↓ Skip to main content

The role of the amygdala and the basal ganglia in visual processing of central vs. peripheral emotional content

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychologia, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The role of the amygdala and the basal ganglia in visual processing of central vs. peripheral emotional content
Published in
Neuropsychologia, July 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.07.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inês Almeida, Marieke van Asselen, Miguel Castelo-Branco

Abstract

In human cognition, most relevant stimuli, such as faces, are processed in central vision. However, it is widely believed that recognition of relevant stimuli (e.g. threatening animal faces) at peripheral locations is also important due to their survival value. Moreover, task instructions have been shown to modulate brain regions involved in threat recognition (e.g. the amygdala). In this respect it is also controversial whether tasks requiring explicit focus on stimulus threat content vs. implicit processing differently engage primitive subcortical structures involved in emotional appraisal. Here we have addressed the role of central vs. peripheral processing in the human amygdala using animal threatening vs. non-threatening face stimuli. First, a simple animal face recognition task with threatening and non-threatening animal faces, as well as non-face control stimuli, was employed in naïve subjects (implicit task). A subsequent task was then performed with the same stimulus categories (but different stimuli) in which subjects were told to explicitly detect threat signals. We found lateralized amygdala responses both to the spatial location of stimuli and to the threatening content of faces depending on the task performed: the right amygdala showed increased responses to central compared to left presented stimuli specifically during the threat detection task, while the left amygdala was better prone to discriminate threatening faces from non-facial displays during the animal face recognition task. Additionally, the right amygdala responded to faces during the threat detection task but only when centrally presented. Moreover, we have found no evidence for superior responses of the amygdala to peripheral stimuli. Importantly, we have found that striatal regions activate differentially depending on peripheral vs. central processing of threatening faces. Accordingly, peripheral processing of these stimuli activated more strongly the putaminal region, while central processing engaged mainly the caudate nucleus. We conclude that the human amygdala has a central bias for face stimuli, and that visual processing recruits different striatal regions, putaminal or caudate based, depending on the task and on whether peripheral or central visual processing is involved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 3%
United States 2 3%
Portugal 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 65 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Researcher 11 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 35%
Neuroscience 11 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 14 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2013.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychologia
#2,676
of 4,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,277
of 191,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychologia
#26
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 191,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.