective response

to situations with uncertain outcomes,

is an important component process of anxiety disorders.

Increased IU is observed in panic disorder (PD), obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and is thought to relate to dysfunctional behaviors and thought patterns in these disorders.

Identifying what brain systems are associated with IU would contribute to a comprehensive model of anxiety processing, and increase our understanding of the neurobiology of anxiety disorders. Here, we used a behavioral task, Wall of Faces (WOFs), during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which probes both affect and ambiguity, to examine the neural circuitry of IU in 14 (10 females) college age (18.8 years) subjects. All subjects completed the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS), Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI), and a measure of neuroticism (i.e. the NEO-N).

Uncertainty Scale (IUS) scores

but neither Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI)nor measure of neuroticism (i.e. the NEO-N).scores,

correlated positively with activation in bilateral insula during affective ambiguity.

Thus, the experience of IU

during certain types of emotion processing may relate to the degree to which

bilateral insula processes uncertainty.

Previously observed

insula hyperactivity

in anxiety disorder individuals may therefore be directly linked to

altered processes of uncertainty.

++++

Krain et al 2008

Abstract – New York University Child Study Center, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA. amy.krain@med.nyu.edu

A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of uncertainty in adolescents with anxiety disorders.

Pediatric anxiety disorders, although highly prevalent, are understudied with little known about their pathophysiology.

Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) is a trait associated with worry, a key characteristic of these disorders.

Neural responses to uncertainty in healthy subjects involve the same frontal-limbic circuits that are hyper-responsive in pediatric anxiety.

As such, the present study examines the relationship between IU and neural responses to uncertainty in anxious adolescents. METHODS: Sixteen adolescents (ages 13-17) diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and/or social phobia (ANX) and 13 non-anxious control subjects completed a decision-making task while functional magnetic resonance imaging scans were acquired. RESULTS: The ANX group endorsed greater task-related anxiety and less certainty than control subjects on a post-task questionnaire.

Compared with control subjects, the ANX group did not demonstrate hyper-responsivity of brain regions as hypothesized.

Across groups, IU was positively correlated with activity in several frontal and limbic regions.

Further analyses identified subgroups within the ANX group: those with high IU activated frontal/limbic regions,

whereas those with low IU and less anxiety during the task deactivated the same regions in response to uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS: Results substantiate the hypothesized link between IU and neural responses to uncertainty in some adolescents with anxiety disorders. Our findings, if replicated, suggest that trait measures, such as IU, can significantly improve our understanding of the neurobiological basis of pediatric anxiety disorders.

I believe these same responses are probably linked to attachment disorders [preoccupied and disorganized?] and corresponding reductions in empathy abilities.

++++

Kugel et al 2008

Abstract – Department of Clinical Radiology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Alexithymic features and automatic amygdala reactivity to facial emotion.

Alexithymic individuals

have difficulties in identifying

and verbalizing their emotions.

The amygdala is known to play a central role in processing emotion stimuli and in generating emotional experience. In the present study automatic amygdala reactivity to facial emotion was investigated as a function of alexithymia (as assessed by the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale). The Beck-Depression Inventory (BDI) and the State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were administered to measure participants’ depressivity and trait anxiety. During 3T fMRI scanning, pictures of faces bearing sad, happy, and neutral expressions masked by neutral faces were presented to 21 healthy volunteers. The amygdala was selected as the region of interest (ROI) and voxel values of the ROI were extracted, summarized by mean and tested among the different conditions. A detection task was applied to assess participants’ awareness of the masked emotional faces shown in the fMRI experiment.

Masked sad and happy facial emotions led to greater right amygdala activation than masked neutral faces. [see Baas, Aleman & Kahn 2004

– says left amygdala most often active]

The alexithymia feature difficulties identifying feelings was negatively correlated with the neural response of the right amygdala to masked sad faces, even when controlling for depressivity and anxiety.

Reduced automatic amygdala responsivity

may contribute to problems in identifying one’s emotions in everyday life.

Low spontaneous reactivity of the amygdala to sad faces could implicate less engagement in the encoding of negative emotional stimuli.

Is this true for angry and fearful faces, as well? Do they consider this a defense mechanism, a form of automatic detachment?

++++

Costafreda et al 2008

Abstract – Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, UK. s.costafreda@iop.kcl.ac

Predictors of amygdala activation during the processing of emotional stimuli: a meta-analysis of 385 PET and fMRI studies.

Although amygdala activity has been purported to be modulated by affective and non-affective factors, considerable controversy remains on its precise functional nature. We conducted a meta-analysis of 385 functional neuroimaging studies of emotional processing, examining the effects of experimental characteristics on the probability of detecting amygdala activity.

All emotional stimuli were associated with higher probability of amygdala activity than neutral stimuli. Comparable effects were observed for most negative and positive emotions, however there was a

higher probability of activation for fear and disgust relative to happiness.

The level of attentional processing affected amygdala activity,

as passive processing was associated with a higher probability of activation than active task instructions.

Gustatory-olfactory and visual stimulus modalities increased the probability of activation relative to internal stimuli.

Aversive learning increased the probability of amygdala activation as well.

There was some evidence of hemispheric specialization

with a relative left-lateralization for stimuli containing language and a relative right-lateralization for masked stimuli.

Methodological variables, such as type of analysis and magnet strength, were also independent predictors of amygdala activation.

++++

Sergerie, Chochol & Armony 2008

Abstract – Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, 6875 LaSalle Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4H 1R3. karine.sergerie@douglas.mcgill.ca

The role of the amygdala in emotional processing: a quantitative meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies.

Functional neuroimaging studies have provided strong support for a critical role of the amygdala in emotional processing. However, several controversies remain in terms of whether different factors-such as sex, valence and stimulus type-have an effect on the magnitude and lateralization of amygdala responses. Handedness would also be a factor, few take into consideration

To address these issues, we conducted a meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of visual emotional perception that reported amygdala activation. Critically, unlike previous neuroimaging meta-analyses, we took into account the magnitude (effect size) and reliability (variance) associated with each of the activations.

Our results confirm that the amygdala responds to both positive and negative stimuli, with a preference for faces depicting emotional expressions.

We did not find evidence for amygdala lateralization as a function of sex or valence.

Instead, our findings provide strong support for a functional dissociation between left and right amygdala in terms of temporal dynamics.

But of course I don’t know what the temporal dynamics are without the article!

Taken together, results from this meta-analysis shed new light on several of the models proposed in the literature regarding the neural basis of emotional processing.

++++

Dannlowski et al 2007

Abstract – Department of Psychiatry, University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Str. 11, 48149 Münster, Germany. dannlow@uni-muenster.de

Amygdala reactivity predicts automatic negative evaluations for facial emotions.

The amygdala is a key structure in a limbic circuit involved in the rapid and unconscious processing of facial emotions.

In the present study, the role of the amygdala in automatic, involuntary appraisal processes, which are believed to be a crucial component of emotion processing, was investigated in 23 healthy subjects.

Amygdala activity was recorded in response to masked displays of angry, sad, and happy facial expressions using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). In a subsequent experiment, the subjects performed a masked affective priming task that characterizes automatic emotion processing by investigating the biasing effect of subliminally presented emotional faces on evaluative ratings to subsequently presented neutral stimuli. In the affective priming task, significant valence-congruent evaluation manipulation was observed. Subjects rated neutral targets more positively if they were primed by happy faces.

Significant correlations were found between

amygdala responses to masked negative facial expressions and negative evaluation shifts elicited by the corresponding emotion quality in the affective priming task.

Spontaneous amygdala reactivity to facial emotions appears to be a determinant of automatic negative evaluative response tendencies.

This finding might shed some light on how amygdala hyperresponsivity contributes to negative cognitive biases commonly observed in affective disorders.

++++

Ohrmann et al 2007

Abstract – Department of Psychiatry, University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Street 11, 48149, Muenster, Germany. ohrmann@uni-muenster.de

Threat sensitivity as assessed by automatic amygdala response to fearful faces predicts speed of visual search for facial expression.

It has been argued that the amygdala represents an integral component of a vigilance system that is primarily involved in the perception of ambiguous stimuli of biological relevance.

The present investigation was conducted to examine the relationship between automatic amygdala responsivity to fearful faces which may be interpreted as an index of trait-like threat sensitivity and spatial processing characteristics of facial emotions. During 3T fMRI scanning, pictures of human faces bearing fearful, angry, and happy expressions were presented to 20 healthy volunteers using a backward masking procedure based on neutral facial expressions. Subsequently, a computer-based face-in-the-crowd task using schematic face stimuli was administered.

The neural response of the (right) amygdala to masked fearful faces correlated consistently with response speed to negative and neutral faces. Neither amygdala activation during the masked presentation of angry faces nor amygdala activation during the presentation of happy faces was correlated with any of the response latencies in the face-in-the-crowd task. Our results suggest that

amygdala responsivity to masked facial expression is differentially related to the general visual search speed for facial expression.

Neurobiologically defined threat sensitivity seems to represent an important determinant of visual scanning behavior.

++++

Killgore & Yurgelun-Todd 2004

Abstract – Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory, McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Belmont, MA 02478, USA. william.d.killgore@us.army.mil

Activation of the amygdala and anterior cingulate during nonconscious processing of sad versus happy faces.

Previous functional neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that the amygdala activates in response to fearful faces presented below the threshold of conscious visual perception. Using a backward masking procedure similar to that of previous studies, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the amygdala and anterior cingulate gyrus during preattentive presentations of sad and happy facial affect. Twelve healthy adult females underwent blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) fMRI while viewing sad and happy faces, each presented for 20 ms and “masked” immediately by a neutral face for 100 ms. Masked happy faces were associated with significant bilateral activation within the anterior cingulate gyrus and amygdala, whereas masked sadness yielded only limited activation within the left anterior cingulate gyrus.

In a direct comparison, masked happy faces yielded significantly greater activation in the anterior cingulate and amygdala relative to identically masked sad faces. Conjunction analysis showed that masked affect perception, regardless of emotional valence, was associated with greater activation within the left amygdala and left anterior cingulate. Findings suggest that the

amygdala and anterior cingulate are important components of a network involved in detecting and discriminating affective information presented below the normal threshold of conscious visual perception.

++++

Burnett et al 2008

Abstract – 1University College London, UK, 2National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

Abstract In this fMRI study, we investigated the development between adolescence and adulthood of the neural processing of social emotions.

Unlike basic emotions (such as disgust and fear),

social emotions (such as guilt and embarrassment)

require the representation of another’s mental states.

Nineteen adolescents (10-18 years) and 10 adults (22-32 years) were scanned while thinking about scenarios featuring either social or basic emotions.

In both age groups, the anterior rostral medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) was activated during social versus basic emotion.

However, adolescents activated a lateral part of the MPFC for social versus basic emotions, whereas adults did not.

Relative to adolescents, adults showed higher activity in the left temporal pole for social versus basic emotions.

These results show that, although the MPFC is activated during social emotion in both adults and adolescents, adolescents recruit anterior (MPFC) regions more than do adults, and adults recruit posterior (temporal) regions more than do adolescents.

++++

Blakemore et al 2007

Abstract – Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK.

In this fMRI study, we investigated the development during adolescence of the neural network underlying thinking about intentions. A total of 19 adolescent participants (aged 12.1-18.1 years), and 11 adults (aged 22.4-37.8 years), were scanned using fMRI. A factorial design was employed with between-subjects factor age group and within-subjects factor causality (intentional or physical).

In both adults and adolescents, answering questions about intentional causality vs physical causality activated the medial prefrontal cortex (PFC), superior temporal sulcus (STS), temporal poles and precuneus bordering with posterior cingulate cortex.

In addition, there was a significant interaction between group and task in the medial PFC. During intentional relative to physical causality, adolescents activated part of the medial PFC more than did adults and adults activated part of the right STS more than did adolescents.

These results suggest that the neural strategy for thinking about intentions changes between adolescence and adulthood. Although the same neural network is active, the relative roles of the different areas change, with activity moving from anterior (medial prefrontal) regions to posterior (temporal) regions with age.

++++

Vollm et al 2006

Abstract – Neuroscience and Psychiatry Unit, University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK. birgit.vollm@man.ac.uk

Theory of Mind (ToM), the ability to attribute mental states to others, and empathy, the ability to infer emotional experiences, are important processes in social cognition.

Brain imaging studies in healthy subjects have described a brain system involving medial prefrontal cortex, superior temporal sulcus and temporal pole in ToM processing.

Studies investigating networks associated with empathic responding also suggest involvement of temporal and frontal lobe regions. In this fMRI study, we used a cartoon task derived from Sarfati et al. (1997) [Sarfati, Y., Hardy-Bayle, M.C., Besche, C., Widlocher, D. 1997. Attribution of intentions to others in people with schizophrenia: a non-verbal exploration with comic strips. Schizophrenia Research 25, 199-209.]with both ToM and empathy stimuli in order to allow comparison of brain activations in these two processes. Results of 13 right-handed, healthy, male volunteers were included. Functional images were acquired using a 1.5 T Phillips Gyroscan.

Our results confirmed that

ToM and empathy stimuli are associated with overlapping but distinct neuronal networks.

Common areas of activation included the

medial prefrontal cortex,

temporoparietal junction and

temporal poles.

Compared to the empathy condition, ToM stimuli revealed increased activations in

lateral orbitofrontal cortex,

middle frontal gyrus,

cuneus and

superior temporal gyrus.

Empathy, on the other hand, was associated with enhanced activations of

paracingulate,

anterior and

posterior cingulate and

amygdala.

We therefore suggest that ToM and empathy both rely on networks associated with making inferences about mental states of others.

However, empathic responding requires the additional recruitment of networks involved in emotional processing.

These results have implications for our understanding of disorders characterized by impairments of social cognition, such as autism and psychopathy.

It seems that there might be a dissociation possible between these brain areas – my suspicion that RULE LEARNING is involved with both, going bad, leading to, among other problems, BPD

++++

Kim et al 2005

Abstract – Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Konyang University Hospital, 685 Gasoowon-Dong, Seo-Gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. cortex@konyang.ac.kr

Questions regarding the appropriateness of facial expressions in particular situations arise ubiquitously in everyday social interactions.

To determine the appropriateness of facial affect, first of all,

we should represent our own or the other’s emotional state

as induced by the social situation.

Then, based on these representations,

we should infer the possible affective response of the other person.

In this study, we identified the brain mechanism mediating special types of social evaluative judgments of facial affect in which the internal reference is related to theory of mind (ToM) processing. Many previous ToM studies have used non-emotional stimuli, but, because so much valuable social information is conveyed through nonverbal emotional channels, this investigation used emotionally salient visual materials to tap ToM. Fourteen right-handed healthy subjects volunteered for our study. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine brain activation during the judgmental task for the appropriateness of facial affects as opposed to gender matching tasks.

We identified activation of a brain network, which includes

both medial frontal cortex,

left temporal pole,

left inferior frontal gyrus, and

left thalamus during the judgmental task for appropriateness of facial affect compared to the gender matching task.

The results of this study suggest that the brain system involved in ToM plays a key role in judging the appropriateness of facial affect in an emotionally laden situation.

In addition, our result supports that common neural substrates are involved in performing diverse kinds of ToM tasks irrespective of perceptual modalities and the emotional salience of test materials.

++++

den Ouden et al 2005

abstract – Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, University College London, UK.

In this fMRI study, we investigated the convergence of underlying neural networks in thinking about a scenario involving one’s own intentional action and its consequences and setting up and holding in mind an intention to act. A factorial design was employed comprising two factors: i. Causality (intentional or physical events) and ii. Prospective Memory (present or absent). In each condition, subjects answered questions about various hypothetical scenarios, which related either to the link between the subject’s own intentions and consequential actions (Intentional Causality) or to the link between a natural, physical event and its consequences (Physical Causality). A prospective memory task was embedded in half the blocks. In this task, subjects were required to keep in mind an intention (to press a key on seeing a red stimulus background) whilst carrying out the ongoing Causality task.

Answering questions about intentional causality

versus physical causality activated a network of regions

that have traditionally been associated with Theory of Mind,

including the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), the superior temporal sulcus and the temporal poles bilaterally.

In addition, the

precuneus bordering with posterior cingulate cortex,

an area involved in self-awareness and self-related processing, was activated more when thinking about intentional causality.

In the prospective memory task, activations were found in the

right parietal cortex,

frontopolar cortex (BA 10) and

precuneus.

Different subregions within the

precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex

were activated in both main effects of intentional causality and prospective memory.

Therefore, the precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex

subserves separately

thinking about one’s own intentions and consequent actions

and bearing in mind an intention to make an action.

Previous studies have shown that prospective memory,

requiring the formation of an intention

and the execution of a corresponding action,

is associated with decreased activation in the dorsal mPFC,

close to the region activated in Theory of Mind tasks.

Future memory?

And of course looking at empathy has to eventually involve the self – precuneus?

Here, we found that holding in mind an intention to act

and at the same time thinking about an intentional action

led to reduced activity in a dorsal section of the mPFC.

This was a different region from a more anterior, inferior dorsal mPFC region that responded to intentional causality.

This suggests that different regions of mPFC play different roles in thinking about intentions.

++++

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Empathy and pain and mirror brain regions

“The human mirror system is formed by a cortical network composed of the rostral part of the inferior parietal lobule, by the caudal sector (pars opercularis) of the inferior frontal gyrus, as well as by parts of the premotor cortex.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

“…the anterior insula gets activated in response to the sight of disgusted facial expressions of others as well as by the first-hand experience of disgust [19].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

“…when participants are required to observe or to imitate facial expressions of various emotions, increased neurodynamic activity is detected in the superior temporal sulcus, the anterior insula, and the amygdala, as well as in areas of the premotor cortex corresponding to the representation of faces [20].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

“The first-hand experience of pain resulted in the activation of the somatosensory cortex, which encodes the sensory-discriminative dimension of a noxious (1149) stimulus such as its bodily location and intensity….[pain to self and to other]…[activated]…the anterior medial cingulate cortex (ACC), the anterior insula, and the cerebellum….” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

“…these regions contribute to the affective and motivational processing of noxious stimuli, i.e., aspects of pain that pertain to desires, urges, or impulses to avoid or terminate a painful experience.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

When I go back to study Singer’s article, I will again pay attention to the fact that additional areas are activated in perception of pain to others besides the areas involved in processing pain to self

+++

Another study ( Morrison et al 2004) involving pain prick to self or watching to other…….”Both conditions resulted common hemodynamic activity in a pain-related area in the right dorsal ACC. Common activities in response to noxious tactile and to visual stimulation were restricted to the right inferior Brodmann’s area 24b. In contrast, the primary somatosensory cortex showed significant activations in response to noxious tactile, but not to visual, stimuli. The different response patterns in the two areas are consistent with the ACC’s role in coding the motivational-affective dimension of pain, which is associated with the preparation of behavioral responses to aversive events.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

+++

shown still photographs of painful situations and imagining the level of pain produced …notably the ACC, the thalamus, and the anterior insula — activation in these regions “involved in the affective aspect of pain processing.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

no signal change in the somatosensory cortex

because there was no behavioral response?

“Moreover, the level of activation within the ACC was strongly correlated with subjects’ ratings of pain attributed to the different situations.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

++++

“…observation of pain can involve sensorimotor representations…in the somatosensory cortex during the perception of pain in others [22.23.24]. Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

another study [26] when participants were asked to focus attention on the location of the painful stimulus there was “…increased regional cerebral blood flow in the contralateral primary somatosensory cortex.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

++++

“Neuroimaging studies of first-hand experience and perception of pain in others indicate a partial overlap in the ACC and anterior insula, but also in specific nonoverlapping areas belonging to the pain matrix [27] [Jackson 2006].

First-hand experience of pain is associated with more caudal activations (BA24), consistent with spinothalamic nociceptive [responds to pain or noxious stimuli] projections,

while perception of pain in others is represented in more rostral (and dorsal; BA32) regions, closer to the prefrontal pathways.

A similar rostrocaudal organization is observed in the insula, in which

pain-specific responses are observed in more medial-posterior parts,

while observation of pain leads to increases in anterior insula [28] [Ostrowsky 2006].

This pattern of activation is also consistent with data collected using direct nonpainful and painful electrical stimulation of the insular cortex in neurological patients [29] [Ostrowsky 2002].

Painful sensations could only be evoked by stimulating the posterior part of the insula,

while application of electrical currents to the anterior insula did not result in pain reports.

Interestingly, the localizations of painful and nonpainful somaesthetic stimulations overlapped considerably, indicating a nonspecific role of the insula in the first-hand experience of pain.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

+++++++++++++++

the neural network involved in the perception of pain in others (ACC and anterior insula) is not specific to pain processing. This network is also implicated in disgust and more generally in situations that can put individuals at risk, and which trigger visceral and somatosensory responses.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1151

++++

“Similarly, activation in the mid-ACC in conjunction with the pre-supplementary motor area (SMA)

is not necessarily specific to the (either vicarious or first-hand) emotional experience of pain,

but is related to other processes, such as somatic monitoring, negative stimulus evaluation, and the selection of appropriate skeletomuscular movements of aversion [30] [Isomura & Takada 2004].

Thus, it seems likely that the shared neural representations in the affective-motivational part of the pain matrix are not specific to the sensory qualities of pain, but are associated with the more general survival mechanisms such as aversion and withdrawal.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1151

++++

“…when individuals are asked to adopt the perspective of others, common neural circuits are activated both for the self and the other. However, taking the perspective of the other results in specific activation of parts of the frontal cortex that are implicated in executive control. It has been hypothesized that the role of the frontal lobes could be to hold separate perspectives, or to resist interference from one’s own perspective [36] [Decety, J. and Grezes, J. (2006) “The power of simulation: Imagining one’s own and other’s behavior” Brain Res 1079, 4-14].”

++++

[study, imagine if someone opens bathroom door on you, or on your mother]

“Neurodynamic changes were detected in the frontopolar cortex, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the medial prefrontal cortex, and the right inferior parietal lobule when the participants adopted the perspective of their mother, regardless of the affective content of the situations depicted [neutral or shame, pride, etc.]. Cortical regions that are involved in emotional processing activated in the conditions that involved emotion-laden situations, including the amygdala and the temporal poles.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1151

++++

“Both the self-perspective and the other-perspective were associated with activation in the neural network involved in pain processing, including the parietal operculum, ACC, and the anterior insula. These results reveal the similarities in neural networks representing first- and third-person information, which is consistent with the shared representations account of social interaction [38].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1152

“However, the self-perspective yielded higher pain ratings and involved the pain matrix more extensively in the secondary somatosensory cortex, the posterior part of the ACC, and the middle insula. Thus, these results highlight important differences between the self- and other-perspectives. For instance, while the anterior insula and the ACC are activated both when participants imagine their own and when they imagine another’s pain, the self-perspective is specifically associated with nonoverlapping clusters within the middle insula, another division of the ACC, and the right parietal cortex.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1152

++++

The self-perspective evoked stronger hemodynamic responses in brain regions involved in coding the motivational-affective dimensions of pain, including bilateral insular cortices and anterior medial cingulate cortex (aMCC). In addition, the self-perspective was associated with stronger activation in the amygdala. This limbic structure plays a critical role in fear-related behaviors, such as the evaluation of actual or potential threats [41]. Interestingly, the amygdala receives nociceptive information from the spino-parabrachial pain system and the insula, and its activity appears closely tied to the context and level of aversiveness of the perceived stimuli [42]. Imagining oneself to be in a painful or potentially dangerous situation thus triggers a stronger fearful and/or aversive response than imagining someone else to be in the same situation. Alternatively and less specifically, the stronger involvement of the amygdala might also reflect a general increase of arousal evoked by imagining oneself to be in a painful situation. Regarding the insular activation, it is worth noting that it was located in the mid-dorsal section of this area….” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1152

“This part of the insula [mid-dorsal section] plays a role in coding the sensorimotor aspects of painful stimulation and it has strong connections with the basal ganglia…in which activity was also higher when adopting the self-perspective. Taken together, activity in this portion of the insula possible reflects the simulation of the sensory aspects of the painful experience. Such a simulation might both lead to the mobilization of motor areas (including the SMA) in order to prepare defensive or withdrawal behaviors [fight or flight], and to interoceptive monitoring associated with autonomic changes evoked by this simulation process [44].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1152

++++

There’s a photograph on p 1153

“Dissociation of activation in the anterior and middle insular cortex elicited by perspective-taking instructions. Participants watched videos of patients undergoing painful medical treatment. The cluster in the anterior part of the insula…whose activation irrespective of the perspective adopted by the study participants. The cluster in the mid-insula…reflects higher signal change when participants adopted a first-person perspective as compared to adapting the perspective of the patient. It is worth noting that both perspectives activated the anterior insula, whereas the posterior cluster was specifically associated with the self-perspective….” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1153

++++

“…the right inferior parietal cortex, at the junction with the posterior temporal cortex (temporoparietal junction, TPJ), plays a critical role in comparing signals arising from self-produced actions with signals from the environment [53,54]. The TPJ is a heteromodal association cortex that integrates input from the lateral and posterior thalamus, as well as visual, auditory, somaesthetic, and limbic areas. It has reciprocal connections to the prefrontal cortex and to the temporal lobes. Because of these anatomical characteristics, this region is a pivotal neural locus for self-processing that is involved in multisensory body-related information processing, as well as in the processing of phenomenological and cognitive aspects of the self [55]. Damage of this cortical area can produce a variety of disorders associated with body knowledge and self-awareness….Blanke and collaborators [57] demonstrated that out-of-body experiences (i.e., the experience that one’s self is located outside of one’s own body) can be induced by electrical stimulation of the TPJ in neurological patients.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1154

+++++++++++++++

AGENCY

“…involvement of the inferior parietal lobule in the experience of agency. Attribution of action to another agent, which crucially requires distinguishing between behavior of the self and the other, has been associated with specifically increased activity in the right inferior parietal lobe.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1154

“…being aware of causing an action was associated with activation in the anterior insula, whereas being aware of not causing the action and attributing it to another person was associated with activation in the right inferior parietal cortex.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1154 [study on driving a circle – they or the experimenter?]

“…Uddin and colleagues [61] recently demonstrated selective impairment of self-other distinction when repetitive TMS [transcranial magnetic stimulation] was applied over the right inferior parietal lobule when participants performed a perceptual task involving discrimination between self-faces and other familiar faces. This latter study provides direct evidence for a causal role for this region in self-other discrimination.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1154

++++

“…studies on imitation have documented the involvement of right inferior parietal cortex/TPJ during reciprocal imitation in which it may be difficult to keep track of agency [62,63]. When participants imitated the other, the left TPJ was strongly engaged, whereas greater activation was detected (1154) in the right TPJ when they were being imitated…..results provide strong arguments for the implication of the right TPJ in the process of agency by demonstrating a clear dissociation between left and right TPJ.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1155

++++

“…even mental simulation of one’s own and others’ behavior recruits a similar seld-other discrimination mechanism….Both perspectives were associated with signal increases in cortical regions involved in motor representations, including the premotor and left parietal lobule. Specific activation in the right inferior parietal cortex/TPJ was detected when participants mentally simulated actions from someone else’s perspective [64]….participants were required to imagine an action….this area is not simply involved in associating actions and their sensory consequences, but, in general, contributes to distinguishing the self from others [38,65].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1155

++++

“Such findings point to the similarity of the neural mechanisms that account for the correct attribution of actions, emotions, and thoughts to their respective agents when one mentally simulates actions or experiences emotions for oneself or for another individual….activity in the inferior parietal cortex was negatively associated with the degree of overlap between self and other, and that less self-other overlap led to increased accuracy during social perception [68].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1155
++++

“…role of the right TPJ…studies on visual attention and the detection of uncertainty and of change…it has been demonstrated that the right TPJ is specifically activated when subjects focusing their attention on a certain screen location are presented with a stimulus at a nonattended location, representing a violation of their expectancy and requiring them to redirect their attention. Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1155

“…right (and left) TPJs are crucial aspects of a multimodal cortical network for the detection of changes in the sensory environment. Thus, the higher activation in the TPJ region during studies on self-other discrimination and agency might reflect the higher uncertainty associated with the often unpredictable behaviors of our conspecifics.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1155

I would think abuse drives this part of the brain into hyper or hypo drive…..

“These data also suggest that elementary computational operations performed by the TPJ contribute to higher (social) levels of social interaction.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1155

++++

“Distraction is another powerful mechanism to exert attentional control, as it increases cognitive load and thus reduces the attentional resources available for stimulus perception and processing. In everyday situations, distractive strategies might play an important role if the cost of empathizing is to high….it is well known that distraction can effectively reduce and even eliminate the personal reaction to aversive painful stimulation [78]. [like the Buddhist’s pain meditations?] A rostral region in medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) seems to play an important role in this modulation [79], as activation in this region during painful stimulation was considerably reduced under higher attentional workload. In addition, the importance of the MPFC in regulating painful responses was recently corroborated by an fMRI study demonstrating that anxiety triggered by the anticipation of electric shocks is significantly reduced by the concurrent performance of a working memory task [80].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1156

++++

“…selectively focusing on specific sensory cues (such as facial expression or language prosody) conveying emotional state of another may trigger different emotional responses in the observer.…the amygdala is differentially involved when participants are instructed to attend to or to actively ignore fearful or happy faces as compared to houses [77]. Amygdala activation differed according to the valence of the facial expression and the category of the attended stimulus. For happy faces, activity in the amygdala was greater in the attend-face than in the attend-house condition, whereas for fearful faces, activity was greater in the attend-house than in the attend-face condition.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1156 [I have the abstract for this study]

++++

“…selectively attending to certain aspects of a painful experience can increase (i.e., up-regulate its aversiveness. This process recruits specific functional neural networks…(1156)…focusing on the unpleasantness of noxious stimuli resulted in stronger activation in the medial pain system. This system includes the insula and medial cingulate cortices [81] and codes the affective and motivational dimensions of pain.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1157

++++

“Recent fMRI studies have identified a limited number of regions in the anterolateral prefrontal and medial prefrontal cortices that mediate such function [generating an image of the observing self – maintaining a neutral perspective on the target] . For instance, participants instructed to imagine being in a safe, comfortable place showed reduced behavioral and physiological markers of anxiety related to the anticipation of painful stimulation [82]. This condition was accompanied by a modulation of activation in medial prefrontal/cingulate and anterolateral prefrontal cortex. While the former [medial prefrontal/cingulate] region seems to reflect the change in affective experience evoked by the emotion regulation strategy, activation changes in the latter [anterolateral prefrontal cortex] are seen as their source, as this brain region has repeatedly been identified during emotion regulation by reappraisal.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1157

++++

“Brain activation was modulated in two subregions of the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and the rostral part of aMCC. The OFC plays an important role in the evaluation of positive and negative reinforcements [83], and it is also involved in emotion reappraisal. For instance, attending to negatively valenced pictures evokes stronger activity in ventromedial OFC than reappraising these pictures in a way that they no longer elicit a negative response [84]. Activity in the OFC may thus reflect the requirement to evaluate the overall positive and negative aspects of the presented stimuli. Interestingly, watching effectively vs. noneffectively treated patients did neither modulate the hemodynamic activity in the visual-sensory areas nor in the insula. This suggests that both patient groups triggered an emotional reaction and that top-down mechanisms did not operate on perceptual processing at an early stage.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1157

+++

“Overall, the capacity to regulate emotions is an important aspect of our ability to interact appropriately with other people. The prefrontal cortex is highly differentiated in terms of cell structures (1157) and patterns of interconnectivity with other cortical subsystems….specific systems interact in generating emotion regulation.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1158

++++

“…Lamm and colleagues [39] demonstrated significantly increased activation in insular and cingulate cortices in participants with higher self-reported empathy during the observation of others in pain.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1158

++++

“…mothers viewing their offspring vs. a familiar child showed stronger response in a (para)limbic brain network and in posterior superior temporal sulcus (STS), possibly reflecting the more intense attachment that mothers have to their own offspring.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1159

++++

reward-related areas (i.e., nucleus accumbens and ventral striatum… Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1159

++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

need to print

from effortful control article

Reactive processes seem to originate primarily in subcortical systems (Gray, 1991)

whereas executive attention, the basis of effortful control, is believed to be situated primarily in the cortex (e.g., the anterior cingulated, lateral ventral, and prefrontal cortex; see Posner & Rothbart, 2007).

+++++

Farrow et al, 2001

“Both empathic and forgivability judgments [sic] activated left superior frontal gyrus, orbitofrontal gyrus and precuneus. Empathic judgments also activated left anterior middle temporal and left inferior frontal gyri, while forgivability judgments activated posterior cingulate gyrus. Empathic and forgivability judgements activate specific regions of the human brain, which we propose contribute to social cohesion.” Farrow, abstract

++++

Ray, et al, 2008

Abstract

“…we observed that dissociative experiences are associated with slow abnormal brain waves generated in left ventrolateral frontal cortex. Given that focal slow waves often result from depriving neural networks of major input, the present results may indicate decoupling of frontal affective processors from left cortical language areas. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that disturbed access to structured verbal memory concerning traumatic events is a core feature of the dissociative experience.” Ray et al 2008 abstract

if the events were never recorded in memory in the first place, it would be impossible to retrieve them in any fashion, certainly including verbally

(also, speech as an external representation as per Zelazo 2001)

++++++++++

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Decety & Lamm, 2006

+++++++++++++++

Important to remember that empathy is a social psychological concept that does not necessarily correspond to neuronal processes….. Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

“Empathy is the ability to experience and understand what others feel without confusion between oneself and others.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1146

interesting, considering the contagion aspects, when one person is sad and pupil shrinks and the other perceives this and then their pupil mimics and shrinks also

“In this paper, we articulate evidence from social psychology and cognitive neuroscience, and argue that empathy involves both emotion sharing (bottom-up information processing) and executive control to regulate and modulate this experience (top-down information processing), underpinned by specific and interacting neural systems.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1146

Interesting reference to bottom up and top down, which is what I have been saying about my book – in this case, the emotion sharing part would be the bottom-up, a source of information that is personal, while perhaps other books are written from the top-down information processing model that is based on executive control, i.e. what they know based on reading, studies, guesses, etc.

“Furthermore, awareness of a distinction between the experiences of the self and others constitutes a crucial aspect of empathy.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1146

This makes me wonder about the importance/relevance on research about body awareness, etc.

Perception of pain in others – neurological processes

…highlight the role of different neural mechanisms that underpin the experience of empathy, including emotion sharing, perspective taking, and emotion regulation.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1146

I say that I don’t think I have the experience of empathy, which I would think connects to ToM – I am numb here, like I don’t have the capacity to feel this or feel being connected to others – is that the sharing part, or the perspective taking part – AND the regulation part? I guess, must read on….

Empathy:

“sense of similarity between the feelings one experiences and those expressed by others….

an interaction between any two individuals, with one experiencing and sharing the feeling of the other. Yet, the

sharing of feelings is not sufficient to elicit empathy. Many scholars view

empathy as an other-oriented social emotion….

the social and emotional situations that elicit empathy can become quite complex depending on the feelings experienced by the observer and the relationship of the target to the observer….studies have documented that

empathy plays a central role in moral reasoning, motivates prosocial behaviors, and inhibits aggression toward others….

Empathic concern is defined as an emotional reaction characterized by such feelings as compassion, tenderness, softheartedness, and sympathy.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1146

+++++++++++

TABLE 1

Various Definitions of Empathy*

+ the ability to put oneself into the mental shoes of another person to understand his or her emotions and feelings [a form of simulation, or inner imitation] [4]

+ A complex form of psychological inference in which observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others [5]

how is this different from theory of mind?

+ An affective response more appropriate to someone else’s situation than to one’s own [6]

+ An other-oriented emotional response congruent with the other’s perceived welfare [7]

+ An affective response that stems from the apprehension or comprehension of another’s emotional state or condition, and which is similar to what the other person is feeling or would be expected to feel in the given situation [8]

*Note that these definitions point to an emotional experience that is more congruent with another’s situation than with one’s own. Another important aspect of the construct of empathy is that it must involve some self-other differentiation, which makes it distinct from related reactions such as emotional contagion and personal distress

++++ Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1147

I have the info from that child study on empathy, probably applies with this

Reading this now, I don’t think I have empathy. I know earlier in my life I certainly thought I did – how much of this is connected to even caring, or having the extra resources available to care about another – I don’t know where empathy leaves off and compassion begins.

And how is it different from theory of mind?

++++

task of social neuroscience is to bridge evolutionary, cognitive neuroscience and social psychology Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1147

Overarching conceptual framework:

“…accounts for a sense of similarity in the feelings experienced by self and other (such translations go both ways, from other-to-self and from self-to-other), without confusion between the two agents.

“The experience of empathy often (but not always) results in sympathy (concern for another based on the apprehension or comprehension of the other’s emotional sate or condition), although it also can lead to

empathic overarousal (or personal distress, an aversive, self-focused emotional reaction to the apprehension or comprehension of another’s emotional state or condition).

Seems to me that this is about projection, possibly working the other way around where one takes on into themselves aspects of the other person/situation that is not theirs, probably activating defense mechanisms or “short circuits”

Our model of empathy involves both bottom-up and top-down information processing. Furthermore, it combines representational aspects, i.e., memories that are localized in distributed neural networks that encode information and, when temporarily activated, enable access to this stored information, as well as processes, i.e., computational procedures that are localized and are independent of the nature or modality of the stimulus that is being processed. Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1147

Seems to me that these are the perfect bifurcation points for the entry of unresolved traumas, trauma memories and their reenactments – like worm holes between parallel universes of past and present, where time boundaries slip away

Just like empathy requires that one know the self-other parameters, it might well require also the past-present parameters, the TIME parameters, the when as well as the who and the what.

It seems understandably likely that those of us who cannot process empathy properly would seek and find others like ourselves because of our “sameness”

Processing empathy normally is not normal for us. Our normalcy is NOT being able to process empathy

I also suppose that if one looks at the initial operation of an infant’s opioid system’s functioning, that empathy is the process that makes it all work – the infant is hungry, the mother empathizes and feeds it and all is well!

I would also want to know how emotions like fear, triggered in the interactions we have with one another, send the process off in other directions.

This is all stuff I need to know because it so affects my life. When I am done, and if I do it right, people will flock to buy the book because it will help them, as well. Like, the main reason my mother couldn’t mother me was because her empathy capacity was broken! Maybe that’s the same reason Ernie can’t empathize with me – because I don’t think he can – and it makes me sad. That doesn’t change the fact that I miss him – uniquely him.

But I have to write this, anyway…trying to see that there’s a rightness and a necessity to my having to be without him.

++++++++

EVOLUTIONARY ROOTS OF EMPATHY

“Preston and de Waal [9] convincingly argued that empathy is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, and many intermediate forms of empathy exist between the extremes of mere agitation at the distress of another and full understanding of their predicament.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1147

comparative psychologists

“…empathy as a kind of induction process by which emotions, both positive and negative, are shared, and by which the probabilities of similar behaviors are increased in the observers.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1147

probabilities of what? The emotions as behaviors or some other kind of not specified behaviors? What if the emotions cannot be shared by the other, as in my mother’s case? Are these kinds of people automatically eliminated from consideration like the 3 subjects in Harrison’s study because they score negatively? Does that make these people like ANTI-MATTER transmitters when around empathy issues?

WHAT IF? What if their emotional circuits aren’t working right, their emitters aren’t working right, their receivers are broken along with their translators?

“While certain nonhuman primates may share feelings between individuals, humans are uniquely able to intentionally feel for and act on behalf of other people whose experiences may differ greatly from their own [3]. Such a capacity may help to explain why empathic concern is often associated with prosocial behaviors such as helping akin, and has been considered crucial for altruism.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1147

What about when bottlenose dolphins save humans from sharks? In New Zealand, the swam circles around 4 people for 40 minutes until the shark lost interest and left so the people could get to shore. And August 2007 in Monterey when a surfer was saved from am attacking great white shark? Is this an intentional altruistic action on the part of the dolphins? We don’t know, can we ask them? Is it a mothering instinct, where the dolphins females? There are over 50 reported incidents of dolphins saving humans.

“Evolutionary biologists suggest that empathic helping behavior has evolved because of its contribution to genetic fitness (kin selection). Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1147

mothering

“In humans and other mammals, an (1147) impulse to care for offspring is almost certainly genetically hard wired.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1148

I have this info in the evolutionary article on well being

“The emergence of altruism, of empathizing with and caring for those who are not kin, is not easily explained within the framework of neo-Darwinian theories of natural selection, and thus social learning explanations of kinship patterns in human helping behavior are highly plausible. Indeed, one of the most striking aspects of human empathy is that it can be felt for virtually any target, even targets of a different species.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1148

Why must we be so exclusive rather than inclusive in our thinking? Obviously dolphins can feel it and act on it – it is NOT unique to humans. We see and believe what we want to.

This would also match up with the Chinese biophysics position on cooperation and communication within the holistic entity/organism of life, not just about competition, or even mainly about it.

“hypothesis that advanced levels of social cognition may have arisen as an emergent property of powerful executive functioning assisted by the representational properties of language [11]…these higher levels operate on previous levels of organization, and should not be seen as independent or conflicting with one another.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1148

What if the foundation is faulty???

“ Evolution has constructed layers of increasing complexity, from nonrepresentational to representational and metarepresentational mechanisms, which need to be taken into account for a full understanding of human empathy. Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1148

“Representations, in this context, are defined as parallel distributed patterns of activation that reliably fire in response to a given stimulus. These neural networks encode information and, when temporarily activated, enable access to this stored information.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1148

Representations – involving access to stored information – what about trauma memories that are either strictly implicit, or just not processed due to PTSD mechanisms?

+++++++++

From table:

Interrelated levels of information processes involved in empathy

Bottom-up….direct matching between perception and action – automatically activated unless inhibited by perpetual input = emotion sharing “which leads to implicit recognition that others are like us.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1148

Top-down…..regulation and control

++++++++++++++

“…social psychological concepts, such as empathy, do not necessarily correspond to neuronal processes. Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

SHARED NEURAL CIRCUITS BETWEEN SELF AND OTHER

“Prosocial behaviors may abound due to synchronizing representations between self and other.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

“The initial component that precedes empathy draws on the somatic mimicry also known as emotion contagion, i.e., the tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize facial expressions [see below, also known as the chameleon effect], vocalizations, postures, and movements with those of another person, and consequently to converge emotionally [13].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

When a caregiver cannot do this with an infant, for example, when they are preoccupied with another time and place or even with their emotions in the present so that they are not responding to the infant as a separate self, or cannot go the extra mile with an infant which is to STAGE and EXAGERATE THEATRICALLY the mimic of the infant’s state –things in the infant’s brain do not get built right – as Schore describes.

Research shows that people automatically are triggered by others’ facial expressions to respond with mimic expressions on their own faces, even without conscious (nonconscious – implicit – automatic) “recognition of the stimulus.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

Speculation that this ability evolved to help us communicate

“…leading to more smooth interactions and increased liking….people with higher levels of dispositional empathy [don’t forget, this is not about dispositional, this is about how the brain was MADE!] show this so-called chameleon effect to a greater extent.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

“It has also been demonstrated that nonconscious behavioral mimicry increases affiliation, which serves to foster relationships with others [16].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

This is what I was writing about in pupil size notes……if we weren’t given the ability to do this, it keeps us isolated and alone – and also interferes with our own ability to communicate, first of all, with our own self….

It would also seem to me that this mimicry also in some way preserves the status quo and moderates expectations so that we remain more equal somehow in our interactions.

But what happens when people fall out of this normal range for one reason or another? Say excess of creativity or intelligence even, so that they are outside the normal range? Cultures and societies attempt to keep this cohesiveness – maybe coherency? Does it keep things in systems from becoming too chaotic? From changing too fast?

This would be tied to moderation and modulation

This is “…an automatic perception-action mechanism” which “has adaptive value for the survival of individuals.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

“…observing fearful body expressions not only produces increased activity in brain areas associated with emotional processes, but also in areas linked with representation of action and movement [18]. Thus, the mechanism of fear contagion automatically prepares the brain for action.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

Evidence is mounting “…that similar neural circuits are stimulated when humans experience emotions and when they perceive others expressing emotions. For instance, the anterior insula gets activated in response to the sight of disgusted facial expressions of others as well as by the first-hand experience of disgust [19].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

This also has to be tied to attachment disorders such as the “detached” parent not only does not express their own emotions, but does not notice and respond to the infant’s emotions either.

It also must be involved when depressed people do not see happy people’s signals — and then not in their infant’s either.

“One fMRI experiment demonstrates that when participants are required to observe or to imitate facial expressions of various emotions, increased neurodynamic activity is detected in the superior temporal sulcus, the anterior insula, and the amygdala, as well as in areas of the premotor cortex corresponding to the representation of faces [20].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

“Another study showed that the observation of everyday hand and face actions performed with an emotion

recruits regions involved in the perception and the experience of emotion and/or communication [21].” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

“The authors of that study speculate that,

in addition to inducing resonance in the motor program necessary to execute an action,

watching an action performed with emotion

induces a resonance in the emotional system

responsible for the affective modulation of the motor program.

Such a mechanism could also be a key to understanding how the other person feels and to his or her associated intentions.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

+++++++++++++

action-perception coupling mechanisms

pain

“The action-perception coupling mechanisms apparent in emotion contagion also seems to contribute to our ability to perceive and understand others’ pain.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

“…brain areas implicated in processing the affective and motivational aspects of pain mediate the observation of pain in others.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1149

I have this study — Singer 2004 study

I thought they also said that there were no mirror neurons in one of the responding brain regions

no signal change in the somatosensory cortex

because there was no behavioral response?

Is it possible that no possibility of escape creates this same inactivation of the somatosensory cortex over time – or in times of dissociation/freeze?

“Moreover, the level of activation within the ACC was strongly correlated with subjects’ ratings of pain attributed to the different situations.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

++++

“…observation of pain can involve sensorimotor representations…in the somatosensory cortex during the perception of pain in others [22.23.24]. Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

this makes me think about mother beating me –what parts of her brain were working and which ones weren’t? I doubt she was focusing on my pain

Yet is seems to be a given that borderlines have a very high pain threshold, so the part of her brain that should have registered my pain was perhaps not able to – related to the fact that she could not feel her own

I still wonder if there’s a point where someone just has too much pain and literally dissociates from it – as any animal will if severely wounded and in the freeze response – when endogenous opioids kick in as a part of the stress response so they don’t feel the pain????

“Current evidence thus suggests that merely observing another individual in a painful situation yields pain-related responses in the neural network associated with the coding of the motivational-affective dimension of pain in oneself, and may include the somatosensory cortex….” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150

what if this is where the dissociation occurs, between the affective dimension of the pain, which is intolerable and overwhelming – and the motivational aspect which came from being completely helpless (without adequate ability to compete, be competent, utilize an active coping skill) to get away from the pain – escape – or to fight back.

If you can’t fight or run, you freeze – and an uncompleted trauma cycle leads to dissociation, I think

“The finding of a strong overlap between first-hand experiences of pain and the perception of pain in others seems to suggest total congruence between self and other phenomenal experience. However, this assumption is superficial, as we do not literally feel the pain of others in such situations.” Decety & Lamm, 2006, p 1150