↓ Skip to main content

Basic Emotions in Human Neuroscience: Neuroimaging and Beyond

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
24 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
323 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
Basic Emotions in Human Neuroscience: Neuroimaging and Beyond
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01432
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessia Celeghin, Matteo Diano, Arianna Bagnis, Marco Viola, Marco Tamietto

Abstract

The existence of so-called 'basic emotions' and their defining attributes represents a long lasting and yet unsettled issue in psychology. Recently, neuroimaging evidence, especially related to the advent of neuroimaging meta-analytic methods, has revitalized this debate in the endeavor of systems and human neuroscience. The core theme focuses on the existence of unique neural bases that are specific and characteristic for each instance of basic emotion. Here we review this evidence, outlining contradictory findings, strengths and limits of different approaches. Constructionism dismisses the existence of dedicated neural structures for basic emotions, considering that the assumption of a one-to-one relationship between neural structures and their functions is central to basic emotion theories. While these critiques are useful to pinpoint current limitations of basic emotions theories, we argue that they do not always appear equally generative in fostering new testable accounts on how the brain relates to affective functions. We then consider evidence beyond PET and fMRI, including results concerning the relation between basic emotions and awareness and data from neuropsychology on patients with focal brain damage. Evidence from lesion studies are indeed particularly informative, as they are able to bring correlational evidence typical of neuroimaging studies to causation, thereby characterizing which brain structures are necessary for, rather than simply related to, basic emotion processing. These other studies shed light on attributes often ascribed to basic emotions, such as automaticity of perception, quick onset, and brief duration. Overall, we consider that evidence in favor of the neurobiological underpinnings of basic emotions outweighs dismissive approaches. In fact, the concept of basic emotions can still be fruitful, if updated to current neurobiological knowledge that overcomes traditional one-to-one localization of functions in the brain. In particular, we propose that the structure-function relationship between brain and emotions is better described in terms of pluripotentiality, which refers to the fact that one neural structure can fulfill multiple functions, depending on the functional network and pattern of co-activations displayed at any given moment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 323 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 18%
Student > Bachelor 51 16%
Student > Master 46 14%
Researcher 23 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 4%
Other 44 14%
Unknown 87 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 92 28%
Neuroscience 34 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 5%
Computer Science 16 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 3%
Other 48 15%
Unknown 107 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,335,362
of 25,539,438 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,774
of 34,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,307
of 325,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#63
of 583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,539,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 325,375 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 583 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.