↓ Skip to main content

The common and distinct neural bases of affect labeling and reappraisal in healthy adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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 common and distinct neural bases of affect labeling and reappraisal in healthy adults
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00221
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa J. Burklund, J. David Creswell, Michael R. Irwin, Matthew D. Lieberman

Abstract

Emotion regulation is commonly characterized as involving conscious and intentional attempts to change felt emotions, such as, for example, through reappraisal whereby one intentionally decreases the intensity of one's emotional response to a particular stimulus or situation by reinterpreting it in a less threatening way. However, there is growing evidence and appreciation that some types of emotion regulation are unintentional or incidental, meaning that affective modulation is a consequence but not an explicit goal. For example, affect labeling involves simply verbally labeling the emotional content of an external stimulus or one's own affective responses without an intentional goal of altering emotional responses, yet has been associated with reduced affective responses at the neural and experiential levels. Although both intentional and incidental emotional regulation strategies have been associated with diminished limbic responses and self-reported distress, little previous research has directly compared their underlying neural mechanisms. In this study, we examined the extent to which incidental and intentional emotion regulation, namely, affect labeling and reappraisal, produced common and divergent neural and self-report responses to aversive images relative to an observe-only control condition in a sample of healthy older adults (N = 39). Affect labeling and reappraisal produced common activations in several prefrontal regulatory regions, with affect labeling producing stronger responses in direct comparisons. Affect labeling and reappraisal were also associated with similar decreases in amygdala activity. Finally, affect labeling and reappraisal were associated with correlated reductions in self-reported distress. Together these results point to common neurocognitive mechanisms involved in affect labeling and reappraisal, supporting the idea that intentional and incidental emotion regulation may utilize overlapping neural processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 180 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 22%
Student > Master 24 13%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 33 18%
Unknown 36 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 90 48%
Neuroscience 19 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 6%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 46 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 23 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,045,771
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,174
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,070
of 229,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#31
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 229,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.